Whistleblower

[ZNPaaneah]

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. — Teddy Roosevelt

With both Ben M. and Philip L, you can argue that various elders in the Local church did not do the right thing. In both cases it was clearly "a moment of decision" and in both cases the elders were clearly offended and acted in a way to respond to the evidence of sin. PL would not have been so heinous had they not "done nothing" for so long. Still, it is slanderous to say that the Anaheim elders allowed sin to flourish. JI and the rest of them had a moment of decision. They sought fellowship and I think the response they got from RG and BP was reprehensible, still it was ultimately under their authority and they did the right thing.

No doubt the puppet elders that replaced them were culpable for their letter of apology.

As for Ben M., again you can argue that they ultimately did "the wrong thing" which is the "second best option". Immediately calling for the elders to meet and fellowship was the right thing. The reaction of the elders was the right thing. Involving WL in the fellowship was the right thing. Following his advice was certainly an understandable decision, though in hindsight was the wrong thing, still it was far better than doing nothing.

I agree with Awareness that it is absurd to think that in a church fellowship of tens of thousands of believers you are not going to have sins of this nature taking place. I completely disagree with the characterization of "sexual abuse by the Local Church leadership". We have not been given any evidence of that on this thread.

[eDh22]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. — Teddy Roosevelt

Originally Posted by Nell

I would not tell anyone what to do, but I would like to encourage those who were abused in the Local Churches to consider their options today. Think about the others who come after you. Pray about it.

When I was meeting with the LCs and the hymn "I'm so happy in this lovely place" was called, I would laugh and roll my eyes. I wasn't "happy" and this place wasn't "lovely" but that's not why I was there. I believed that the Lord's Recovery was the one true way. I wasn't particularly fond of the saints in any of the localities in which I had lived and I was comfortable maintaining a slight unspoken disagreement with our local elders and with Anaheim, but prided myself in being silent and unshaken from the true way of the Lord's Recovery, no matter what.

I'd dare to say that human behavior ranging from wacky to dangerous can be found in any gathering of humans, and that fear of confrontation is a fairly universal human sentiment, so my relative state of self-induced subjugation, while arguably part of LC enculturation, is likely being repeated day in and day out in various situations around the globe.

It took years before I allowed myself to recognize that I was existing in a state of avoidance. I was exhausted from parsing through a range of quality of teachings and behavior of the leadership but not addressing them with the saints, because of my fear of being cut off. I had seen so many brothers and sisters, some beloved, some less so but still, dismissed from the community over the years. One almost comical example was when fairly new sister gave a testimony that was, I thought quite unintentionally, "outside the party lines", and was very publicly obliterated. I remember my strong feeling of justification ("that's what happens when you don't read from the Life Studies!") being mixed with a whisper of envy ("but maybe now she is free"), watching her walk alone out the meeting hall door for what I knew would her last time.

This thread has been helpful to me. What was really my life's intension at the time? Was it affected by a lack of self-respect or by too much self-consideration? Did I allow an organization or principle to become my "false idol"? In my pride of being steadfast, who or what was I betraying?

In contrast with - "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" 2 Timothy 1:7 (NKJV)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by eDh22

One almost comical example was when fairly new sister gave a testimony that was, I thought quite unintentionally, "outside the party lines", and was very publicly obliterated. I remember my strong feeling of justification ("that's what happens when you don't read from the Life Studies!") being mixed with a whisper of envy ("but maybe now she is free"), watching her walk alone out the meeting hall door for what I knew would her last time.

Publicly ambushed by the LC version of PC police?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by eDh22

When I was meeting with the LCs and the hymn "I'm so happy in this lovely place" was called, I would laugh and roll my eyes. I wasn't "happy" and this place wasn't "lovely" but that's not why I was there.

I identify with just about all you said above eDh22.

When I first 'joined' the local church I could sing "I'm so happy in this lovely place" and feel it and mean it. Back then I was discovering God's eternal purpose, and diving into it.

I diligently absorbed and sucked in everything I could by Nee and Lee. Then, as I got ever more and deeper involved -- with the soon to be golden boy, Kangas, if he wasn't already golden -- I started to see contradictions to what I was reading in their books going on. But I still believed I was in God's eternal purpose and trusted that it was coming from Gods' man.

