The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

Blue is quoted from Jane, Black is my response.

Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

I did not move away from those questions. My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior. My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying  ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true.

Wow! You really missed my point. First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders? The NT says that it is the Church of God, it is the Church of Christ and it is the Church of the saints. Never does it say it is the Church of the Elders. So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were? The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.)

No, my point was that if you were running a Christian Publishing house with a Philanderer, and were trying to skim money off the top with a covetous man then exposing this would cause your house of cards to collapse. I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent"). Max had clearly confronted PL, therefore how do you respond. Since none of WL’s responses fit the mindset of a dove, I considered how a serpent would respond. You would have to destroy the credibility of Max, you would have to excommunicate him, but that would be difficult, even dangerous. First, you have to cut off all fellowship with Max and his wife. The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

Look, I was once working for a brokerage firm and made them probably in excess of 1 million dollars over the course of about 4 months yet I was blindsided and driven out of the company. Why? Because I learned that one of the brokers was a crook. Why was I driven out? Because it turns out the entire firm was crooked. If I exposed the crook the whole house of cards collapses so I had to go, regardless of how profitable I was. As it turns out the brokerage firm was out of business within 12 months and my exodus was instrumental in their demise. Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove. Regardless of how you look at the facts you cannot reconcile WL being a dove with his actions. However, if you take the mindset of a serpent it is very easy to reconcile his actions.

As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

(As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed.

Thankful Jane

My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings. The bogus teachings are necessary for WL to maintain control and do damage control. There is no Scriptural basis for this and all the teachings on the sisters, rebellion, negative speaking, submission, etc. that are pervasive in the LRC should be deeply suspect and reexamined based on NT teachings.

I believe that the real benefit in the fellowship on these forums is for us to become inoculated to this kind of deceit. Just like exposing the human body to a disease will make it stronger if it can defeat the disease. I think, at least in part, this is what is meant by "those that overcome". There are diseases in the Catholic church which need to be overcome, there are diseases in the Protestant churches, the non denominational churches, and the LRC.

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding? Perhaps the reason they want this to go away and for everyone to forget it is they know that what they did was just one more inexcusable sin. If they admit they were wrong would they have to admit that they were doing a coverup, that many, many of their teachings and actions were a result of this. One lie begets many many more lies.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings.

Not sure that being "in the loop" is "based on . . . teachings" (bogus or otherwise). It may be that there are bogus teachings being spread around within the loop. But being "in the loop" is a matter of being somehow connected at a level such that you know what is going on — at least on certain issues.

I don't see the teachings, bogus or otherwise, being the cause of the loop. The loop is simply the position to have some level of knowledge of what is going on.

And yet, even if the elders had been talking positively with Jane & John (J&J) prior to Benson coming along with a different take on what was happening, it doesn't make them truly "in the loop." It just means that their activities and intents were known by the elders, and even seemingly approved by them. That is far from "in the loop." It would appear that there was much going on that was not made known to J&J that you would think would be known by someone in the loop. For one, it is likely that there would have been some indication that there were concerns about where they were headed.

Instead, it looks more like a kind of oversight by the elders of what they were doing that had one appearance but instead hid a season of discussion leading a different way and ultimately resulting in evidence that J&J never had any real idea what was going on.

That is not "in the loop." And even if the blow-up had never occurred, there is nothing on the table so far that suggests that they were in the loop — just "in fellowship" concerning their particular ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

I first used the term "in the loop" according to its meaning, in the context that sisters fellowship, especially on the phone from one locality to another, would be "out of the loop" of the elders. The term "in the loop" was put into quotation marks because I was quoting Jane's use of the word. She argued that she and other sisters were submissive to the elders in the context of this "in the loop". My entire post pointed out that the teaching that you must be submissive to the elders is an erroneous teaching. There is a NT verse that asks saints to submit themselves to elders under the presumption that they are watching for your souls. There is no teaching whatsoever that saints must have all of their fellowship approved by the elders and under the authority of the elders. That is the bogus teaching I was referring to and was stated over and over again in my post. What is the NT basis for the control that the elders want to have over all of the saints fellowship and ministry? I find no NT basis for it and feel it is the outgrowth of an attempt to do damage control on the sins of WL's kids being exposed.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure that being "in the loop" is "based on . . . teachings" (bogus or otherwise). It may be that there are bogus teachings being spread around within the loop. But being "in the loop" is a matter of being somehow connected at a level such that you know what is going on — at least on certain issues.

