Generalizations Of The Characteristics Of The Local Church

[Covert]

I am making this thread due to recent on this forum regarding accurate descriptions and hyperbole in regards to certain characteristics in the LC. I wanted to aim at analyzing certain behaviors and practices of the LC and determine if it is widespread and common enough to labeled and associated with the local churches. Here are some points that I think are accurate descriptions of the local churches (based on my anecdotal experience and others on this forum).

1. An overwhelming majority (I will say alteast 7/10 ratio) of the leadership in the lords recovery going from elders to coworkers are absolute for witness lee ministry. Meaning that will abide by his ministry no matter if its un-biblical, devious, harmful, manipulative, or counter productive in any way. Approaching these individuals and having a dialogue that involves questioning and dissenting towards lee ministry would lead to one sided conversation of an obstinate mind blockading any productive conversation.

2. An overwhelming majority (7/10 min) of local church members prioritize and/or have a mandatory emphasis of witness lee doctrine/ ministry/footnotes in their faith.

3. There is an stigma or even disdain for members to pursue personal and essential aspects of their lives in their own accords ("no fellowship") such as marriage, career, where to live, field of study, etc.

4. Vainglory- An overwhelming majority of local church members (7/10) has a dubious amount of pride that aims to disparage all other believers for flaws while having those very same flaws or even more faults then the very people they criticize.

5. Peculiar Narcissism- The local church has this culture of strange narcissism that revolves around controlling the lives of the members in making sure it aligns with the objective, standards, and practices of the local churches. This peculiar narcissism goes deeper in which I personally notice a lot of exalting and obsessing over the self in which their are lots of moments in which they focus on praising themselves more than God. Aaron talks about this in various posts and I brought it up cause it is very strange to me to. Also their disdain for good works also adds to this peculiar narcissism of the LC culture (IMO). Overall I feel like this peculiar narcissism is strange because it is not that the individual LC member is narcissistic as an individual but moreso about the collective of the LC lifestyle. So when a member does something that is absent of anything related to the LC as a long term thing such as a hobby that results in missing some meetings or traveling to visit family during conferences, it results in some negative stigma or even rebuke from lots of posts I have seen.

6. Cult- this infamous word that the LC hates and some posters feel uneasy about. I feel the LC is a cult, whether you feel it is a personality cult at best or just a full on cult is up to the individual. I feel as though witness lee ministry made the local churches a cult. You can literally see duplicates of witness or the many offspring he has created due to his domineering over the Local churches and making indoctrination institutions such as the FTT. Im sorry but at a minimum if one is being generous, this is a personality cult.

Well I will start off with 6 points so far. Feel free to express your thoughts on my points in either dissent, approval, or expansion. Even make more points on generalizations/characteristics of the LC that you feel need to be spoken about. Heck if you want to, discuss if you feel some generalizations that posters on the forum make about the LC are just hyperbole or over exaggerated to an extent.

[Sons to Glory!]

I can agree with almost all of what you said, and any disagreement is not worth mentioning. All these points have been talked about on here over the years, but it's always good to summarize again, so new readers can see the errors listed again. I do believe most in the LC are real believers, but as you say, at "the very least it is a cult of personality." Quite true with the extreme emphasis on the man, Witness Lee.

On the recently closed, "Examining LC Spinoffs" thread, I listed eight things that we in Scottsdale (a so-called LC spinoff), "have seen and freely acknowledge & repudiate among ourselves" concerning WL/LSM/LC teachings and practices (a few of which you already mentioned with some additional).

"Below from Examining LC Spinoffs" thread post #28

1. The teaching of fear as the basis of performance - e.g., a thousand years in outer darkness or God being out to whack us for whatever is way off! (In reality, His banner over us is love and is the real reason why He has His eternal purpose)

2. The centralized control

3. The "God becoming Man so man can become God" teaching

4. The so-called "Ground of Oneness" which was really eletism

5. The degrading of other Christians

6. The myriad covert rules and regulations (albeit often conveyed by LC culture)

7. The focus on Lee as the one whatever

8. The teaching that God is not moving among any others; that no other Christian authors have a fresh experience of Christ or have received fresh revelation (therefore don't go looking for other good Christian sources, because there aren't any!)

This list is certainly not meant to be all-inclusive, but was just a start to base the conversation on (though these points were not really addressed much in that thread).

[OBW]

Now, having identified these things that you think are so egregious (and I am not necessarily diasgreeing), to have a real discussion in which we provide evidence, you may find that there is a problem trying to establish things in the terms you have given. The problem is that these are at least partly descriptives that can be applied based on opinion and therefore not as easily identifiable as a kind of scriptural or moral error, or psychological/sociological problem.

You need to find a way to restate these in terms that are less speculative as to what it is that makes them what you think they are. And while I actually generally agree with the label "cult," it is almost too vaguely defined anywhere to be of significant importance. Those who are members of what you want to call a cult will be quick to point out that they are nothing like groups like Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, or Peoples Temple (Jim jones). And they are right. On the other extreme, if you find a list of cult characteristics, it is arguable that any Christian group, from single assembly to large denomination is a cult because of adherence to certain norms and the following of a single individual (Christ).

Just an example.

You can say something similar about them all. You need something more concrete — either with an agreed definition, or that is rooted in Christian theology and the scripture. Anything else is trying to drive a stake into quicksand.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

You need to find a way to restate these in terms that are less speculative as to what it is that makes them what you think they are.

One observation that I have made, based on dozens if not hundreds of "training" and conference' meetings, and watching dozens more of videos in trainings, that not once did anyone stand up and subject the ministry to any kind of critical examination. Not once. To me that says "mind control cult" loud and clear.

Meeting after meeting, we'd run through various boilerplates of Christian faith, assuring ourselves of our "goodly heritage", then the self-proclaimed Seer would come up with some baseless over-generalization and nobody would say a word. Or he'd bash "Christless" and "deformed" Christianity then ask us to forgive his "messy kitchen". Or he'd contradict himself - he'd say in the same training that one Psalm of imprecation that was just fallen humanity expressed, because we were called to bless not curse, and then a few messages later he'd say that an imprecation was Christ defeating Satan in type. And nobody would say a word.

Or we'd hear that "women can't teach" and then Mary McDonough would be cited as "recovering the three parts of man" and even we'd see her book sold on LSM next to Lee and Nee. Or we'd read that the 7 golden lampstands show us that all local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatsoever" - did you ever see a hand-beaten calyx or pomegranate? Are they all exactly identical? But why didn't anyone, ever, ask such questions? Probably because we were all cowed, mentally-conditioned not to be "negative".

It's a mind-control cult. If you're an elder you are either an enforcer or you have to sit quietly as the enforcers do their business. What's that called, legally, when you sit quietly as someone commits a crime?

When the ne'er-do-well sons of the supposed Seer set themselves on the lives and livelihoods of the church members, and time and again the few brave ones risked everything they had given their lives for, for decades even, to bring it to the Seer's attention, and were refused, and saw the basic Matthew 18 principles of accountability spurned, what does that look like? A personality cult masquerading as a church.

Here's one in Mexico. The cult leader is son of the founder, who was, yes that's right - Minister of the Age. Now the son has the MOTA mantle. Even though he's in jail, he's still God's Suffering and Persecuted Servant, to the brainwashed cult members.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican...ns-11581637153

Here's one in South Korea. I read their translated web page and it says that God grants a special revelation to one person per generation, which in the present generation just happens to be their church founder. Gee, where did I hear that before? Sounds kinda familiar?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-51851250

Groups like this are unfortunately far too common.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-ungodly-woman

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/910...till-haunts-me

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Covert

I am making this thread due to recent on this forum regarding accurate descriptions and hyperbole in regards to certain characteristics in the LC. I wanted to aim at analyzing certain behaviors and practices of the LC and determine if it is widespread and common enough to labeled and associated with the local churches. Here are some points that I think are accurate descriptions of the local churches (based on my anecdotal experience and others on this forum).

1 out of 10 express themselves in meetings as they would express themselves at home. Meaning no pretenses regarding their soulish nature. 9 out of 10 would put on a spiritual facade' to mask their true personna.

[aron]

Some have said not to paint too broad-brush: "All elders in LC are ...x..." And we've criticized WL and blended minions on this forum for the same thing: "Most Christians don't know ...x..." when WL hadn't been to a non-LC meeting for 45 years. How did he know what "most Christians" knew or didn't?

So in making assessments, it's good to consider the caveats and qualifiers put out by members of the forum.

Originally Posted by OBW

if you find a list of cult characteristics, it is arguable that any Christian group, from single assembly to large denomination is a cult because of adherence to certain norms and the following of a single individual (Christ).

Back to my post #4 -- WL gave messages for years in front of hundreds and even thousands of attendees, and none ever stood up and critiqued his categorical assertions. I never saw anyone question WL thus, yet he was a man who freely questioned and critiqued everyone else. Let's take OBW's remark for comparison: did you ever see anyone at the Middleville Congregational Church stand up and question Pastor Bob after his Sunday sermon? No? So then why make issue here?

I say alright, let's consider Pastor Bob. Suppose every Sunday morning, Pastor Bob's sermons blasted other Christian believers from stem to stern. All of them hopelessly deficient. Pastor Bob continually came up with new 'revelations' that strained the limits of orthodoxy. Pastor Bob had a self-publishing house and only allowed his books to be sold in church. Some of Bob's later revelations, so-called, were directly contradictory of what was spoken previously. (yet no one said anything) Pastor Bob solicited money from church members to support his son's business, and when it went bankrupt his lackeys said, Consider it a donation. Sexual abuse by family members he appointed to church/ministry leadership got whitewashed and witnesses relocated or run out of town.

At some point most observers would say, "There's a sign out front that says, 'Church' but that group neither reflects the message of Jesus Christ nor the historical testimony of churches in the Bible." Whether it's a pseudo-Christian mind control cult or a deranged and marginally-Christian personality cult is just an academic question.

[OBW]

My overall point on chasing after the "cult" label is not found in one single post. It has included different and overlapping analyses of the practical use of the term and the negative effects it tends to have on the willingness of current members of such a group to listen to anything you say after slapping on the label.

The problem with the practical use is that no one has an iron-clad definition. There are varying lists of characteristics, each coupled with some kind of reference to needing several of them to rise to the level of a cult. But if there are 10 characteristics supplied (hypothetical), what clearly constitutes having any particular characteristic? Are they all weighted equally? What kind of "score" is required? And even where you think that any particular group is guilty of a particular item on the list, they may disagree with it. For example, when we talk about the RCC, one of the first things that many Protestants bring up is the worship of Mary. Yet many devout, practicing RCC members do not consider that they are worshipping Mary. What gives? Are they just lying to protect their status quo? Or are we working with two different definitions of "worship?" And if that is the case, then which one is "right?" And given some of the discussions and disagreements about how Protestants "worship," it is not certain that even "we" all agree on what is worship.

Then, no matter how you manage to frame your case for applying the label, it is viewed as an ad hominem. A general and vague attack of the person/group rather than of specific reasons to avoid them. We cease real dialog related to actual errors and problems and make the fight about labels. And those you are putting the label on tend to simply dig in and fight, or just go away. Either way, you fail to get them to stop and consider that they may be wrong. And you don't simply start with "you are wrong about the whole thing." You start with a specific issue. One point of disagreement. Then another. Once you can start them looking at separate items along with sound support for each position, there is a chance you can sway them. But as long are you make it about the whole thing, it is almost like Lee declaring that if you read through the whole Bible you will see that (something about God's economy is a prime example). You are never going to actually read through the whole Bible to try to see it for yourself. You are either going to accept his word (which they are already prone to do) or you will reject it outright as a rhetorical trick to fool you. But since they are already too invested in Lee's stuff, they are unlikely to stop to consider. It could happen, but the more likely response is to simply continue to accept Lee and reject the entire discussion against him. To either just fight without basis or leave. Either way is to fail to get them to engage in consideration.

In a less extreme way, StG's recent thread about his assembly in Scottsdale was effectively a request to have his group declared not a cult. (That is not what was asked, nor was it what anyone thought about the request. Rather just a declaration that it was "OK" was sought) We didn't say it was a cult or not a cult, instead, we stated that it is too difficult to base any decision on what people say about it, or on generalities at the broad level. It would take a detailed analysis of teachings and practices. Something that requires a full discussion of each issue. In the end, we have said nothing other than that many of us are uncomfortable that it is too lop-sided in its approach to scripture, as are so many inner-life groups. Neither an endorsement nor a definite warning.

