Website full of hate, finger pointing and blaming

After reading some posts on this site, it looks like a bunch of hateful comments by some Christians who did not like meeting with local church. Hey, not everybody is going to like meeting at every meeting place, but too much hatred and talk about negative opinions here. Not enough helpful chat on Bible verses and fellowship...this site is a waste of time. The Lord will judge Witness Lee, every believer who meets with a local church, and every beliver who posts hate on this site....Deal with it.

[Ohio]

Thanks for stopping by and telling us how much you hate, and that God is going to get us.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

After reading some posts on this site, it looks like a bunch of hateful comments by some Christians who did not like meeting with local church. Hey, not everybody is going to like meeting at every meeting place, but too much hatred and talk about negative opinions here. Not enough helpful chat on Bible verses and fellowship...this site is a waste of time. The Lord will judge Witness Lee, every believer who meets with a local church, and every beliver who posts hate on this site....Deal with it.

Un,

Please read the Mission Statement of this forum. That should clarify the purpose/mission of this website.

A problem I see with your position, your definition of "hate" is tied to whether you march in lockstep with the "ministry" of Witness Lee...or not.

People who have been hurt by false teachers are often angry... understandably so. You minimize the pain and suffering of those of us who were damaged by their time in the Local Church under Witness Lee's "ministry" as simply "did not like” meeting with the Local Church. This is a hateful thing to say. Or worse, you play the dreaded "negtive" card. The truth is not always positive. The truth is often negative, too. Is what you've read on this forum the "truth"...based on Witness Lee's "ministry", or the truth of God's word? Parts of the Bible itself couldn't be more "negative".

You clearly haven't fully read the scripture quotes on this forum. Maybe you should do that first, before judging us.

Those who have been lied to and have had God misrepresented to them...which is, honestly, most of us...may be angry. Deal with it. Wounded believers need a place to talk, and to know that they are not alone. Wounded believers need to find out the truth about Witness Lee and the Local Church. This is what this forum is about: Making sense of the "Lord's Recovery."

And, right on queue, as you play the "don't say anything negative" card. How 'bout this helpful Bible verse:

Eph. 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

More truth: God's judgment is his mercy. We pray that God judge the deeds of darkness in our lives, in this life, while there is time to repent. We pray that the Lord would enlighten our understanding and bring us to repentance. This is how we "deal with it"...we expose it, as we are commanded to do.

Thanks for stopping by. Most who do a hit and run on the forum aren't interested in a discussion, but taking a cheap shot at us. Please know, we are dealing with it as best we can.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for stopping by and telling us how much you hate, and that God is going to get us.

The person who tries to walk the Christian walk soon finds themselves in an existentialist dilemma: the world around them is quite un-Christian, but as soon as they speak up and point this out, they find out that they're worse! Not only are they as bad as everyone else, but now they've added hypocrisy to their sins by pointing out those of the rest! James trenchantly notes the safe path, that true Christian religion is to keep oneself unspotted from the world (including, I daresay, making anonymous posts on discussion forums) and to visit widows and orphans in their afflictions. That's it. Anything more, and you're quickly in league with the evil one.

Now, in the church it's somewhat unavoidable, if we're to be called church, the house of God. Paul said, "Remove the evil man from your midst" - obviously evil must be called out, and expelled. And if the evil is running the show, and the church is caught in the tide of evil, and is spell-bound and won't listen, then it must be shouted from the housetops. An example might be if the son of the supposed minister of the age is caught abusing the help (and yes it was abuse) in the ministry offices, and the witnesses are railroaded and run out of town, then it must be shouted.

But then the second part kicks in, that who among you is without sin? I believe that's where the prayer comes in. If it wasn't necessary, Jesus wouldn't have taught us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive". So I do apologize for my uncharitable spirit, and try (yet again) to get it right, to communicate without hatred, insulting, blaming, judging etc etc. I do apologize if some of my posts lacked "life" or "joy" or "peace", as nebulous as that is to ascertain. And I try to forgive others and bear with them in love.

WL acolytes have a convenient dodge, that of subjectivity. They've been conditioned to "sense" when someone is "negative". Now, Ron Kangas can speak something to them from the podium and it's supposedly adjusting or correcting or rebuking. You know, calling a spade a spade... good old Christian tough love. But God help you if you try to point out error to the speaker at the dais! Then you're supposedly full of the gall of bitterness and hatred, rancor, divisiveness and so forth.

Today I'm reminded that my rebellious and angry teenage self was perhaps closer to God than my religious later life. Why? Because my teenage self was honest. I was angry. My later life covered over my anger with a veneer of religiosity. It's been a hard road, but it's the only one I know and I'm going to keep going. I ask forgiveness of others, and I forgive others. And we go on. We can pray for one another, to be healed of our anger and fear and shame. We can be honest and peaceful at the same time. Jesus was. How could he have healed others, unless he was peaceful! Try healing someone when you're angry....

And he gave us all his peace. He bought it, paid for it, and gave it to us. Now we have to hold it, and not let go.

[Trapped]

Welcome to the forum, Unregistered!

I hope you'll stick around and dialogue, but as Nell said, it's very common for people to drive-by, post an opinion, and then disappear. But we'll reply in the hopes that you're at least going to read the responses, even if you don't say anything.

First of all, I hope you can see the difference between what happens here and what happens on local church/LSM websites. You posted your own "negative" and "opinion-filled" post about this site, putting it down, and denigrating the people and the behavior.

And this site still allowed you to post it. The owners of this forum were under zero obligation to approve your post for publication. But your post was let through so there could be open, honest, discussion in the light, even though your post was "negative" against the very site you posted it on.

That's one sign of a healthy place.

The local church, however, drowns out anyone voicing a concern, or anyone voicing an opinion that isn't in line with Witness Lee's opinion. I know there are exceptions to this that prove the rule, but I'm thinking of things like what the co-workers and LSM did on sites like livingtohim.com, where fellowship about Jo Casteel's FB letter was posted, and any comments posted that expressed an opinion contrary to the falsehoods that LSM spread were deleted. Over and over and over again. Meetings were had where church kid after church kid were recruited to stand up and proclaim how wonderful the local church was......just because one person, Jo Casteel, stood up and posted about the serious issues that are also present.

All of that kind of behavior on the part of the local church/co-workers/LSM is a big sign of an unhealthy place.

So I hope first of all you can appreciate that this is one of the only places where frank and honest discussion about the local church can occur.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

After reading some posts on this site, it looks like a bunch of hateful comments by some Christians who did not like meeting with local church.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you didn't read enough posts if that's the impression you came away with. I myself would probably never describe my feeling as "I didn't like meeting with the local church". That's not what any of us here are saying at all.

We are saying the local church is deceptive. It's a fabrication based on a lie. It uses the name of God and the name of Jesus to hook naive people, and then uses intentional manipulation techniques to influence and mentally trap those people, and then switch the gospel of Jesus Christ out for the gospel of Witness Lee. But the words "Christ" are all over "the ministry" and so people are kept in deception for a long, long time.