I don't see the teachings, bogus or otherwise, being the cause of the loop. The loop is simply the position to have some level of knowledge of what is going on.

And yet, even if the elders had been talking positively with Jane & John (J&J) prior to Benson coming along with a different take on what was happening, it doesn't make them truly "in the loop." It just means that their activities and intents were known by the elders, and even seemingly approved by them. That is far from "in the loop." It would appear that there was much going on that was not made known to J&J that you would think would be known by someone in the loop. For one, it is likely that there would have been some indication that there were concerns about where they were headed.

Instead, it looks more like a kind of oversight by the elders of what they were doing that had one appearance but instead hid a season of discussion leading a different way and ultimately resulting in evidence that J&J never had any real idea what was going on.

That is not "in the loop." And even if the blow-up had never occurred, there is nothing on the table so far that suggests that they were in the loop — just "in fellowship" concerning their particular ministry.

Mike, you can read my post #20 to get a better understanding of what I was saying to ZNP and the limited meaning of "in the loop" that I applied. ZNP introduced the idea that the sisters were "out of the loop" with the elders, meaning elders would not know what they were fellowshipping about. I wrote what I did in post #20 about Sandee and us to show him this was not true. I was not using the term to mean that John or I or Sandee R and the sisters with her knew everything that was going on with the elders, but to show that contrary to ZNP's assertion the elders were getting information directly from the sisters.

I plan to respond to ZNPs long post (#25) which was a response to mine (#20) as soon as I have time.

Note: the current dialogue between ZNP and me began with his post #10. The back and forth that followed is found in post #14, #17, #20, and #25.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Blue was written first, by Jane.
Black was written in response by ZNP.
Red is my current answer to ZNP’s black.

Jane post #20: Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

ZNP post #25: I did not move away from those questions.

Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another. Terry asked “what is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?” In your answer you changed “ones” to “sisters” and then proceeded to talk about sisters, Phillip Lee, elders, Daystar, etc. What’s with that?

Since this thread is about The Thread of Gold, it was my understanding that Terry’s question was related to what happened in Houston regarding people opening up about their personal problems. I understood him to be asking what was wrong with encouraging that. (If I misunderstood, then Terry can say so.) It seems you just wanted to spring board to something else you wanted to say about sisters and your big picture assessment of things.

ZNP post #25: My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior.

My post was not about figuring out anything or justifying any kind of behavior. My post contained some facts of which you seem to be unaware. It was a response to a false premise you set forth that sisters were outside of the communication loop with the elders. I offered evidence to the contrary. That was the extent of my post. By the way, what NT verses did I “mangle?”

ZNP post #25: My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

Excuse me? You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.

Jane post #20: At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying  ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

ZNP post #25: Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

Where exactly in my post was I trying to “understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings”?

Jane post #20: First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true.

ZNP post #25: Wow! You really missed my point. First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders? The NT says that it is the Church of God, it is the Church of Christ and it is the Church of the saints. Never does it say it is the Church of the Elders. So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were? The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

No need to “wow.” Just read my post again more slowly. I did not respond at all to any part of your post except for what you said about sisters. I told you this plainly when I said, “At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying). So, you have no basis to say that I missed your point. You don’t know what I missed or thought about the rest of your post because I didn’t tell you. I never said that elders should be in control. I simply said that as a matter of history, sisters were in the loop (meaning they were telling the elders what they were fellowshipping and doing) and were submitting to the elders. I gave no value judgment about the correctness of this. I presented evidence that they were in the loop because you had claimed they were not. That was it. If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

Jane post #20: From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.)

ZNP post #25: No, my point was that if you were running a Christian Publishing house with a Philanderer, and were trying to skim money off the top with a covetous man then exposing this would cause your house of cards to collapse. I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent"). Max had clearly confronted PL, therefore how do you respond. Since none of WL’s responses fit the mindset of a dove, I considered how a serpent would respond. You would have to destroy the credibility of Max, you would have to excommunicate him, but that would be difficult, even dangerous. First, you have to cut off all fellowship with Max and his wife. The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

These points have not been in dispute at all by me. In fact I have made similar points in other posts in the past. You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.