If you want anyone that is currently in the LC to consider leaving when they currently don't see why, you can't have a discussion of whether the group is a cult in the recent record. It is, to them, a red flag to avoid contact. It makes the invitation to discuss almost impossible to accept.

That is my problem with trying to pin down vagaries like "cult." I agree with aron's comparison of the regular church preacher that takes questionable positions — from a little to a lot. There is something there. And it may help some of us who have escaped. But it is almost sure to terminate the participation of any regular member that we might hope to persuade. Most of them will simply stop coming and declare the environment to be too hostile.

Am I making any sense? And if you really want to see a discussion about the LC as a cult, There was probably one many years ago that you can find by using the search feature. Maybe the last real pointed discussion was in the old Berean forum (which is no longer accessible), but think it has been repeated here. But also understand that I am not suggesting that such a thread, if it exists, be posted to so that it appears on the current list. Just read through it where it is. Let it be. The acrimony that so often occurs with such threads is not worth resurrecting.

[OBW]

And a follow-on to my last post.

Think back to all of Lee's negative talk about Christianity. All that "poor, poor" or "poor, pitiful, mooing cow" Christianity. All those references to the Harlot, or Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters.

That is the flip side of declaring any group to be a cult. It is the cult making brash declarations about those who would give it the negative labels. And what is the result of all that negative talk? Even when the LC's members leave, too many of them are so infected with all that negative talk that they are unable to go back to any normal Christian group. And they even seem to struggle with small free groups unless it is just a group of ex-LCers "trying to get the feeling again"[1] by doing it again without Lee or some specific abusive elder(s).

It puts up barriers to real inquiry, study, and contemplation. Like pulling the bullet out but never dealing with the bleeding and sepsis.

[1] apologies to Barry Manilow.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

In a less extreme way, StG's recent thread about his assembly in Scottsdale was effectively a request to have his group declared not a cult. (That is not what was asked, nor was it what anyone thought about the request. Rather just a declaration that it was "OK" was sought) We didn't say it was a cult or not a cult, instead, we stated that it is too difficult to base any decision on what people say about it, or on generalities at the broad level. It would take a detailed analysis of teachings and practices. Something that requires a full discussion of each issue. In the end, we have said nothing other than that many of us are uncomfortable that it is too lop-sided in its approach to scripture, as are so many inner-life groups. Neither an endorsement nor a definite warning.

If you want anyone that is currently in the LC to consider leaving when they currently don't see why, you can't have a discussion of whether the group is a cult in the recent record. It is, to them, a red flag to avoid contact. It makes the invitation to discuss almost impossible to accept.

That is my problem with trying to pin down vagaries like "cult." I agree with aron's comparison of the regular church preacher that takes questionable positions — from a little to a lot. There is something there. And it may help some of us who have escaped. But it is almost sure to terminate the participation of any regular member that we might hope to persuade. Most of them will simply stop coming and declare the environment to be too hostile.

Appreciate your observations here. Trying to prove some group is a cult can be pretty difficult. Too loose a definition and you would snag most Christian groups I think, and too tight, then only the most blatant (think Jonestown) would fit. And proving that someone isn't a cult can be difficult too, for much of the same reasons.

I've heard the more general term "cult like" bandied about many times in referring to the LC. Wikipedia defines "cult" this way:

In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

Does the LC fit this general definition? I would say so on both the above two points:

1) "Unusual religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs"

2) "Common interest in a particular personality"

(maybe a #3 for "particular . . . goal" - one church one city)

The second point regarding a "particular personality" certainly fits with the almost totally exclusive focus on WL/WN. But then who is to define what is unusual according to the 1st point? (Of course, that's what this forum has been attempting to determine and convey for many years.) So while we get all hung-up on the first point and all the beliefs and practices of the LC, to me, it seems the second point is much easier to support.

[OBW]

The University of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Ohio State, the Univesity of Oregon, etc., are all cults.

Am I right or what??

And the problem with the "modern definition" is that is so vague as to be virtually useless.

And while the list of general characteristics under which this thread was started we not all as vague as "cult," it is the fact of "general" characteristics that makes it difficult. Saying that 7/10 "whatevers" (elders, localities, average members, etc.) are anything is problematic to define. Even for an assembly (locality) that someone really knows well, the actual percentage that is exactly as stated is difficult to specify with enough accuragy to be helpful. Are particular elders 100% for Lee's teachings? Does that mean that they know that those teachings are actually bad and therefore are just trying to have a position by sticking with the LC? Or might it be that they really believe them? Maybe evidence of actual abuse of the members suggests that they have really bought into the worst version of some things. But even then . . . .

[Covert]

Obw, you are a beloved poster, I actually appreciate your push back and participation.

Let me answer your questions to your recent post
1. Colleges=cult, short answer no.
2. Modern descriptions/definitions of cult are too vague and not really definitive/reliable?

I definitely agree to that to some extent.
3. Generalizations of the local churches such as numerating some charateristic of the LR solely by anecdotal experiences. I mean brother, do you expect to around as researchers/statisticians and travel around to different regions of the world examining different localities. Asking them how absolute they are to teh ministry and whether they believe that the LC teachings are false only stick with the LC for various personal/practical reasons. Then after many years of data gathering and research publish some sort of paper with large sample sizes across the world detailing certain attributes/characteristics of the LR/LC?

- Im sorry brother but that is not happening. I mean heck you would have a hard time approaching an LC member and engage in dialogue with the subject of questioning witness lee ministry. But of course this is just my anecdotal experience and definitely many others but who cares for the most part right?

Ok, now that I released some of my slight frustration with your expectations, I can maybe satisfy your desire to proficiently define cult in which you recommended having "roots from scripture. I will now try to use scripture, the word of God, the truth unveiled to man, in order to satisfy your desire for an accurate description of these cults/NRMS. The following post I am going to make are catered toward "Christian Related Cults/NRMS/Sects". I am sure my post can possibly describe non christian related cults out there but for the most part, these consecutive post of mine are towards Christian Offshoots NRMS/SECTS/CULTS.

[Covert]

Now here is my analysis of cults/nrm/sects using the bible. Please review the scripture I previously posted before reading this post. The post goes in an orderly fashion of describing cults/sects/nrm with the various scripture posted previously. You will notice it goes along very smoothly in regards to a top bottom approach of the various portions of the bible I used to describe/generalize cults.

Here it is

Title of Post- How the word of God warns of heretical/destructive Cults/Sects/NRM

I will attempt the general theme of cults using scripture, as some other poster requested. These cults I am describing are of some sort of Christian offshoot/relations. I think scripture does a great job in giving description of these specific kinds of cults or should I say, “New Religious Movements”.

Most Christian NRM/cults have some sort of disdain/discomfort/disapproval of some collective of a scripture with a certain theme. NRM are usually founded, and I would say further maintained/controlled by repelling portions of scripture that will potentially cause destabilization or disbandment of the NRM. There is certain scripture that breaks the foundation of the new religious movement or results in some sort of transformation or change the leaders of the NRM are not well suited to liking at all. For the Lord's Recovery scripture regarding works are their biggest discomfort and they try everything to sully the word of God when it comes to these parts of scripture. As for why witness lee hated works so much? Why did he make so many excuses and labels to throw off any efforts for works? Read Doug Krieger testimony on the introductions section of the forums and see why Doug left the church in Berkeley, then you will see what witness lee was afraid of. The same reason they don't' like good works, is the same reason they don’t have efforts to preach “their” gospel to the masses of the people and only stick-on college campuses hoping if they stuff enough food in kids mouths and enough acoustic guitars in kids ears then gullible college kids will be “open” to their “ministry”. If you still don't understand the real reason why witness lee hated good works (after reading Doug testimony), and why co-workers constantly say good works aren't “beneficial” to the “building of the body” then I will make a post about it one day. Hint- it was not just witness lee narcissistic/greedy of money and resources. Which was definitely a factor but not his biggest concern.

Most NRM/cults take this approach of plucking a certain theme that aims to appease man at the cost of degrading scripture. It does not agree with the sound word of Jesus Christ but sounds appealing to certain men. The goal is to be approaching the path unbiblical for the sake of gaining members and maintaining members by creating this cesspool of lies and delusion. For example- the local churches usually offset the fear of God and deemphasize repentance, while replacing it with just “enjoy the lord”. When thinking of all the witness lee mantra, strange doctrine, and funny practice/phrases. It produces this environment of peculiar mythics and psychological mantra.

Furthermore, the teachings of this NRM/Cult, produces much controversy and quarrels in regard to orthodox dispute. Dissension is very much present against this group, and slander/evil/suspicions is used as a toll by this group to offset such dissension. There are always storms within this group as the truth of the word is conflicting with the strange doctrine/mythics that is present in this group and there is a clash on who and what to follow- the conceited man (Lee/Blended) who causes turmoil’s, suspicions, and constant friction or those who the word in its purity and act on it (Ingalls, Mallon, So).
These Christian related NRM/Cults usually have a group of individuals who exalt themselves using biblical titles that have no real scriptural basis to apply to them in the context they wish to use it. As 2 Corinthians say, there will be false prophets, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves. In the lord's recovery we have such self-appointed men who use the term “apostle” and make it seem like they are “bond-slaves” or servants of righteousness, but their ends will correspond to their deeds (we all know a fair amount of things the co-workers do). They bring destructive heresies that aim to corrupt, tarnish, and forsake the individual for the sake of the “cult/NRM”. Many evils and injustices are perpetuated without rebuke, repentance, and proper dealing. They have greed and peculiar narcissism that aims to exploit all individuals within these groups for their cause (using false words), which in the lord's recovery is centered around maintaining the ground/true church so they can spread the “higher gospel” that is necessary for Jesus' second coming. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, their destruction is not asleep.

These groups usually cause division among the sound words of Jesus Christ and cause discord among those who have experience of reading the word of God. They many times will come across a scenario in which they say, “the word of God says this, but this man says that”. This strange/peculiar doctrine that does match with the sound word of Jesus Christ causes much division among the group from time to time and with the individuals who have to suffer this rift of truth and lies. These groups usually thrive from catering to the hearts of the naive to maintain their numbers and they fear those who know the truth well and have it woven into them. The lord's recovery primarily recruits college kids for a reason.

It is important to mention, Christian cults/NRMS/sects hate having the light expose their darkness. The truth will eviscerate the delusion that has been cast upon and entangled with the members of this group and result in mass destabilization, turmoil, and destruction. You are probably thinking no group likes dirt being exposed, well this is true. Well for these groups they rest upon a structure supported that are mainly supported by pillars of lies and even the foundation of this structure is a lie. If the light was to expose these lies, evil deeds, then they would have a calamity of destruction that results in their entire world being crumbled to pieces with hardly any truth that they held on to being able to support the oncoming avalanche of lies just crushing and consuming the little truth they had.

In regard to reproof/correction, these groups have disdain for such a thing. They founded on such a cluster of lies that any correction/questioning is beyond from happening in regard to a reformation of the practices/beliefs of these groups. If the peculiar and false doctrine of this group was to be ameliorated/rectified of any sort with the sound words of Jesus Christ, then these groups would lose their identity completely. They would not function the same or even function at all. and can't adapt with the cleansing/sanitation of their false doctrine simply because they live on a foundation and pillars of lies. If the sound words of Jesus Christ were to rectify much false teachings in this group, they wouldn't even be remotely close to resembling the identity they had before, that was built on lies. The truth would set them free at a heavy cost of forsaking their deceitful identity. Eventually calamity will come upon these groups and the fruits of their deeds will result in the awakening of destruction.

