SPLIT THREAD - Control and Addiction in the Local Church

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.

OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.

OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.

Yes, if you change your mind, it is you that does the changing. And yes, if you have principles and someone causes you to make microscopic changes to those principles, it is you that does the changing. And if they manage to get you to make microscopic change after microscopic change until your principles no longer reflect anything like what they previously did, then you are still the one who changed your own principles. And if you are truly happy with your new principles relative to the old ones, then so be it.

So how do you deal with purely mental addictions? Are they not controlling? Maybe you have never been the type to become addicted to anything. But many people are. And under the right circumstances, almost all of us are.

There is at least one form of alcoholism that is not about physical addiction, but purely mental and emotional. Surely if it is just mental and/or emotional then anyone should be able to simply walk away from it. Right? If you say "right" then you are even more ignorant than your statement that making such a claim is "cowardly and irresponsible."

The depth of your ignorance is further established when you try to define control in terms of whether or not a court would allow it as a reasonable defense. Reasonable defenses are typically based upon established precedence and in this kind of thing, science. If you are certain that science would not back such a defense, and that some court might allow it to be considered, then you are stuck with the notion that nothing changes. In any case, whether or not something is true is not determined by its admissibility in court or whether it could be an allowed defense. Courts do not decide truth. They decide legality. For example, a gun found in an illegal search may be inadmissible in a trial that ultimately finds the party that is actually responsible for murder "not guilty" simply because the prosecutor was unable to sufficiently establish the link between the perpetrator and the crime. He is then legally free to leave unfettered, but he is still guilty of the crime. Laws do not regulate or determine truth.

And when you belittle by saying that claiming control is "cowardly and irresponsible" you are attempting to control this conversation. And unlike some who might back away and let the sound of authority sway them — sort of like so many of the LC membership does with respect to the words of Lee — I am not so easily swayed. It is almost as if you are trying to control this aspect of the conversation by claiming that it can't happen. "Master is tricksy!"

And the question that has been hovering for a couple of days now: Where does eliminating any consideration of any kind of control from this discussion take us? I have some possibilities. First, it makes all those who follow Lee and the LC out to simply be morons who willingly think and do stupid things. In fact, it simply makes everyone who ever was a part of the LC long enough to have intentionally stayed for some period out to have been that kind of moron, at least in the past, and therefore puts a question mark over their current judgment. Last, it leaves only the true outsiders — those who were never actually part of the LC even if they did attend a few times — as the only reasonable people on the forum.

Funny, the only such person that I have seen around here like that lately is you. Oh, I guess you knew that. You have already established that position without this new attack. You have already stated fairly straight-out that anyone who was ever an elder in the LC can never be trusted and will always be the enemy. You have suggested that people from within the LC cannot change it for the better. They should just disband and disappear.

It seems that you are more interested in an argument than in truth. "Management" may not ever ban you outright for this kind of stupid behavior, but if it persists, then some of us probably will on an individual basis. It should be quite an insult to find yourself in the same place as Steward on the other forum. Quite a few just got tired of her nonsense and turned her off.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW if you'll read my posts carefully instead of fabricating notions that I'm trying to "control" this thread then you'd realize that I readily accept the idea that some in the Lee church are addicted to him and his ministry. In fact on another thread I introduced the idea. You'll also note that the idea was considered highly controversial and rejected by many. (Denial is not only a river in Egypt as they say.)

Also note that I was discussing jurisprudence not court procedures. With few exceptions e.g. self defense, insanity, etc. one cannot murder someone and claim: "My pastor made me do it". And even: "The devil made me do it" won't fly. Of course if someone does truly believe this kind of thing then the court might rule them insane.

[Cal]

dj,

If control were not possible then no one would ever seek to control anyone because their efforts would always be futile. But we know that such efforts are not always futitle. So attempts to control are sometime successful, therefore controlling sometimes works.

Controlling does require consent. But the question is, would the consent have occurred if the controller had not taken certain steps to see that it did?

Did the Nazi's control the Jews? Of course. But you would say that no one held a gun to LCers' heads. But as Kevin Costner said in Open Range, "There are things that gnaw at a man worse than dying." Like being judged unworthy by the Lord, for example.

You are simply hung up on the semantics of the word control. How about replacing it with "influence for self-serving purposes?" Would you agree that is possible? That's what people mean by control in this context.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Yes Igzy I would agree that "influence for self-serving purposes" is possible in a free society as the advertising industry well knows. But ultimately we are responsible for our actions regardless of the influences.