Jane post #20: I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

ZNP post #25: Look, I was once working for a brokerage firm and made them probably in excess of 1 million dollars over the course of about 4 months yet I was blindsided and driven out of the company. Why? Because I learned that one of the brokers was a crook. Why was I driven out? Because it turns out the entire firm was crooked. If I exposed the crook the whole house of cards collapses so I had to go, regardless of how profitable I was. As it turns out the brokerage firm was out of business within 12 months and my exodus was instrumental in their demise. Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove. Regardless of how you look at the facts you cannot reconcile WL being a dove with his actions. However, if you take the mindset of a serpent it is very easy to reconcile his actions.

It is normal for a believer to expect the best of other believers. It is normal to be “flabbergasted” when the sheep’s clothing falls off a fellow believer, one you are close to and trust, and reveals a wolf. Once the wolf behavior manifests itself, it doesn’t take a whole lot of discernment to be able to say, “wolf.” In other words, you don’t need to try and persuade me about the nature of Lee’s or the elders behavior. I saw the wolf’s tail on some elders for the first time over thirty years ago. About a decade later, I saw the lead wolf emerge with his pack, without wearing any sheep's clothing.

I don’t really appreciate that you are writing to me based on your presumption that my current thoughts are as you imagine.

Jane post #20: As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

ZNP post #25: This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say what I wrote was a preemptive accusation. As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new. This basic understanding of Lee’s behavior concerning Phillip has been made and established by others, including me, on other threads written over the last five or more years.

Jane post #20: (As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed.

Thankful Jane

ZNP post #25: My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings. The bogus teachings are necessary for WL to maintain control and do damage control. There is no Scriptural basis for this and all the teachings on the sisters, rebellion, negative speaking, submission, etc. that are pervasive in the LRC should be deeply suspect and reexamined based on NT teachings.

ZNP, first you said sisters were not in the loop with the elders. Now you say that sisters (in this case, me) were “in the loop.” So which is it? If after reading my post you changed your mind about this, why not say so? Instead you just move ahead and launch a new argument about the elders’ control being based on bogus teachings and you write as if no one else, including me, has ever noted this or re-examined what the NT says about such teachings. That simply is not the case.

ZNP post #25: I believe that the real benefit in the fellowship on these forums is for us to become inoculated to this kind of deceit. Just like exposing the human body to a disease will make it stronger if it can defeat the disease. I think, at least in part, this is what is meant by "those that overcome". There are diseases in the Catholic church which need to be overcome, there are diseases in the Protestant churches, the non denominational churches, and the LRC.

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding?

What? Please provide quotes from me that have caused you to conclude that I seem to think this somehow was all a big misunderstanding and if BP understood that he would apologize. Also, rather than pose a question to me based on your assumption about what I think after all these years, wouldn't it be better to ask me what I think first. From what you’ve written, I can assure you that you do not know what I think.

ZNP post #: Perhaps the reason they want this to go away and for everyone to forget it is they know that what they did was just one more inexcusable sin. If they admit they were wrong would they have to admit that they were doing a coverup, that many, many of their teachings and actions were a result of this. One lie begets many many more lies.

To me, this is stating the obvious.

Thankful Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Blue was written first, by Jane.
Black was written in response by ZNP.
Red is my current answer to ZNP’s black.

Jane post #20: Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

ZNP post #25: I did not move away from those questions.

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another. Terry asked “what is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?”

I was not aware that Terry directed that question to me, sorry. Let me answer this question first before responding to the rest of your red letter.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this. 2nd, I have no context from which to work on this question so I will create one -- I will assume that the context is that people in a local church were encouraging others, through fellowship, perhaps in marriage counseling, or perhaps in shepherding new ones, or perhaps in home meetings to "talk about their problems" and that the elders or leading ones with the LRC had an issue with this. (Based on these assumptions and hypothetical context I will respond, if my assumptions or context are wrong please correct me.)

First I find it absurd to think that you could do marriage counseling without "encouraging ones to talk about their problems" (my limited experience is that couples seek counseling because they have problems), likewise with shepherding new ones, or even in a home meeting. Suppose someone in a home meeting started to share a testimony and then stopped saying "I don't know if you really want to hear about my problems" and then you responded by encouraging them to speak. So as I thought about many different scenarios where one christian might "encourage ones to talk about their problems" it just seemed more and more absurd for anyone to have an issue with this. My feeling was that this was so idiotic that either I didn't understand the question (my assumptions or context were wrong) or else this was "obviously a case of LRC leaders creating bogus teachings in an attempt to control saints".