But as I saw more and more contradictions, I couldn't just let it go and keep my mouth shut.

And irony of ironies, eventually I was accused of "using Lee's works to destroy Lee's works." In other words, holding Lee to his past teachings to destroy his present new and improved teachings, or something like that. It was crazy logic to me. It came to a head, and I got drummed out.

So how's it going for you eDh22?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with Awareness that it is absurd to think that in a church fellowship of tens of thousands of believers you are not going to have sins of this nature taking place. I completely disagree with the characterization of "sexual abuse by the Local Church leadership". We have not been given any evidence of that on this thread.

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

I think John Ingalls gave us plenty of evidence. The women who posted told us what they could. Believe them or don't.

Regardless, I've said everything on this topic that I intend to say. I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I blew the whistle. That was my intention.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

I think John Ingalls gave us plenty of evidence. The women who posted told us what they could. Believe them or don't.

Regardless, I've said everything on this topic that I intend to say. I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I blew the whistle. That was my intention.

Nell

If LSM was a secular company Philip would have been out on his ear in a flash ... #MeToo ...

But Lee had experience covering for Nee's sexual exploits. So covering for his son's exploits was just doing business as usual.

Lee was too uncomely and homely for sexual exploits. He went for the money. He went for none-of-your-business-LSM, and sales -- So let Philip and Timothy have their fun, as long as money is made.

Back when Lee started charging for conferences, tickets for Lee were more expensive than tickets for top-draw Rock bands. Lee the Rock star. And hey, let's make churches buy our materials.

So we had sex and money, but no Rock and Roll.

I'm ashamed to admit that, I was just as much a sucker as those joining NXIVM today, or Scientology.

[Drake]

I’m glad Nell brought this thread back to the top because in reviewing the arc of the discourse it brought to the forefront once again a recurring practice among a few members of this forum....

First, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Opinion springs out of a belief system and not necessarily based in fact. An informed opinion will try to bolster ones opinion with some facts but at the end of the day, it is still opinion.

Facts are what actually happened but may or may not necessarily be factually based. For instance, a dissenting brother may have written a letter , that is a fact, but the content of his letter may be just an opinion based on little or no facts. Just because someone wrote a letter does not automatically mean the content is factual. Or for example, a post in this thread referenced a sister who was molested as a young girl, a link was provided, but the sister said straightforwardly that no one in the local churches perpetrated that abuse upon her. Therefore, that lent no credence to the basic charge of this thread that sexual abuse is rampant in the local churches and yet the implication is foisted upon us by innuendo.

Which brings me to this next point that I find sorrow in having to say to fellow Christians. Bearing false witness. It occurred in this thread in two ways. First the outright allegation by Nell that there is sexual abuse among local church leadership and which charge ZNPs due diligence proved false in #302....then the allegation that I, Drake, was dismissive of actual sexual abuse accounts of women that have testified and posted on this forum by Nell #289...... again, this is bearing false witness as no women who were actually sexually abused posted here and therefore I never did as was alleged nor would dismiss such a tragic incident. Both of these allegations were simply the bearing of false witness and should never proceed from the mouth of a Christian and yet the scripture says plainly from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

And finally there is another destructive bearing of false witness presented in this thread... that of bearing false witness through innuendo. Perhaps this is the worst kind.

If the reader cares to understand my view on this serious matter and my challenges to the falsehoods presented in the examples above then start with #44 and follow my posts through this thread. Or jump to #115 and follow the duck after that.

Thanks,
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

What is definitely not OK is to twist someone's words, quote out of context and then ascribe such a nasty response. I have made it clear repeatedly that PL was "not OK". I repeated that "I had condemned PL to the uttermost". You are distorting my comment. The church is a hospital, what is foolish is to think you will have a church anywhere without sinners and fleshly people. PL was not even a member of the church. You can second guess the way in which the elders dealt with PL, and with Ben M. But saying that the elders allowed "sexual abuse" to flourish is ugly. Hope was an elder, JI was an elder. Those are the two testimonies of elders showing their response and there is no justification based on their response to conclude that the elders were complicit in allowing sexual abuse.