We are saying that the subtly condemnatory nature of the ministry, interwoven throughout every book, keep people oppressed, depressed, miserable, trapped, and withering inside as human beings. This is what comes out if you actually talk to members in the group honestly for long enough. The ministry oppresses the very people that Jesus died for to set free.

I can think of scores of teachings of Witness Lee that are explicitly contrary to the Bible. And all this stuff is bad. Damaging. Harmful. Threats to life in some cases. There is a reason why Jesus say "woe" to the Pharisees over and over. Those Pharisees were doing the same things that go on in the local church.

The problem is, nothing can change in the local church. As is typical of cults, if you speak up about the problems, you get attacked as "hateful" or being "negative". You know this, because it's exactly what you just did in your post to us!

But none of us are affected by what you wrote, because we fully expect it, because what you wrote is the classic response of people who are in a cult.

Your post literally served to prove the point, whether you are aware of it or not.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hey, not everybody is going to like meeting at every meeting place, but too much hatred and talk about negative opinions here. Not enough helpful chat on Bible verses and fellowship...this site is a waste of time.

There's TONS of threads on Bible verses! There's TONS of threads on people asking for fellowship and receiving it!

As Nell posted, the Bible says we are to expose works of darkness. Exposing works of darkness is going to "sound negative" because works of darkness are themselves negative.

Cancer is negative. Abuse is negative. A cheating spouse is negative. A car accident is negative. We can talk about negative things, and as humans, to cope with experiencing them we HAVE TO talk about negative things. It's not always going to sound pretty and uplifting, but.....life isn't always pretty and uplifting.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Lord will judge Witness Lee, every believer who meets with a local church, and every beliver who posts hate on this site....

Absolutely right. But again, what you wrote is typical of people who are in cults or cult-like groups. There's two implications here to what you wrote:

1. "The Lord will judge" - meaning "let it go, leave it up to Him, stop talking about it", and
2. A veiled threat to us that God will judge us.

Of course both of those are true. But it's not the whole truth.

The Lord will judge, of course. But the church is also supposed to judge. "The Lord will judge" never means "let whatever happens happen and don't do anything about it". That's not a very salt-like Christian. We are supposed to judge the righteous judgment. Paul tells the believers they will judge angels and so they'd better be able to judge things now! If the church is supposed to treat an unrepentant believer as a tax collector, the church better be able to make a judgment about the situation to do so.

"The Lord will judge" is a gross and incomplete misrepresentation of the real picture. It in no way means that there isn't any action or justice now.

Vengeance? No. But action? Of course! No one is safe if we just "let the Lord" judge everything at the end and don't take any action now about things.

Yes, God will judge everything written here too. But the implicit undertone of your statement is that this site is going to come down on the wrong side of judgment. If we are doing what the Bible tells us to do - expose works of darkness, judging rightly, freeing people from entangling and entrapping false doctrines - and doing so in as much love as we possibly can and apologizing when we offend or overstep, I don't lose much sleep over these discussions in that regard.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Deal with it.

That's what this site is doing.

With all sincerity, please come back and dialogue, unregistered. I am serious when I say that the more I talked with members in the local church, every time, eventually, the truth would come out that they were actually miserable in it. Think about the meetings you have been in where the speaking of Ron Kangas or Mark Raabe about "death" left you feeling dead and condemned. Think about the fact that you don't feel like an "overcomer" after years or decades in the church. Think about cracking open yet another ministry book and reading the same old same old every time....and that you already know all of it because you've heard the same stale thing for years. Think about the fact that Witness Lee did things like teach "get out of your mind" and "we must close our mind" when the Bible never says anything even remotely close to something like that.

I was just reading in Luke 24 the other day. After Jesus resurrected, He was appearing to His disciples and they were startled before they realized who He was. Verse 45 says Jesus then did this:

Luke 24:45
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Jesus opened their minds so the disciples could understand the Scriptures. Not "got them out of their minds and into their spirit". But opened their minds!

Witness Lee taught that we should, literally, "reject our minds", "close our minds", and "get out of our minds". This is a screamingly unhealthy teaching for any human being, and particularly for a Christian. We should never reject any of our God-given faculties!

Never mind the fact that the Bible also teaches we should love God with our minds, we should set our minds on the spirit, we should be of a sober mind, and we should sing and pray with our minds. All of these are using our minds, and none of these are "getting out of our minds". I mean, one of the very common teachings in the local church is demonstrably contrary to the Bible!

And there are lots of anti-biblical teachings like that in the local church, wrapped up in biblical-sounding language, unregistered. Our heart is sincere in discussing these things. Please continue the discussion with us.

Trapped

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Think about the meetings you have been in where the speaking of Ron Kangas or Mark Raabe about "death" left you feeling dead and condemned. Think about the fact that you don't feel like an "overcomer" after years or decades in the church. Think about cracking open yet another ministry book and reading the same old same old every time....and that you already know all of it because you've heard the same stale thing for years. Think about the fact that Witness Lee did things like teach "get out of your mind" and "we must close our mind" when the Bible never says anything even remotely close to something like that.
Trapped

Why do people feel like they aren't overcomers? The LR does a great job at making it seem like it’s your fault. But if you’re saved by Grace not by works, why would it be? Love this point.

[Trapped]

Unregistered, come baaaaaaaaaccccckkkkkkkk! Your input is worthwhile!

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

In the booke of Revelation, the Lord speaks to the churches and it is a solemn warning to His loving believers. Some believers in Ephesus left their first love. Some believers in the church in Pergamos hold to teachings of the nations. Some believers in Laodicea are lukewarm in their love for the Lord, thinking they have need of nothing and they are counseled to buy gold and eyesalve that they may see. This is not hatred speaking from the Lord. It is to enlighten believers and warn them. Same when RK and MR use these portions of the Holy Word. Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.

And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."

Originally Posted by Unreg

Some believers in Laodicea are lukewarm in their love for the Lord, thinking they have need of nothing and they are counseled to buy gold and eyesalve that they may see. This is not hatred speaking from the Lord. It is to enlighten believers and warn them. Same when RK and MR use these portions of the Holy Word. Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

Yes, we do need eyesalve - I agree. But RK and MR and MC also need eyesalve. WL and WN desperately - desperately! - needed eyesalve. When witnesses came forward over the years to warn them, they were castigated as "rebellious" and shunned. In Chinese culture, it's simply unthinkable to correct the head of a Guanxi network. WL told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Lord. That statement was wishful thinking, and today we can clearly see the effect of that. The untrammeled subjectivity + the fallen human soul = a trap. When WL corrected someone it was an adjustment, but when someone corrected him it was an accusation and an attack.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.

And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."