Lastly when it comes to “preaching the gospel”, these groups are very much afraid/ashamed of the gospel. Now the funny thing is that I will describe these Christian related cults/NRMS in two groups in relation to preaching the gospel. The illustrations I will use are locust, locust I believe if my memory comes correct are usually two states and that is solitary and gregarious. Gregarious cults like the JW and Mormons are not afraid to reach out to the masses of the people as they have much effort in doing so but they have no intention of simply preaching the sound word of Jesus Christ. In fact, one that is quite familiar with the word of God is an unsuitable recruit. The word of god is in fact their worst enemy, it is their most powerful enemy as it is the absolute truth that will destroy their foundation of lies. Mormons make themselves seem like Jesus’ lovers but only intend to such you into the destructive heresies of Joseph Smith. Jehovah witnesses try to allure you with “what did Jesus really teach” but in reality, have their corrupted bible that aims to put a false narrative of the sounds words of Jesus Christ with an emphasis of “witness”. These cults are gregarious as they swarm the world attempting to have this aggressive/confrontational nature that aims to quickly overrun/pass by dissenters and pick along naive ones to join the swarm. Instead of isolating themselves in a solitary state similar to that of the local churches, they take a more confrontational approach in an attempt to undermine the bible.

Solitary NRM/Cults/sects are quite the opposite in their approach of their gregarious locust cult brothers. The Lord's Recovery is a primary example of what I describe is a solitary locust. They do not swarm the world like the JW and Mormons. They carefully go into select environments where they find naive hearts to eventually succumb to their destructive heresies. They fear the gospel much more than their gregarious counterparts, they hide in the shadows and avoid preaching it to the masses. The idea of large numbers of people enthusiastic for the” sound words of Jesus Christ” and the “pure word” coming into their group like the floodgates opening, is a deathly fear. They use the word of God to lure in individuals, but they must quickly in some time frame drag these naive hearts into the quagmire of their destructive doctrine or else their identity is at risk. Their pillars and foundation of lies would ultimately collapse if those who are steadfast to the sound words of Jesus Christ were to come into their group in the masses. The sound words of Jesus Christ are their worst enemy as it exposes their destructive doctrine. Therefore, they do not have much effort to truly preach the gospel of Christ. Even more so, they are aware of their destructiveness of their heretical doctrine to some degree and this results from them not even preaching their “higher gospel”/destructive doctrine.

The local churches version of “spreading/preaching the heretical higher gospel” is really just going on college campuses, deceiving the heart of the naive, and hoping after multiple years of love bombing, acoustic guitars, food, and other various deceptive recruiting schemes- send them into the quagmire that is known as the full-time training. Where this “higher gospel” or better known as destructive heresy is drowning the heart of the naive and consuming them with lies and calamity. Solitary Locust Christian cults are cowardly, insecure, devious in nature, and are ashamed along with terrified of the sound words of Jesus Christ. Cults/NRMs like the Lord's Recovery are the precipice of dread of disaster and awakening calamity. They are the most volatile in terms of inner turmoil’s and destructive circumstances that constantly result in unrest/strife/collapse.

- They are afraid and ashamed of the gospel and sound words of Jesus Christ. Destruction shall await them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Covert

Obw, my brother you are a pain in butt, but you are a beloved poster nonetheless. I actually appreciate your push back and participation. ...

Covert,

My brother, your posts are waaaaay too long. You don’t get to word us to sleep AND call OBW names. Don’t do it again. Ok? Your posterior lobes are of no concern to this forum.

Nell

[Covert]

Ok Nell, Edited certain comments regarding my frustration for the demands of the very intelligent and eloquent OBW . The post was long because OBW did have some seemingly demanding answers for us wanting to showcase how we can categorize the LC as a cult with some solid foundation/backing. I tried my best to do just that and hopefully it satisfies the beloved poster OBW and many others with his concerns.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Covert

Ok Nell, Edited certain comments regarding my frustration for the demands of the very intelligent and eloquent OBW . The post was long because OBW did have some seemingly demanding answers for us wanting to showcase how we can categorize the LC as a cult with some solid foundation/backing. I tried my best to do just that and hopefully it satisfies the beloved poster OBW and many others with his concerns.

Thanks.

N

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Covert

I mean brother, do you expect to travel around as researchers/statisticians to different regions of the world examining different localities. Asking them how absolute they are to the ministry and whether they believe that the LC teachings are false only stick with the LC for various personal/practical reasons.

(I edited your statements a little because (like me) I think you kept changing it and ended out with remnants of a prior pass.)

I actually do not expect anyone to do any of that. But that is what is needed to arrive at even a rough idea about much of anything. When I noted how much an elder may be 100% for the Lee/Nee/LC ministry yet not be in violation of what you are seeking to demonstrate, I was thinking of a specific person that I knew from the time of our "jump" into the LC until I left 14-1/2 years later, who had since become an elder in that city. I'm sure that he is truly for the thing. But not with some knowledge of what should warn him off. And not engaging in activities that place him among the abusive elders that are so often mentioned. And while he may hear of things like that, he probably doesn't know specifically of them (maybe excluding that thing with Colley Joseph in OKC that was mentioned in a recent thread). I'm pretty sure they don't let the "ministry office" force large quantities of excess books on them. ( have a little inside information on that.)

I realize that this is 1 out however many elders. But for all of us on this forum, coming up with a 7/10 number might be realistic for a particular locality that someone knows enough about to reasonably make that assertion. But for the whole of the "recovery" in the US?

My point is that you could be right. But you could be wrong. And the best we are going to do in any kind of broad, general way is speculate. Might as well ask them when they stopped beating their wives.

OK, I'm being a little funny there, but I hope you understand what I am saying. We ultimately accomplish nothing useful if we just speculate that 70% of the elders are aware of their position as leaders of a false ideology. And 70% of the members are gung ho for the system no matter what. And some other number believes it enough that they can't leave because they are either afraid of the threatened consequences of leaving or truly believe there is nowhere else to go even though "here" is a desert wasteland.

And when we declare our pulled out of the air (or other places) numbers mean something, does it really mean anything? I'm not trying to just stop this because I don't like where it is going, but because I think that once you consider the real value of it, it just might not be so important. Instead, careful study of specific things, one-by-one, collected together to show what is true and what is not is what will make your point. Something concrete and substantial.

[OBW]

Nell,

I didn't see any "names" thrown at me, though I could have missed them. If there were any, the most important thing for anyone to remember is that calling someone else a name does not win a discussion. It just changes it. If that is what is wanted, then I guess it might be the thing to do.

Covert,

The very long post kind of makes my point. I realize that I am also guilty of long posts, but I at least try to make each one about one thing. Your post seems to cover too much. (Or the one topic is actually a collection of smaller topics.) Too many points. Even if you want to hit it from many angles, try to make one point. Have some back and forth on it with some other participants. Then move on to another point. In the end, you will have something that we can talk about. A single, lengthy discussion of all the things that are wrong with the LC, or Christians on Campus turns into a shallow stab at a lot of stuff. It is probably all worth discussing. Let's take it point-by-point. Don't make us stand in front of the fire hose and try to drink it all in at once.

And that is also my complaint about the "cult" issue. Not that it is invalid, but that it shortchanges the meaty discussion on the points that ultimately make it true.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

I didn't see any "names" thrown at me, though I could have missed them. If there were any, the most important thing for anyone to remember is that calling someone else a name does not win a discussion. It just changes it. If that is what is wanted, then I guess it might be the thing to do.

You didn’t see it because Covert edited said name out of his post. It was a beaut’. I was afraid you would get your feelin’s hurt. (It was synonymous with “pain in the posterior lobe”.) Lookin’ out for ya’ dude.

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is also my complaint about the "cult" issue. Not that it is invalid, but that it shortchanges the meaty discussion on the points that ultimately make it true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "cult" topic been discussed here numerous times? Has a case not been made yet where forum users collectively know that the points that make it true have already been made, and we can thus use the word without needing an accompanying dissertation each time, or am I imagining things?

[Covert]

1. The name calling situation Nell speaks of is when my original post said "you are a pain in the butt", I doubt this would have made you agitated but Nell thought otherwise and I had no problem editing, didnt mean much to me to keep that somewhat true comment.

2. Thats what I thought to trapped, but there are going to be some people who would like a more concrete and thorough explanation of a cult. There are numerous discussions revolving around this topic but I had no problem just adding my piece. My guess is that some people have a soft spot for the LC and still feel uneasy about calling the LC a cult because its the church they loved so much for many years. Not saying this is the reason for every ex-member who does agree with the cult label but its probably a good chunk of them.

3. OBW, Yes I am confident a 70 percent estimate is quite accurate for elders senior and junior. If you know of localities that have a majority leadership that is not absolute for witness lee, DCP and Co-workers are very curious and would love to forget out which localities they need to "fellowship" with. In my opinion the elders that would fight back against LSM are all gone or dead. The best case scenario of an elder not being absolute is someone who just talks some smack behind an elders back. I am sure among the elders, there are silent dissenters or subtle dissenters to be more specific but when push come to shoves those "subtle dissenters" are going to bow their head down when the co-workers come in town. Elders willing to disband from LC/LSM like Nigel Thomas are dead are gone from the LC for the most part. There might be some potential "rebellious ones" in the future if a humongous "storm" hits the LC but for the meantime the best you get are silent/subtle dissenters that are going to kowtow to the co-workers anyways.

So yes, an overwhelming majority of Elders in modern day lords recovery are absolute for witness lee ministry. If you know (OBW) or if anyone knows of any localities in which there is a significant majority of leadership that is not absolute for witness lee ministry then I am very curious to hear about this. The DCP lurkers are also very curious to hear about this. They would love check out this "open" locality for further inspection.

Any comments, feedback, contesting words, feel free to contribute.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "cult" topic been discussed here numerous times? Has a case not been made yet where forum users collectively know that the points that make it true have already been made, and we can thus use the word without needing an accompanying dissertation each time, or am I imagining things?

The cult topic has been discussed several times. And almost every one of them spent more time arguing about the benefits of doing the analysis. And I will admit that I was among those that pushed for the analysis in one of the earliest attempts. But so far, I have been unable to locate any meaningful working through the factors, although one thread did give a pretty decent list.

The problem that ultimately carries the day is that if this is to be a discussion about the Local Churches designed to persuade current members of the error of their ways, or those who are already on the fence or have left that they did the right thing and that it is more than just about practical problems in an otherwise great system, then you have to actually engage them in the process of discussion. Or at least interest them enough to read more and start to see the light.

In the modern art of argument (not aggressive arguing, but making, defending, and analyzing logical arguments) there is an error that ends the discussion cold. It is not a logical fallacy, but more of a rhetorical device that is almost guaranteed to end a discussion immediately upon its use. It is called "ad Hitlerum." In short, any reference to Hitler, no matter how small, tangental, or remote (and no matter how true), ends all discussion. And while not enumerated, there are a few similar names, words, or terms that have the same effect. One of them is "cult." I would agree that a sound determination as to whether the LC is legitimately a cult is worthwhile. But assuming I am right about its worth, to have that discussion as part of the "Local Church Discussions" forum is to insert it into the body of discussion and tends to have a somewhat sweeping effect on it all.

And one of the problems with these kinds of discussions is that they are prone to seeking "broad brush" solutions that are never as simple as a word or a term. And can't stand in as establishing anything as true. We had one of these kinds of discussions years ago and never heard from some of the participants again. And a few others only come around on rare occasions. And I am not talking about LC members who were turned off by the discussion. There were almost no LC members participating at the time. These were mostly long-time members of the forum.

So, my suggestion is that if you want to have a real discussion about the LC being a "cult," move it off the regular feed (sort of like the old Alt Topics used to be). And set some ground rules. Find a good list of characteristics. Agree that we are going to diligently analyze the applicability of each, not just say it is true. And spend time on each characteristic before moving on. I realize that some of them may seem obvious. But since the group gives push-back on so much of it, include serious consideration of their reasons for saying the characteristic does not apply. Or only applies in a manner similar to any other Christian group. Make it worth something.

Don't just approach this as a lynching. Don't come with the feathers already plucked from the chickens and the tar already being heated. And I mention this because already being so sure that some 70% of elders statistic is already true before anyone actually considers what it is that is being discussed seems like an answer looking for supporters, not a premise looking for investigation and testing. Don't skip the open analysis and back-and forth discussion. Assume that everyone is not going to agree. Be ready to both take time to give your reasons for your positions, and take time to carefully consider every argument against your positions. Remember, we all thought the LC was once the greatest thing since sliced bread. We had to have something or someone convince us otherwise. We had to be willing to consider positions that disagreed with the ones we already held. We weren't just forced to accept what someone was screaming about it. Reading The Mindbenders or The God Men wouldn't have done it for me (back in the 70s). I was closed. And a full treatise on the whole of being a cult was not the way to sway me. But after some chinks were put in the armor relating to one item, then another, then another, I could now read those books and say where I agree with them, and also where I think they went to far relative to actual facts.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Covert

1. The name calling situation Nell speaks of is when my original post said "you are a pain in the butt", I doubt this would have made you agitated but Nell thought otherwise and I had no problem editing, didnt mean much to me to keep that somewhat true comment.

