The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age

[Drake]

Koinonia>”Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police”

So then, why did John Ingalls tolerate criminal activity for a decade? What are the possible explanations for that?

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

By the way, why didn’t you call the police?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia>”Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police”

So then, why did John Ingalls tolerate criminal activity for a decade? What are the possible explanations for that?

You ignored this part:

How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

By the way, why didn’t you call the police?

I wasn't there. What's your excuse?

Also, the reason why this is an issue is because it discredits two cherished LC concepts: 1) "minister of the age" and 2) "opposers/dissenters."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You ignored this part:

How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.



I wasn't there. What's your excuse?

Also, the reason why this is an issue is because it discredits two cherished LC concepts: 1) "minister of the age" and 2) "opposers/dissenters."

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

You keep saying "lead elder," but there were 5 elders in Anaheim and they were constantly overrun by that publishing house. Two of the elders constantly rejected unrighteousness and protected criminal activity.

Drake your hypocrisy is showing. When it comes to outsiders, then you appeal to Caesar, and use the law to the fullest extent, even to the SCOTUS. But when it comes to serious criminal activity, then you stress the other part of I Cor 6 about not going to the authorities, and keeping everything "in house." Why did W. Lee constantly assure the brothers that he "would take care of Philip?" Well ... He sure did!

The real "lead elder" in Anaheim was Witness Lee. Why didn't he call the police? Didn't he give a couple lengthy conferences on how the Kingdom of God is built on righteousness?

How do we know you weren't part of the crimes or the coverup?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

Are you familiar with this text? http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?p=6020

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you familiar with this text? http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?p=6020

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

This is an excellent question, "what is the correct way for a believer to take?"

Let me share my personal experience and perhaps you can critique this approach.

In addition to John's book there were other events that corroborated his account. For example, after the elders in Anaheim were replaced the new elders wrote an apology to Phillip Lee. This apology seems, on the face of it, to be exceedingly insulting to all those who were directly harmed by Phillip Lee and to all those who were offended by his actions. One of the signatories was Ed Marks.

I have known Ed since the days he first came into the church in Houston. We were in Houston together for 3 years and then we both went to Irving and were there together for another 18 months. Also we both worked as trainers in the FTT (I was in Taipei, he was in Anaheim). So then, after reading about John's book on this forum, learning far more details about these events and then learning about this apology letter I heard that Ed was coming to NY to visit. This was the first chance I had to meet with him since learning these things. I met him at dinner Monday night, there was a small gathering at the meeting hall and we ate before the meeting. I went up to him privately, though his wife and a few others were also present at the table, and I asked him about the apology letter he signed.

To his credit he didn't attempt to justify it. However he did argue weakly that with PL's passing perhaps the discussion was in bad taste? He also indicated that his behavior was like the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkeys. This may have been due to an awareness of what is written about him on the internet. Finally, his last argument was "this made Witness Lee" happy. He then asked to see the copy of the letter I had printed out and what was quite interesting to me was he also wanted the envelope I had brought it in. Ed then left to confer with the elders in NY (Brother James and Brother Benjamin were both alive at that time). About 30 minutes later I was asked to leave the building and was told "he doesn't want to deal with this at this time". Now this took place more than 30 years after the PL incident and just about 30 years after the apology letter was dated. I considered his interest in the envelope to indicate that they would see if there were any other saints to be "disciplined" over this discussion.

So please explain to me why this approach by me was "grievous"?

How is it that an elder can say "he doesn't want to deal with this now" thirty years later, after so many have been offended, stumbled over this issue? How are you not grieved at that behavior?

Personally I wonder how this complaint will be received at the judgement seat of Christ -- "they did not complain about the sin properly, so I did nothing".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In addition to John's book there were other events that corroborated his account. For example, after the elders in Anaheim were replaced the new elders wrote an apology to Phillip Lee. This apology seems, on the face of it, to be exceedingly insulting to all those who were directly harmed by Phillip Lee and to all those who were offended by his actions. One of the signatories was Ed Marks....

Funny how Ed Marks got the aging NYC elders to protect him from a "light shining in a dark place."

We always found Ed Marks to be a little strange. He would constantly talk about loving and visiting the LC's, yet he never once visited my old LC, even though he grew up just a couple miles from our meeting hall. One time Ed was shopping on the street just one hundred feet from the meeting hall, and an elder spotted him. We used to pick his mom up and bring her to the video training so she could see Ed speak. Yet he never attempted to visit us. Like I said a little strange.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

I'm not sure who on this forum you are referring to. You'd have to be more specific for me to respond. You were critical of the way John Ingalls handled the Phillip Lee affair. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the Speaking the Truth in Love text where Ingalls goes into excruciating detail about how he responded to the matter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

Drake

Dear Drake,

Does your quote above sound like it was written by someone who was currently masterminding a vast global conspiracy to overthrow the ministry of Witness Lee?

That, of course, was Lee's entire basis for the public meetings and books written against John Ingalls et.al.

[UntoHim]

Since we're quoting from Speaking the Truth in Love I thought I would bring back a few of these little diddies:

"That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me,
you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me."

And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none.

"Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in,
what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you."

"I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care.
I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth."

Apparently the scales had finally fallen off of the eyes of dear brother Ingalls. He finally saw Witness Lee for who he really was. At a later date John admitted that a number of older brothers from Lee's earlier days in China and Taiwan had warned him about this side of Lee - the REAL Witness Lee. Better late than never, brother John, better late than never........

"Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all."
-

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense.

So, would the abused, and those bothered by Witness Lee's coverup, be justified in leaving the Local Church movement?

If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

Yes, they most certainly should have removed Philip Lee sooner, and also involved law enforcement. Unfortunately, they trusted Witness Lee to take care of it. And Witness Lee kept his son in place, despite the repeated, known cases of sexual misconduct, and expelled any leaders that dared to address it. Given his response, I'm sure he would have expelled them even sooner had they tried to do more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

Drake, thank you for finally admitting to us that you were aware of the corruption and unrighteousness at LSM. You were part of the problem, and never part of the solution.

The sordid, abusive and degenerate history of Timothy and Philip Lee, as bad as it was, is really not what troubled all the brothers, including me.

I suppose all of us are entitled to a bad child or two. Aye?

I give all politicians a pass for being liars and crooks, so I could do the same for W. Lee. What I can't overlook is treason, siding with the enemy to damage the family of God.

So, what troubled us was Lee's own behavior, and not just with Ingalls, but going back to China, Taiwan, and the US. The many and regular "storms" in the Recovery were never about persecution or rebellion, rather they were always used by W. Lee to silence those who spoke their conscience. Those over the years who stuck out their neck on behalf of righteousness in order to protect the children of God. In return, Lee and his cadre bore false witness against them via slander and libel. It worked pretty well until the internet came along. No wonder he hated it so much.

Drake, you are not responsible for what you don't know, but for what you do know. Shame on you for siding with unrighteousness.