Whistleblower

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right. Snippy. Provide the citation that substantiates rape. And stop mischaracterizing my objections. I am not defending Philip Lee.

Drake, were the Anaheim elders right to excommunicate Philip Lee? And was Witness Lee wrong to oppose the measure?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, were the Anaheim elders right to excommunicate Philip Lee? And was Witness Lee wrong to oppose the measure?

Yes, they were.

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, they were.

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose the excommunication?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose the excommunication?

You’ll need to move from interrogation mode to mutual dialogue if you care continue .

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Ohio>”NO!”

Ok, should criminal charges have been filed also? If so, what?

This is where we agree and disagree. I agree that PL should have been excommunicated and I also believe if he committed a crime the police should have been called in. Did he?

If he did not commit a crime then there would be no basis for calling the police into the situation. Did John or Godfred believe a crime was committed? Did the sister allege a crime was committed? If not, why do you allege what none of them do?

Thank about that... why are you so eager to make claims that principles have not made? Please provide some testimony that proves your allegation of rape.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thank about that... why are you so eager to make claims that principles have not made? Please provide some testimony that proves your allegation of rape.

Drake

Why do you keep screaming "RAPE" in every post?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you keep screaming "RAPE" in every post?

Because you have made the allegation before.

But today is a new day.... you can clear it up once and for all.. do you believe PL was guilty of rape?

Yes or no?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, should criminal charges have been filed also? If so, what?

It's obvious from STTIL that the elders in Anaheim and the victims at LSM wanted to keep the matter "in house" and not go to the law. The principles in I Cor. 6, I Tim 5, etc. were apparently on their minds. They really thought that WL would provide "justice," thinking that judgement "begins in the house of God."

Obviously no one at LSM at that time could be considered a "wise" man. (I Cor 6.5)

Paul instructed Timothy concerning church leaders (I Tim 5.21), "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism."

Consider how sober and serious Paul's instruction to Timothy is here. He calls on God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to witness: Timothy must serve without prejudice and without partiality.

This is exactly the opposite of what WL did!

During that entire time, WL treated Ingalls and others with prejudice and treated his boy Philip with partiality.

Did not God and Christ and the chosen angels witness that?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

You’ll need to move from interrogation mode to mutual dialogue if you care continue .

Thanks
Drake

Drake, it doesn't look good for you that you don't want to answer this question.

Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose Philip Lee's excommunication?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it doesn't look good for you that you don't want to answer this question.

Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose Philip Lee's excommunication?

Koinonia,

I have answered many of your questions. I am happy to answer more when you reciprocate and answer mine.

I don’t care what it looks like. I won’t voluntarily participate in what feels like an inquisition.

Drake

[Drake]

Ok Ohio. Yours is a moral and biblical argument.

This thread started with the introduction of the idea of criminal charges.

Should criminal charges have been filed?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it doesn't look good for you that you don't want to answer this question.

Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose Philip Lee's excommunication?

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

I have answered many of your questions. I am happy to answer more when you reciprocate and answer mine.

I don’t care what it looks like. I won’t voluntarily participate in what feels like an inquisition.

Drake

Koinonia, this is hilarious, if not frighteningly sad.

For Drake to admit WL was wrong makes him feel like part of an inquisition.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, they were.
Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

Sufficient or not, this rightful and righteous excommunication of the unapologetic and unrepentant sexual predator, Phillip Lee, was "undone" by those pack of man-pleasing, puppet elders in Anaheim at the direct order of Witness Lee. I know of many dear brothers and sisters who left the LC of Lee because of this dastardly act of cowardness and betrayal to the victims. Of all the lowdown, despicable things done by Witness Lee and those puppet elders, this one act stands out as the worst....and let me tell you...that takes some doing.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

NO!

Bible says to rebuke before all, that all may learn and be in fear. (I Tim 5.20)

In the same section, Paul instructs Timothy "not to lay hands or appoint men prematurely because the sins of some men are quite obvious, preceding them to judgment, but the sins of others surface later."

Philip's character and sins were obvious to all the brothers who knew him. By all accounts he was an unsaved reprobate. No spiritual minister would ever allow such a one as Philip to go near the people of God without posted guards. Yet WL promoted him to 2nd in command while he was in Taiwan. Unbelievable! Not just over his printing presses, but over all the workers around the globe!

WL was great at instructing everyone else how to serve in the church, but apparently never applied his teachings to himself.

Yet what disturbs so many of us the most is what WL did to these men of God, these whistleblowers, these ones like John Ingalls who spoke their conscience, acted like real shepherds, and were willing to suffer for righteousness sake. Then WL had new puppet elders appointed in Anaheim who reinstated Philip without repentance.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, they were.

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

Philip wasn't in the church anyway ... so excommunication a non-starter.

And wasn't he brought back? Like Watchman Nee ... by Witness Lee?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Philip wasn't in the church anyway ... so excommunication a non-starter.

And wasn't he brought back? Like Watchman Nee ... by Witness Lee?

Bro Awareness,

Please elaborate. I don’t understand what you mean by PL wasn’t in the church anyway.

Thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro Awareness, Please elaborate. I don’t understand what you mean by PL wasn’t in the church anyway.

He didn't attend meetings. He was the opposite of a burning brother. He preferred alcohol, porno, and messing with the sisters.

Maybe he could be considered in the church because he was in the LSM office ... but not really.

I suppose excommunication meant no more money. And that's a good thing. Why pay a sexual predator?

Does that help? Or did I go too far? Eventually his excommunication was withdrawn. And back on the payroll. That's what happens when you're the ultimate leaders son.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe he could be considered in the church because he was in the LSM office ... but not really.

This is why I believe John and Ken went to meet with Benson and Ray. The LSM office was in Anaheim, but Phillip didn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. When someone who doesn't meet in your assembly, how can you excommunicate them?
So it was really an LSM matter. In my opinion Benson and Ray already knew about Phillip's history and didn't want to be involved. To touch Phillip would mean to touch his father and that would hinder their ambitions. So they only recourse was to say it's a local matter.