It was a miserably failed attempt at levity. Lighten up guys. Under other circumstances this could be considered a personal attack. I was trying to "moderate" without moderating. Good grief...

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

It was a miserably failed attempt at levity.

You should know better. Levity doesn't work in this format.

(and THAT was an attempt at levity - he he)

I was looking at the list of descriptions in StG post #9: "unusual... divergent... interest in a particular personality... controversial... contention". Sounds like Jesus and his followers in the NT. This argument has been used repeatedly by the quasi-Christian groups, that they're just following Jesus, and similarly being persecuted and "attacked" for their pure zeal to God's cause. They won't conform to earthly corruptions of "Jezebel Christianity" and thus the contention with their erstwhile fellows.

But I'd go to the Bible and measure them. Not how they either fit (or don't fit) with the current religious landscape but by how they fit (or don't fit) with Jesus and the disciples in the NT. We have shown here that Matthew 18 principles of accountability were signally ignored in the Lord's Recovery. We've seen money transferred from church members to the hands of immediate family members. Instead of the "much discussion" of Acts 15:7 to resolve outstanding issues, we've seen a pattern of fiat from the Deputy God, and much cheerleading from the deputies. Any view other than the DG is treason, and rebellion.

All of this diverges from the NT record. This forum is full of examples of the Lord's recovery departing from the Way. Titus 1:6. Etc. All of this can and should be laid out plainly, simply, without rancor. Meet them on their ground. Make it transparent. These groups survive by information control. Instead, make information available. There are clear and discernable patterns.

The other thing that has helped me become clear what spirit I was dealing with, was to look at similar groups. The information control, leading to mind control, leading to behaviour control. The paranoia, persecution complex. The mantras, the "don't think" reprogramming. I noted a few of them: Gloriavale in NZ, Iglesia Ni Cristo in Philippines, La Luz del Mundo in Mexico, Shincheonji Church of Jesus in South Korea. Perhaps public labeling is counterproductive, as OBW suggests. However it's nice to gain clarity. Because until I knew what I was really dealing with, it could still control me.

[OBW]

And yet I know LC members that read more than just "the ministry." That even go beyond TA Sparks or Stephen Kuang and don't feel like they are cheating. Still, they know that when they get their chance to speak on Sunday morning, it will be from the week's HWFMR and nothing else. And they simply assume that anything Lee said was right. That little question mark inside in the early days was silenced by Lee's declaration that a question mark looks like a snake.

Wow! Now there's some deep spiritual stuff

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

And yet I know LC members that read more than just "the ministry." That even go beyond TA Sparks or Stephen Kuang and don't feel like they are cheating. Still, they know that when they get their chance to speak on Sunday morning, it will be from the week's HWFMR and nothing else. And they simply assume that anything Lee said was right. That little question mark inside in the early days was silenced by Lee's declaration that a question mark looks like a snake.

Wow! Now there's some deep spiritual stuff

[OBW]

But don't forget this question:

Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

I know you are adding some levity to the discussion. But I am responding to Lee's implication that this one question somehow insists that questioning is from the serpent and not simply a question.

And sometimes questions need answers. Or at least a reply. Was Job's lament, which is full of questions, unworthy of an answer? It seems that God did answer, though not necessarily in the manner Job had expected.

[Sons to Glory!]

Of course! God asks all kinds of questions, like, "What are you doing here Elijah?" "Who do you say I am?" "Why did you doubt?" et. al.

[Covert]

I will move on from the cult thing for a bit and come back to it later. One thing though, the reason I covered so many points in my christian cult analysis was because if I only covered one point someone would have said but many groups have this one "feature" so are they cults to? So I basically an entire breakdown of the essential features of a cult, rooted in scripture, as requested. Feel free to discuss any one of my talking points regarding my analysis on cults/NRM.

Now lets transition to the next talking point.

7. Brain Drain of Talented Teachers/Preachers- One thing I noticed throughout history of the Local Churches is that they tend drive off or cut off potential talented preachers and or teachers in the lords recovery.

Due to witness lee insecurity he really did drive off a lot of talented people. There are lots of names/figures that were mentioned on this forum (cant member a lot of them), that were kicked out or led out due to duress by witness lee megalomania. Bill Freeman for example is a man I heard was a relatively gifted person but left due to witness lee losing his marbles on him having publications and his own radio? A grown man in a free country cant have his own radio and publications?

They still talk about Bill Freeman and how they have a distaste from him leaving and "starting his own thing". I just wondered through all the indoctrination and mantra that starts off with the church kids and much further into the FTT, how much growth in the christian life do they kill? Just thinking about it from meeting lots of FTT grads/long time church members. This objective/mission by Anaheim/LSM to hopefully turn everyone into a ministry goon really does kill the growth of many potential god serving Christians.

LSM would rather have a bunch of ignorant, mantra, mind numbing parroting goons than well developed and skilled serving Christians with sagacity and proper biblical training. They seminaries are "cemetaries" yet the FTT is probably the most christian faith killing institution in the world. They have a very high attrition rate, poor curriculum, poor teaching and learning method, and many other problems relating to psychological and physical concerns. Is this because they are helpless and or need guidance on how to properly do things? NO! They do this on purpose, they take these college grads who come from many backgrounds and many fields, with many skills and talents, then turn them into LSM Goons because of the insecurity of Lee/LSM.

How is it that you solely recruit from universities, have all these seemingly well educated and intially talented individuals who have potential to really be outstanding servants of God but turn out nothing more than dumb parrot of witness lee? We all know why.....

Lets take of the leadership of this group. Ron Kangas is their Chief Theologian?

Ron Kangas Background- Ron Kangas was a man who graduated a well respected seminary and received an M.DIV afters 3 years of schooling. He couldn't find employment as a minister from he describes as "the bias of his dean screwing him over" and left for California with his recently married wife Susan. He eventually came across the church life in the sixties, as a man in his late twenties and was Gung Ho for the ministry ever since.

Bill Freeman- I know that he went to Fuller Theological Seminary, and came across the local churches at some point in time, and we all know how it went for him. Bill Freeman from what I can tell was respected in his talents but left due to the insecurities of LSM/Lee. I remember there was the one man in the recovery who was close to bill freeman and good experience in Koine greek, he wanted to some work revolving around the original greek but LSM had a problem with that. Bill Freeman encourage him and said as I quote "God wrote in Greek" and the man who Bill was talking to split from LSM/LR sometime after that and that was that. Im pretty sure in the early days of the recovery there was plenty of people who had proper training like the men I described above but were driven off due to witness lee despotic behavior.

Just looking at these small of sample of individuals who are well respected despite their different paths in regards to the recovery, they had proper training and for the most important part of their adult life, was not chopped down and killed by the insecurities of living stream ministry. Ron Kangas is as goon as it gets but in a way his upbrining kind gave him some sort of layer of security in regards to the killing effect of the insecurity of witness lee ministry.

Now looking at other co-workers, when they speaking at the conferences and give messages. Just a complete dumb parrot, they stumble and stutter across different talking points and just skip over a subject when they realize they have no idea what they are talking about. These "leading brothers" are only held up by the vain repetition of Amens in their audience by LSM made obsequious sycophants. Mind numbed parrots singing a song of fools to uplift the dreaded Co-workers and leading elders.

N.T Wright is a very notable scholar mentioned on here frequently, why cant you find anybody like that in the LR? Why is leadership/speakers in the lords recovery composed of mind numbing parrots full of mantra and vain repetition? People well trained and educated like NT. Wright is the greatest enemy of witness lee. He was deathly afraid of people like that. I would guess quite confidently one of witness lee primary objectives in creating the full time training was to kill off anyone who had the potential to be anything remotely close to N.T Wright. People like Kangas, Freeman, and the man closely associated with freeman mentioned earlier, are all dead, gone, or remaining in silence.

There are lots of flaws in Lee ministry, and lee insecurity made sure NO one was a threat in exposing those flaws. Witness Lee fear and insecuity, that is perpetuated by LSM/Anaheim, led to the death and stunted growth of many christians, and drove off many well trained and talented individuals.

The FTT is the biggest cemetery in regards to the destruction of Christian Faith. Congratulations LSM , hope you enjoy your circus festival of Mind numbing mantra parroting Lee Goons uplifting Obsequious Sycophants Co-workers at every conference. Can you believe this church follows the ministry of the man who was so afraid of people exposing the much garbage and flaws in his ministry, the he was so afraid of something so simple like Interlinear bibles of the original Greek being printed and distributed with the recovery version?

Questioning is of the devil? Insecure witness lee at it again. Not even going to get into that nonsense. I will say yes this though, any man who thinks he is on the level of infallibility in regards to this ideology/doctrinal teachings, is approaching some form of idolatry. Just look at the disaster the local churches are constantly in due to the exaltation of lee ministry. I mean didn't the pope historically had infallibility prerogative in regards to catholic doctrine? Look at how they treat the pope in the RCC, pretty darn similar to how they treat you lee huh?

Only God can ever be described as being infallible and further being treated as such. Any man who wishes to obtain such treatment or entitlement of infallibility, is a dangerous individual with destructive ambition.

[UntoHim]

Covert,
Could you please stop hitting the space bar multiple times between paragraphs? Also, could you please go over this post again and combine some of the paragraphs? Let's try and be more considerate of our viewers' time and patience. (I'm including all of us in this admonition-) When posting about these super contentious and involved matters, try and keep in mind that "Less is more". Maybe you could try not to cover so many points in one post - break it up into several posts, pausing in between to give the other members time and space to interact.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Covert

7. Brain Drain of Talented Teachers/Preachers- One thing I noticed throughout history of the Local Churches is that they tend drive off or cut off potential talented preachers and or teachers in the lords recovery.

Due to witness lee insecurity he really did drive off a lot of talented people. There are lots of names/figures that were mentioned on this forum (cant member a lot of them), that were kicked out or led out due to duress by witness lee megalomania. Bill Freeman for example is a man I heard was a relatively gifted person but left due to witness lee losing his marbles on him having publications and his own radio? A grown man in a free country cant have his own radio and publications?

I know there's been a fair amount of discussion on here about the ones forced out of the LC. However, when reading your post it hit me how much that actually happened in the LC over the years! What does that say about a fellowship, who is supposed to be all about the oneness and unity of the saints, if it doesn't tolerate others with moderately differing views and/or practices? As I think about the outflow of love - patience, kindness, gentleness, long-suffering, does not envy, does not dishonor, not boasting of or seeking itself - how much of this was in evidence with these ones forced out?

Rather it looks like it was all those things related to love in the inverse! It reminds me of presidential politics in this country over the last three decades - how many would be attracted to that kind of abuse, regardless how gifted they were!? And when the nastiness comes out, it's quite apparent it's not of the Spirit, so who (in their right mind) would want to stick around?!

[Covert]

I agree sons to glory, it is a pretty toxic environment to be around. Just observing the college age kids and how the responsible ones and elders would try to impose the "get rid of your human opinion" or "be one with the ministry" at that stage and it would just lead to this bright young child of God already in the midst of being stunted and chopped down of their christian faith. Not many people want to stay and it brings me to my next talking point.

8. Hate Culture/Toxicity- I don't know what it is but there is an abundance of negativity in the LR. I understand gossip is in every church, but just the way they are taught to treat people whether other Christians, dissenters, whistle blowers, and those that are not absolute (either they are missing meetings or not buying the ministry). Looking back at terry post in regards people just putting on a facade or fake impression to get along, it seems to me people want to avoid the toxicity or the hate culture. It is such a habit for them to shame, sully, and murmur towards anyone is not appearing "for the ministry" that I believe a lot of fake acting when it comes to a lot of individuals. I dont want to estimate numbers or nothing like that I would assume there is a significant amount of current LC people that are just acting along in this everlasting rendition centering around "being for the ministry/recovery". I would go a step further and say one of the main reasons they aren't growing and rely on imports from Asia is because they underestimate the amount of people who really don't give a darn about this delusion of "only the recovery can bring back Jesus". They enjoy their time in their locality and with the saints there but overall the idea of "seeing the vision" is just not their forte.