But would it be OK for me to say that you committed the crimes that PL did without any supporting evidence? No, that is called libel. You blamed Local Church Leadership for the crimes of PL. Based on what? PL was not Local Church Leadership. JI was. Are you blaming JI for PL? If so, give us the evidence. You pointed to a number of testimonies on this thread, none of them provided any evidence of "sexual abuse" by "local church leadership".

So, to answer your question. No, PL's abuse is not OK. Therefore why do we need to make up false charges? Since we all agree that PL's abuse was heinous and involved sufficient supporting evidence to be deemed credible this also means that the apology letter from the puppet elders that replaced JI, etal, was also heinous. I don't feel that the behavior of those elders can be used to condemn "Local Church leadership" as a whole, but if you want to throw shade on those particular elders go ahead. What I find far more relevant is that this is the undeniable evidence that ties WL into PL's sins.

[UntoHim]

To ZNP and Drake and all forum members.

Tone down the rhetoric. Any further posts accusing another forum member of "bearing false witness" will be deleted. Both of you are showing the coldness, insensitivity and disrespect for women/sisters that the Local Church of Witness Lee is infamous for. Shame on you both. Both of you are being argumentative, insensitive and petty towards Nell. There is a context in which she is claiming that Local Church leadership is responsible for the sexual abuse experienced by quite a number of sisters/women. Some have posted on this forum. One in particular was by a sister who went by the moniker "happiernow":

Originally Posted by happiernow

The church allows sexual predators to flourish. I have experienced this first hand. Does anyone else have experience with this?

She had originally posted a lengthy description of the abuse. She then realized it had too much personal information and deleted it, or had me delete it for her, I can't recall which. In any event it was horrific to say the least. THIS WAS DIRECT FIRST HAND TESTIMONY.

To say that what is being discussed here on this thread is "hearsay" is absolutely absurd. It's an old Witness Lee/Local Church trick, thrown out as a shameless red herring to avoid addressing real, genuine experiences and concerns by current and former members, especially women/sisters. It may have worked for the Acting God /Oracle et al, but that duck won't fly around these parts.

Again. Let's tone down the rhetoric. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Maybe a nice cup of herbal tea. TONE IT DOWN OR I WILL TONE IT DOWN FOR YOU.
**As always, I am not including myself as "any other forum member". Me and my posts are fair game. Call me a liar. Challenge me on the open forum that I am bearing witness. Go for it. Call me an unfair moderator. Have at it.
But stop attacking and accusing any other forum member of lying or bearing false witness.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To ZNP and Drake and all forum members.

My first post was in #290, I highlighted Nell’s comment about “responding to actual victims of sexual abuse” and simply asked for Nell to point me in the direction of these quotes and victim’s testimonies. I asked because I had respect for this issue.

Nell responded: “The entire Whistleblower thread is about sexual abuse by the Local Church leadership and is based on testimonies of posters on this forum and documentation from John Ingall's book.” (Nell Post 292)

Awareness seemed to echo this in posts 294 and 296: “My point is that there are always all kinds of hidden things going in every locality, every group, every church, and every religion, pretty much everywhere. I was shocked when I found out about it, and what the elders knew -- and didn't know.”

In Post #302 I looked at the posts that Nell said were testimonies of sexual abuse by the Local Church Leadership. One post quoted happiernow saying “the church allows sexual predators to flourish. I have experienced this first hand.” So we have posts from three different posters alleging that elders in the Local Church knew of sexual predators and allowed them to “flourish”. I think this is a very big deal, not unlike what we recently saw with the Catholic Church. I feel it is our responsibility to tell those we see sinning of the Lord's judgement. When I heard of EM's involvement in this I sought him out and talked to him directly about this. I wanted to know what "Local church leaders" they were talking about and if I had responsibility to speak to them. That is not "coldness" or "disrespect".

I was trying to get to the bottom of this, I thought Nell might have missed a testimony, or perhaps Nell would have said that it was part of the testimony that was deleted. In post #303 I also floated a fig leaf that “Local Church Leadership” referred to WL and the puppet elders in Anaheim.