You mention the tragedy of Jews under Nazi occupation of Europe. An example of real control with police power to impose the will of leaders on to innocents. And to systematically incarcerate them without due process of law. Even in such a horrific context some came out of the camps and went on to lead productive and healthy lives e.g. Elie Wiesel, Vicktor Frankl, etc. Others did not fare so well. Those who moved on and did well admit that it was their choice to do so even after such a dehumanizing experience.

[UntoHim]

We do not need to get into theoretical examples or point to the extremes of the Nazis when discussing this matter of control in the Local Church. Those of us who were active members while Witness Lee was around know fully well just how he controlled his followers. (albeit the "why" he controlled is a little fuzzy)

I brought up the matter of "The vision of the church". As I noted, Lee even referred to it as a "controlling vision". For the most part, Local Churchers knowingly and willfully submit to this controlling vision. Why? Because they are told that this is the "God ordained way". Back in the day we heard a lot of talk that it was "God's eternal purpose". Who would not want to be controlled by God's eternal purpose? What Christian would not want to follow the "God ordained way"? This is one of the main reasons that the Local Church draws mostly from the ranks of people who are already Christians - because, after all, what Christian would not want to hop on board to God’s eternal purpose and be the ones to “bring the Lord back” and “give him the bride”? These kinds of concepts are something that unbelievers don’t get excited about, much less be controlled by (at least not initially)

Originally Posted by OBW

And the question that has been hovering for a couple of days now: Where does eliminating any consideration of any kind of control from this discussion take us?

I don’t think djohnson is “eliminating any consideration of any kind of control” (he can correct me if I’m wrong)…I think what he is saying is that we (LCers) voluntarily submitted to being controlled. If this is what he is saying then I agree. However I think it is worth noting that Witness Lee did not simply walk up to the podium and announce that he was some controlling false apostle who was going to lead us into false religion. God’s enemy is much smarter then that (and so was Lee for that matter).

-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don’t think djohnson is “eliminating any consideration of any kind of control” (he can correct me if I’m wrong)…I think what he is saying is that we (LCers) voluntarily submitted to being controlled. If this is what he is saying then I agree. However I think it is worth noting that Witness Lee did not simply walk up to the podium and announce that he was some controlling false apostle who was going to lead us into false religion. God’s enemy is much smarter then that (and so was Lee for that matter).

I agree. But the way it is being presented by DJ is to say that it simply is not control. Unless I have forgotten some of the details, no one put guns to the heads of the faithful in Jonestown. Yet to suggest that the members of what had been a relatively prominent ministry in California (SF area?) who now “willingly” drank poison and died did so entirely of free will is nonsense. The control of the will is far more sinister than the control of the body via shackles or threat of violence or death. And you generally cannot cause someone to commit suicide by threatening to kill them if they do not. The threat is pointless. If you are going to die anyway, let the evil ones do it on their own.

But slow erosion of the natural defenses of the mind against illogic, error, and even harm is control even if the state of the person is to have a will to do exactly what their controller wants.

No one ever starts by admitting that they are going to control your mind, will, pocketbook, and even actions. No one would step to the microphone and say that they are going to teach you things that directly contradict the agreed authority on the subject (in this case, scripture) and that you will stand up and applaud them for it. If they did, you would stand up and walk out.

No. They use tricks of argument, logical errors that are most-times easy to miss. They get you to focus so much on one part of the “authority” that you miss the other parts that would make their argument false. It is seldom in big steps. Instead, it is little bit by little bit. Like the frog in the kettle. I do not like to assert absolutely that Lee came to the US with impure motives. But there is something about the progression of his time in the US, beginning as benignly as he did. He gained acceptance as merely a wise teacher. Slowly he worked to be seen as someone who’s word on anything would be trusted. Then he sent Max out to stir things up, then he tossed Max out. (There were lesser things that only those in some areas saw.) Then the lawsuits. (There’s a twist of scripture.) Read the transcripts of Lee’s answers concerning him being an apostle and other such things. The nuanced wording that could not be pinned down. Many of his answers technically did not answer the questions. Those first lawsuits were barely over before he was being exalted, and he admitted he liked it. Was that something new? Who knows.

Then came the direct speaking about “the ministry” and the status of the one who brought it. He never directly said he was the one, but it was a thinly-veiled claim to Apostleship. Then the Oracle. His teachings became “high peaks.” And as Ohio said elsewhere, coming to the pure Word of God turned from battle cry to “a must to avoid.” The scripture could only be understood as interpreted by Lee. So HWMR and other materials spoken/written by Lee, or recompiled by the BBs from Lee became the source of spiritual knowledge. Scripture became a footnote to Lee’s words. Only the snippet that would support his words was used.