I thought this is what I said in my first post and that this did respond to the question at hand, but apparently it was not understood that way. So in my second post I tried to make it even more clear, and this time I figured the question probably had something to do with this thread. So I thought about the story in Houston and thought maybe he is referring to that story about "the sister's rebellion" so I used that in my examples, hence my highly offensive use of the term "sisters".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was not aware that Terry directed that question to me, sorry. Let me answer this question first before responding to the rest of your red letter.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this.

First I find it absurd to think that you could do marriage counseling without "encouraging ones to talk about their problems" (my limited experience is that couples seek counseling because they have problems), likewise with shepherding new ones, or even in a home meeting. Suppose someone in a home meeting started to share a testimony and then stopped saying "I don't know if you really want to hear about my problems" and then you responded by encouraging them to speak.

Before I delve into any other postings I planned to respond to, I'll say this much for now. When I post any questions I raise are directed to all forum members and unregistered readers to respond to. If I was to direct a question at any single individual, I'll do that via private messaging.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" "Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this."

As I read earlier at the beginning of this thread it was Benson who made an issue of Jane encouraging ones to talk about their problems. Most Christian fellowships I've been in, that is not the norm. In many cities you'll find healing rooms which transcend assemblies/ecclesia/churches.

In the local churches I've been in two types of home meetings:
A. Those that pray for one another's problems which only come out if it is expressed by the troubled brother or sister.
B. Those that do not change gears from the ministry in order to pray for an individuals problem or need.

[TLFisher]

ZNP:
First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders?

Closest you'll find is Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Key words and phrases in this verse are, obey, submit, watch over your souls.
I'll get back to this verse momentarily.

Thankful Jane:
As we have discovered on the forums there was a good bit of politicking going on in the relationships between the various elders, localities, and regions. It appears from Don's communication that four localities were represented on the airplane. I was able to find the past communication from Don R., so for the record, here is how he was "purposefully excluded,"

Whether I feel lc elders are functioning as elders or elders functioning as administrators, I have the utmost respect for elders. When a brother is an elder I give him benefit of the doubt. Me submitting to an elder is voluntary. Whether or not they watch over my soul, as the author of Hebrews says; those who will give an account. It's out of my control. I would have wanted elders in localities I have lived, to have watched over my soul. That has not been the case.

Responding to Jane's post, as I read it's not clear who suggested Don go to another area. Was it Don Looper's suggestion to Don Rutledge? The suggestion being a subtle hint to go take a walk to another area. If the suggestion came at Benson's request to Don Rutledge via Don Looper, is it possible in Dallas there were local matters Don Rutledge was excluded from? My question should be based on being "purposefully excluded" being asked of Don to excuse himself rather than Don taking the initiative to remove himself from conversation Don did not want to be party to.

[Thankful Jane]

Dear ZNP,

Sorry for my lack of response to your last posts to me. My availability to post is very limited right now. First, let me say that I am sorry for offending you in my previous post. I was purposely short and somewhat blunt, hoping my meaning would be clear and not get lost in wordiness. I knew that in doing so, I was risking offending you, and I’m sorry that I did.

A professional communicator once told me that real communication takes place when one person says something and the other person understands the actual meaning the first person intended to convey. In my opinion that hasn’t been happening in our communications. This person also told me that the primary responsibility for clear communication rests with the one giving the communication. So, if there is failure to communicate, the giver needs to reassess the communication to discover why it failed and adjust it accordingly.

I have read one time through all your most recent responses to me. I see that on one hand we have made a little progress. (Thank you for your apology on one point.) On the other hand, I see you’ve introduced more statements that are troubling. Right now I am deciding whether I am going to bow out or pursue trying to communicate clearly with you by responding to your most recent posts to me. My schedule will be a factor in what I decide. If I am not able to find some time tomorrow, I won’t be available at all for a week or two.

The bottom line for me at this point is that I have found parts of your writing to me to be confusing and unclear. My train derails frequently as I try to follow your logic and understand your reason for, and your support for, your statements. I read something, then I say, “what?” and then I re-read it and re-read it and keep ending up back on confused street. I typically don’t have this problem with reading comprehension, so I find this to be frustrating--especially when I write one specific thing to you and explain that I am not responding to other things you wrote, and you come back with statements like “Wow, you really missed my point.” A nicer, and possibly more accurate response, would have been something like, “Wow, I see that I really didn’t communicate that well” or "I understand that you chose not to respond to my main point, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about it."