But Nell took this post and used it to infer I was suggesting we "wink" at PL's sin. There is no basis for that conclusion. I may have mentioned PL in at least 20 posts on this forum and in everyone I have condemned him as an evil and lascivious man.

[UntoHim]

ZNP and others.
The sexual abuse problems didn't start with Phillip Lee and they certainly didn't end with Phillip Lee. It is now obvious to all but the most truest of True Believers in the Local Church that this dynamic most certainly started with the founder of the movement, Watchman Nee. Most of us with a little gray hair and decades of experience with the Local Church don't have a lot of doubts now about the things Dr. Lily Hsu detailed in her book. Everything rings true - The absolute adoration and undiscerned devotion to a man of flesh and blood almost universally ends in the abject abuse of the followers of such a man. In many cases the women/sisters in such movements end up paying the highest price. Such is the case with the Local Church of Witness Lee.

As I have clearly and strongly stated a number of times over the years, I will not allow the revealing of or discussion of intimate details regarding this kind of abuse. Members are free to PM each other, but for the sake of our readers I don't see the need for details on a public forum. The most leeway in this matter will be given to the actual victims themselves. If I am satisfied that they are genuine, then these women/sisters will be given a voice here on LocalChurchDiscusions. Additionally, those with first hand knowledge, by direct communication with the victims or first hand knowledge of any abuse will also be given a voice. AND THEY WILL BE GIVEN A VOICE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO VERBAL HARASSMENT AND THREATS BY OTHER FORUM MEMBERS.

I think our friend Drake mentioned something about "delivery" lately. Well the "delivery" of what has been posted by ZNP and Drake on this thread has been over-the-top. The tone and tenor, especially as it has been directed at Nell, stinks. It smacks of the typical male/brother insensitivity that is so prevalent in the Local Church. The nitpicking. The parsing of every jot and tittle. It's petty, and even worse, it ads to the deep wounds still scaring so many girls/women/sisters who have been abused.

On a personal note, I have had a close family member confide in me about being raped by another close family member. It repulsed me to my core. And when I asked her why she didn't come forward when it happened: "I DID NOT THINK ANY OF THE MEN IN THE FAMILY WOULD BELIEVE ME." I cried in shame for days. I was one of those men. I felt shame and regret that this dear girl could not come to me when it happened. By God's mercy and grace, and no thanks to me or any other of the men who should have known, this girl has recovered as best she could. She is married now and has a family of her own. She has also turned to the Lord and to fellowship with a healthy group of believers. Thank God for this.

Maybe there's a reason why Eve didn't go to Adam when the serpent told her all those lies....maybe she didn't think that he would believe her
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Maybe there's a reason why Eve didn't go to Adam when the serpent told her all those lies....maybe she didn't thing that he would believe her
-

My responses have nothing to do with "not believing" the accusations. If I didn't believe it I wouldn't have posted or asked a question. I believe the proper response when we learn someone has sinned is to confront them. If there was more to the matter of sexual abuse and cover up by the elders that I was not aware of I would act on that information. That was the motive in asking for something actionable. That is what the term "whistleblower" refers to (providing information on a person involved in illegal activity).

You seem very sensitive to those who have been abused and yet completely tone deaf to those who are accused based on inference and innuendo. I understand your desire to protect the victims, but that sentiment was also motivating elders in the Local church who were dealing with these same issues. That does not mean they were allowing the sins to "flourish". That also is the history of the Local Church going all the way back to Shanghai and the elders that excommunicated WN.

(Finally there is an issue with your use of language which is causing confusion. The term "sexual abuse" is a legal term, but you are not using it that way when you refer to WN. WN's mistress would not be "sexual abuse" unless she was an unwilling partner or a minor. That is confusing. It seems you are using the term to refer to fornication and adultery. Your story of rape is sexual abuse. PL and your story are about sexual abuse, WN and BM were about adultery.)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

...AND THEY WILL BE GIVEN A VOICE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO VERBAL HARASSMENT AND THREATS BY OTHER FORUM MEMBERS.