[Sons to Glory!]

And this reminds me, once again, of what I believe was the last public speaking by Witness Lee - he said the one big thing missing in "The Recovery" was love and regretted how other Christians had been and were being treated by them. If only some real heed to those words and repentance had taken place in the LC leadership, things might have been different afterwards.

But, at least from my limited perspective of the group, they just went deeper into an exclusive all-things-WL-all-the-time elitism, where love continued to be a low priority.

[OBW]

Lee may have said that, but he didn't appear to just be some sudden revelation. And he didn't just breathe his last breath 10 minutes later. Yet he never appears to have left any evidence that there was anything that he thought he specifically needed to do anything about.

Maybe he just hoped that his "only us" teachings wouldn't have corrupted his leading followers so thoroughly. But that ship had sailed. He whipped them into line or drover them out in 1989.

It is almost a miracle that Tomes, Meyer, and a few others could still see anything other than through their Lee-colored glasses. Fortunately, they could.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And this reminds me, once again, of what I believe was the last public speaking by Witness Lee - he said the one big thing missing in "The Recovery" was love and regretted how other Christians had been and were being treated by them.

This is what you believe happened? Did you witness it? If not, what evidence is available to confirm that this "last public speaking by WLee" actually happened? Where are the "witnesses"? Who are they?

I've heard this story for years. Did it really happen?

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

This is what you believe happened? Did you witness it? If not, what evidence is available to confirm that this "last public speaking by WLee" actually happened? Where are the "witnesses"? Who are they?

I've heard this story for years. Did it really happen?

Nell

Good question. As I remember, there was a thread it came up in (maybe last half of 2020?), where someone had posted a link to it. Actually I think I've seen it a couple times, over the years - but I'm over 60, so I forgot what goes first . . .

So who keeps track of the LCD this library any-a-ways?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good question. As I remember, there was a thread it came up in (maybe last half of 2020?), where someone had posted a link to it. Actually I think I've seen it a couple times, over the years - but I'm over 60, so I forgot what goes first . . .

A link to what?

Unless it can be attested to by someone who was there, and heard it from the horse’s mouth, I will remain skeptical that Lee repented of anything. It would be logical that the only people in a position to hear his final words...of any kind...would also be in a position to bury them, especially any repentance. The big boys have not published any such repentance...have they?

If he did repent, this would amount to a great fraud by the blindeds, perpetrated on all the LC faithful.

Until we know the truth, we would do well to not assume one way or the other.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

A link to what?

Unless it can be attested to by someone who was there, and heard it from the horse’s mouth, I will remain skeptical that Lee repented of anything. It would be logical that the only people in a position to hear his final words...of any kind...would also be in a position to bury them, especially any repentance. The big boys have not published any such repentance...have they?

If he did repent, this would amount to a great fraud by the blindeds, perpetrated on all the LC faithful.

Until we know the truth, we would do well to not assume one way or the other.

Here is the link to one prayer of Lee, found on a very short thread on this forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhXkQAGTfkg

However, that video is not the one that comes to my mind when I think of Lee repenting. There is one where Lee is speaking in Chinese, and it's the year he died, and there is a video "out there" where someone gives the REAL english translation of the prayer, showing that LSM mis-translated what Lee said. I haven't been able to find that one yet.

Edit: found it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcs5pbzoDI

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Covert

The FTT is the biggest cemetery in regards to the destruction of Christian Faith. Congratulations LSM , hope you enjoy your circus festival of Mind numbing mantra parroting Lee Goons uplifting Obsequious Sycophants Co-workers at every conference. Can you believe this church follows the ministry of the man who was so afraid of people exposing the much garbage and flaws in his ministry, the he was so afraid of something so simple like Interlinear bibles of the original Greek being printed and distributed with the recovery version?

My opinion - FTT succeeds in robbing young people of their personality only to be replaced with who can parrot the best. I've seen young men I used to live with after passing through FTT became a shell of who they used to be.
I love that phrase of yours Covert; "Obsequious Sycophants" - I had to go look it up to see the meaning. You're far too kind in your desrciption. I tend to refer to these same individuals as hirelings since all the shepherds have been run off with quarantines and purges.
Hirelings like the prestige and rewards of being appointed with the responsibility without doing any of the labor. Brothers and sisters that have concerns, questions, etc are dealt with by the hirelings using passive aggressive behavior to make them feel as if they're the villains for asking the questions in the first place. No need to chase after the sheep when you're the ones chasing them away in the first place.

[Covert]

A lot of good post recently and I do indeed have some comments

1. Witness lee repentance didn't really have much affect on the church. The formula of hate and bashing of other believers and even towards dissenting members is so ingrained that one moment of repentance right before his death wasn't going to do much. He probably realized his time was wrapping up and all the lies, manipulation, and murderous words were going to be brought up on his judgement. I think anyone who is not completely reprobate (I sometimes think the Coworkers/Blended are close being this), would realize it would be in their best interest to repent if they did all the things witness lee did, especially towards the end of their life.

2. Social Deficiencies- One thing I noticed is that a concerning amount of brothers I have witnessed have a lot deficiencies when it comes to relationships of all sorts. When it comes to "companionship" it can real shallow. For example, a lot of brothers I know have very shallow with their wives. They dont know how to have a healthy, productive, and happy marriage. For these brothers its have babies, dont help with anything like house work, taking care of kids, or errands, and a repeat of these same things over and over. The amount of empty, shallow, and fractured families I have seen due to not cause of a unfortunate marital circumstance but due to widespread culture/teachings of the LC- were more than I was comfortable seeing. Its not that they wish to be like this, a lot of them were raised very isolated and socially disadvantaged when it came to the opposite sex. Yet their parents never put effort to have a child to parent bond on how to deal with these things and how to interact with different people and certain situations.

They (church/parents) try so hard restrict their socialization and their natural growth (psychologically) by social interactions, and put no effort into taking the burden to teach and advise on how to be an adult and handle relationships of all sorts. So in total, a major social deficiency is present in many childhoods and eventually marriages, because those same children grow up to have a spouse and kids.

So what are the factors that lead to these shattered souls/families (not all marriages/families but a concerning amount I have seen in the LC)?

I. An arranged marriage that was either one sided, or not one or the other cared about each other. This already a failure and a downward spiral of a poor marriage. Arranged is one thing, but a marriage in which 2 people don't genuinely really care about each other or majorly one sided, is not going to end well.

II. Incompetent Parenting- To keep it simple, I believe a lot of parents in the LC make their kids as helpless socially as they possibly can, so that the kids grow up to rely on the LC entirely. Its like a baby bird that is bound to never leave the nest and fly free, or maybe a better analogy is a caged bird that serves to be nothing more than to be looked at the satisfaction of the spectator/owner.

III. The Ministry- we come again to witness lee, we all the root his issue is witness lee. Witness lee did not care for the well being of individuals or families. I mean whether its dating restrictions, lack of accountability to domestic violence/ and or adultery, sexual assault, fractured marriages, depression, basic freedoms (such as jobs/studies), and other life essential things. I feel like this third Roman number/sub point can be a talking point in itself. Witness was so obsessed with maintain this fake image for the sake of the vision, or I should say grand delusion", they he never thought to himself that the greatest "death" in the lords recovery starts off with that mass neglect of the genuine care of individuals/families.

You can use the cop out "take it to the cross" and "get out of your mind" and all the mantra nonsense. In reality, when the meetings are over and the vain repetition/mantra/parroting ends, they back to that very dark and fractured "SOUL" life. I'm sorry to say but to recovery lurkers- the soul life is very important and greatly affects your "spiritual" experiences. I mean a sister cant really enjoy the meetings very much if she has to be afraid of getting beat up by her husband. A church kid wont enjoy the meetings very much if he has to go home with his or her parents everyday and see that they don't care about each other and wont care much about him/her outside of LC related things.

Imagine the social relationships of the LC as a large room, and the amount of socially fractured relationships represented darkness and the healthy/GENUINE ONES (cause we all know about the fake and shallow "companionship's" of the LC) represented light. From what I have experiences in the LC, I see a very dark room with small pockets of light in different corners. Just a very dark and somber environment, if you take away all that mantra/ vain repetition/ and parroting. You see the most desolate and despondent church environments that there is.


Question to Terry- In the LRD website you said that one of the activities of the Local Churches invovled burning family photos? I always thought the burning was a bit extreme but if people want to burn music CDs or Televisions, have it it. But why on earth would one just toss family photos in a fire? I was deeply disturbed by that, in fact its why I came on here to mention that comment. Im not sure if burning family photos is still a thing but the mentality that leads to that is most likely present at large. I know on the mylocalchurchexperience website, a sister talked about how her parents never even hugged her as a child because her mother said that is showing "natural affection". Paul does talk about the degradation of humanity and what was one of the negative characteristics he mentions in 2 Timothy 3? NO NATURAL AFFECTION. Scripture does say there will be those who will propagate destructive doctrine, now we see exactly what it looks like in practice.


Burning Family Photos, how in the world did I walk into this group in my lifetime, I learn more horrifying things day by day about this cult, thinking I knew it all.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Here is the link to one prayer of Lee, found on a very short thread on this forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhXkQAGTfkg

However, that video is not the one that comes to my mind when I think of Lee repenting. There is one where Lee is speaking in Chinese, and it's the year he died, and there is a video "out there" where someone gives the REAL english translation of the prayer, showing that LSM mis-translated what Lee said. I haven't been able to find that one yet.

Edit: found it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcs5pbzoDI

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

Nell

[OBW]

I am starting without reading the whole thing. What I have read I generally agree with but have some additional considerations.

Originally Posted by Covert

1. Witness lee repentance didn't really have much affect on the church. The formula of hate and bashing of other believers and even towards dissenting members is so ingrained that one moment of repentance right before his death wasn't going to do much. He probably realized his time was wrapping up and all the lies, manipulation, and murderous words were going to be brought up on his judgement. I think anyone who is not completely reprobate (I sometimes think the Coworkers/Blended are close being this), would realize it would be in their best interest to repent if they did all the things witness lee did, especially towards the end of their life.

You are probably onto something here. But if the goal was actual repentence, he needed to speak it to the ones he actually spoke against, not just the ones who heard it and were (by default) in agreement with his speaking (not his apology). Not sure that actually qualifies as repentence except to the extent he also needed to repent to his followers for saying (and leading them to say) such things about God's people.

Originally Posted by Covert

2. Social Deficiencies- . . .

They (church/parents) try so hard restrict . . . socialization and their natural growth (psychologically) by social interactions, and put no effort into taking the burden to teach and advise on how to be an adult and handle relationships of all sorts. So in total, a major social deficiency is present in many childhoods and eventually marriages, because those same children grow up to have a spouse and kids.

This one is a real problem. It is also applicable to the more conservative evangelicals, especially those who home-school their kids. They shelter them from everything, but the moment they are outside the bubble, they are too often unprepared for the world. They can't just run from it because it is their school, job, etc., and any ideology that presents any kind of appeal can suck them in.

I note that you speak about factors that lead to the shattering of souls and families. There was once an attempt to delve into this — at least in theory, but it was too undefined and it turned into an ugly thing. I would say that just noting that it is true is probably sufficient. But as it can also be found in other groups, it takes a lot more than some observations to declare that it is more egregious than in a lot of other Christian groups (and non-Christian groups for that matter). Not saying there is nothing to see, but that as proof, it has issues somewhat like trying to pin down the applicability of the "c" word.

Originally Posted by Covert

The Ministry- we come again to witness lee, we all the root his issue is witness lee. Witness lee did not care for the well being of individuals or families. I mean whether its dating restrictions, lack of accountability to domestic violence/ and or adultery, sexual assault, fractured marriages, depression, basic freedoms (such as jobs/studies), and other life essential things. I feel like this third Roman number/sub point can be a talking point in itself. Witness was so obsessed with maintain this fake image for the sake of the vision, or I should say grand delusion", they he never thought to himself that the greatest "death" in the lords recovery starts off with that mass neglect of the genuine care of individuals/families.