I found that some of what you wrote to me lacked foundation and seemed to be based on assumptions as if they were fact. (That’s the reason for the whole “in the loop” matter I presented to you.) Some of what you wrote came across as patronizing, and thereby offensive. (That’s probably the reason I was willing to risk offending you with my blunt response.) I am not saying you intended this, just telling you its effect on me. I also find that you may even respond to something I have written without keeping it in context. If I proceed, I will try to give you examples of things I’ve mentioned in this paragraph.

I do not enjoy difficult interactions with others and am having some regret about having engaged you at all. It would be nice if we could get through this to a good place, but that will take some work and possibly require more time than I have available. I'll have to wait and see.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear ZNP,

Sorry for my lack of response to your last posts to me. My availability to post is very limited right now. First, let me say that I am sorry for offending you in my previous post. I was purposely short and somewhat blunt, hoping my meaning would be clear and not get lost in wordiness. I knew that in doing so, I was risking offending you, and I’m sorry that I did.

A professional communicator once told me that real communication takes place when one person says something and the other person understands the actual meaning the first person intended to convey. In my opinion that hasn’t been happening in our communications. This person also told me that the primary responsibility for clear communication rests with the one giving the communication. So, if there is failure to communicate, the giver needs to reassess the communication to discover why it failed and adjust it accordingly.

I have read one time through all your most recent responses to me. I see that on one hand we have made a little progress. (Thank you for your apology on one point.) On the other hand, I see you’ve introduced more statements that are troubling. Right now I am deciding whether I am going to bow out or pursue trying to communicate clearly with you by responding to your most recent posts to me. My schedule will be a factor in what I decide. If I am not able to find some time tomorrow, I won’t be available at all for a week or two.

The bottom line for me at this point is that I have found parts of your writing to me to be confusing and unclear. My train derails frequently as I try to follow your logic and understand your reason for, and your support for, your statements. I read something, then I say, “what?” and then I re-read it and re-read it and keep ending up back on confused street. I typically don’t have this problem with reading comprehension, so I find this to be frustrating--especially when I write one specific thing to you and explain that I am not responding to other things you wrote, and you come back with statements like “Wow, you really missed my point.” A nicer, and possibly more accurate response, would have been something like, “Wow, I see that I really didn’t communicate that well” or "I understand that you chose not to respond to my main point, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about it."

I found that some of what you wrote to me lacked foundation and seemed to be based on assumptions as if they were fact. (That’s the reason for the whole “in the loop” matter I presented to you.) Some of what you wrote came across as patronizing, and thereby offensive. (That’s probably the reason I was willing to risk offending you with my blunt response.) I am not saying you intended this, just telling you its effect on me. I also find that you may even respond to something I have written without keeping it in context. If I proceed, I will try to give you examples of things I’ve mentioned in this paragraph.

I do not enjoy difficult interactions with others and am having some regret about having engaged you at all. It would be nice if we could get through this to a good place, but that will take some work and possibly require more time than I have available. I'll have to wait and see.

Thankful Jane

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I believe we will be able to get things cleared up later when I have some time. So everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!

Jane

Dear ZNP,

I am back from my trip and have re-read all of your last posts to me and decided I should try to wrap up our recent communication difficulty. I think I will make a go at this by responding to one or maybe two of your posts and then moving to others if we make headway with those. If I see that we are getting more entangled, I plan to stop.

Before I do so, let me be clear that I have no controversy with you concerning many of the things you wrote about the unrighteousness in the LC leadership and about the unbiblical hyper control exercised by the elders and submitted to by the members. I find that we are pretty much in agreement on these matters.

Thankful Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

ZNP post #25: My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior.

My post was not about figuring out anything or justifying any kind of behavior. My post contained some facts of which you seem to be unaware. It was a response to a false premise you set forth that sisters were outside of the communication loop with the elders. I offered evidence to the contrary. That was the extent of my post. By the way, what NT verses did I “mangle?”

ZNP post #25: My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

Excuse me? You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.

Jane post #20: At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying  ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

ZNP post #25: Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

Where exactly in my post was I trying to “understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings”?