Yes, we do need eyesalve - I agree. But RK and MR and MC also need eyesalve. WL and WN desperately - desperately! - needed eyesalve. When witnesses came forward over the years to warn them, they were castigated as "rebellious" and shunned. In Chinese culture, it's simply unthinkable to correct the head of a Guanxi network. WL told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Lord. That statement was wishful thinking, and today we can clearly see the effect of that. The untrammeled subjectivity + the fallen human soul = a trap. When WL corrected someone it was an adjustment, but when someone corrected him it was an accusation and an attack.

aron,

Your post appears to exemplify the very points asserted in the base note! Don't they?

The thought -- yes, I need eyesalve but so do they! --is that not finger pointing? What is blaming if not your characterizations about WL? It may not be hate, I can't tell for sure, but certainly the mocking "Gunaxi network" characterization lacks the tone of Christian love.

Isn't that what Unreg means? Look, you might not have intended it, just sayin it looks like it.

Be that as it may, the more important point is this: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius all taught the deification of His believers and the matter is laid out carefully in the ministry of Brother Lee. Other church fathers were also mentioned by both Brother Nee and Brother Lee when it was relevant to a topic. Brother Lee and Brother Nee's messages are available in a few clicks at lsm.org ....free to anyone who wants to understand when they said and why, including citations and commentary about the church fathers.

This came out when deification was being opposed.. you said "promoted" as if Brother Lee was running a marketing campaign of some sort. As it often occurred in the sacred canon and evidenced throughout church history biblical truths were unveiled due to opposition. For instance, when the spirit of antichrist appeared in the early church and some began opposing the deity of Christ, the very eternal God come in the flesh, then the writings of John were released. Opposition to Martin Luther helped recover the biblical truth of salvation and justification by faith. The truth was already there, but the opposition to it facilitated its unveiling. And no, their writings are not scripture and may or may not be teachings from the Bible but they are instructive either way.

As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider factually representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it when you were there. All the opposition research needed is just a few clicks away that can be used as a factual base to criticize their teachings and present an informed opinion.

Happy to continue conversation on this last point in a separate note. There is probably one on the topic already. Believe this one is applicable:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...7&postcount=38

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider accurately representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it in all your years there. All the opposition research you need is just a few clicks away. Then you could criticize their teachings with an informed opinion.

As a teacher in the Local Churches, you too should "consider accurately representing the teachings" of the Bible which you claim to love and minister from. Truth is Drake, you are simply a teacher of Witness Lee, and not a teacher of the Bible.

WL, on occasion (I'll let you source this from LSM's vast online opus), rejected these same deification teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, until the storm/rebellion caused by his son, Philip Lee in the late 80's. Remember that he was the "Office Manager" running all the LC's while Dad was in Taiwan. I participated in every LSM training (live and video) from 1975 to 1990, and I never heard WL teach deification. Mingling, yes, but deification, no.

Then he suddenly changed. I believe he reversed course to re-direct the attention of the remaining LC "faithful" away from the facts of the chaos in Anaheim. As he had done for decades, WL framed the coverup of his son's criminal actions molesting the sisters as "persecution, rebellion, leprous contaminations, vast global conspiracy, yada, yada." WL and his lackeys publicly and privately smeared the reputations of all those who dared to protect their saints from Philip Lee abuses.

It was then that WL began to peddle (2 Cor 2.17) his heretical "high peak" truths as the latest "recovery" lost for thousands of years. What a contrast we see in the Apostles who "renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience before God." (2 Cor 4.2)

WL then resurrected Athanasius from the dead as some 4th century MOTA. His lackeys were charged to find "deification" everywhere. They couldn't find it in scripture, so the church "Fathers" had to do. This is no way disrespects any of these great men of God who fought the good fight of the faith, including Athanasius and so many who were faithful martyrs, but is not our faith tied to the scriptures, and the scriptures alone?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The thought -- yes, I need eyesalve but so do they! --is that not finger pointing? What is blaming if not your characterizations about WL? It may not be hate, I can't tell for sure, but certainly the mocking "Gunaxi network" characterization lacks the tone of Christian love.

Isn't that what Unreg means? Look, you might not have intended it, just sayin it looks like it.

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the trenchant critique. My comments on eyesalve were based on Jesus' remarks in the gospels, "Don't call me good. None is good but the Father". So yes the posters here need eyesalve. But so does 'unreg' and 'Drake' and RK. But simply saying the tone lacks Christian love is a deflection, avoiding the actual contents. Especially when nobody - nobody - in the LC can make such remarks on the tone of the speaker at the dais. I remember when RK said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister", and he spoke the last two words like he was spitting out rotten food. Is that "tone" not of "hate speech"? Yet none of us said a word. In the LC you don't correct the Grand Poobah.

Which was why I said it's a Guanxi network. There's a strong unexamined cultural element, which lack of reflection and examination directly benefits the inner circle and their immediate families. WL would examine American culture in front of us, but none of us could examine his embedded Chinese presuppositions. Yet there they were, and their effect lingers. The cure will only come from exposure. Sorry if that makes you or others uncomfortable. But I consider it necessary.

In fact I daresay that it would be unchristian not to warn people that this is a Guanxi network. There's an culture of silence and complicity in the LC that needs to be overturned, like the money-changers' tables, else the bodies and souls of many will remain captured and enslaved. We sat silently, listening to curses like the one came forth from RK and our complicity brought us under their spell. The spell must be broken!

Originally Posted by Hope

The elders used a model that Witness Lee had used in China and Taiwan. All the members of the church were organized into various service groups: children’s meetings, cleaning, yard work, visitation etc. They also appointed four deacons including myself four deacons, one of which was myself. Ray [Graver] met with me personally to go over the entire service list. He emphasized that I was the number one deacon and should communicate with each service group through the number one person listed under each group. I was specifically charged to draw up a procedural manual for the deacons called “the common way.” This was a term and practice lifted directly from Witness Lee’s practice in China and Taiwan.

The problem is not Chinese culture per se: it's rather that Chinese culture isn't recognized, and is instead mistaken for something divine. The clear indicators that this was/is a Guanxi network are that the greatest beneficiaries of the assembled church were not the poor, or the unbelievers, but the immediate family members of Witness Lee, and that when this influence was repeatedly abused and exposed, the elders (Max Rappoport, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, etc) got expelled and the Number One remained. In a Western-centric church, Titus 1:6 or some other NT passage would be cited and the Number One would go. Consider for example the Boston/International Churches of Christ, who removed founder and leader Kip McKean because of family. In the West this is tenable, in the East unthinkable. Same Bible, but different cultural interpretations and stresses, even though both (ICC and LC) are fundamentalist biblical and evangelical 'Christian' groups.

Originally Posted by Hope

In 1962, there was a World’s Fair in Seattle, Washington. (The Space Needle was built on this occasion.) Witness Lee and his son, Timothy, had an exhibit at the fair. They displayed and attempted to sell manufactured goods from Taiwan. They had raised funds from members of the local churches in Taiwan. The endeavor was a failure and the products stored in a warehouse. The problems created by this business failure made it difficult for Witness Lee to return to the churches in Taiwan in good graces. But I believe this human failure opened the door for a blessing for many of the seeking Christians in the USA in those early years (since Witness Lee remained in this country as a result of the problem, and ministered.)

