J. Gordon Melton

[UntoHim]

Something to keep in mind is that both of these books were produced in th 70s at a time when The Local Church was somewhat secretive and extremely uncooperative towards all outsiders (Cult busters or no). The authors were forced to fill in a lot of blanks when it came to writing about the teachings and practices. So I don't think the "unscholarly" term applies as much as incomplete and or not fully accurate....and considering who they were dealing with it's a wonder they got as much information as they did. Not giving excuses, but these books need to be placed within the context of the time they were produced. Nevertheless, in the case of the Mindbenders, I don't think the Local Church should have been included with non-Christian cults such as the Unification Church and Hare Krishna, and in the case of The God-Men, I think the book cover played upon any prejudices the American public may have against Asian believers.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Something to keep in mind is that both of these books were produced in th 70s at a time when The Local Church was somewhat secretive and extremely uncooperative towards all outsiders (Cult busters or no). The authors were forced to fill in a lot of blanks when it came to writing about the teachings and practices. So I don't think the "unscholarly" term applies as much as incomplete and or not fully accurate....and considering who they were dealing with it's a wonder they got as much information as they did.

I brought these books forward only because, in the brief time I affiliated with the LRC, there were a few "divisive" elements that were quarantined:

1) Titus Chu and the "Great Lakes saints". These became personna non-grata, and when I was in Anaheim RG spoke this in a tone as Grave as his name: "The lights went out all across the midwest. There are no lampstands left there, the Lord has no testimony in these places." We were warned not to fellowship with these ones, do not go there, and do not look even to contact them. You might be poisoned.

2) The "Rebellion" of Dong yu Long(?) in South America also illicited a warning letter from LSM, with an admonition to not even go on-line and try to look into these matters yourself, for fear of a poisoning.

Knowing that this is LSM's modus operandi, should we not also start to question what else they deemed "poisonous", my poisonous friends?


Ray

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Knowing that this is LSM's modus operandi, should we not also start to question what else they deemed "poisonous", my poisonous friends?


Ray

Merely visiting this forum or any like it that provides a counterpoint, will elicit the term poison, poisoned, or poisonous.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Merely visiting this forum or any like it that provides a counterpoint, will elicit the term poison, poisoned, or poisonous.

Adding to what I posted several days ago, I was thinking about the ongoing campaign for the US presidency. In proper context to the LSM/LC, it would be like a US citizen questioning or criticizing the foreign policy of the Obama adminstration. Or speculating why Obama has yet to provide proof of his birth certificate or what countries passport did Obama use when he visited Pakistan. To listen to such question or speculating, the LSM/LC approach would be avoid the poison. When it comes down to it the manner LSM applies the word poison is nothing more than playing politics.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

I brought these books forward only because, in the brief time I affiliated with the LRC, there were a few "divisive" elements that were quarantined:

1) Titus Chu and the "Great Lakes saints". These became personna non-grata, and when I was in Anaheim RG spoke this in a tone as Grave as his name: "The lights went out all across the midwest. There are no lampstands left there, the Lord has no testimony in these places." We were warned not to fellowship with these ones, do not go there, and do not look even to contact them. You might be poisoned.

This displays the true attitude of the Anaheim Politburo to those who will not walk in lock step with them even in the tiniest of details. The Church in Cleveland did not quarantine Titus Chu and neither did many other churches in the GLA (and hopefully elsewhere).

These churches aren't lampstands anymore. Seriously? Is this what HQ has decided? So it's not just a matter of "the work". It's not just a dispute between co-workers. Now entire regions of churches have no light? Has Ray Graver read Revelation 2-3 recently? Does he understand that even by then they were still considered lampstands? And does he know that it is the Lord who removes lampstands not Ray Graver or Benson Phillips or Ron Kangas? And does he understand that a coworker's relationship with LSM is not grounds for lampstand removal? Has he been so long in the bowels of the "Ministry Office" that he actually believes his own poppycock now?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

T
And does he understand that a coworker's relationship with LSM is not grounds for lampstand removal?

When you ask a question in that manner, it does become quite obvious a denomination is in place. When a church is considered a lampstand contingent on it's relationship to a specific ministry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

When you ask a question in that manner, it does become quite obvious a denomination is in place. When a church is considered a lampstand contingent on it's relationship to a specific ministry.

And taking that one step further, in the case of other denominations, even if they were to assert that a particular assembly was being expelled from their association/denomination, would they contend that the assembly ceases to be a church? Or would it be that they merely are not granted the ability to claim affiliation and benefit from the resources of the group in the same manner that other assemblies in good standing would?

The latter is very different from declaring an assembly to not be a "lampstand." That is to deny that their assembling qualifies as "assembling" for purposes of the New Testament (thinking of Hebrews and "not forsaking the assembling" passage). Do the Baptists take that kind of stand? Or the Presbyterians?

I have mentioned the national ruckus that was raised over Irving Bible Church deciding that a woman could preach in their meetings, and especially once it actually occurred. While a "Bible church" is not part of a denomination, so no one can throw them out, I note that no matter how "concerned" many of the respondents were, none suggested that IBC was not a church. That it had lost standing as a legitimate church.

Now to the extent that there are sects/denominations that hold that only their group is correct, and only they are "saved" and/or "going to heaven," then I would suppose that those kinds would take the same kind of position as the LRC. In fact, that would be the only kind of group that I would expect those kinds of declarations to come from.