Let me answer this question: "Where in my post was I trying to "understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings?" Since both of us assumed that Terry's question was pertaining to this thread and the incident in Houston I will proceed as though that is the correct understanding, because at least in this case it is. Twice you have asked me to answer this question. The question about taking issue with encouraging others to share about their problems is truly absurd. My response was that if elders are having an issue with saints encouraging others to share about their problems then it is based on bogus teachings. By asking this question you give them way too much credit. Now what are you going to do, debate the merits of their arguments? That is where you are trying to explain, justify, understand, etc. Just dismiss it as hogwash. There is no need to debate it on its merits, it is patently false, fabricated out of a desire to justify something unrighteous.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another...
[SIZE=1]ZNP post #25: ...First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders?

...If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

You have got to be kidding me. You berate me for not responding directly to a question that Terry posed, even though the question was not posed to me and even though I have very little idea about what the basis of the question is (as you also expressed). You say that by not answering in a straightforward manner it is disrespectful. Yet when I asked you a direct question, you refuse because asking "where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders?" assumes your position. Really? I have no idea what MikeH's position is, I could easily ask this question of him. I have no idea what many people think on this question, there is no preconception here.

To berate me for doing what you alleged I did when in fact you did precisely what you berated is, to me, hypocritical. To do this in the very same post is extremely hypocritical. It comes across as being deliberately insulting.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

These points have not been in dispute at all by me. In fact I have made similar points in other posts in the past.

This is why my first post said "obviously". I felt that there was no need to explain. You were the one that specifically asked me to clarify what I wrote because you didn't understand.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please clarify with a lot of examples.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please clarify with a lot of examples.

The way you write often sounds like you are responding things that have not been said or established, as if they had been (assumptions). Here are some examples, some of which I think I have already written about, but since you asked me to give a lot of examples, they follow:

1. ZNP in post #25: “…you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior. My point was if that does not work, try something new…”

Here you assumed I was trying to figure something out. You assumed I had what you called the “mindset of a ‘dove.’” You assumed that I was trying to justify this behavior (behavior you had assumed that I had).

2. ZNP (#25): “My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.”

Here you assumed that I was trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings, when I had not done this.

3. ZNP (#25): Wow you really missed my point!

You assumed I had missed your point and proceeded to write as if I had. The fact was that I had told you, “At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ).” I further explained this to you in the next post I wrote when I said, “You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.”

4. ZNP (#25): So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were?

You assumed that I was going to tell you (or that I had already told you?) how I was a submissive sister. Based on your assumption you asked me to explain why I was. I had not said anything about my being a submissive sister. I told you some facts of what happened in Anaheim and Houston, but I did not make any claim about what kind of a sister I was. You assumed I would claim that I was rightly submissive based on the facts I described, but you don’t know what I would claim about this.

The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

Your question about how the elders short circuited my submission to my husband contains an assumption that I did not submit to my husband.

5. ZNP (#25) : I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent").

You assumed I was “thinking like a dove” and told me to stop. You don’t know how I was thinking.

6. ZNP (#25): The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

You assume this is the only reasonable explanation. This may be a reasonable explanation, but it is not the only one.

7. ZNP (#25): Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove.

You assume that Sandee was flabbergasted because she was thinking with “the mindset of a dove.” What is your source of information for knowing how she was thinking (other than what I told you, which by the way, was very limited).

8. ZNP (#25): This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate.

9. ZNP (#29) I was saying that for BP and others to accuse the sisters of "talking behind the back" or "outside of the headship" was a preemptive accusation. They figured that when Max was excommunicated people would talk. Therefore they wanted to take a shot at this preemptively, before Max was excommunicated, kind of like putting down poison.

Your statement that the brothers made a "preemptive accusation" against me is based on an assumption that the brothers knew Max was going to be “excommunicated” a year into the future. You have presented no evidence that the Houston brothers knew over a year ahead of time what was going to happen with Max and Sandee. (The accusation about me was made in '77. Sandee and Max left in late 1978.)

10. ZNP (#28): She argued that she and other sisters were submissive to the elders in the context of this "in the loop".

You assume that I was arguing that the sisters were submissive to the elders. If you read carefully again, you will see that my argument was not that they were submissive, but that sisters were communicating with the elders (in a communication loop). I stated at the end of my post that Sandee and the sisters would have done whatever Lee told them to do, but I added this in order to emphasize how horrible Lee's action against them was, not to support some kind of argument that the sisters were "submissive" to the elders.