There's a clear repeated pattern of business irregularities involving the Lee family and church members' money, stretching back before Daystar.

Originally Posted by Hope

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

Not all pseudo-Christian groups that so flagrantly abuse the "deputy authority" concept have their roots in Asian culture. But this one does, and it's probably why group membership has become Asian majority, even where Asians still are in minority. It's not a local church, it's a culturally-dominated personality cult fronting a guanxi network.

Originally Posted by Hope

Linko was something that the office came up with. It was presented as an example of the wonderful God ordained leadership of the recovery. After a lot of money was raised and spent on the property and many plans made and a great hub bub made, the brilliant office learned that the land had not been approved for development and was basically useless.

I never supported this project and the young BBs promoted it as a means to humble the elders. Minuro gave a stirring speech at an elders coworkers meeting about how the elders would be blessed if they went to Linko and shoveled dirt. He promised that the Spirit would enliven you as you shoveled dirt and they would be greatly rewarded spiritually if they gave up being an elder and went to Linko to shovel dirt.

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

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

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

In China today, if you publicly criticize Chairman Mao, 40 years after his death, you'll lose your job. Similarly, if you mention Linko or the Seattle World's Fair or Daystar or other business boondoggles that benefitted the immediate family of Witness Lee, even 25 years after his death, you'll be summarily expelled from the LC. Some have said that this is coincidental, but I think it's because both groups carry the cultural presupposition of silence equaling group stability: to criticize top leadership threaten the group's existence. In the West it's the opposite: if top leadership is found to be crooked they get removed and the group is restored. Both emphases, of course, can distort the Bible. A balanced, fair and open approach to understanding the Bible and our collective history is needed.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

First, no matter how great Athanasius was, does God say "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God?"

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It is the teaching of the Bible.

Can you show me the verses, please?
I can find justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification, glorified, but I can't find deify.

Here is an article to share with you:https://www.gotquestions.org/deification.html

What the Eastern Orthodox Church calls “deification” might be understood by evangelicals as the new birth and subsequent sanctification. But the Orthodox concept of deification takes sanctification further to include a mystical union with God. The biggest problem with the doctrine is not the term deification but the means to it, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. According to the New Testament, we are united with Christ, filled with the fullness of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, and declared to be right with God on the basis of faith in Christ. It is not something that happens as the result of a (perhaps) lifelong pursuit of unity with God through effort and discipline. In Christ we have become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:14). The actual experience of this can ebb and flow, but the fact of it never changes.

The great question that must be answered by every religion that takes a holy God seriously is “how can a sinful man stand before God and be fully justified?” There are really only two answers. Either God accepts the sinner based on some effort on the part of the sinner to attain a state of righteousness or God accepts the sinner on the basis of Christ’s righteousness credited to the sinner. Unfortunately, the Eastern Orthodox process of deification seems to fall squarely within the first option.

Originally Posted by unregistered

Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

Of course, we buy eyesalve from the Holy Spirit but not from man.
Num.23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie.
Rom.3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar;

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

Athanasius may say it, but if the Bible doesn't also say it, it ain't the teaching of the Bible.

"Inherit everlasting life" doesn't mean "become God".

The tree of life was in the middle of the garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were kept from that tree so they wouldn't not eat of it and live forever. Presumably, if they hadn't sinned, they would have maintained unrestricted access to the tree of life, freely eaten of the tree of life, and thus lived forever. After all, death is the wages of sin, and if they hadn't sinned, they wouldn't have done anything to receive the punishment of death for.

Does Adam and Eve having access to the tree of life so they can live forever mean they were God because of it? No. They were human beings who were allowed access to live forever.

This "become God" thing just doesn't hold up any way you look at it.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

In the booke of Revelation, the Lord speaks to the churches and it is a solemn warning to His loving believers. Some believers in Ephesus left their first love. Some believers in the church in Pergamos hold to teachings of the nations. Some believers in Laodicea are lukewarm in their love for the Lord, thinking they have need of nothing and they are counseled to buy gold and eyesalve that they may see. This is not hatred speaking from the Lord. It is to enlighten believers and warn them. Same when RK and MR use these portions of the Holy Word. Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

Well, if this is the same unregistered who started this thread......you are just not much fun, are you?!

But I'm glad you returned.

Can you do me a favor? Google "laodicea eyesalve".

Read the first couple websites about it. There's not much information, but it's there, and it's significant to the solemn warning of the Lord in Revelation 3.

Notice that Laodicea was known for it's famous eyesalve. In other words, due to it's wealth and reknown about a few things - eyesalve being one of them - they really, really thought they possessed a lot. Like, everything they needed. Like, they had no need of anything.

But the Lord told them.....this place that took so much pride in its famous eyesalve.....that they were actually blind. What a shock that must have been for them to hear! This is like telling some crude-oil-rich country that they are poor! It just doesn't compute!

The problem is, unregistered, the speaking in the local church is so painfully similar to what Laodicea thought about itself.

Laodicea said: "....‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’" (Rev. 3:17)

But the local church says exactly that! They say:

"We have all the light"
"We have all the riches"
"We have the pure ministry"
"We have no need of anything from anyone else"

This is "how to speak Laodicean 101!"

The point of eyesalve is not to see the intentions of other people like you have said here: "Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?"

The Lord admonished them to buy eyesalve from Him so they, who thought they had no need of anything, could really see. They could really see that their haughty claims of self-sufficiency really showed just how lacking and blind and pitiful they were.

Please keep coming back. Maybe at a certain point we'll get to discuss things rather than just encountering your own finger-pointing and blame?

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

"Inherit everlasting life" doesn't mean "become God". The tree of life was in the middle of the garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were kept from that tree so they wouldn't not eat of it and live forever... Does Adam and Eve having access to the tree of life so they can live forever mean they were God because of it? No. They were human beings who were allowed access to live forever.

There's a footnote at the end of the RecV, on the tree of life, where it says the 'nations' (Gk: 'ethnoi') get healed by the leaves of the tree, and the note says that these are unbelievers who behave well during the 3.5 year "Great Tribulation" and get access to healing. The note then says, "They live forever, yet this is not eternal life". (I paraphrase by memory).

There's a certain point where the finite tries to explain infinity, where the fallible tries to show perfection, and the temporal incautiously grasps at eternity, and the finite, temporal, fallible logic takes the bearer off somewhere, like where Witness Lee and his disciples got taken off to. I don't know where that is, and I don't want to. I have enough trouble already, without getting into his trouble, too!

