The LCS Factor

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nell,

I've already conceded that Satan is the ultimate source of all error. And by error I don't just mean mistake, I mean sin. The definition of sin is "missing the mark," which is another way of saying "error."

I appreciate your point, surely exposing Satan is important. But exposing Satan takes more than saying that someone's been influenced by Satan. I do think people need to realize that there is a conscious, active person who is trying to deceive and hurt them. That is Satan. I never denied that or mocked it.

Igzy,

Sorry...no you didn't deny or mock. I was referring to Ohio's mocking post regarding the Christmas tree.

(That said, just because someone uses sarcasm to blunt over-the-top or misapplied Satanology, that doesn't mean Satan is somewhere snickering about it and exchanging high-fives with his minions, otherwise the path to deliverance is just to talk about Satan more and more.)

It also doesn't mean that Satan and his minions aren't somewhere doing high-fives either. Does it?

While exposing Satan is important, when it comes to discussing disagreements on how Christian and church lives should be lived, it seems to me that people need to be convinced of their error, or sin, before they can be convinced they are influenced by Satan. Telling someone over and over they are under Satan's manipulation might just be a desperation move brought on by the inability to formulate a solid argument as to why their beliefs or behaviors are wrong.

I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.

To me that is always the challenge on a forum such as this: putting ideas into words that convince, rather than trying to spook someone. This is why the "God is going to judge you someday for your error" arguments usually ring hollow. The obvious reply is "No, he's going to judge you." And where does that leave the discussion?

... A declaration is not a proof. ...

Once you've convinced someone they are in error, or sin, it naturally follows that they've been under Satan's influence. This seems to me a more efficient path than trying to scare someone with Satan talk.

We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.

I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.

When I first started trying to figure this stuff out, I was a wreck. I was hurt and I cried a lot. All these matters, I went to the Lord and asked Him. I really wanted to know what was so wrong with me and the way I had spent the last years of my life being so totally disceived that I no longer felt like I had a walk with Him but a walk with a bunch of controlling men who never had my best interest at heart, but their own. I believe this was an answer to my prayers, because it made sense to me.

There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Otherwise, as TJ said, we're free to discuss and be convinced in our own minds.

Nell

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

It also doesn't mean that Satan and his minions aren't somewhere doing high-fives either. Does it?

My point was we can talk about Satan too little or too much. He's happy either way.

I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.

Yes, but they won't know what to be convinced of if "all these things" are not put into words that make sense to people.

We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.

Eventually a belief has to put into words, otherwise how do you even know what you believe, and how can you communicate it?

It troubles me that people are suspicious of intellect, because intellect is a gift from God. He gave us brains so we would use them. Certainly it can be misused. But so can religious fervor, subjective "leadings," and even faith and prayer. Why intellect is always the red-headed step-child of the bunch, I'm not sure. But I think the bias is an error. And we all know who the source of those are.

There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Nell
I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.
Igzy: Yes, but they won't know what to be convinced of if "all these things" are not put into words that make sense to people.

So those who choose to continue the discussion should be free to continue. The solution presented here has been to stop the discussion for whatever reason. I think we're trying to communicate in a way that makes sense...we just aren't there yet.

Quote:
We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.
Igzy: I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'll make a comparison to this forum and the BARM. The BARM is an apologetics forum and I don't think they ever understood our desire to help people, and that this is the most sincere form of apologetics (my opinion). They seemed to want intellectual doctrinal debate without the people factor to "muddy" the water. I don't know this to be true, but it seems to me to be true, and that's the reason I post here instead. To "win" a debate in that arena is simply a "hello win column." To really win would be for someone who's hurting to be able to find the Lord again.



Quote:
I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.
Igzy: Eventually a belief has to put into words, otherwise how do you even know what you believe, and how can you communicate it?

Igzy: It troubles me that people are suspicious of intellect, because intellect is a gift from God. He gave us brains so we would use them. Certainly it can be misused. But so can religious fervor, subjective "leadings," and even faith and prayer. Why intellect is always the red-headed step-child of the bunch, I'm not sure. But I think the bias is an error. And we all know who the source of those are.

