Awoken after 38 Years

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

The LSM/DCP/Blendeds say that Jo Casteel and Annie McArdle didn't follow Matthew 18 principles (private fellowship first) so the public complaints are invalid.

But John Ingalls and Steve Isitt already tried Matthew 18 with these guys, along with Bill Mallon, Max Rapoport, the Anaheim elder and many others. So it's time to tell the church. Matthew 18 principles dutifully came and went decades ago. Tell it now from the rooftops. Tell it again and again until the light comes.

What difference was made if they had a private fellowship first?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

What difference was made if they had a private fellowship first?

Private fellowship first is recommended (commanded) by the Lord as a kind of protection or safeguard against stumbling and shame. With LSM, repeated attempts to privately and quietly address real concerns are met with either indifference or antagonism.

When the brothers, for instance, told WL about what his "New Way" was doing to the churches, smothering any real move of the Holy Spirit, he replied that they were "pouring cold water" on him. His system simply wasn't built to take in negative feedback. So this system should be exposed for what it is. It is a man-made, man-exalting system that turned programme enforcers into bullies, church members into unthinking automatons, and ejected how many thousands who could no longer take the disconnect and dispiriting abuse?

It's worth considering the "churn rate", or turnover, this group incurs. I suspect even the Mormons do a better job of retaining their YP. In my old locality there are maybe 3 left out of probably 65 or so, from 30 years ago. Maybe 4 or 5 are "serving the ministry" somewhere. Another 15 or 20 are meeting in other local churches. Many of the rest are not even practicing Christian any more. A few are meeting with other Christian groups.

What's the human cost of growing up in this system? The time for "covering" is long since gone.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Private fellowship first is recommended (commanded) by the Lord as a kind of protection or safeguard against stumbling and shame. With LSM, repeated attempts to privately and quietly address real concerns are met with either indifference or antagonism.

W. Lee and the Blendeds used the matter of "private fellowship" to protect or "cover" their perpetrators and send the victims to other cities (forced migration.) For decades LC leadership took advantage of Matt 18 commands, not to find justice for the victims as the Lord desired, but to protect their system.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

W. Lee and the Blendeds used the matter of "private fellowship" to protect or "cover" their perpetrators and send the victims to other cities (forced migration.) For decades LC leadership took advantage of Matt 18 commands, not to find justice for the victims as the Lord desired, but to protect their system.

Hypocrites. I went to have private fellowship with EM over 30 years after his apology to PL. His response "he didn't want to deal with this now". They feel that they can just ignore "private fellowship" forever. If you remember, the last question that Drake was asked before he left this forum for good was how long should we wait before we tell it to the world.

I felt that the NT obligated us to deal with this before partaking of the Lord's table. Drake promised to get back to me on that.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 1Cor 11:27

21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. 23 If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, 24 leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matt 5:21-24

Having a "gift before the altar" would not simply be referring to the Lord's table, but any time someone would speak in the meeting. According to WL's interpretation of Leviticus the various offerings are typified in our sharing in the meeting.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

It's worth considering the "churn rate", or turnover, this group incurs. I suspect even the Mormons do a better job of retaining their YP. In my old locality there are maybe 3 left out of probably 65 or so, from 30 years ago. Maybe 4 or 5 are "serving the ministry" somewhere. Another 15 or 20 are meeting in other local churches. Many of the rest are not even practicing Christian any more. A few are meeting with other Christian groups.

What's the human cost of growing up in this system? The time for "covering" is long since gone.

I agree. the churn rate is the barometer on how they are healthy. My country, South Korea, has gone through a "high" turnover rate.

[Nell]

Matthew 18:15-17 English Standard Version (ESV)

If Your Brother Sins Against You
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Did RK go to Jo in private to discuss her “fault” before openly speaking against her? You can’t have it both ways.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Did RK go to Jo in private to discuss her “fault” before openly speaking against her? You can’t have it both ways.

Good point. Did BP and or WL go to JA and SR and "privately express concerns" in order to "cover the sisters" or did they hold a kangaroo court, where accusation and judgment were simultaneously and openly proclaimed? I haven't read the Thread of Gold testimony by JA recently but it might be good to look back and see if they followed Matthew 18 themselves.

Update: I just looked and it corroborates my memory that WL & BP & Co operated very much apart from biblical guidance.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sandee said that at first she could not understand why "Witness" did not just speak privately to her and ask that she and the other sisters stop sitting together in the meetings. She was around him constantly, as she often helped the Lee's with family matters, errands, trips to the doctor, etc., so it would have been an easy thing for him to do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Good point. Did BP and or WL go to JA and SR and "privately express concerns" in order to "cover the sisters" or did they hold a kangaroo court, where accusation and judgment were simultaneously and openly proclaimed? I haven't read the Thread of Gold testimony by JA recently but it might be good to look back and see if they followed Matthew 18 themselves.

Both Jane A. and Sandee R. testified how shocked they were to be publicly shamed and castigated for some supposed "sister's rebellion" which neither of them, nor any other sister, had the slightest inkling of involvement. Then years later we discover the real motivations for these manufactured "sister's rebellions" of early summer 1977.

• Sandee R. was publicly shamed by WL in Anaheim because her husband Max R. had the courage to confront Philip Lee in a restaurant regarding his late night sexual escapades at the LSM offices on Ball Road while under construction. It was no more than retaliation by WL for exposing corruption within the Lee family. (Ten years later this exact scenario would be repeated.)
• In a simultaneous copy-cat move by Benson Philips in Houston, Jane A. and two other sisters were excoriated for encouraging other sisters to read inspiring biographies of notable Christians. Benson considered such actions to be a threat to the ministry. They would thus define "rebellion" by whether your reading material was exclusively from LSM.

Funny how the Midwest and Brazil would later be excommunicated under identical circumstances.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Good point. Did BP and or WL go to JA and SR and "privately express concerns" in order to "cover the sisters" or did they hold a kangaroo court, where accusation and judgment were simultaneously and openly proclaimed? I haven't read the Thread of Gold testimony by JA recently but it might be good to look back and see if they followed Matthew 18 themselves.

For those not familiar with Jane Anderson's story recorded in this book, this thread provides much detail including the first chapter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Jane A. and Sandee R. testified how shocked they were to be publicly shamed and castigated for some supposed "sister's rebellion" which neither of them, nor any other sister, had the slightest inkling of involvement..

I came in years later, and saw public exposure referred to as "training" and "perfecting". Shame, ridicule, intimidation, public humiliation, and then they retreat behind "Matthew 18 principles" being followed? Which principles, btw, WERE followed by many concerned ones spanning back decades? Give me a break.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

Did RK go to Jo in private to discuss her “fault” before openly speaking against her? You can’t have it both ways.

Good point, I was booted out of the meeting hall in NY by an usher telling me they didn't want to talk to me. Hypocrites.