There's a Russian proverb that says, "No matter how far you've gone on the wrong road, turn back."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There's a footnote at the end of the RecV, on the tree of life, where it says the 'nations' (Gk: 'ethnoi') get healed by the leaves of the tree, and the note says that these are unbelievers who behave well during the 3.5 year "Great Tribulation" and get access to healing. The note then says, "They live forever, yet this is not eternal life". (I paraphrase by memory).

There's a certain point where the finite tries to explain infinity, where the fallible tries to show perfection, and the temporal incautiously grasps at eternity, and the finite, temporal, fallible logic takes the bearer off somewhere, like where Witness Lee and his disciples got taken off to. I don't know where that is, and I don't want to. I have enough trouble already, without getting into his trouble, too!

There's a Russian proverb that says, "No matter how far you've gone on the wrong road, turn back."

Most of WL's ideas and teachings on these subjects are not his own, but taken from others, most of whom were not Brethren or Recovery. We should not categorically reject teachings just because they were WL's.

The mission of Schoettle Publishing Company is to keep many of these scholarly books in circulation for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. I'll post his mission from his website:

Schoettle (pronounced as "shuttle") Publishing Company, Inc. has been been publishing quality Bible commentaries and studies for over twenty-five years regarding the Kingdom of God. In many instances, it is impossible to obtain these resources elsewhere. There are more than eighty titles relating to events leading up to the Judgment Seat of Christ and His Millennial Kingdom from which to choose.

Before you start throwing Russian proverbs around, please do yourself a service and peruse what many Christian scholars have written concerning the Kingdom of God and end times eschatology.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most of WL's ideas and teachings on these subjects are not his own, but taken from others, most of whom were not Brethren or Recovery. We should not categorically reject teachings just because they were WL's.

I just read Robert Govett's "Revelation Vol 2" on the subject, and he says that these 'ethnoi' are mortals, not immortal, but they live in "perpetual health" in their non-resurrected state. Hmm... perpetual mortals. Doesn't something strike you as odd, here? No?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I just read Robert Govett's "Revelation Vol 2" on the subject, and he says that these 'ethnoi' are mortals, not immortal, but they live in "perpetual health" in their non-resurrected state. Hmm... perpetual mortals. Doesn't something strike you as odd, here? No?

Well ... most things in end times do strike me as "odd," and "perpetual health" does sound better than perpetual burning in the lake of fire.

Govett is trying to answer some tough questions like why does He say in Matt 25.32 that all the "ethnoi" nations will be gathered before Him. Why do these sheep get rewarded for giving the "least of the Lord's brothers" a drink, some food, etc. Why does an alternative opening exist into a "kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." They are called "blessed of My Father," but not redeemed, and there is no mention of faith for these ones.

Why are they "righteous" without faith in His redemption? Why do they enter "into eternal life" yet not the customary "have eternal life" as we believers? Why are these ones so "shocked" at the throne of glory of the Son of Man? This throne is neither the Bema seat for the children of God, not the great white throne at the end of Revelation.

I agree that Govett's "perpetual health" is not a Biblical phrase, but what would you call the condition of the future of these sheep?

We do know that some believers will "rule" together with the Lord. But who will they rule over? We also know that some Jews with be priests in the restored Davidic kingdom in Israel teaching the nations how to worship God.

It seems the Bible is way more complicated than Peter directing traffic at the "pearly gates."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems the Bible is way more complicated than Peter directing traffic at the "pearly gates."

It looks to me like you're creating a false choice set.

How about this choice set: the Bible was written by people who continued to distinguish between Jews and 'ethnoi'? I know Paul said, "Neither Jew nor Greek" but he also said "Neither male nor female" and then admonished wives to obey husbands, and said "Neither slave nor free" then admonished slaves to obey masters.

And Paul said, "All the churches of the gentiles" in Romans 16:4. If there were no more 'ethnoi' after believing in Jesus, why then call them that? The term is used consistently throughout the NT, from the gospels to the Apocalypse, and it builds on consistent usage in the LXX. No need for acrobatics to fit your theology. The Greek word in Rom 16:4 is 'ethnon' = gentiles.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It looks to me like you're creating a false choice set.

How about this choice set: the Bible was written by people who continued to distinguish between Jews and 'ethnoi'? I know Paul said, "Neither Jew nor Greek" but he also said "Neither male nor female" and then admonished wives to obey husbands, and said "Neither slave nor free" then admonished slaves to obey masters.

And Paul said, "All the churches of the gentiles" in Romans 16:4. If there were no more 'ethnoi' after believing in Jesus, why then call them that? The term is used consistently throughout the NT, from the gospels to the Apocalypse, and it builds on consistent usage in the LXX. No need for acrobatics to fit your theology. The Greek word in Rom 16:4 is 'ethnon' = gentiles.

You didn't answer any of my questions, then tell me I am creating a "false choice set." Okaaaaaaaay!

Hi trapped, I do not spend too much time on this website because it is full of gossip, and not real building fellowship. Look at the title of this website, "Local Church Discussion"----should be "Local Church Gossip". And then--"Making sense of the Lords Recovery from the fallen mind of man". There is much twisting of scripture to make things fit into m,an's fallen mind. This is not making sense of anything, it is just using words to make points and leaves believers trapped in their little minds without the Spirit. So many claims are distorted and made up, false nonsense that I cannot waste my time. Verses are quoted to argue among Christian, instaed of using the Holy Word to build up believers. My experience in the Lords Recovery is nothing what some backslidden believers can claim. I have learned to to pray, pray-read, share the gospel, save others, build up the Body of Christ and many others vital matters that pertain to living the Christian life. I hope the Lord has mercy to grant you more insight and then experience of His full salvation.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi trapped, I do not spend too much time on this website because it is full of gossip, and not real building fellowship. Look at the title of this website, "Local Church Discussion"----should be "Local Church Gossip". And then--"Making sense of the Lords Recovery from the fallen mind of man". There is much twisting of scripture to make things fit into m,an's fallen mind. This is not making sense of anything, it is just using words to make points and leaves believers trapped in their little minds without the Spirit. So many claims are distorted and made up, false nonsense that I cannot waste my time. Verses are quoted to argue among Christian, instaed of using the Holy Word to build up believers. My experience in the Lords Recovery is nothing what some backslidden believers can claim. I have learned to to pray, pray-read, share the gospel, save others, build up the Body of Christ and many others vital matters that pertain to living the Christian life. I hope the Lord has mercy to grant you more insight and then experience of His full salvation.

Unregistered,

1. This website is not called "local church building fellowship". Therefore, we are under no obligation for explicit building fellowship to occur here. The site name is "local church discussions". You are in the local church and have been trained to think that a free exchange of ideas, truth-telling, and honesty are "gossip" and "opinions".

2. You make several claims and opinions of your own without back up or example. These are simply empty claims from your own fallen mind, if left in that state. If you say "there is much twisting of scripture to make things fit" -- give us examples. If we are twisting scripture and getting something wrong, I am pretty sure those here are open to hearing it. Don't make claims without details, or it's useless.

