The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

You'll have to ask Mr Lee that - the title is from Lee's book, not Duddy's.

Well Duddy quotes Witness Lee teaching about the Psalms and doesn't provide the Psalm that he was teaching on when giving this quote? That is an excellent example of the shoddy research. The Psalm is the context of this quote.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well Duddy quotes Witness Lee teaching about the Psalms and doesn't provide the Psalm that he was teaching on when giving this quote? That is an excellent example of the shoddy research. The Psalm is the context of this quote.

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

I asked you a simple yes or no question, you provided a quote that Duddy presumably made of Witness Lee's writings, he gave the page number but that is much less helpful than the Psalm. If you don't have it just say so.

I have found it. The quote is based on 2 verses psalm 128:5 and psalm 129:5

Psalm 128:5 The LORD shall bless you out of Zion: and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life.

So you explain this verse from a New Testament perspective.

The second verse is 129:5 Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion.

Here is Witness Lee's word, quoted by Duddy, with the verse context.

"Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord’s blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God’s recovery; we are living in the local churches.

Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing.

We who have been in the church life in Los Angeles over the past years may look back over our history and see the condition of those who have opposed the local church. There is only shame and backsliding—no growth, no rich harvest, and no blessing. The Lord will vindicate Himself. He is for Zion; if you hate Zion, you are through. The Lord desires Zion. If you reject it, it is not a small thing, it is not a matter of doctrinal disputation. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion." (Chapter 21, Section 2, Christ and the Church revealed and typified in the Psalms, Witness Lee)

[UntoHim]

The "context" of the verses provided change NOTHING. What Lee says here is just as absurd, offensive and horrific as if it stands alone (in fact it's worse because he tries to use the Word of God to justify saying such things)....but I suspect you already knew that.

ZNP, if you are here to just be a roadblock I suggest you move on. You are wasting our time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The "context" of the verses provided change NOTHING. What Lee says here is just as absurd, offensive and horrific as if it stands alone (in fact it's worse because he tries to use the Word of God to justify saying such things)....but I suspect you already knew that.

ZNP, if you are here to just be a roadblock I suggest you move on. You are wasting our time.

Originally this thread was started as a "mock trial". I could care less about this book, but I do care very much that the lesson learned from this case is not that he could have won the lawsuit, or that he didn't really lose the lawsuit, or that it was a technicality. To me the lesson is that the lawsuit was a mistake for LSM and for Duddy.

But then in mid stream you changed this thread. This was no longer a mock trial, and I was fine with that. Now we are looking at what was brought forth in this book that might be valuable. That is what I am doing. The quote provided would be valuable if it could be proved to say what Duddy was implying that it was saying. So I wanted to find the quote, which I did.

How is that "wasting your time"?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 2 Cnt'd....

This next part is on the "recent" history of the LC, at the time of this books writing. This is the part that undoubtedly launched the lawsuit - as it does the most damage to the testimony of the LC. To the people in the Local Churches at this time, not immediately involved in these events, the allegations made here were undoubtedly shocking. To us, this is now history - and I have to ask us to treat it as such. What evidence could Duddy offer to the events he records here? We know he had the testimony of Max Rapoport, who was Lee's closest associate and right-hand man. Duddy also references a holding company I was not aware of - and a company name I hadn't heard of - perhaps some of you have? Of course, assuming most of us here already accept the testimony we are about to read as fact (because we've heard it elsewhere already from numerous credible souces), then we can imagine that subpoenas could have been issued and members of the LC who could corroborate the charges could be brought forth - but we cannot know what the outcome of this would be. Ultimately, we must remember that while Lee launched the lawsuit, it was also his legal team that continually "bought time" and dragged the process out for over four and half years until the other side bankrupted. If none of the allegations we are about to read are true, then dragging out such a lawsuit would not make sense. You would want to get to court as quickly as possible, and vindicate yourself.

That said, let's move forward. I will quote more fully here, as this is a part many would like to hear all about.

On Recent History

"Witness Lee's Anaheim headquarters house two separate branches of the organization, both legally incorporated. Lee is technically and legally not the head of the first branch, the Local Church, which he serves as a salaried, official consultant. The second legal structure, called the Living Stream Inc., is the ministry over which Witness Lee actually presides.