I'm not suspicious of "intellect" per se. I'm suspicious of "knowledge" of spiritual matters which is attributed to "culture", or "rugged individualism" or even "Texas individualism" or some other "influence" that in effect, denies the power of the Holy Spirit and it's working in our lives. The tendency has been to discredit some spiritual realities because these matters are looked down upon by society and dismissed as little more than "nonsense". For example, the very existance of this little icon: discredits or minimizes the spiritual reality of the spirit world. That's the "intellect" I'm talking about.

Quote:
There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Igzy: Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Idolatry as practiced by the leaders, resulting in the spiritual abuse of the flock.

Nell

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jane: Me, too.

Okay, so let’s do it. What is idolatry? Not just doctrinally but also practically. I agree that things need to be put in understandable words. As I explained in an earlier post about idolatry, I am not referring to loving and bowing to personal idols (another topic), but to a system of idolatrous service and worship. I explained this in a post I wrote earlier this morning, which I think got lost in the fray of the toe to toe. I would like feedback on that. Here’s a link to that post:

http://www.localchurchdiscussions.co...&postcount=466

I would also like feedback on the following, which is my current explanation of how I believe such a system (kin to idolatrous Babylon) developed among us. I’m open to my observations being questioned, adjusted with facts, etc.

Earlier, I made a statement that I believed the seeds of something bad were present from the earliest days of the Local Churches in the USA. We are now in a position some 40+ years later to look at the fruit that has grown since those days and make some assessments. For sure, today we can see an evil tree standing before us in full view. It came from somewhere.

Some here have introduced the idea of going back to some point in time and determining where things went off among us. I agree that is a good exercise and would like to do so. If I remember correctly, Hope has told us on another forum that things went off somewhere in the 70s when we started to make the Lee’s ministry the central focus. Later, when questioned further, he agreed that deputy authority was the real culprit. He also told us that to his memory the seeds of deputy authority in Texas went as far back as 1965. So, to discover where we went wrong in Texas, we have to go back to at least 1965.

We also need to look at the system of the evil tree, which I am saying is an evil idolatrous system like the RCC and the Babylonian ones before, so we can lay the ax to its root, not just to its base, and we all can be saved and fully delivered from it. (Just to keep away confusion, please remember that I am not talking about Babylon in the sense we talked about it while in the LC. The source of such an idolatrous system is the heart of man and the resultant problems can only be corrected when our heart is corrected. It is not corrected by labelling organizations or smashing them or running through the camp killing people with swords, or whatever, as we errantly did in the past.)

The Bible shows us that very quickly after the apostolic church had come into being, the enemy began to work in seed form by introducing things among God’s people which Paul called “the mystery of iniquity.” John revealed the development of that seed when he told us about Mystery Babylon the Great. Most agree today that this mysterious woman, who sat on seven hills, is the Roman Catholic Church.

Why is she called Mystery Babylon? Because she is a mixture. God’s people are there in her, but so also is a structure and system of worship that parallels the Babylonian religious system of antiquity. Here are a few of that old pagan Babylonian religion’s high level characteristics that are clearly relevant to us today:

· There was a hierarchical system with the masses subject to a priestly class who were subject to one priest at the top of the hierarchy. All were in absolute subjection to top priest, held in that subjection through secret initiations (the mysteries) by which their consciences had been compromised.

· The high priest was the sole repository of all dogma and knowledge and mysteries and dispensed the one dogma to the people as he saw fit.

· The high priest led the worship of the Babylonian gods including the sacrifices to the idols.

The fact that these things can be seen clearly in the RCC and that they appear in varying degrees again and again among God’s people throughout church history gives us a window into the devil’s persistent scheming to gain control of the obedience of men. It also shows how susceptible we are to falling into his scheme. I believe that this is one of the devices of the devil of which we are charged to not be ignorant.

In Texas in 1965, the elder papers and a reel to reel tape about the deputy authority topic (maybe the same as the elder papers?) came to Waco, Texas and into the hands of some very young and zealous brothers. Only a select few were allowed to hear these tapes. This is a documentable case of something being done in secret among us in our very earliest days. They bought what they heard and the evil seed was planted. At that time the practice of what they learned began. Later the related teaching (deputy authority) was given to all of us by Lee in the early 1970s kingdom messages. He had waited he said, until we were ready for it.