3. God made us to be in our minds and to use our minds. You say we are without the Spirit but again, you provide no evidence for it, leaving it to be simply your own opinion. (see how easy it is to have opinions here?) There is absolutely no biblical issue with being in our minds. THAT is a false, twisted, unscriptural teaching in the local church used to oppress people.

4. Have you read Acts 15 recently? The apostles got together with the church to figure out what to do about the demands being put on the Gentiles.

Acts 15:2
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

Acts 15:7
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them...

Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us....

Paul and Barnabas "sharply disputed and debated" with the ones putting undue burden on the believers. The apostles and elders had "much discussion". And the result was that it seemed "good to the Holy Spirit".

Huh.....no mention of pure holy heavenly building fellowship!

If you have an issue with discussion and debate, then you have an issue with the very manner used to arrive at a conclusion that was pleasing to the Holy Spirit.

5. This is probably the most important point I will say here.....

Unregistered, did you go to high school? I assume you did.

Some people talk of their high school experience like this: "Oh man, I had a great time in high school, I was class valedictorian, prom king, quarterback on the football team, I had so many friends and the principal high-fived me every day! All the teachers loved me and they let me slide on homework because I was the best football player. I loved high school!"

And some people talk of their high school experience like this: "High school was terrible for me. For some reason this bully chose me on the first day of freshman year to target me and bully me, and he bothered me relentlessly the entire four years I was there. He tripped me and taunted me and pushed me and stole things from me all the time, and threatened to come after me if I didn't pay him something every day. No one wanted to be my friend because they didn't want the bully to go after them too. I tried to go to the principal but the school administration just turned a blind eye. I left high school a wreck and am a shell of who I was when I got there."

Two totally different experiences, unregistered. Same high school. Same graduating class.

Is one of them a liar?

You haven't really answered any of my questions or any points I've made in previous posts, but this one is critical. I'd like you to answer this one.

Trapped

P.S. The insight the Lord granted me concerning the local church has been possibly one of His biggest mercies in my life to date!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi trapped, I do not spend too much time on this website because it is full of gossip, and not real building fellowship. Look at the title of this website, "Local Church Discussion"----should be "Local Church Gossip". And then--"Making sense of the Lords Recovery from the fallen mind of man". There is much twisting of scripture to make things fit into m,an's fallen mind. This is not making sense of anything, it is just using words to make points and leaves believers trapped in their little minds without the Spirit. So many claims are distorted and made up, false nonsense that I cannot waste my time. Verses are quoted to argue among Christian, instaed of using the Holy Word to build up believers. My experience in the Lords Recovery is nothing what some backslidden believers can claim. I have learned to to pray, pray-read, share the gospel, save others, build up the Body of Christ and many others vital matters that pertain to living the Christian life. I hope the Lord has mercy to grant you more insight and then experience of His full salvation.

Hi Unregistered,

I hope you'll answer the question I posed to you in my previous post, but I'd also like to ask another. This one is more Bible-based and involves one of the teachings in the local church, so hopefully you'll feel it's more along the lines of real building fellowship.

Witness Lee taught that we should get out of our mind, reject our mind, and close our mind. He taught we should "get out of our mind and into our spirit".

Can you tell me where the Bible says we should do any of that? I can think of a lot of verses that say to do the opposite, like:

-sing with our spirit and with our mind (1 Cor. 14)
-pray with our spirit and with our mind (1 Cor. 14)
-love the Lord our God with our whole mind (Matt. 22)
-set our mind on the Spirit (Rom. 8)
-think so as to be soberminded (Rom. 12)
-be alert and of a sober mind (1 Peter 5)

All of those are using our mind, not getting out of it. Not rejecting it. Not closing it.

If the Bible, the apostles, and Jesus all exhort us to use our mind, why does Witness Lee teach us to get out of our mind?

I'm not talking about "deny your soul-life". That's something totally different. I'm talking about "getting out of our mind" when the Bible doesn't say that at all.

We all know that if someone is "out of their mind"......that's not a good thing. It means they are in real psychological trouble and distress.

Have you ever thought about this? I hope you'll use your sober mind, your mind made in the image of your God who Himself also has a mind, to think about it.

Trapped

[Bible-believer]

The get-out-of-mind stuff is a fantasy of Lee. He wanted to be a "crazy lover," so he had to be "out of mind."

Paul beseeched us to be not conformed to this world: but be we transformed by the renewing of our mind, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God (Rom. 12:2). And be renewed in the spirit of our mind (Eph. 4:23).
Now read what David said.
I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind: I am like a broken vessel. (Psa.31:12)

If anyone wanted to be "out of mind" after reading the verse carefully, well, I could only say this is a free country.

[SpeakersCorner]

Nice to see the old deification argument rear its head. I agree that WL did not teach this until late (the 90s I believe) but just read his and Nee’s messages on Romans et al and you’ll see it lurking there. I’m guessing he wasn’t ready to shock the troops which it did, believe me.

That said, it was a major revelation to me and one that finally made sense of why we’re here in the first place: we enlarge God. I absolutely reject any theological view that places humans as mere worshipers. It’s a weak God that asks for that.

Further, let’s be real people: how is it we are children of God, sons of God, brothers of Christ if we’re not deified? Now I know this is a mystery. I’m sitting here looking out at Lake Michigan just having enjoyed a fine dinner, relaxing … I don’t feel very deified. Very human, instead. But I do believe Christ liveth in me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You didn't answer any of my questions, then tell me I am creating a "false choice set." Okaaaaaaaay!

I've been thinking of how to communicate more clearly. What I keep coming back to is logic. It's how we make sense of the world, largely (we also use feelings, which create values). Logic is how we assign meanings to words and phrases, which meanings then preclude others. If I'm riding a horse, by definition I'm not riding a camel. Each action by definition and common understanding forbids the existence of others.

Likewise, if a jury is told that I was seen by multiple witnesses riding in a sailboat in the park at 3:15 pm, they won't convict me of robbing a bank at the same time, because the one act precludes the other. All these are common, well-understood aspects of human existence. It's how we got to be who we are - it's the foundation of how all our thoughts got constructed.

On this thread, original poster 'Unreg' was citing Athanasius that everlasting life meant to become God, and 'Trapped' was saying not necessarily so, and I chimed in: my comment was that the word life had various meanings in WL's oeuvre, which meanings were often unreconciled, and even in direct contradiction, and these conflicts were plain to see, and that the contradictions typically were never addressed. Instead, church meetings were thought-less cheerleading sessions. So to me, looking back, the whole LC experience became a make-believe built on WL's words, which words meant whatever he needed them to mean at any moment, never mind that the logic of his constructs hopelessly conflicted with other statements.