Lack of care for the individual beyond what they can do for the group is a significant issue. And the abuses that happened at the hand of the leadership just adds to the problems. They wanted "good material" but couldn't help turning it into refuse to be cast aside if they weren't able to provide themselves self-help.

Originally Posted by Covert

You can use the cop out "take it to the cross" and "get out of your mind" and all the mantra nonsense. In reality, when the meetings are over and the vain repetition/mantra/parroting ends, they back to that very dark and fractured "SOUL" life.

Once again, put the onus on the individual to "buck-up" (or as my mother used to say to us as kids, "straighten up and fly right!").

Originally Posted by Covert

Burning Family Photos, how in the world did I walk into this group in my lifetime, I learn more horrifying things day by day about this cult, thinking I knew it all.

If there is anything that is more cult-like than anything, this is it. Not just burning books of the occult like in the NT, but so wantonly cutting yourself off from your family (even some aspects of the ones that are right there in the LC with you) is classic control mechanisms. I won't insist it is mind control, but it probably is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

If there is anything that is more cult-like than anything, this is it. Not just burning books of the occult like in the NT, but so wantonly cutting yourself off from your family (even some aspects of the ones that are right there in the LC with you) is classic control mechanisms. I won't insist it is mind control, but it probably is.

There was a forum with the anacronym "BARM" - Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry - that had about 40 pages of LC testimonies. Unfortunately it got taken down. It came out in the early 2000s, lasted till maybe 2010 or so. Some of the stories were horrifying. A church leader's son wrote about how the family photos were publicly burned. He watched as his singed picture got lifted up by the heat and drifted out of the fire. Someone walked over, picked it up, put it back in. This was in front of the entire church. He was what, 7 or 8 years old? Can you imagine what this group did to the souls of the children immersed in this world 24/7, with no other frame of reference? It's sobering to contemplate. I came in as a naiive college student, from a fairly solid mainline Protestant background, and it took years after my physical extrication to unweave their programming from my thoughts. Can you imagine what challenges the ex-Church Kids face?

[OBW]

Unfortunately, for some the damage was permanent. Some just got away at the first chance and tried to move on to a normal life. But even some that got that far still had problems from it.

I started to mention one of the more dire of the testimonies. I will leave it unspecific, but it concerned some very serious charges against the father that was one of the most respected elders in the US at one time. And the damage was severe.

[Covert]

9. Reprobation (definition taken from online)- Reprobation, in Christian theology, is a doctrine which teaches that a person can reject the gospel to a point where God in turn rejects them and curses their conscience. ... When a sinner is so hardened as to feel no remorse or misgiving of conscience for particularly vile acts, it is considered a sign of reprobation.

Recently with some slight scuffles, I have been hearing about “speaking the truth in love” and really thinking about that never seems to work towards the leader of the lord’s recovery. Im recollecting all the efforts of sweet and sincere saints trying to reach the hearts of this cults leadership and never availing. This forum (in my opinion), for the most part just serves to show the truth and expose the LR. I also have heard this forum to speak to the coworkers/leadership and address issues they wish to be fixed? That sounds nice but when I keep track of how the coworkers react to online content, its pretty unpleasing to say the least. It involves some sort of enemy/rebellion diatribe and wishing upon destruction of “Gods enemy” and the “lords move”. In every major address to the LR by former members such as Ingalls, Isitt, Casteel Malon, so on and so on, it just led to demonization and diatribes. Historically, I don’t think there has ever been a moment of reconciliation between ex-member and current leaders of the LR to meet and discuss serious issues that needs to be addressed.

For this post of mine specifically, I am really to understand what the source of this complete rejection of vile crimes/sins that is are plaguing the church and not being dealt with. Like why is it so hard for the leaders to even attempt to deal with these issues? Even the Catholic church tries to deal with its sex crimes, it’s a never-ending battle but there has been lots of effort/support system do deal with these issues (for the most part). Then I have been thinking of all the witness lee teaching of TOTKOGAE , “Covering”, and “not being in the mind” etc. Its obvious these teachings is what leads them to be so blockading in regards to people addressing issues.

So my final question is, Lee doctrine especially specific teachings aimed to make one amoral, which in practice leads to an environment of perpetuating evil, ultimately leads to a dilemma of moral pestilence known as- Reprobation. To some degree, do you think there is some sort of reprobate moral pestilence/curse running around the Lords Recovery because of the results of Lee doctrinal teachings on neglecting evil? Reprobate is a scary thing to consider, but what’s scarier is how often the Co-workers potentially come across the crimes described in Jo Casteel Letter or the recent OKC incident, and even the Houston incident with Alan Bayes written by Andrea.

I have never come across supposed “Christians” that were so neglectful of gratuitous/nefarious evil. I wish:” speaking the truth in love” worked, but it obviously historically has not. It leads to more condemnation/demonization from the leadership, the more speaking in love you give regarding truths that need to be addressed, the more hate they give back. I don’t understand this strange/bizarre situation in the lord’s recovery. What I came up with so far is reprobation that stems from Lee doctrine? What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Do you have an explanation from this situation of the local churches? Type away your thoughts, you can contest me, agree with me, whatever you want.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Covert

Historically, I don’t think there's ever been a moment of reconciliation between ex-member and current leaders of the LR to meet and discuss serious issues that need to be addressed....

to understand what the source of this complete rejection of vile crimes/sins that is are plaguing the church and not being dealt with. Like why is it so hard for the leaders to even attempt to deal with these issues?

The simplest explanation I can find is that Oriental culture at Witness Lee's source is being manifested. He panned fallen human culture at every turn yet was blind to his own, and the corrosive effect it had on those who followed him.

1. Look up "Guanxi network" and you'll see the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry described to a 't'. There's never been a "ministry of reconciliation" like Paul described to the Corinthians. Once you violate the rules of the guanxi network you're out. (I did hear of one brother who returned after negative speaking and they let him sit quietly in the back, but he couldn't speak. Some reconciliation).

(I believe WL was speaking on 'reconciliation' when he said that they should reconcile with those who'd left. Steve Isitt then took him at his word, and look where that went).

2. The complete inability at any level to repent, to turn, learn from mistakes. The Maximum Leader(ML) has liberality to criticise anyone and everyone, and in the LC this incessant critique is mistaken for leadership and spiritual ascendancy. But nobody can criticise the ML, even when he's waaaayyyy off base. I source the cultural roots of this tendency from an observation that I made of Chinese politics. Nobody can criticise the ML in China. Even decades after Mao's death, if you mention a mistake of any kind, you're going to pay, and dearly, for being 'unpatriotic.' So the truth takes a back seat to social stability. In the West it's admittedly a bit messier, but we have this thing called freedom, where we can think and then speak what we think.

It's ironic that the house organ DCP can "Affirm and Critique" everyone else, and everyone else is expected to only "Affirm" the DCP. No critiques allowed. Then, it's called slander, attack, accusation etc etc.

[Covert]

Ok Aaron, great post by you. So this mixture of the bible and Chinese culture led to the Guaxni Netowrk influencing Authority/Submission/Silencing teachings of Nee and Lee. Do you think that mixture led to a long of issues that resulted in some form of reprobation? Or is reprobation too much of a monster to quite pin the LR just yet? Or perhaps the Guaxni culture did lead to a downward spiral when mixed in with Christianity and one of those negative effects is reprobation? Idk, I think this will require some in depth analysis to even reach some sort of sensible conclusion.

[Covert]

10. Lack of true love/oneness/authenticity- We all know that the local churches go to such extremes to lock in members, overuse of "fellowship, isolating from other Christians, constant demands for the ministry/meetings, neglect of family etc. So I wonder, if one has to go to such extremes just to retain their membership/populace, can one really genuinely say, the local churches are full of life, growth, and prosperity. Taking N.Korea for example, from what the propaganda is constantly thrown around the country as happy crowds for their supreme leader King Jung Uun, and this fake image of a powerful, prosperous, and mighty country. It is a lie in reality, I mean N.Korea government goes to such extremes to maintain their nonsensical propaganda and the bleak reality is that, N.Korea is one of the most desolate and somber countries in the world, perhaps the most miserable country with very few nations comparing to it in this regard.

So with the local churches and its propaganda image of shouting, chanting, repetition, goonery etc. The reality is that LSM goes to such extremes to create this fake image/propaganda just like with what N.Korea does with their nation. If one has to go such extremes to create this fake sense of reality, like hte examples given above, can one come to the conclusion that the LC extremities in regards to maintaining its current identity/practices is a reflection of its spurious propaganda putting a veil over its desolate state. Is LSM just some sort of "Big Brother Party" from 1984 that relies on hegemony and megalomania to maintain its spurious propaganda (fake image) of the local churches?

This is another deep yet and difficult characteristic to analyze of the LC. I know a ton of LC members that truly do love the lord in a sense (a lee version of Jesus, we can get to that another time), but at the same time its hard to differentiate genuine love and LC propaganda. Like the people who were part of the INGSOC party/Big Brother in 1984, I mean one could say they "loved" the big brother/INGSOC. In reality, if you were in that kind of environment like described in 1984, who wouldn't love big brother/INGSOC party (cause you paid a hefty price if you didn't). Just like in the LC "being absolute for the ministry", the same fear mongering as the big brother/INGSOC party put out in 1984 for being absolute for "the big brother party". Gauging the LC authenticity is kind of difficult when you think about it, one can easily be like "its fake love and nothing is real" yet its hard to come to that extreme conclusion. I know they love the lord in one aspect but the propaganda/hegemony of LSM is a huge factor that adulterates that love for the lord (I would think so at-least).

INGSOC (parallel to LSM)= Ruling party of the dystopian society in the book 1984
Big Brother (Parallel to Witness Lee)= the ruler of the dystopian society that everyone pledge allegiance to.
How could I forget- "Fake Oneness/Forced Conformity", just like the INGSOC party in 1984 in allegiance to "Big Brother". Oneness in 1984/LSM is based on for the most part: duress, fear, hegemony, and megalomania.

Well feel free to agree, disagree, and just type out your thoughts on this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Covert

10. . . . Taking N.Korea for example, from what the propaganda is constantly thrown around the country as happy crowds for their supreme leader King Jung Uun, and this fake image of a powerful, prosperous, and mighty country. It is a lie in reality, I mean N.Korea government goes to such extremes to maintain their nonsensical propaganda and the bleak reality is that, N.Korea is one of the most desolate and somber countries in the world, perhaps the most miserable country with very few nations comparing to it in this regard.

Let me say that this could be very true. However, as things generally go, you need to do more than say that the LC is like you describe it. Even with what limited insight I have, I do not doubt your statements. But as we have recently stated elsewhere, an example or metaphor does not make it true.

And it returns to the problems I see with your list. If you want to use this as the teaser to get people interested, then fine. But making accusations is not the same as establishing something as true.

Remember, you are not needing to prove much to me. But there is some proof required for me to even go along (other than silently from the sidelines). And a little more to get me running with it enthusiastically. Without that, this risks driving away those who might be on the fence. That is something we would rather not do. So let's do more than say things are true. You've so nearly got me. But not quite.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Covert

10. Lack of true love/oneness/authenticity- We all know that the local churches go to such extremes to lock in members, overuse of "fellowship, isolating from other Christians, constant demands for the ministry/meetings, neglect of family etc. So I wonder, if one has to go to such extremes just to retain their membership/populace, can one really genuinely say, the local churches are full of life, growth, and prosperity.

Local churches are full of life, growth, and prosperity? I think not. Generally what I saw was attrition and moving members from one locality to form another locality. I saw localities with aging members and very little increase unless you count young married couples having children.
Lack of True love - yes. Look how John Ingalls was treated in his last decade of living. Even in my own home several brothers who visited me expressed love for Steve Isitt, but they would not visit Steve or speak to him.
I would say there is oneness, but as in oneness for a man's ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let me say that this could be very true. .. but an example or metaphor does not make it true.... there is some proof required for me to even go along...

How about this: what if we could show that Nee copied Penn-Lewis, who was heavily influenced by Freemasonry?

The first part is easy enough, that LSM acknowledges it. WN’s “Spiritual Man” was cribbed wholesale from J P-L writings. Thus, WN’s “four planes of spiritual existence” is literally copied, word-for-word, from her. Where did she get it? From the NT? Or from the Freemasons?