Am I wrong about fearing our own understanding of scripture? When we were having the one serious discussion with my parents about the LC about 3 years ago, my mother said, in so many words, that we could not be so certain about what scripture said. She all but said that you just have to call on the Lord and trust him, which in the context of the other things said that evening, meant that you trust what the “brothers,” especially Lee, told you.

We left the Assemblies of God at the end of 1972 because we had already been seeing more and then came across the LC. Now they can’t see for themselves that the error in the LC is greater than the AOG ever was. But they will not look on their own outside of what the LC says.

Yes, they allowed it. But it is a subtle form of control. And to deny it is to whitewash the actions taken by those who have used it to their personal and financial advantage. It is spiritual fraud. And people who are defrauded typically set themselves up for it. That doesn't make them responsible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The control of the will is far more sinister than the control of the body via shackles or threat of violence or death ... But slow erosion of the natural defenses of the mind against illogic, error, and even harm is control even if the state of the person is to have a will to do exactly what their controller wants ...

OBW, you make some compelling points.

I believe the Bible is balanced in this matter of "control," yet the responsibility placed upon the leaders is far greater. The scripture does instruct us to honor and submit to those ruling us, obeying them as unto the Lord, but the warnings placed upon the leaders was far greater, "he who stumbles the least of my brethren, it would be better for him to swim out to sea with a millstone around his neck."

Over time, the teachings of the ministry emphasized the former at the expense of the latter. Local leaders thus were required to submit to regional leaders and/or WL and the BB's. The needs and wants of the ministry and the program always took precedence over the needs of the flock or the individual saints. Stories like the judgments upon Ham, Mariam, and others were emphasized repeatedly (Authority and Submission) in order to maintain lines of command, and silence any and all "concerns" which might arise. Teachings concerning "evil shepherds" were neglected for the most part.

I personally have witnessed many gifted brothers, those who either put the word of God or people first and foremost, leave the program over time. Since I knew them well, I couldn't buy into the story that they were somehow "changed." If dozens and dozens of precious brothers leave the LC's for no other reason than that they "had a problem with so-n-so," one might begin to wonder if it wasn't "so-n-so" who really had the problem. The number one reason for them to leave was mistreatment -- one of the primary symptoms of control.

[YP0534]

Control is not exercised merely by means of threats of violence, that is true. But I'd tend to agree that some means of coercion must be employed. Control is an exercise of the power of authority (legitimate or not.) In fact, the hellfire and damnation preachers are attempting to control their listeners. It frequently doesn't work because it requires a willing acceptance of the authority of the Bible.

Lee did not coerce me to stay out of shopping malls and movie theaters, even though he clearly suggested I should not go. Elders, on the basis of such teachings, did attempt to exert this kind of influence, but I generally didn't listen to their interpretations of Lee's teachings as rules to follow. To the extent that Lee himself suggested I follow this or that rule, I discounted that as well as his religion, culture and desire to be a teacher of the law.

But I don't feel Lee ever really tried to control me. I am 100% certain my local elders attempted to do so. I met the man once. I read and considered his books and spoken ministry. But most of the bad LC culture that I picked up was transmitted by the traditions of local eldership, not Lee's printed or spoken ministry. (NOTE: This was prior to 1989.)

Regardless, though, the thing I don't think is appreciated is that once you willingly buy into the premises of the system, coercion, and therefore control, becomes possible. If I assent that the elders in my locality are rightly bearing the deputy authority and they give me rules to follow, do I really willingly obey the rules or am I coerced into doing so on the basis of my assent to their authority? When every indication you can perceive is that you cannot walk away and also remain faithful to the Lord, that's where the ability to control arises.

If I'm in a room and the door is locked and I conclude I cannot get out, I'm likely to dance to whatever tune is called by the guys with the key. The fact that there may also be a window that could allow me an exit is no proof of my willing submission, especially if the window is not allowing light currently and is therefore more than a bit obscure to me.

The best thing that happened to me is that the elders told me to get lost. Whether they were deputy authority or not deputy authority, my practical response was the same - I got lost. But most people did not leave under such conditions, to be coerced and controlled out. They are coerced and controlled to remain. Until they are freed from the bondage of the myth of deputy authority, they may be controlled.