I gave an example: in the RecV there's a footnote that says that the 'ethnon' getting healed by the leaves of the tree of life are unbelieving gentiles who help the persecuted Jews and the Christians in the Great Tribulation. They live forever, but don't have eternal life. I remarked that this is nonsensical. If you live forever, by definition you have eternal life. Then I was told by 'Ohio', don't so quickly dismiss Lee's teachings here, because he got them from reputable scholars whose books were widely published. So I read one of those books, which said, those who are healed by the leaves of the tree of life are mortals, not immortal, yet they enjoy perpetual health.

Again, my comment was that this was nonsensical - the word 'mortal' has a root 'mort' which means death. To be mortal is by definition to experience death, or to die. There's simply no such thing as a perpetual mortal. This is nonsensical. I hope that this is more plainly put than the first time.

Now, I'd like to conclude by making three related points. First, I don't need to go on the internet, and read about Timothy Lee and the World's Fair of 1962, or Daystar ten years later. I can see in the published footnotes of Living Stream Ministry the errors that Lee's logic led him to. His entire mental construct was built on some sort of grainy sand, and I as Christian shouldn't come under its influence.

Second, that everyone can read this footnote, and no one points it out, shows that there's in fact some undue influence here. People are probably cowed, scared to talk about what's right in front of them. Surely I'm not the first to notice this glaring discrepancy! To some extent, there may be cultural influence, as the Chinese don't speak ill of top leadership, even when they're clearly wrong. But I think that this transcends culture, and over-rides clear NT direction, and permeates and pollutes everything. It creates its own culture: "Don't speak. Don't notice. Don't think."

Last, that if one points out the obvious, and gets labeled "negative" or "rebellious" or "full of hatred, finger pointing and blaming" then this confirms the suspicion that mind control techniques are indeed at work. This response is deflection, a go-to tool of cults and abusers.

Now, some points made in the past several thousands of posts were perhaps laced with bitterness, with unresolved childhood issues, with insinuations and innuendos and veiled and not-so-veiled judgments against others. Not demonstrations of love but a kind of haughtiness and sneering. And for that I do apologize. I'm working out my issues as well, sometimes kind of publicly, and for that I repent. The Lord taught us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive others their trespasses against us." Grace, peace, and truth be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.

[Robert]

I did not yet finish reading all posts, but according "turning off mind" by WL, I dare to claim, he brought from China not only Bible and family, but also Chinese way of thinking. A little mixture of Hinduism and Confucianism - Breathing out and in. Turning off mind.

Some of You gave already few verses. But what about whole Psalm 119!!! Just try to eat Word, or consume or receive or whatever without using mind!!!
Verse after verse!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I gave an example: in the RecV there's a footnote that says that the 'ethnon' getting healed by the leaves of the tree of life are unbelieving gentiles who help the persecuted Jews and the Christians in the Great Tribulation. They live forever, but don't have eternal life. I remarked that this is nonsensical. If you live forever, by definition you have eternal life. Then I was told by 'Ohio', don't so quickly dismiss Lee's teachings here, because he got them from reputable scholars whose books were widely published. So I read one of those books, which said, those who are healed by the leaves of the tree of life are mortals, not immortal, yet they enjoy perpetual health..

Again, my comment was that this was nonsensical - the word 'mortal' has a root 'mort' which means death. To be mortal is by definition to experience death, or to die. There's simply no such thing as a perpetual mortal. This is nonsensical. I hope that this is more plainly put than the first time.

This may seem “illogical” to you, but some very knowledgeable Bible teachers do not feel the same way as you. Having eternal life and living forever are not the same. Having eternal life is having the Son, because John said, “he who has the Son, has the life.” Here eternal life is not a quantitative length of time, but a qualitative description of that life.

We who believe in the resurrection of the long promised Christ of God receive Him as eternal life. Even if our body dies, the life within guarantees our resurrection from the dead just as the Firstborn rose from the dead. The incredible blessings of the children of God as His own heirs, sharing these birthrights with the Firstborn, are priceless treasures. Together these are called our hope of glory.

The “sheep,” however, in question here, who are blessed merely by giving a drink of water to a thirsty child of God during the horrible tribulation which will soon descend upon all of mankind, do not have the eternal life of God. They appear to be restored to the original state of creation in the Eden garden, having a body which does not age or die. They are the nations outside the city New Jerusalem, healed by the leaves of the tree of life. They are mere humans without the resurrected body of the believers, like the one Jesus had after He rose from the dead. John said, “we will be like Him.”

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This may seem “illogical” to you, but some very knowledgeable Bible teachers do not feel the same way as you. Having eternal life and living forever are not the same. Having eternal life is having the Son, because John said, “he who has the Son, has the life.” Here eternal life is not a quantitative length of time, but a qualitative description of that life.

We who believe in the resurrection of the long promised Christ of God receive Him as eternal life. Even if our body dies, the life within guarantees our resurrection from the dead just as the Firstborn rose from the dead. The incredible blessings of the children of God as His own heirs, sharing these birthrights with the Firstborn, are priceless treasures. Together these are called our hope of glory.

The “sheep,” however, in question here, who are blessed merely by giving a drink of water to a thirsty child of God during the horrible tribulation which will soon descend upon all of mankind, do not have the eternal life of God. They appear to be restored to the original state of creation in the Eden garden, having a body which does not age or die. They are the nations outside the city New Jerusalem, healed by the leaves of the tree of life. They are mere humans without the resurrected body of the believers, like the one Jesus had after He rose from the dead. John said, “we will be like Him.”

Suppose I asked about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead - on what basis, I asked? You might reply, on these:

~1 Peter 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
~Acts 2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.
~Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
~Ephesians 1:20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
~Romans 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our LORD from the dead.
~Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Whether or not we agree on the resurrection, and believe what is written at least we have basis of agreement or disagreement. It is written in scripture. Instead, above I read that "certain reputable scholars feel" and no scripture given. I looked at one of the supposedly reputable scholars (Govett) who said that there would be mortals - who were not immortal mind you - who lived on in perpetual good health. Yet they are not mortal.... perpetual yet not mortal. Again, no scripture given. This glaring contradiction in terms is supposed to be taken on face value, because a knowledgeable person says its so.

Does this make any sense to me? No. Should it? I don't see how. No scripture given, rather it is an interpretation. Someone's theology requires it. Then the theology probably isn't very good.

Then, in the quote above you say that unbelievers, non-Christians, who help the suffering people of God during the Great Tribulation will get unending bliss. Not eternal life, mind you, but everlasting bliss. Again, no sense at all.

And then I wonder - why if you help a suffering Christian or Jew in a 3.5-year window you get bliss for eternity, but otherwise no, because we all know God doesn't care about works? Only in a 3.5-year span do works count? Again, it makes no sense at all. Certain reputable scholars feeling something doesn't cut it with me. Maybe it did, once, but I look where that naivete got me, into a world where I shouted nonsense over and over. Saying something loudly and repeatedly doesn't make it true. Scripture make it true. Interpretations are logical overlays. When they become illogical they no longer have any merit. And a system in which we can't question the obviously illogical is a sick system.