I think our friend Drake mentioned something about "delivery" lately. Well the "delivery" of what has been posted by ZNP and Drake on this thread has been over-the-top. The tone and tenor, especially as it has been directed at Nell, stinks. It smacks of the typical male/brother insensitivity that is so prevalent in the Local Church. The nitpicking. The parsing of every jot and tittle. It's petty, and even worse, it ads to the deep wounds still scaring so many girls/women/sisters.....-

UntoHim,

Stop. Please. STOP!

First, there are no victims of sexual abuse in this forum who have posted anything.. and no one that anyone has verbally threatened or harassed. Nor would. That is fake news. Totally.

Second, you and Nell do not have a corner on this topic. You are not the only one who has been exposed to or or had to deal with it. It is a serious matter and should not be handled carelessly. Don’t brush me with further scarring the deep wounds of many girls, women, and sisters. That is a pathetic tactic on your part to silence me....so, if I question these accusations, if I ask for the evidence which is supposed to be so apparent, if I challenge the outrageous accusations against brothers in the Lord then I am further scarring girls who have been sexually abused?.... it is deeply disturbing that you even think that way. It’s not my questions, or ZNPs, or Evangelicals that further scar. Does that matter to you at all?

Third, over the top is not calling out falsehood. Over the top is calling consensual sex as sexual abuse. Over the top is accusing leadership in the local churches of sexual abuse, rape, and other serious crimes. It’s also libelous. There is no evidence posted in this forum that it is happening or is rampant as has been alleged.

Just to be clear, this is your forum UntoHim, and you can adjust the membership anyway you please... you are responsible for its content. I think you are making a mistake by allowing libelous content to stand unchallenged..... but nevertheless, I will not allow anyone to make accusations about what I said and what I did which are patently false nor will I keep my mouth shut about it when it happens to me... or others.. If remaining silent when falsely accused are your terms for participating in this forum then we can pretty much figure out how this will end.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

On a personal note, I have had a close family member confide in me about being raped by another close family member. It repulsed me to my core.

It repulses me to the core to hear about it.

I wonder if being female is a curse? I'm don't mean they are cursed for being female, I'm saying they're cursed because of men.

I can't tell you how deeply this disturbs me. Two little angels, 6 and 8 now, that I see when I see my grand children, are the sweetest little girls. A couple yrs ago I was asked to give one of them, the older one, a ride to my granddaughter's 1st birthday.

The two little girls live in Missouri. They were here for the party. Their mother was here with them. During the ride I asked the little girl where her daddy was, and she told me she didn't want to be with him. She then stunned me by telling me that he was touching her and her younger sister down here, and she pointed. This all came out when the little girls were caught doing it to a little boy.

That's why this disturbs me so deeply. It results in life long damage.

But this makes my point. That this sort of stuff happens everywhere, even in our families. Men have an appetite. Some can't control it.

I don't remember ever allowing it to flourish with the elders I knew in the LC.. I remember a gay issue in the c. in Detroit (Kangas lead). They didn't let it flourish when it happened. And there was one in Ft. Lauderdale. The elders knew about it, but they couldn't stop it. They did still allow the brother to lead the children. There's that. The brother eventually died of AIDS.

The only one that I know of, where LC leaders could be accused of allowing it to flourish was, Witness Lee and his sons. Philip and Timothy had a long history of it. As with the one John Ingalls got involved with, their dad wouldn't stop it. That was the beginning of the end for JI, cuz he was lead elder, and he certainly wasn't going to allow it to flourish. But by virtue of the private company LSM, Witness and his kids were outside the LC, and therefore outside the province of the elders. So the leader of the "Recovery" is the one that allowed it to flourish.

Originally Posted by Untohim

Maybe there's a reason why Eve didn't go to Adam when the serpent told her all those lies....maybe she didn't thing[k] that he would believe her
-

Maybe you see it differently, but in Gen. 3:6 I see that Adam was right there with Eve and the serpent, but apparently just watching ... and listening. In any case, Adam wasn't tending the garden, or eating from any of the other trees, or the right tree. He was clearly complicit with Eve and the serpent.