I will cut you slack on this one, because I can see how you could deduce from what I wrote that the sisters were submissive; however, in your statement, "she argued that she and the other sisters were submissive to the elders ..." you misrepresented what I wrote and used that misrepresentation in your argument in post #28.

Please know that I am not trying to make a new issue over all the above things; rather, I am responding to your request for me to give you a lot of examples of your assumptions.


Of course, we all make assumptions, and often do so without realizing it. In our quest to learn to communicate well, my husband and I have been tackling each others' assumptions for 44 years. That's how we've become such good friends . So, please take my calling out the fact that you were making a lot of assumptions as something necessary in order to effect good communication.

Thankful Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Jane post #20: As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

ZNP post #25: This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]I have no idea what you are talking about when you say what I wrote was a preemptive accusation. As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new.

I was not referring to what you wrote. I was saying that for BP and others to accuse the sisters of "talking behind the back" or "outside of the headship" was a preemptive accusation. They figured that when Max was excommunicated people would talk. Therefore they wanted to take a shot at this preemptively, before Max was excommunicated, kind of like putting down poison.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

ZNP, first you said sisters were not in the loop with the elders. Now you say that sisters (in this case, me) were “in the loop.” So which is it? If after reading my post you changed your mind about this, why not say so?

No, what I said first is that if you put yourself in the shoes of WL and he was contemplating excommunicating Max because Max had confronted PL, then it is reasonable for him to fear Max's wife fellowshipping with other sisters, both in Anaheim and in other cities. The issue was not what had happened but what he feared might happen in the future. Therefore they took a preemptive shot to make everyone scared to talk to anyone about anything. This is clearly premeditated and unrighteous, hence my conclusion that WL acted like a serpent.

My first post was very clear, if the sisters opened up about their problems with PL the whole house of cards could come down. As a result the elders create bogus teachings to squelch fellowship. I have been consistent with this view through all of my posts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding?

What? Please provide quotes from me that have caused you to conclude that I seem to think this somehow was all a big misunderstanding and if BP understood that he would apologize. Also, rather than pose a question to me based on your assumption about what I think after all these years, wouldn't it be better to ask me what I think first. From what you’ve written, I can assure you that you do not know what I think.

This was poorly worded, sorry. I recall a story where BP visited you in OK and that is what I was referring to, clearly that story is past tense and should not in any way imply how you currently feel. I understood that when I wrote "after all these years" but the poor wording does seem to imply that I am referring to the present tense, not the distant past. Sorry.

However, that story does match my own experience. I have had experiences, like the one I referred to at the brokerage firm, where I thought this is a big misunderstanding. Only years later when the crooks were all exposed did I realize it was not a misunderstanding.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was poorly worded, sorry. I recall a story where BP visited you in OK and that is what I was referring to, clearly that story is past tense and should not in any way imply how you currently feel. I understood that when I wrote "after all these years" but the poor wording does seem to imply that I am referring to the present tense, not the distant past. Sorry.

However, that story does match my own experience. I have had experiences, like the one I referred to at the brokerage firm, where I thought this is a big misunderstanding. Only years later when the crooks were all exposed did I realize it was not a misunderstanding.

Apology accepted. Thanks for it and the explanation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

It seems you just wanted to spring board to something else you wanted to say about sisters and your big picture assessment of things.[/FONT][/COLOR]

No need to “wow.” Just read my post again more slowly.

I did not respond at all to any part of your post except for what you said about sisters.

If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

I don’t really appreciate that you are writing to me based on your presumption that my current thoughts are as you imagine.

As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new. This basic understanding of Lee’s behavior concerning Phillip has been made and established by others, including me, on other threads written over the last five or more years.

Instead you just move ahead and launch a new argument about the elders’ control being based on bogus teachings and you write as if no one else, including me, has ever noted this or re-examined what the NT says about such teachings. That simply is not the case.

To me, this is stating the obvious.

Thankful Jane

Well, I consider the tone of all of these comments to be insulting and for the most part unwarranted. In general I think there was one case, which I have apologized for, which could clearly be construed to presume I knew how you thought today, that was a mistake, I have apologized for it.

Still I will respond: you asked me to clarify a short post I made which began "obviously" and then insult me repeatedly for stating the obvious. This seems to me to be despicable.