[aron]

I got recruited once, by the Mormon Church, who said that their scripture showed that the Native Americans were the Lost Tribes of Israel. There are millions of them, I suppose, who believe. Some are professional athletes, some successful and influential politicians. But if this were in fact so, don't you think that there would be some anthropological evidence? Some genetic evidence? There is none, just a story of golden plates found, that disappeared.

Maybe in 1824 when they didn't know about a land bridge from Siberia, this theory might be plausible. Yet today it's highly implausible. And the genetics don't bear it out.

But millions believe - why? Because they want to. There is no reason to believe, yet they do.

Now, to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Equally vain, perhaps. No proof. Yet there are witnesses. Peter, John, James, Paul, the early Fathers, all create a web of interlocking witnesses. We have proof that there were witnesses. If we choose to disbelieve them, fine. But we have actual concrete proof that there were multiple claims that Jesus rose from the dead. We know what we believe.

Yet if you question the Mormons about the contents of their faith, they begin to evade. Because there's nothing there except a desire to believe in something. But to me, they believe in nothing. It's all made up. The wrong theology will lead you away from believing in Jesus Christ, suffering and risen to glory, and instead in things not written in scripture, because your theology demands it.

We should point this out, repeatedly, and patiently. Maybe some will get it. Many refuse to consider. But we can repeat: You cannot ride a horse and a camel at the same time. One of them precludes the other. There is no special category where you are somehow riding both simultaneously. The Bible never asks you to get out of your mind, like that.

[Ohio]

I can assure the reader that I am not, nor ever have been, a member of the Mormon church, and have never espoused any teaching in the book of Mormon.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can assure the reader that I am not, nor ever have been, a member of the Mormon church, and have never espoused any teaching in the book of Mormon.

The same error lies behind both LSM theology and LDS book of Mormon, to trust the assurances of men, that "this is so", versus the scriptural text. These espousings (LDS, WL and Govett) rely on extra-biblical narrative, and place it above scripture. Instead of talking about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we read (Govett) of perpetual mortals. Or people who live forever, but don't have eternal life (WL). This is fabrication, clearly make-believe.

And where does Jesus say, "When I was sick during a crucial period of the Earth's history, you visited Me, and therefore you may enter into My Kingdom. All other visitations are dead works"? Where do we believe that 3.5 years of history are given another set of rules? Do we trust the words of men, or rely on scripture? Unless the scripture plainly says something, don't trust your mental maps. When you are in the land of non-sense, you won't realize you are there, because you now have an emotional investment in being true. So nonsense is held ever the more tightly.

The Bible calls Mary the Mother of Jesus, and the Bible says Jesus was the Word (God) made flesh, and therefore many reputable scholars teach that Mary is the Mother of God. Look where your logic takes you. No, stick to what the word says, and not theological constructs. And when the constructs are self-contradictory, that should cue in most observers. Some, however, will have an emotional investment and won't let go. That's why I cite the book of Mormon. Nothing supports it except a wish that it were so.

[Ohio]

I grew up in Catholicism. I have suffered greatly from the accusations of Catholic family members. I have thoroughly rejected every direct and indirect reference to Mary as the Mother of God.

Aron has become little more than a false witness on this thread, as the Lord commanded, “thou shalt not bear false witness against your brother.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I grew up in Catholicism. I have suffered greatly from the accusations of Catholic family members. I have thoroughly rejected every direct and indirect reference to Mary as the Mother of God.

Aron has become little more than a false witness on this thread, as the Lord commanded, “thou shalt not bear false witness against your brother.”

Not once in reading aron's posts did I think he was calling you a Mormon or a Catholic. As far as I can tell he is using certain beliefs or reasonings of theirs to draw parallels to points he's trying to make.....not accusing you of being one of them.

Trapped

[Nell]

Well folks...this thread has gone way far off topic. It began as an "Unregistered" hit and run and went downhill from there. I think it's run its course from the original post.

Robert, if you will, please create a new thread and ask your question.

Thanks to all--
Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

On this thread, original poster 'Unreg' was citing Athanasius that everlasting life meant to become God, and 'Trapped' was saying not necessarily so, and I chimed in: my comment was that the word life had various meanings in WL's oeuvre, which meanings were often unreconciled, and even in direct contradiction, and these conflicts were plain to see, and that the contradictions typically were never addressed. Instead, church meetings were thought-less cheerleading sessions. So to me, looking back, the whole LC experience became a make-believe built on WL's words, which words meant whatever he needed them to mean at any moment, never mind that the logic of his constructs hopelessly conflicted with other statements.

The term for this is "equivocation." and Lee excelled at it. Use a word with multiple meanings in the expected way, then slip into places where another definition is required but keep on as if nothing has changed.

(Karl Marx used such word tricks to capture readers to his Socialist ways. Use the economics term "exploit" which correctly means that resources, including labor, are "used" but speak as if the popular use of the word "exploitation" — to use a person or group for unfair advantage — is what is meant. Trick the reader into assuming that all work for someone else is exploitive in the negative sense. Probably got a lot of day laborers to rise up with that one.)

Lee did this every time he said anything was "simply" anything. Or used an overlay, like "God's economy" as a means to redefine what is actually written in scripture. Or insisting that every use of the word "leaven" is negative. Same for almost any other word that could have multiple meanings — he insisted that some particular definition was always correct no matter how strongly the context screamed for a different definition.

You sound so pompous in your "critique" of worker rights. Perhaps you can put your money where your loud mouth is and volunteer to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, since you appreciate being "exploited" so much, unlike those riff raff (perhaps different-looking in your mind's eye) "day laborers."

Now that I got that out of the way, I do agree that I see a lot of what you mention like with "leven." The OT Recovery footnotes are full of such and such number signifies this, so this passage must mean....fill in any random thing came to Lee's head that day.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You sound so pompous in your "critique" of worker rights. Perhaps you can put your money where your loud mouth is and volunteer to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, since you appreciate being "exploited" so much, unlike those riff raff (perhaps different-looking in your mind's eye) "day laborers."

I made no comment on worker's rights. Surely there were more problems 100 years ago and I do not diminish them. But my comments were not my own observations, but those of a professor and writer of logic that noted (without comment one way or the other on any underlying issues) on the way Marx and others use rhetorical tricks, including equivocation, to say things that are not necessarily true but get the reader/listener to accept what is said. If you want to take exception with the example, you would have to take it up with him. In any case, your response makes you seem rather knee-jerk and unwilling to actually consider the idea that an unannounced transition from a purely benign word to the presumption that it means something that it does not is problematic. Even if you think there could be an actual problem. Surely many workers were exploited in a negative way at the time. But it wasn't because economics called the use of any resource, including labor, to be to "exploit" it. Whether or not you like the example, it is a type of logical error or rhetorical device used (exploited?) to trick the unaware into believing something that may not be true. To avoid the need to make an actual case for or against something.