Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is to further detail out the contradiction found in the statement quoted above when compared to the contents of the letter. Unfortunately, the letter goes on

Wait.

If we are going to be precise let’s be so in all aspects.

The statement quoted was from the letter. Not that the letter said one thing and the statement quoted was only found elsewhere.

So then, is your objection that the content of the letter contradicts itself?

Drake

[Nell]

The following link is a post from the Lawsuits topic. It discusses Witness Lee's deposition in the Mindbenders lawsuit as compared to the "One Publication."

Title: Witness Lee's Sworn Statements vs. Local Church Teachings
Post by: afazio on November 11, 2005, 02:39:21 AM
On the Bereans Forum (now defunct as related to the Local Churches).

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...9&postcount=15

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wait.

If we are going to be precise let’s be so in all aspects.

The statement quoted was from the letter. Not that the letter said one thing and the statement quoted was only found elsewhere.

So then, is your objection that the content of the letter contradicts itself?

Drake

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

So Drake is now "Trapped."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Great point. To work for a publisher whose policy is the "one trumpet" is quite reasonable. To then apply this policy to the church which by definition is full of members who are not part of this publisher is abusive. It is also confusion. If you were a volunteer who served in this ministry without ever becoming an employee are you also now bound by this policy?

I have no issue with anyone serving in LSM and thinking they are serving the Lord. I may get a little uncomfortable when they uplift a man, I may disagree with some of their doctrines, and I may feel that they need to be more accountable and responsible with dealing with sin.

The real issue I have with them is when they bring the Body of Christ into bondage based on a lie all with the goal of making merchandise of the saints.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Trapped,

We may be as two knights passing on a ship... or something like that...

what I mean is the letter includes the statement and is part of the letter since the signatories are below that statement. That statement is also repeated in the supplement reading from Brother Lee below the signatories.

It should be included as part of the letter since it is in the body of the letter. That is how I see it,

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

We may be as two knights passing on a ship... or something like that...

what I mean is the letter includes the statement and is part of the letter since the signatories are below that statement. That statement is also repeated in the supplement reading from Brother Lee below the signatories.

It should be included as part of the letter since it is in the body of the letter. That is how I see it,

Drake

I am so sorry....I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm just stuck. I just can't grasp what you are trying to say. Could you restate it, or slip-n-slide into it from farther away with the background of what is behind it? I feel dumb but I do want to understand your point.


It is included as part of the letter. Did I somehow make it seem like it wasn't? Help me out here!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I am so sorry....I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm just stuck. I just can't grasp what you are trying to say. Could you restate it, or slip-n-slide into it from farther away with the background of what is behind it? I feel dumb but I do want to understand your point.


It is included as part of the letter. Did I somehow make it seem like it wasn't? Help me out here!

Ok..... flying in for a ducky landing after circling the pond....... it may not be a perfect landing but I’ll try...

....in post 25 you indicated that the statement I quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. In post 26 I argued that it was.... then you seemed to acknowledge it was but then said in the “letter itself” indicating Brother Lees statement was not part of the letter itself... throwing me off ...

Here is the point I am making......That the letter itself includes the statement about this being a matter of the ministry not the Lords recovery by Brother Lee. It is part of the letter itself since it is above the signatory of the letter. Therefore, I asked if your problem was that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things, that is, in the front part of the letter itself it says a matter of the Lord’s recovery... but in the latter part of the letter the statement by Brother Lee says not a matter of the Lords recovery.

The difference is meaningful.... if Brother Lees statement is not in the actual letter but only found elsewhere then the authors of the letter could have inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lees statement.... but if the authors included it in the body of the letter itself then Brother Lees statement must be taken as part of the definition of the letter since the authors took the time to include it juxtaposed next to their statement.

That is what I meant.... sorry I probably confused us.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok..... flying in for a ducky landing after circling the pond....... it may not be a perfect landing but I’ll try...

....in post 25 you indicated that the statement I quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. In post 26 I argued that it was.... then you seemed to acknowledge it was but then said in the “letter itself” indicating Brother Lees statement was not part of the letter itself... throwing me off ...

Here is the point I am making......That the letter itself includes the statement about this being a matter of the ministry not the Lords recovery by Brother Lee. It is part of the letter itself since it is above the signatory of the letter. Therefore, I asked if your problem was that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things, that is, in the front part of the letter itself it says a matter of the Lord’s recovery... but in the latter part of the letter the statement by Brother Lee says not a matter of the Lords recovery.

The difference is meaningful.... if Brother Lees statement is not in the actual letter but only found elsewhere then the authors of the letter could have inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lees statement.... but if the authors included it in the body of the letter itself then Brother Lees statement must be taken as part of the definition of the letter since the authors took the time to include it juxtaposed next to their statement.

That is what I meant.

Drake

Ding! I understand now. Thanks.

I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?

Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ding! I understand now. Thanks.

I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?

Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery.

In my eyes the ramifications are significant.

The quote states that the genuineness of a local church is not determined by whether or not that church "takes the ministry" (which I have to assume means Nee/Lee's ministry?).

It then goes on to explain that the one trumpet should be in the Lord's ministry, rather than in the Lord's recovery, indicating that a church that does not take the ministry/one trumpet is still a genuine local church. Since ministry is juxtaposed with recovery, the implication is that if the letter stated the one trumpet should be in the Lord's recovery, then churches that do not take the ministry are thus not genuine local churches.

The problem is, the letter states that - one trumpet in the Lord's recovery - in spades.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ding! I understand now. Thanks.

I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?

Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Ok Trapped... thanks for the clarification.

Prior to this conversation, I never considered there to be a perceived contradiction between the ministry and the Lord's recovery.... because in my mind they are related but not synonyms. When I hear the ministry I think of the work of the gifts to the Body.. and when I think about the Lord's recovery I think about the actions that God has directed in various era's to recover His original purpose to establish His kingdom on earth, that is to bring the Lord back and depose the evil powers and take over the earth with His saints.

Therefore, I see your point in what appears like an obvious contradiction... the wording appears to be contradictory right on the surface. However, I see no substantive contradiction...so I'll explain my thoughts using the document itself... since that is the point of this thread.

Therefore, we have two seeming contradictory statements:

1) I'll use one from your list which should cover most of the similar statements since this one sounds most contradictory: 4. "sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lord’s recovery today."

2) And this one near the end: " The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

The reason I labored on the point about both statements being in the letter is because if they weren't then it could easily be understood that the authors inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lee's statement and in so doing showed they would have not been expressing his thoughts on the matter... and as has been said many times in this forum the blended brothers are faithful to Brother Lee's word to them.

So, with the two statements above there are four possibilities of what the authors intended to mean by including both statements:

First, they may have intended the reader to understand that the first statement (penned by the authors) was their meaning but not the second. That is not logical.... why include the second statement at all then.

Or secondly, they may have intended the reader to understand that the second statement (by Brother Lee) was their intended meaning but not the first. That is even less sensible because they are the authors of the first statement!

Third option is that the authors did not mean either statements to be their intended meaning. That would be ridiculous.

Fourth then and lastly , the authors included both statements because they believed that both statements are the intended meaning. This really is the only logical choice. If the one publication had been penned and released by a single author then it might be reasoned that the author was out of touch ... but since it was probably at least 8, 10, or a dozen brothers reviewing and agreeing on the release of this document, its content, and its intended meaning, then it is of a surety that they meant both seemingly contradictory statements to be true... and they were perfectly comfortable juxtaposing them for public consumption.

If that is the case, and the logic favors that view, then the only question is how two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact not contradictory in the minds of the authors?

I'll pause here before providing my own point of view on that last question.

thanks
Drake