The alleged power of deputy authority is the same as that exercised against Ananias and Sapphira. That's even more potent than a gun, isn't it?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Control is an exercise of the power of authority (legitimate or not.) In fact, the hellfire and damnation preachers are attempting to control their listeners. It frequently doesn't work because it requires a willing acceptance of the authority of the Bible.

Lee did not coerce me to stay out of shopping malls and movie theaters, even though he clearly suggested I should not go. Elders, on the basis of such teachings, did attempt to exert this kind of influence, but I generally didn't listen to their interpretations of Lee's teachings as rules to follow. To the extent that Lee himself suggested I follow this or that rule, I discounted that as well as his religion, culture and desire to be a teacher of the law.

But I don't feel Lee ever really tried to control me. I am 100% certain my local elders attempted to do so. I met the man once. I read and considered his books and spoken ministry. But most of the bad LC culture that I picked up was transmitted by the traditions of local eldership, not Lee's printed or spoken ministry. (NOTE: This was prior to 1989.)

Regardless, though, the thing I don't think is appreciated is that once you willingly buy into the premises of the system, coercion, and therefore control, becomes possible. If I assent that the elders in my locality are rightly bearing the deputy authority and they give me rules to follow, do I really willingly obey the rules or am I coerced into doing so on the basis of my assent to their authority? When every indication you can perceive is that you cannot walk away and also remain faithful to the Lord, that's where the ability to control arises.

Until they are freed from the bondage of the myth of deputy authority, they may be controlled.

While we were in the local churches, if we yielded control over us, how much is our fault?
I think many bought into submission and authority hook, line, and sinker. The notion of creating boundaries was foreign to say the least. Whether a teen, young adult, etc, it's not rebellious to say to someone you are overstepping your bounds. Of course in the local churches, you are labeled as rebellious when resisting to be controlled.
Elders only have as much control as we want them to be. They are mere men with no lawful control over us. Sure they could say we're not welcome to meet with them. Okay whatever! Deputy Authority is but a myth. If it was anything but, wouldn't the prophets have yielded to the kings? We would not have read about Nathan's words to King David or Samuel's words to King Saul.
Anyone reading this, my advice is to create boundaries in your relationships with people. Especially in the local churches, don't give ground for serving ones, elders, co-workers etc to trespass.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

But slow erosion of the natural defenses of the mind against illogic, error, and even harm is control even if the state of the person is to have a will to do exactly what their controller wants...But it is a subtle form of control. And to deny it is to whitewash the actions taken by those who have used it to their personal and financial advantage. It is spiritual fraud. And people who are defrauded typically set themselves up for it. That doesn't make them responsible.

All abusers seem to have one goal in common - gaslight their victim(s) into believing that the abuse they experience is somehow normal. It's BRAIN-WASHING!

Ron Kangas seems to be the top expert at this in the Lords Recovery. By his own admission, Ron is addicted to Lee's ministry which he also believes to be infallible.

In 2008 Ron was caught eroding the natural defenses of the minds of hundreds of church leaders in South America instructing them to simply govern by their feelings and to never judge by the facts of any given situation. If those leaders ever bought into Ron's (WL's) false teaching of Discernment, then those saints in that leader's locality could likely be even more easily preyed upon.

Ron is a Groomer and a Spiritual Fraudster and he deserves to be exposed! Please share the heck out of this-->>MP3



P.S.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

All abusers seem to have one goal in common - gaslight their victim(s) into believing that the abuse they experience is somehow normal. It's BRAIN-WASHING!

Ron Kangas seems to be the top expert at this in the Lords Recovery. By his own admission, Ron is addicted to Lee's ministry which he also believes to be infallible.

In 2008 Ron was caught eroding the natural defenses of the minds of hundreds of church leaders in South America instructing them to simply govern by their feelings and to never judge by the facts of any given situation. If those leaders ever bought into Ron's (WL's) false teaching of Discernment, then those saints in that leader's locality could likely be even more easily preyed upon.

Ron is a Groomer and a Spiritual Fraudster and he deserves to be exposed! Please share the heck out of this-->>MP3



P.S.

PriestlyScribe, I've heard this several times before.
Has there ever been a retraction or corrective action by Ron?
A distortion of facts is a serious matter. Take for example what the brothers from the Church in Houston say in their letter posted at shepherdingwords.com "A Response from the Church In Houston"
"To publicly name Allen Bayes based on a distortion of facts is a serious matter. Corrective action on the part of the author of this account would be appropriate."

Relating this to the matter of the audio clip provided, remove Allen Bayes name and reinsert with Steve Isitt. In principle it is the same, is it not?