Remember I am not speaking at this point to when the deputy authority/hierarchy teachings began to enter through Lee in southern California. I don’t know about that clearly yet, though I have some clues.

Prior to the sowing of these seeds in Texas, the general appearance was that we were all just brethren on an even plane, all under the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit. From that time forward some took (literally) a place among us as elders. Their thought about themselves began to change. Our thought about them also began to change. They were a notch above the others. And as we know one of them thought he was even one more notch up. The seed of a priestly class of intermediaries had been sown and its source was southern California.

In the Babylonian system the people bowed to whatever the priestly class with the high priest at the top said. In the RCC it was the same. We were now on that same path to an idolatrous system like the RCC, though we were oblivious to this. No one could have said this then, but I think we have sufficient evidence to say it now.

In the Old Testament, the children of Israel wanted a visible King like the nations. God consented but pronounced “they have rejected Me from being king over them.” We all began with one King only, but from that day, we began to let others rule over us.

It was a slow slope downward, but as we more and more surrendered not only our right but our responsibility to be directly under the leading of the Holy Spirit, the enemy had a way to infiltrate. He didn’t have to control each of us directly. All he had to do was convince us to come under the control of others, who came under the control of others, who came under control of the one at the top .... Then with relative ease he could secure our obedience and lead us where he wished. Over time, he could cause leaders to abuse God’s people and feel justified in so doing because they believed they were following God. The abused submitted to abuse because they believed it was God correcting them.

I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate this picture.

The truth is that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. That is part of our inheritance, that is, unless we give it up by falling into the mystery of iniquity and begin to allow someone else’s voice to come between us and Him.

Thankful Jane

Remember please that although some of my statements may sound like I’m making pronouncements, I expect this to be treated like a hypothesis.

[blessD]

As a young victim of spiritual abuse by the misuse of authority in the LC, it seems somewhat irrelevant to read intellectual anecdotes and debate over its root causes. It might help understanding, but it does not help the pain. It might be akin to reading a psychology study of the mind of a serial killer, if your loved one was murdered by one. Clearly, we don’t want it to ever happen again. How can this be accomplished?

[finallyprettyokay]

TJ wrote: Remember I am not speaking at this point to when the deputy authority/hierarchy teachings began to enter through Lee in southern California. I don’t know about that clearly yet, though I have some clues.

I wonder what you mean by this. Explain?


It is interesting to me that you trace this idea of deputy authority back to 1965. Those papers and tape came from WL, am I correct? I have heard it suggested that this doctrine/practice came into the lc with Max R. I 'came into the lc' at the exact same time as Max, part of his gang from San Clemente. That system of hierarchy was already firmly in place at that time --- summer of 1970. Firmly. This is one that no one should try to blame on Max. (I am not suggesting that you suggested that).


You know, I never heard the term deputy authority. Clearly, the practice was full-blown while I was there, but I never heard the term used until I came to this forum. It took me a while to make sure I knew what it meant, exactly. Let me run this by everyone, make sure I got it right. Okay?


A deputy is second-in-command to the top authority -- so God is the top authority, and lee was second in command? Am I right, that this is what was meant by this? Because I always think of it in terms of a deputy is usually the second-in-command to the sherrif. Like Sherrif Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife.

Now, don't get me wrong --- I love Barney Fife --- I just don't want to follow him!!! :rollingeyes2:


fpo


---

[finallyprettyokay]

blessD:

I am not sure we can ever make sure this doesn't happen again, somewhere. All we can do is understand it for ourselves, and help each other understand it. One of the biggest themes of healing is to know that you are not alone, that the same thing happened to other people. That's one of the things that can and does happen on this forum. We tell our stories, compare notes and start (or continue) to heal.

But we can make sure that we are not part of it, ever again. It may happen in some places, but I am pretty sure I won't be there. And I bet you won't either. God grant us the wisdom ---


fpo


---

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

I wonder what you mean by this. Explain?


