Whistleblower

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

Not a bit. If you were paying attention to my previous posts you would know what my view would be. It was only your darkened understanding that prevents you from seeing the obvious.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not a bit. If you were paying attention to my previous posts you would know what my view would be. It was only your darkened understanding that prevents you from seeing the obvious.

Drake

Drake, this is not fair. You say that my query ("Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose Philip Lee's excommunication?") was an "entrapment question." Yet, most anyone else would consider it completely simple and straightforward (and thank you for answering it).

A follow-up would be: "If Witness Lee was wrong for opposing Philip Lee's excommunication, was he also wrong for quarantining John Ingalls?" But don't feel entrapped; don't worry--this time it's rhetorical.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, this is not fair. You say that my query ("Was Witness Lee wrong to oppose Philip Lee's excommunication?") was an "entrapment question." Yet, most anyone else would consider it completely simple and straightforward (and thank you for answering it).

A follow-up would be: "If Witness Lee was wrong for opposing Philip Lee's excommunication, was he also wrong for quarantining John Ingalls?" But don't feel entrapped; don't worry--this time it's rhetorical.

Koinonia,

Wait, not fair? Let me clarify why your questions are not simple and straightforward and why they are entrapment questions.

Of course you have another question. That was the purpose of the last one! You have several more to follow. Your questions are like bird crumbs that lead to a box propped up by a stick with a string attached to the stick. Oh my, what’s that all about?

It is craft on your part. If Drake answers this way then you’ll ask that ... but if he answers that way you’ll accuse him of that..... ad nauseam. That is why you won’t answer my questions to you. Yours are leading questions like a lawyer who insists “Mr. Drake, just answer the question! I’m asking the questions here!”

But, no worries. I don’t feel entrapped because it is not that clever. It is kinda cute actually but not funny because the topics are so serious. I don’t find that kind of engagement meaningful or beneficial and since that is the mode you are operating in I put you on my ignore list. If you ever want to have a dialogue then I am always willing to converse with a brother.

Thanks
Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Wait, not fair? Let me clarify why your questions are not simple and straightforward and why they are entrapment questions.

Of course you have another question. That was purpose of the last one! You have several more to follow. Your questions are like bird crumbs that lead to a box propped up by a stick with a string attached to the stick. Oh my, what’s that all about?

It is craft on your part. If Drake answers this way then you’ll ask that ... but if he answers that way you’ll accuse him of that..... ad nauseam. That is why you won’t answer my questions to you. Yours are leading questions like a lawyer who insists “Mr. Drake, just answer the question! I’m asking the questions here!”

But, no worries. I don’t feel entrapped because it is not that clever. It is kinda cute actually but not funny because the topics are so serious. I don’t find that kind of engagement meaningful or beneficial and since that is the mode you are operating in I put you on my ignore list. If you ever want to have a dialogue then I am always willing to converse with a brother.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, I am willing to answer most any question you ask of me--but to make it work, you have to answer mine too. And since you did, I'll give you yours:

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

No. However, to me--it is almost a moot point, as the Anaheim elders were not responsible. For whatever reason, you want me to fault the Anaheim elders for not doing enough. And yet you believe--presumably--that Witness Lee was right to quarantine them for involving themselves at all. This does not make sense.

[UntoHim]

Thread is back open
PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND AND AVOID GETTING PERSONAL.
IT IS THE VICTIMS THAT DESERVE CIVIL DISCOURSE HERE, SO LET'S ALL TRY TO REMEMBER THIS WHEN POSTING.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PRESSING OR EVEN INQUIRING ABOUT A POSTER'S IDENTITY, AFFILIATIONS OR LOCATION.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANYTHING PERSONAL.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

My issue with the LRC is not PL, or Ben M., etc. An individual who sins does not destroy the entire assembly, particularly since the vast majority of saints in the LRC were unaware and uninvolved in PL's sins or BM's, etc.

My issue is with the way in which the LRC dealt with the sins, especially those that did become aware.

What did WL do when he first became aware of PL's sins? How did he act to protect saints serving in the LSM? How did he work with PL for him to deal with his sins? Regardless of how you want to cut it the evidence strongly supports the assertion that WL worked to cover up his son's sins, to slander and discredit any who might know of his sins, and to excommunicate any who would stand for righteousness.

Likewise I don't have an issue with JI and the other elders. They were clearly in a very difficult situation, between a rock and a hard place. If any is going to judge them it should be the Lord. Perhaps they could have done a better job, I don't know. What I do know is they took this seriously and acted to deal with the sin.

My issue is with the puppet elders who took their place and wrote an apology letter to PL because "it pleased WL".