....Though Witness Lee is not legally at the helm of the Local Church organization, the presence and influence he wields there are equivalent to his presence and influence within the Stream ministry. Hence the two agencies are considered synonymous for the purposes of this book's theological and social commentary.

Besides the two agencies for the ministry, Witness Lee and other Local Church figures have also engaged in two business enterprises called Day Star and Fosforus. Lee has served as chairman of the board for both companies. His son, Timothy Lee, has served as president of Fosforus.

Day Star of California sold motor homes until the fall of 1975, when, having failed to maintain a subsistence level of sales, it registered as a suspended operation. Fosforus was a Taiwan-based factory that initially manufactured parts for the Day Star recreation vans. When the California enterprise folded, Fosforus began to make chairs which Local Church congregations and individual members were encouraged to purchase for meeting halls and homes. A sufficient market was not created, however, and Fosforus then embarked on the manufacture of tennis rackets... When that phase of operation also failed, Fosforus suspended operations but maintained its ninety-nine year lease on its property. An unregistered agency, Overseas Christian Steward, acts as the parent body for both non-functioning corporations.

In another financial operation, funds solicited from Local Church members for a meeting hall in Stuttgart, Germany, were diverted into American real estate. The $235,000 collected was withdrawn from German banks in the spring of 1978 because of their low 3% interest rate and invested in a six-apartment building located next to Witness Lee's home in Anaheim, California. Although that investment is appreciating, no apparent action has been taken to acquire the proposed Stuttgart meeting hall.

In the autumn of 1978 a significant split occured in LC headquarters: more than forty members of the Anaheim congregation withdrew, including two of Lee's top administrators. Around the nation, several hundred others have followed their example... LC elders, under Witness Lee's direction, have held special meetings for national and international leaders on how to deal with the defectors, particularly Max Rapoport, Lee's erstwhile heir apparent and former president of the Anaheim Local Church. From the "Max Conference" have stemmed rumors that Rapoport has been in league with the devil and is the betrayer Judas. In November 1978, however, Ron Kangas refused to acknowledge any attrition, describing the Anaheim dissidents as engaged in Local Church endeavors outside the Los Angeles vicinity. The Local Church has since responded to the defections by publishing a pamphlet entitled "The Belief and Practices of the Local Churches", hoping to dispel any derogatory publicity. According to former members, however, the pamphlet, which is couched in evangelical language, accurately represents neither the beliefs nor practices of the LC."**

**SPECIAL NOTE: Looking ahead into Chapter 3, there is reason given for Max's resignation/defection from the LC. We WILL get to it, but I'd rather not present it yet - to keep us on topic.



******************

I don't generally delve into the history of the LC as regards financial issues. To me, it is not the issue it is to others - I don't see it as a blot on an otherwise spotless record, but rather only a symptom of a systemic disease. For this reason, I can't say that I've ever heard of "Fosforus". Have any of you? Nor have I heard of "Overseas Christian Steward". What have any of you heard about these organizations?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

I don't generally delve into the history of the LC as regards financial issues. To me, it is not the issue it is to others - I don't see it as a blot on an otherwise spotless record, but rather only a symptom of a systemic disease. For this reason, I can't say that I've ever heard of "Fosforus". Have any of you? Nor have I heard of "Overseas Christian Steward". What have any of you heard about these organizations?

Fosforus and Overseas Christian Steward were, as noted, part of the structure of the deal that was Daystar. LRC members were encouraged to invest in Daystar, the sales company. It then sent the money to Fosforus to build the motor homes. Only a handful were ever actually built, and not all of those sold. But whatever was built was sold to Daystar which could not dispose of the inventory because of the serious oil shortages at the time. It essentially went bankrupt, although it is possible that no actual bankruptcy was filed because they could not appear in court with investors who were solicited without following SEC requirements. For the most part, the members were asked to forgive the "debt" and lt it go.

The real kicker is that Fosforus actually made money. It build and sold motor homes at a profit — to Daystar. Nothing makes that absolutely clear. Or actionably clear.