So the LRC has clearly identified themselves with those that exclude others based on non-core doctrines/issues. In effect, they have no true claim to any kind of "generality." For the LRC, it is all special. Or rather they are special (and by implication no one else is).

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

So the LRC has clearly identified themselves with those that exclude others based on non-core doctrines/issues. In effect, they have no true claim to any kind of "generality." For the LRC, it is all special. Or rather they are special (and by implication no one else is).

Exactly! And the quote by Ray Graver clearly expresses their attitude towards churches in their own system who will not follow LSM policies to the letter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1) Titus Chu and the "Great Lakes saints". These became personna non-grata, and when I was in Anaheim RG spoke this in a tone as Grave as his name: "The lights went out all across the midwest. There are no lampstands left there, the Lord has no testimony in these places." We were warned not to fellowship with these ones, do not go there, and do not look even to contact them. You might be poisoned.

Sadly this is true. Anaheim CA had the highest level of radioactive fallout of any EPA air monitoring station in the continental US for iodine 131. It turns out that Anaheim is now the only church in the US that is "glowing". So it is critical that nothing from Anaheim travel to the rest of the country lest it be poisoned. Kudos to RG for warning the saints they might be poisoned and not to spread that poison.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...hima-radiation

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

when I was in Anaheim RG spoke this in a tone as Grave as his name: "The lights went out all across the midwest. There are no lampstands left there, the Lord has no testimony in these places." We were warned not to fellowship with these ones, do not go there, and do not look even to contact them. You might be poisoned.

Reading this again . . . it's just amazing any Christian could talk this way.

"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in the darkness, we lie and are not practicing the truth." I John 1.6

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Something to keep in mind is that both of these books were produced in th 70s at a time when The Local Church was somewhat secretive and extremely uncooperative towards all outsiders (Cult busters or no). The authors were forced to fill in a lot of blanks when it came to writing about the teachings and practices. So I don't think the "unscholarly" term applies as much as incomplete and or not fully accurate....and considering who they were dealing with it's a wonder they got as much information as they did. Not giving excuses, but these books need to be placed within the context of the time they were produced.... and in the case of The God-Men, I think the book cover played upon any prejudices the American public may have against Asian believers.

Well, I couldn't help myself. I had to purchase SCP's "The God-Men" for myself, and see what caused the stir and raised the wrath of Witness Lee.

UntoHim, this book is nothing like what you have suggested here (perhaps you're relying on something you heard while you were within the "Local Church"?). Rather than being "unscholarly" or "incomplete", "The God-Men: An inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church" is in fact very well researched and thoroughly documents what Neil Duddy uncovers in his four years of research WITHIN the Local Church. Duddy also went out his way to check the facts with the men best equipped to give them to him: Witness Lee and the closest members of his entourage.

I would like to share what I am reading here on Local Church Discussions. I think this community in particular owes it to Neil Duddy and the SCP to hear what they had to say - since it was the donations and tithes of Local church members around North America, which were (even if unwittingly) fed into the hands of LSM and redirected to their team of Prosecuting Attorneys (DCP). Those tithes, given for the Glory of our God, were then used in direct violation of 1st Corinthians chapter 6 to financially cripple this Christian author and this Christian apologetics organization.

Think about it saints - plenty of people have said plenty of bad things about Witness Lee and LSM. Why was this author and this publishing firm in particular targetted for such a legal attack? If it bankrupted SCP after four years of "pre-trial" wrangling (orchestrated by DCP), then imagine how much of your own money, donated with the best of intentions, was used to achieve that end? Why would LSM sink that much of your money into this? If this book is really so shoddily written and easily refuted, then what did they have to fear? I'll tell you what. What they've always feared; the Truth.

I will start a new thread, and invite you to read this book with me as I go through it and excerpt (in a balanced way) a book that LSM has successfully banned - even if that success was only gained by default through sheer financial duress.

Ray

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Think about it saints - plenty of people have said plenty of bad things about Witness Lee and LSM. Why was this author and this publishing firm in particular targetted for such a legal attack? If it bankrupted SCP after four years of "pre-trial" wrangling (orchestrated by DCP), then imagine how much of your own money, donated with the best of intentions, was used to achieve that end?

The SCP lawsuit happened several decades before DCP was ever created. However the means to engage in such a lawsuit undoubtedly came from the same source.....the saints giving.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

The SCP lawsuit happened several decades before DCP was ever created. However the means to engage in such a lawsuit undoubtedly came from the same source.....the saints giving.

Officially there was no DCP in those days. It all started out with Dan Towle of Fullerton as WL's legal liaison, and never sopped "growing."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Rather than being "unscholarly" or "incomplete", "The God-Men: An inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church" is in fact very well researched and thoroughly documents what Neil Duddy uncovers in his four years of research WITHIN the Local Church. Duddy also went out his way to check the facts with the men best equipped to give them to him: Witness Lee and the closest members of his entourage.

I understand that there was a semblance of scholarship, but some of his key stories were not real at all. The "original" research for this book matched that for the other book Mindbenders. Thomas Nelson Publishers actually retracted that book when they were informed of certain behind the scenes activities concerning the authors.

That said, I welcome your input. Usually the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is my belief, however, that these forums, filled with the stories of former members, have provided the best record of what the LC is all about.