It is interesting to me that you trace this idea of deputy authority back to 1965. Those papers and tape came from WL, am I correct? I have heard it suggested that this doctrine/practice came into the lc with Max R. I 'came into the lc' at the exact same time as Max, part of his gang from San Clemente. That system of hierarchy was already firmly in place at that time --- summer of 1970. Firmly. This is one that no one should try to blame on Max.


You know, I never heard the term deputy authority. Clearly, the practice was full-blown while I was there, but I never heard the term used until I came to this forum. It took me a while to make sure I knew what it meant, exactly. Let me run this by everyone, make sure I got it right. Okay?


A deputy is second-in-command to the top authority -- so God is the top authority, and lee was second in command? Am I right, that this is what was meant by this? Because I always think of it in terms of a deputy is usually the second-in-command to the sherrif. Like Sherrif Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife.

Now, don't get me wrong --- I love Barney Fife --- I just don't want to follow him!!! :rollingeyes2:


fpo

Deputy authority was also called "representative authority." It didn't mean second in command exactly, but more like "in place of." In other words a man was representing God on the earth. He had the direct connect to God and we got God's up to date messages through him. In our localities we looked at elders the same way. I guess its kind of like the vicar of Christ (the Pope) and the cardinals, bishops, etc. No one questioned the directives of such ones.

Someone else may be able to do a better job of explaining this.

As for what I meant about Lee, I meant that I believe he was the source of this kind of thought and teaching and that he brought it to the brothers he was with in southern California. Those in Texas got in from someone in southern California who was passing it to them. I'll have to go check on the other forum, but I think that Hope said someone sent it to Benson, maybe James Barber. I'll check and post again.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I'll have to go check on the other forum, but I think that Hope said someone sent it to Benson, maybe James Barber. I'll check and post again.

I checked and it was possibly Don Hardy (not James Barber). Here is a link where I assumed it was Lee and Hope corrected me to say it may have been Don H.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/sho...&postcount=184

Thankful Jane

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Igzy: I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'll make a comparison to this forum and the BARM. The BARM is an apologetics forum and I don't think they ever understood our desire to help people, and that this is the most sincere form of apologetics (my opinion). They seemed to want intellectual doctrinal debate without the people factor to "muddy" the water. I don't know this to be true, but it seems to me to be true, and that's the reason I post here instead. To "win" a debate in that arena is simply a "hello win column." To really win would be for someone who's hurting to be able to find the Lord again.

One thing you might need to understand is that some people cannot be ulitmately "helped" until their minds are convinced. Men tend to be that way. I know I am. Much of the problem with ex-LC men is that they hold conflicting concepts in one mind, causing inner conflict, the simplest being the "I'm supposed to be the the LC/I can't be in the LC" dichotomy. These people need emotional support, but they are not going to be set right until their minds are set right. Emotions are persuaded by sentiment; the mind is persuaded by facts. A solid logical argument, inspired of course by the Holy Spirit, goes a long way in these cases.

I'm not suspicious of "intellect" per se. I'm suspicious of "knowledge" of spiritual matters which is attributed to "culture", or "rugged individualism" or even "Texas individualism" or some other "influence" that in effect, denies the power of the Holy Spirit and it's working in our lives. The tendency has been to discredit some spiritual realities because these matters are looked down upon by society and dismissed as little more than "nonsense". For example, the very existance of this little icon: discredits or minimizes the spiritual reality of the spirit world. That's the "intellect" I'm talking about.

I believe God uses many things and meshes with many things that you might call "earthly" or "natural" or even "cultural." For example, familial and romantic love, team spirit, qualities of leadership, music, community, dedication, concentration, discipline, the list goes on and on. These things alone are not enough, but the Holy Spirit uses them. I no longer believe in a Holy Spirit that never works with the things of man's psychology or sociology. In fact, the more I go on the more I realize that's primarily the sphere in which he works.

Igzy: Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Idolatry as practiced by the leaders, resulting in the spiritual abuse of the flock.

Nell

I have no problem with such a discussion. I would just suggest the case be made with evidence supporting accusations. Make the case. Like I said, the challenge is to turn ideas into words that convince, of course with the Holy Spirit's help.