But somehow, Lee managed to come up with several business deals over the years, dating back at least to the 50s, in which he made some money, then the churches bailed out the business when they ultimately failed. But this was not the primary investigation by Duddy. There are older threads on Daystar and some of the issues surrounding it.

It is a little funny that Max R's first appearances in the LRC were in the wake of Daystar to try to get people to let the investments just go away. And he was on the rise until it became expedient to dismiss him as some kind of snake that Lee needed to save us from. That was the point that Lee really became central as leader and the alleged separateness of the local assemblies began to disappear. I can't clearly assert that Lee just set it up to happen that way, or that bringing the sins of his (Lee's) own son to his attention made him expendable at just the right time. Shoot the messenger and sweep the sins under the rug.

Unfortunately, it had to happen again 10 years later. That time he had to "fire" John Ingalls and several others. The thing they wrote about those dear brothers makes The God-Man seem like nothing. Their story of rebellion was nothing if not a fabrication. Worthy of lawsuit and a judgment against them. But alas, those brothers had more integrity than Lee, RK, BP, and so many others.

[OBW]

Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:

Duddy lost the case based on US law.

There is one problem. To the majority of us, that means that the facts were actually reviewed, the merits of the case were weighed, and a decision was made.

But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost.

This does not make the evidence of the LRC bad, or insist that Duddy could have made his case in a full trial of the facts. Just that the effect of the ruling was to give victory to the LRC because of the inability of Duddy & co to prosecute their case.

The problem is not that Duddy was erroneously found to have libeled the LRC. It is that the ruling does not establish that any court has actually ruled on all evidence. The LRC went around waving their victory as evidence that the content of The God Men was libelous. But the ruling did not really say that. It actually said that for legal purposes, that particular book is treated as libelous. To the extent that money could be garnered to pay any award, they had to pay. And since they failed to prosecute their case, they were under restriction to simply resume publishing and selling the book.

But the actual status of the content of the book was not decided.

It is a technicality. Just like any number of procedural issues that can result in summary judgment for or against (or dismissal of a case) without actually weighing the facts and ruling on the merits.

Don't ask me for legal advice. I am not a lawyer. But common sense tells you that there is a significant difference between taking your facts and evidence to trial and losing and being declared to have lost because you didn't get to present your facts and evidence. Legally, you lose either way. But in the latter case, facts and evidence that would have won are ignored and you lose anyway just because you didn't present.

So my basic comment is that the trial of Duddy and his book does not establish anything as libelous in fact. Only for purposes of the law. The words of the book were not found to be libelous. They were declared so without consideration. And that was all that was needed, legally, to get rid of the book.

Originally Posted by OBW

Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:
There is one problem. To the majority of us, that means that the facts were actually reviewed, the merits of the case were weighed, and a decision was made.

But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost..

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous."

And by simply repeating the verdict from the one-sided presentation of facts you mean what?

If you are assuming that the existence of a verdict means that the words are actually libelous, slanderous, and defamatory, then you are mistaken. It only means that for purposes of the law, this particular book will be treated as such. There was no finding of facts. Only a declaration based on the default of the defendant/respondent. The ruling is legally binding with respect to the book. It has nothing substantial to say about the actual content of the book. It does not even dare to profess that another would automatically be treated as libelous simply because they reported the same information. Note, I am not saying simply republish the book as-is. That is prohibited. If you don't understand the difference, go find a lawyer and ask for an explanation.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

NFnL,

Typical of Lee. Yes, it is. Loaded with scripture. Not the way you claim.

Well, now I am beginning to wonder whether Duddy read the book he is referencing because if the thought he intended to convey is that Witness Lee makes statements without biblical basis then he did not read the text in question.

Or if he did not intend to convey that thought but nevertheless you and others on this forum took it that way then perhaps we can lay the blame at Duddy's door for not explaining it well or leaving off the references to the Scripture that are so intertwined in the text that one can only surmise that was left off deliberately.

So let's clear the air of this allegation that Witness Lee does not have a scriptural basis. I have highlighted the Scripture references in blue:
"Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord's blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God's recovery; we are living in the local churches.

Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing." Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 21


If Duddy had quoted all the text that Witness Lee had stated then we would not be having the debate about whether there was a scriptural basis. Of course there is a scriptural basis! Plain as the nose on his face.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ZNP's request for a reference.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

Duddy should have quoted Lee's entirely and then it would not lead to misunderstandings.

But, let's examine Duddy's claim here at the end:

"Such a statement amounts in effect to a curse on critics of Lee's teachings. It portends evil to any members of LC fellowships with qualms about personal involvement. It is equivalent to a pronouncement that God Himself will blight those who oppose the LC... and it dovetail's with Lee's view that the LC is the only true church."

Witness Lee made an observation and suddenly Duddy equates this to putting a curse on people? His objections have no basis and in fact is contrary to sound scriptural practice and church government. For instance, in 1 Tim 1:3 Paul told Timothy to "....charge certain ones not to teach different things". Using Duddy's logic Paul was trying to silence critics. How about I Tim 1:20 where Paul says ".... Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme." So using Duddy's logic Paul did more than curse these two, he actually struck a deal with Satan to blight these two and their reputation to advance his (Paul's) own view that in Ephesus there was only one true church!

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Duddy should have quoted Lee's entirely and then it would not lead to misunderstandings.

So then you and Z are arguing that this quote by Lee is a misunderstanding? Didn't Lee say: "'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest."

Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

So then you and Z are arguing that this quote by Lee is a misunderstanding? Didn't Lee say: "'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest."

Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO.

Yes or No?

Then "No".

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes or No?

Then "No".

Thank you, Cassidy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

So then you and Z are arguing that this quote by Lee is a misunderstanding? Didn't Lee say: "'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest."

Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO.

I haven't given any opinion on the quote. If anything I have said that I was pretty much in agreement with Igzy but that this quote does not prove this is what he was saying.

In a court of law it is not about the truth, it is about what you can prove.

If you want to prove it you have to do your research. What constitutes a "local church" that can be a conduit for God's blessing. Are they required to be on the ground? I think these quotes are out there.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement." (Wikipedia on Libel and defamation).

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I haven't given any opinion on the quote. If anything I have said that I was pretty much in agreement with Igzy but that this quote does not prove this is what he was saying.

In a court of law it is not about the truth, it is about what you can prove.

Then ZNP, if you're sincere about wanting to participate here in this "mock trial", please understand that "all the evidence" has not been presented. I didn't take the time to go through the book and gather everything I could on each topic individually to present to you. Frankly, I don't have the time to do that. There is a LOT left to read, and the book goes back to topics periodically to present supporting evidence. Any judgements you wish to render (IE: "sloppy research") really need to be left to the END of the trial. Judges don't allow hecklers to keep shouting "guilty!" while the trial is still underway - and they won't pronounce judgement until the last of the evidence is in and has been weighed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Then ZNP, if you're sincere about wanting to participate here in this "mock trial", please understand that "all the evidence" has not been presented. I didn't take the time to go through the book and gather everything I could on each topic individually to present to you. Frankly, I don't have the time to do that. There is a LOT left to read, and the book goes back to topics periodically to present supporting evidence. Any judgements you wish to render (IE: "sloppy research") really need to be left to the END of the trial. Judges don't allow hecklers to keep shouting "guilty!" while the trial is still underway - and they won't pronounce judgement until the last of the evidence is in and has been weighed.

Really? How about "objection!" Lawyers object often, many times for no reason other than to make it difficult for you to speak. What about motions, these are designed to make you run around and do research and file petitions, and show up in court, and make one little mistake and the trial is thrown out.

Lawyers will object to evidence as to the relevance. They will object to the way in which it is entered as evidence. They will object to the credibility.

Do you really think OJ would have been found not guilty if the evidence that the TV viewers saw was shown to the jury? The first rule is to prevent the evidence ever being presented.

Don't you find it ironic that "frankly I don't have time to do that" is basically the same reason that Duddy ultimately folded?

Here on the forum we are focused on truth. Law courts are focused on "winning" which is often measured in dollars.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you want to prove it you have to do your research. What constitutes a "local church" that can be a conduit for God's blessing. Are they required to be on the ground? I think these quotes are out there.