The Spiritual Man Published in three volumes in the fall of 1928. This book was not only the central one but also the greatest one among Brother Nee's writings. It covers the following main points: 1) the three parts of man—spirit, soul, and body; 2) the distinction between soul and spirit; 3) the fleshly Christian; 4) the soulish believer; 5) the subjective aspect of the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit; 6) the spiritual man; and 7) the spiritual warfare.

After publishing two editions of The Spiritual Man, Watchman Nee realized that many of his readers became introspective. He also felt that the book was too perfectly written and too detailed.[!!!] For these reasons he decided not to publish further editions. ... He told me that his view of spiritual warfare in The Spiritual Man was based mainly upon the writings and experience of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis..

This book was published when Nee was 24. On reading his works, Lee was amazed at how it seemed written by an older, experienced person. But Nee was young, and unable to both resist the siren song of forbidden fruit (ME Barber had told him not to read it) and unable to sort the wheat from the chaff. So he swallowed it wholesale, and poured it forth from his eager pen, and he became famous, then notorious. When it was found out he was passing off J P-L writings as his own, he effectively shrugged. “I borrowed freely, without attribution”. Hardly a sage.

But where did J P-L’s ideas come from?

https://www.watchmannee.org/publications.html

[Covert]

Obw my brother, Im not trying to convince every single person I come across in regards to my comments. Some will agree some will disagree, although i may give feedback comments, If I am interested in developing a discussion.

For example, there are people out there who legitimately think the Holocaust is a hoax. Am I going to waste my time trying to convince these people otherwise? Not a chance, its not even worth it in my opinion. I mean maybe some person who is an expert at deprogramming can fix horrifying delusional people like that but for me, nope, nada, not happening, not wasting a bit of my time.

Of course that is an extreme example of showcasing why its not worth it to try convince everyone of your opinion but its showcases my point in this post. In regards to evidence regarding my comment/post on the 1984/INGSOC/Big Brother comparison to LSM/LR, you can watch some videos on PriestlyScribe YouTube channels. Check out the FTT videos, it showcases goonery at its finest. Yes, you might say that is insufficient to convince you or others, like I said its up to you, I cant convince every single person out there.

[aron]

Here is more on Watchman Nee's slavish dependence on Penn-Lewis

In 1926, when he was suffering from tuberculosis, Ni began his first major book, The Spiritual Man, which sought to explain spiritual formation in terms of biblical psychology, especially the radical distinction between “soul” (self-consciousness) and “spirit” (God-consciousness). Published in 1928, the three-volume work has been called basically a translation of Penn-Lewis’s Soul and Spirit, published ten years earlier, though Ni did not make that clear. These early efforts laid the theological foundation for his future teaching ministry.

http://bdcconline.net/en/stories/nee-watchman

Originally Posted by Covert

... like I said its up to you, I cant convince every single person out there.

You're not going to convince everyone out there. If Jesus couldn't, if Paul couldn't, then you won't either. But you must make an honest attempt, and let God's light shine where it wills. (when I say 'you' of course this is self-talk and not necessarily applicable to the larger populace)

In 1926 Nee was, what, 23 years old? 22? Do you really think that he was at the "fourth plane of Christian pursuit" by then? Paul says, "Do not lay hands quickly on any man" and Nee is proof positive. Why did Barber tell Nee not to read Penn-Lewis? Did she know something that we don't?

I'm going by memory on: 1) WL saying that he was shocked how young WN was in fact, as his literary output was apparently from an elder; and 2) that WN was forbidden by MEB from reading J P-L but read her work anyway. If anyone can confirm or correct these two assertions of mine, that would be appreciated. And, if so, why did MEB forbid J P-L? Did she know something that we don't? If thousands, even tens of thousands, rely on Nee for spiritual guidance, don't you think we should source his revelations? Clearly we have found J P-L. But what lies behind that?

[aron]

Here is an excerpt from J P-L, apparently copied and/or reprinted by WN:

There are four planes—broadly speaking—in the spiritual life of the believer, and of the Christian worker: The first plane we may call the “evangelistic” plane; that is, the plane where the soul knows the new birth; knows that he has eternal life in Christ; where he becomes a soul winner, preaches salvation from the penalty of sin, and is used to lead others to Christ; where the entire objective is winning souls for Christ; where he is faithful in proclaiming the gospel of salvation in Christ.

Then there is the second plane, which may be called the “revival” plane; or the stage in personal experience where the believer receives the fulness of the Holy Spirit, learns to know Him and to obey Him; to rely upon Him and to look to Him to work as he co-operates with Him, and is used to lead others into the experience of the fulness of the Spirit.

Then there is the third plane, which we may call the plane of the “path of the cross,” where the believer experimentally apprehends his position in Romans 6 in fellowship with Christ's death; is brought into “conformity” to His death (Philippians 3:10); he learns the fellowship of His sufferings, and is led to walk in the path of the Cross in every detail of practical life. Here the believer is able to interpret to others the way of the Cross, and to lead others to know Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 4:10-12 in experience.

The fourth plane is the plane of spiritual warfare. It is really the “ascension” plane, where the believer knows his union with Christ, seated with Him “far above all principality and power”; and where, in service, he is in aggressive warfare against the powers of darkness; learns to have spiritual discernment to detect the working of the devil; and learns the authority of Christ over all the power of the enemy. (Luke 10:19)

Or to put it concisely—the first is the plane of salvation, or the new life; the second is the plane of the Spirit; the third is the plane of victory over sin; the fourth is the plane of victory over the powers of darkness. The individual believer, if he goes forward in the Christian life with God, is generally—not always—led just in this order also. First, he receives salvation; second, he receives the Holy Ghost; third he is led along the path of the Cross; fourth, he walks in the path of conflict and victory, resulting in “power” over all the power of the enemy. The individual worker, also, finds he is used in these four planes of service. First, he is used to lead others to Christ; second, he is used to lead them into the fulness of the Spirit; third, he is used to interpret to them the path of the Cross; and fourth, to discern the devices and workings of the devil, and to have power over “all the power of the enemy,” through union with Christ on the throne.

Madame Guyon truly says that in every plane of the spiritual life there is a beginning, working out, and a consummation of the life in that degree, followed by a passage into the next plane, where there is again a beginning, a working out, a consummation. . . . Further, it is true that, speaking generally, it often takes years to get through each plane! (“Four Planes of the Spiritual Life,” Watchman Nee, reprinting “an excerpt from Life Out of Death, a book by Jessie Penn-Lewis. It was originally published by The Overcomer Literature Trust, Parkston, Poole, Dorset, England.”

Readers may wonder why my sudden fixation on J P-L is on this thread. First, Covert has pointed to the rotten fruit laying around and said, "What is at the root?" and second, OBW has said, "Prove it" to his assertions. This focus on J P-L as WN's amanuenses (inspiration) is an attempt to do both. My first question is, are these planes of existence seen laid out in the NT, or is this an overlay, from some other imaginative source, and then deemed a Christian teaching?

Assuming the theory is solidly NT-sourced, again I ask, did WN attain to such a plane of spiritual living at age 23 that he was able to put out such a tome, copied or not? If so, why did he at the end of his life confess to immorality, knowing the devastating effect it would have on the spiritual journey of his fellows? Ruth Lee became a militant atheist after hearing Nee confess. Why then did he do it? Did he lie, deliberately, to save his skin, knowing full well the consequences for others? Or was he actually confessing the truth? Either way, he doesn't seem like a spiritual man (unless the spirit is something other than from God).

Something looks very wrong here. What lies behind J P-L?

[aron]

This is what I read that made me question J P-L's ideational thrust:

Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ “mother was one of the first to join . . . the Good Templar Movement” in her town, and Jessie “was keenly eager to be a Templar too,” so she followed her mother as a “Templar” in the demonic cult of Freemasonry.[503] The “very first Lodge night after [her] twelfth birthday . . . [she was] initiated into the coveted circle.” She soon became “Chief Presiding Officer of the juveniles . . . [in the Minor] Lodge,” while her husband-to-be was “Treasurer of [that same] Lodge at th[at] time.”[504] She “continued as secretary of the Lodge by re-election quarter after quarter until . . . compelled to give it up”[505] because of her father’s death. Her Quaker and Masonic influences were connected, as a “Quaker . . . undertook to teach [her] the secretarial work [of the Lodge].”[506]

[503] Compare “Freemasonry and the Christian,” Eddy D. Field II & Eddy D. Field III. Master’s Seminary Journal, 5:2 (Fall 94) 141-158; also The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, John Ankerberg & John Weldon (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1990).

[504] Pg. 4, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard. Garrard was Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ secretary and confidant for decades, and after Penn-Lewis’ death Garrard “serve[d] as general secretary and magazine editor” of The Overcomer “for sixteen years” (pgs. 305ff. The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 10, 86, 156, 250, 297).

[505] Pg. 6, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.

[506] Pg. 6, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.

https://www.amazon.com/Trials-Triump.../dp/B01FGJ4744

https://www.amazon.com/Mrs-Penn-Lewi...s=books&sr=1-1

https://faithsaves.net/jessie-penn-lewis/

There seem to be troubling facts raised by these sympathetic biographies of intimate companions, and if they're accurate and J P-L had such foundations in the Freemasons, don't you suppose that would affect her theology? Look up "Four Planes of Existence Freemasonry" or "levels of Freemasonry" and what do you get? I get various explanatory tracts from that group. J P-L's Four planes of Christian existence seems more aligned with the Freemasons than with anything I remember seeing in the NT, and then her biographers acknowledge her deep involvement during her formative years?

In sum: the links back from the Local Church to Watchman Nee are evident. The links from WN to J P-L are also clear. What J P-L built on is murkier, but a cursory review is troubling. I haven't read the Jones or Garrard books but if the quotes are true then there's much concern from the Christian perspective, and the rotten fruit has a known source.

Again I'd ask those who find in Nee a wellspring for their Christian journey (as I was also and sympathise): if you're dependent on Nee as a source of Christian guidance, and Nee was so obviously leaning on Penn-Lewis, don't you think it's worthwhile to find what ideational soil she built on? Perhaps there are other salient facts besides what these two biographies show us above? If so what are they, and how (if at all) do they alleviate the obvious concerns?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

How about this: what if we could show that Nee copied Penn-Lewis, who was heavily influenced by Freemasonry?

The first part is easy enough, that LSM acknowledges it. WN’s “Spiritual Man” was cribbed wholesale from J P-L writings. Thus, WN’s “four planes of spiritual existence” is literally copied, word-for-word, from her. Where did she get it? From the NT? Or from the Freemasons?

Yes, this is a fairly well-established fact. I've even found it so interesting that Nee would go so far as to say in his foreword/intro to one of his volumes of plagiarism something like "no one else could have seen so much from God than me." (paraphrased but consistent with what he said.) Yes, he is self-aggrandizing for calling someone else's writings his own.

But without noting where this fits in the list of 10 or so characteristics, I am left with a fact needing a home.

My point is not that there is nothing available to support any, most, or even all of the points, but that they are not provided in a manner that makes them aligned with the issue that each supports. I'm not trying to throw cold water on the idea of doing the analysis. I'm trying to bring the pieces together so that it is not as difficult for someone who might be wondering why it is that all these ex-LCers think it is worthwhile to try to convince others to leave as well. Why is it that we won't leave it alone and let them carry on as just one more new denomination? The answer is that it is not just another run-of-the-mill and acceptable part of Christianity. it is, among other things, a group that siphons off as much of your hard-earned money as possible, over-manages your life in a way that is psychologically detrimental, and doesn't even manage to have a theological distinctive that is, well, theologically sound.

So let's do more than declare it to be true. I like your analysis of JPL. I had never heard anything like the Freemasonry stuff. And as long as we are not ignoring that it could just be a "past," like Paul being a Pharisee of the Pharisees, or that terms can be borrowed (like Paul did from the Greeks) then maybe we have something.

And I think that your analysis of JPL may be enough to show more than the use of terms, but instead, a forcing of Christian theology into the mold of Freemasonry, a system that may sound Christian, but is anything but.

I will say a little more in some brief comments to Covert's last post.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Covert

Obw my brother, I'm not trying to convince every single person I come across in regards to my comments. Some will agree some will disagree, although I may give feedback comments if I am interested in developing a discussion.