In the world if a person in authority like the FBI or College President, or key Olympic official is aware of allegations of misconduct they need to take responsibility. You can claim that you are not responsible right up to the moment you learned of the allegations. From that moment on you will be held accountable for how you act. If further misconduct takes place after you have learned of the allegations then that may be held to your account.

I have not heard any evidence that WL or other key elders were involved in sexual misconduct, however I have heard evidence that their actions after learning were not without reproach.

In this recent Olympic scandal I am most impressed with one girl who was 17 when she made her allegations. It took 14 years for others to finally do their job and convict this guy, but she stood her ground for 14 years.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I am willing to answer most any question you ask of me--but to make it work, you have to answer mine too. And since you did, I'll give you yours:
No. However, to me--it is almost a moot point, as the Anaheim elders were not responsible. For whatever reason, you want me to fault the Anaheim elders for not doing enough. And yet you believe--presumably--that Witness Lee was right to quarantine them for involving themselves at all. This does not make sense.

Koinonia,

Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point.

If crimes were being committed then of course, they should have done more.

If immorality, sin, and other such awful things were happening then they were responsible to address it in their office as elders..... but if no crime then it would have been dealt with according to their judgement.

If this was the only reason they were quarantined then I do not think they should have been. Was this the only reason John Ingalls was quarantined? What was the stated reason? Let's have a look and we can agree or disagree.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,
Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point....

Mr Drake,

You have been with LC for 4 decades, you should know the actual reasons why John Ingalls was quarantined, instead of asking, could you share why he was quarantined? I am quite eager to know the truth also.

If you don't know, why don't you ask Ron Kangas?
Thanks.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you don't know, why don't you ask Ron Kangas?

Uummm. Because Koinonia and I are conversing?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point.

If crimes were being committed then of course, they should have done more.

If immorality, sin, and other such awful things were happening then they were responsible to address it in their office as elders..... but if no crime then it would have been dealt with according to their judgement.

And what was Witness Lee's role?

If this was the only reason they were quarantined then I do not think they should have been. Was this the only reason John Ingalls was quarantined? What was the stated reason? Let's have a look and we can agree or disagree.

Drake

The May 15, 1990 "An Open Letter From the Churches in California" document reads (in part):

Since the fall of 1987, the churches here have suffered under the dissension and rebellion led by four brothers who were once among us: Joseph Fung, John So, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls. In the beginning many things were done and said by these brothers in a way that was both subtle and hidden. As a result, a number of saints were deceived and thus did not know the true nature of what was taking place. Today, however, there is no question about where these brothers stand. We do not like to see any more of the saints damaged by opening themselves innocently to the words spoke by these brothers. Therefore, we feel that we must warn the churches of the true standing of these four and their followers.

These four brothers 1) have denied the standing of the churches in the Lord’s recovery; 2) have produced divisive meetings; 3) have attempted to draw saints away from the local churches to follow after themselves; and 4) have made unfounded and malicious attacks upon some leading brothers in the recovery, and especially upon Brother Lee and his ministry.

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And what was Witness Lee's role?



The May 15, 1990 "An Open Letter From the Churches in California" document reads (in part):

Since the fall of 1987, the churches here have suffered under the dissension and rebellion led by four brothers who were once among us: Joseph Fung, John So, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls. In the beginning many things were done and said by these brothers in a way that was both subtle and hidden. As a result, a number of saints were deceived and thus did not know the true nature of what was taking place. Today, however, there is no question about where these brothers stand. We do not like to see any more of the saints damaged by opening themselves innocently to the words spoke by these brothers. Therefore, we feel that we must warn the churches of the true standing of these four and their followers.

These four brothers 1) have denied the standing of the churches in the Lord’s recovery; 2) have produced divisive meetings; 3) have attempted to draw saints away from the local churches to follow after themselves; and 4) have made unfounded and malicious attacks upon some leading brothers in the recovery, and especially upon Brother Lee and his ministry.

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

Spiritual mumbo jumbo? Vague?

Let’s drill down on this vague spiritual mumbo jumbo.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And what was Witness Lee's role?

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

Along side the corruption at LSM offices, brothers from around the globe were resisting the onslaught of domination over all the LC's.

The situation in TLR was no different in principle from what we see in the book of Galatians. Judaizers were sent from *Headquarters* to bring the churches under submission to them and not to the Head. Read what Paul wrote as he fought this same battle two millennia ago:

"And it was because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into slavery. To whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. But from those who had a reputation as being somebody (whoever they were means nothing, since God does not accept man's person) for to me those who had a reputation imparted nothing." -- Galatians 2.4-6

I doubt the Judaizers even cared about circumcising the Gentiles. It was all to "make a show" anyways. Like LSM was doing behind the scenes, it was all about subjecting others under their control, because as we know power corrupts. Operatives from LSM, who supposedly had a "reputation" by being close to WL and PL were not received by spiritual men.