Here is an example which gets part of what you need.

"One has the Apollonian ground, one has the Petrine ground, one has the Pauline ground, and one even says that Christ is their ground. What are these grounds? We must be clear that they are all divisive. Only Corinth is the right ground. The ground of locality is the one unique and uniting ground upon which the church can be built. The unique proper ground of the church is the locality where the church is.
Today we have the same thing in a city such as Los Angeles. There is a church built upon the Presbyterian ground, a church built upon the Baptist ground, a church built upon the Methodist ground, and so many kinds of ‘churches’ built upon so many kinds of grounds. In one city, there are many kinds of ‘churches.’ Why is this? Simply because they are on so many different kinds of grounds. And all these grounds are divisive. "The Practical Expression of the Church," (Volumes 6 & 7 Booklet), 5 by Witness Lee

This quote does demonstrate that When Witness Lee says "Local Church" he is referring to his sect:

“If we do not have the local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] today, practically speaking, we do not have the church. The local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] is the practicality of the church. The church today is practically in the local churches.” (Lee, Witness, “The Practical Expression of the Church,” (Volumes 4 & 5 Booklet), 4.)

This quote shows that you can only get the blessing in the church on the Proper Ground:

"So first of all, we must know the unity, and we must know the proper unity. It is impossible to keep the proper unity in Babylon or in any of those divisive groups in Corinth. We must come back to Jerusalem, i.e., the ground of locality. If we are in Babylon, we must come back to Jerusalem. If we are in one of the divisive groups in Corinth, we must come back to the ground of unity in Corinth. It is impossible to have the proper unity in any divisive group. We must come back to the one unique ground of unity...
If you are absolute, you will realize that it is impossible to keep the proper unity in any kind of divisive group, regardless of how spiritual you are. You must keep yourself from anything divisive and come back to the ground of unity. If you are really absolute and mean business with the Lord, you will experience the Lord commanding the blessing of life upon you.

When we have the unity, there the Lord commands the blessing." (The practical expression of the church, chapter 11, section 2).

These quotes taken together proves that Witness Lee taught that God's blessing was only in his sect and if you met with any other denomination in Christianity you could not be blessed.

With that as the background, now read what Witness Lee said:

"In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders." (referenced in previous posts, from Christ and the Church revealed in the Psalms, based on Psalm 128 and 129).

Here is the thing, I have criticized Witness Lee openly, even publishing my opinion that he is a false teacher. Does that mean that I opposed the local church? Depends on your definition of the local church. I have criticized the teaching of the ground of oneness as a magic formula, a shortcut if you prefer, to being one. My criticism was that a teaching that should have focused on being one with all Christians in a city actually is used to teach that this group is superior to all others and the only "genuine" group. Looking at these quotes you can clearly see this pride and arrogance in this teaching. So then, this principle of God will bless those that bless God's people and curse those that curse God's people could be true and the basic teaching here, but without a doubt Witness Lee has twisted this teaching to build up a sect, a direct contradiction to the NT, and powerful evidence that Witness Lee is a false teacher.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"One has the Apollonian ground, one has the Petrine ground, one has the Pauline ground, and one even says that Christ is their ground. What are these grounds? We must be clear that they are all divisive. Only Corinth is the right ground. The ground of locality is the one unique and uniting ground upon which the church can be built. The unique proper ground of the church is the locality where the church is. Today we have the same thing in a city such as Los Angeles. There is a church built upon the Presbyterian ground, a church built upon the Baptist ground, a church built upon the Methodist ground, and so many kinds of ‘churches’ built upon so many kinds of grounds. In one city, there are many kinds of ‘churches.’ Why is this? Simply because they are on so many different kinds of grounds. And all these grounds are divisive. "The Practical Expression of the Church," (Volumes 6 & 7 Booklet), 5 by Witness Lee

Thanks for bringing this up ZNP. In the late 80's, one of the criticisms of the saints who departed from the Church in Anaheim, is they begun meeting separately. If you get to the heart of the matter they felt the local ground had been replaced by the ministry of Witness Lee. So from their perpsective, they never left the local ground. Same applies to other localities that parted from LSM fellowship.