For example, there are people out there who legitimately think the Holocaust is a hoax.

You mentioned (in a part I did not quote) the videos of the FTT. I agree that they portray a kind of almost automatronic speaking on the part of most. And even when not in that vein, they are not something I would think appealing. I would need to have had my mind altered to think of it in a positive way. (And someone will declare "Christ has altered my mind.")

We will never convince everyone. But if you are trying to even convince a few out of potentially many who may read it, you will need to provide more than a declaration that things are true. More than labeling some of the actions as being "goon-like."

I like your comparison to Holocaust deniers (same goes for moon landing conspiracy nuts). The problem with those people is that they are unable to see the evidence and change their minds. For some reason, reliable facts are of no value in their thinking. Something is wrong "upstairs." As they say, the elevator doesn't reach the top floor.

And you will probably never convince those people anyway. But you can convince those who have been told something for a long time but still have a useful mind to assess the available facts, if provided, and rethink their position.

I am not saying that I don't want your ideas. But as statements of assessment, if they do not include reasons, observations, facts, etc., it is something to put in the personal testimony section. Not saying that is where this belongs. Just that without more than an opinion, it is failing at the "discussion" aspect of the forum. When you say "if I am interested in developing a discussion," you somewhat indicate a lack of interest in engaging in the purpose of the forum.

I think you are onto something, however, not every one of us here has the experience and knowledge with the more recent details of the LC to help the discussion along. When I left, the FTT might have already started in Taiwan, but if it had, there were not yet reports of any kind back from there. The thing that would blow up with John Ingalls, Bill Mallons, John So, and others had not surfaced — at least outside of some separate localities. Lee was still alive and kicking. Phillip Lee's sins were mostly still hidden behind the walls of the LSM. There was no HWFMR. The leading ones (often Benson Phillips where I was) were still providing a real message on Sunday mornings (when they weren't doing it in houses) before the popcorn machine was turned on.

What I'm saying is that we need real analysis and examples of true events, new ways, etc., that provide evidence of more than just one person's sour grapes. I know it is there. But our active ranks are thin and we need help. Can you or some others fill in those missing pieces? Can you help change the minds of a few more trapped LCers to become ex-LCers?

[OBW]

One of the things that is too often overlooked is that despite the observable control from Anaheim, the general situation in each city remains potentially quite different. If not, then there would never have been a slipt-off of so many in the Midwest and up into Toronto some years back.

And even though so many elders keep appearing for these elders meetings, there is so little actual sharing of what it is that they are being directed to protect their "flocks" from. Starting back with the Max R dismissal in the late 70s, then John Ingalls and faux conspirators almost 10 years later, and so on. Did most ever really know what happened? Or were they told a fable that could not be a lie because of who told it? (Yes, they are too gullible — "gull i bull" as Bugs Bunny would deliberately say.)

I know that one of the sour points for some back in the late 80s was that PL was so strong to push more LSM books on the local "bookstore" than they could handle. But some did manage to push back enough to at least be able to bear it and rationalize it as a reasonable number over the "standing order" to account for new ones in the future. Did that mean that, after going to elders' meetings, that they were all "in the know" and complicit? Of just blissfully unaware? Not saying that blissfully unaware is an acceptable thing.

And while I do not know how commonly the local leadership gets involved in a controlling way in the courting, marriage, and married lives of its members, my experience and observations in two places are that such was somewhat a hodgepodge, and sometimes more myth than fact. And while I'm sure that there was some terrible advice given to some couples, as well as some terrible examples given as positive role models, the most common admonition for every personal and relational ailment was to go to more meetings.

And so the characterizations of any elder's actions are not necessarily observable in all places. (Remember that those 7 churches in a rather close circle in what is now Western Turkey were vastly different from each other.) So we still need some real critique of more than observations of actions in one place (or even several places) that may be "goon-like" along with those critiques. I can agree that a system that allows those kinds of outward actions to stand has serious problems. But then there is the recent account of one of the Texas region's bright luminaries being publically put down for some very egregious actions. That will not make all the problems go away, but it will stand as a notable demonstration that the LC does not tolerate such things.

It should be remembered that this was also the way that Lee and the LSM dealt with many of the theological charges of the naysayers' books back in the late 70s and forward. Lee never said any of the things that he was accused of. He never called himself an apostle (in those days). Others may have done it, but he could show where he had said that no one should say such a thing. Just like when Nee never said he was the MOTA, or the top-ranking deputy authority. But he did say that you should always give deference to the most spiritual person in the room. And since it was understood that he was always the most spiritual person in any room, he was that person. And therefore he deserved the deference. And the position of "deputy authority." And Lee denied ever calling himself the minister of the age. He just said that the person who brought God's up-to-date NT ministry was the minister of the age. But he never said that he was that person. At least not in the same message. And likely not even in the same message series. That way his actual declaration to be that person was never in the same place as the declaration that such a person was the minister of the age. Just cut and paste the desired quote and you avoid the error that the attackers are claiming.

It takes all of this. The dig through the theological errors and a detailed analysis of the practices of the LC and its leadership as it stands today. And much of the theological analysis is in the older threads, though I have found that some of the more detailed analyses that I have mentioned at times were actually so far back that they were on the Berean's forum rather than here in this forum. So those of us who went through these debates may think of later discussions that quickly rushed through previous thoughts and conclusions without remembering that there is no longer any record of those previous thoughts and conclusions.

So I am not on this soapbox to chastise anyone. I am seeing a need for sound, rational, and reasoned analysis of theological and practical issues related to the beliefs and practices of the LC. There surely are many pieces of it. But not as much as we seem to think we remember. And while this forum did start in 2008, there was overlap with the other forum for a few more years. And the reasonable desire to not duplicate what was on that other forum here may now be our undoing in some cases because we no longer can point at that other forum as a source for information. Two lengthy and detailed analyses of at least one of Nees' or Lee's books (can't remember now if it was the Normal Christian Church Life or The Economy of God or maybe yet another); the initial discussion of Authority and Submission (Spiritual Authority); detailed analysis of Nee's "three parts of man" theology; I even think that the discussion of the Oneness of God when understanding the death of Christ (a difficult and not necessarily helpful endeavor); and many more. Plus some testimonies that we can only remember parts of because those people were not posting at the time of the transition and never even registered here.

At this point, I am not sure that we have enough fire-power to really undertake these again if we thought they were worthwhile. I sure don't have it. It takes a few determined people to keep it from wandering off or turning into a pretext for a lynching. (More than one attempt at starting a real discussion quickly turned into hasty conclusions that were immediately stated and ranted about. And the discussion never really happened.)

And I think that my concern is that this particular analysis needs to happen. Just like it might have been good to have enough information to undertake StG's analysis of the separation of various LC-Lte or LC v2.0 churches from the teachings of Lee. We each have an idea about that, but only certain ones have close to first-hand knowledge. It takes real information, not just impressions, characterizations, and opinions. My honest opinion is that the LC was never a truly healthy place despite the appearance of such in the 60s to early 70s when Lee had not fully taken control. Up to that point, it was a kind of rebellion against the norms of Christianity. And that was not entirely a bad thing. Its theological rudder was mostly Calvinist evangelical, with a growing helping of inner-life provided by Lee. And even those earliest "helpings" had Lee's leaven in them. Just not so much that it reeked of it. That was later to come. But even in the earliest days, the theological march downhill had begun in the midst of the appearance of an experiential march uphill.

As Elizabeth Bennet said about the contrasts between Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham, "I think that for my part, Mr. Darcy may have all the goodness while Mr. Wickham has all the appearance of it." (I probably botched the quote, but it is the essence of what was said.) In any case, it is not quite an equal comparison because in the LC there was the appearance of something fresh, new, and wholesome while the underlying reality was that something insidious, caustic, nauseating, and poisonous was being slowly introduced.

OK. I've had my little aside. Again, this is not a rant against any topic. It is a desire for more meat in some of these topics. So carry on. I will try to add reasonable content when I think I have some.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But without noting where this fits in the list of 10 or so characteristics, I am left with a fact needing a home..

My portrait of a young and naïve Watchman Nee drawing enthusiastically on Jessie Penn-Lewis was to answer Covert on being "reprobate" (in characteristic #9). There was noted a widely-observed inability to forgive, and to repent. I linked this to native culture, whose force was amplified through WN's deficient, unbalanced, and probably very leavened "subjective" and "mystical" Christian education. He taught himself, even with books that MEB told him not to read.

Originally Posted by Covert

.. this mixture of the bible and Chinese culture led to the Guaxni Netowrk influencing Authority/Submission/Silencing teachings of Nee and Lee. Do you think that mixture led to a long of issues that resulted in some form of reprobation?

My thought was, What's behind this? And then I remembered hearing about the early Watchman Nee:

1. I remember hearing that MEB tried to keep WN from reading certain books. Did she know something about them, that we didn't?
2. I remember hearing that WN read them anyway. He was young, eager, ambitious, and impressionable. He was barely out of his teens when he began publishing - how old was he when he read J P-L? Did he really have that much discernment? Did he know of her influences? I doubt it.
3. I believe that his "I copied freely, extensively, and without attribution" comment was AFTER he got called out. His first edition showed no indication that it wasn't his work. Then he got exposed and shrugged. Was he really the spiritual man that he seemed?
4. I believe that WL said in his biography of WN that he was shocked to find how young WN was, like he expected such writing from an older, more experienced person. Gee, I wonder why?
5. Related to #3 and #4, does anyone really believe that WN at age 22 had reached the "fourth plane" of being a spiritual warrior in ascension, assuming J P-L and Mme Guyon traced their "mystical influences" to NT scripture and not subjective personal impressions? Suppose the "planes of existence" aren't from the Bhagavad Gita or the Masonic Lodge, but rather solidly from the NT text - even so, why was WN putting this out at age 22 or 23? And then he said it was "too perfect"? Please.

Most of the above is from memory, and isn't verified, and the books quoted in post #54 saying that J P-L was deeply involved in Masonic Rites early on also can be checked. (DCP operatives are now scouring the globe, burning J P-L biographies like something from a Dan Brown novel). Yet my points are worth considering for those using Watchman Nee as a source of supposedly Christian inspiration and guidance. LSM in promoting Spiritual Man says, "Anyone who reads this book should keep in mind the above remarks..." Yes, please - do keep all this in mind.

https://www.watchmannee.org/publications.html

[OBW]

aron,

My point was not that if I had taken the time I might have found the right characteristic, but that there was no attempt to take it point by point and analyze it. Instead, it was a kind of free-for-all, too often jumping from one point to another without clear delineation as to what was being discussed.

And while I still think the list is a good idea, it needs some refinements. It needs a little tighter description of the problem or issue — and as UntoHim keeps saying, without the name-calling. To use pejoratives in the base definition is to conclude without actually discussing. Rather than forcing a conclusion with names, allow the participant or reader to draw their own conclusions. Let the facts lead to the conclusion rather than the names force it.

The problem is that almost no one is simply anything. My comment concerning Benson Phillips in another thread shows the issue. I think that he believes in the core of the LC theology. And he knows there are issues. But like too many others, he has the thought that this could be "it" if he and others can just keep it going despite obvious warts. While I believe that the continuing leadership, individually and as a group, have done great harm to both the individual members and the general reputation of the Church as a whole, somewhere inside they have convinced themselves that it is "in the service of a friend" (to borrow again from a line in Pride and Prejudice).

But the "friend" — God — does not need their help. He needs individuals, both separately and collectively, to live the life that was intended from the beginning, namely a life that bears the image of God. And the kinds of things that have been observed from these men do not bear the image of God.

So you see that this is not a simple characterization. It needs diligence and care. We need to be more concerned with what has happened, and continues to happen, more than labeling and pigeonholing the leadership that perpetuates the problems.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

this is not a simple characterization. It needs diligence and care. We need to be more concerned with what has happened, and continues to happen, more than labeling and pigeonholing the leadership that perpetuates the problems.

I can be blunt and occasionally caustic in my characterisations of LC culture. This is because I write for my own benefit, to separate myself from the pernicious effects of a system that I was enmeshed in for years, and found lingering (and strong!) traces long after leaving. But you're saying that in my separation I needn't put stumbling blocks in front of others. I do get that.