Negative Speaking

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Life Study of Leviticus was given during the worst scandal of WL in the USA. His son was caught (again) molesting the office help at LSM.

The church in Anaheim, then SoCal, and soon many other LC's, bacame naturally chaotic. Many God-fearing believers were pretty upset about the perp and the victim. Instead of dealing with the sins honestly, biblicly, and righteously, WL covered it up. He protected himself, his family, and his family business. Then he lied about those who DID attempt to properly address the sin situation. Hence, more chaos.

So what did WL teach? That we should all dive into his own books amd keep our mouths shut. Like the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell." And don't be negative, don't spread death, don't be a gossip, yada yada.

Here's the big one...DON'T TELL THE TRUTH!!!

Nell

[Trapped]

This "don't spread death", by the way, is directly from Lee's just plain bad interpretation of the two trees in the garden of Eden, geared off of "we don't care about right and wrong."

Lee said "right and wrong are on the wrong tree" and he called that tree "the tree of death". The problem is, it isn't the tree of death. It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It sounds catchy to call it the tree of death, because the other one was the tree of life, but that's simply not what the verses say, at all. If it was the tree of death, then God would have called it what it is, like the honorable God He is. But Lee added to scripture, as he was wont to do, and he taught that death came FROM the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when the verses plainly show that death came because God separated them from their access to the tree of life (the thing that would allow them to live forever) and drove them out of the garden.

So since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is NOT the tree of death or the source of death, we can unhook "death" from "good and evil, right and wrong", and voila! The co-workers' fearmongering of death against anyone who speaks up about "right and wrong" becomes visible for what it is: a totally empty windbag full of a whole lot of stinking hot air.

And what we end up with is a situation where a bunch of "blended brothers", in a position of what they think is power, are abusing the Word of God (and abusing God's children in the process) to cover darkness.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This "don't spread death", by the way, is directly from Lee's just plain bad interpretation of the two trees in the garden of Eden, geared off of "we don't care about right and wrong."

Lee said "right and wrong are on the wrong tree" and he called that tree "the tree of death". The problem is, it isn't the tree of death. It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It sounds catchy to call it the tree of death, because the other one was the tree of life, but that's simply not what the verses say, at all. If it was the tree of death, then God would have called it what it is, like the honorable God He is. But Lee added to scripture, as he was wont to do, and he taught that death came FROM the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when the verses plainly show that death came because God separated them from their access to the tree of life (the thing that would allow them to live forever) and drove them out of the garden.

So since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is NOT the tree of death or the source of death, we can unhook "death" from "good and evil, right and wrong", and voila! The co-workers' fearmongering of death against anyone who speaks up about "right and wrong" becomes visible for what it is: a totally empty windbag full of a whole lot of stinking hot air.

And what we end up with is a situation where a bunch of "blended brothers", in a position of what they think is power, are abusing the Word of God (and abusing God's children in the process) to cover darkness.

That, Trapped, is actually the best defining of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil I've heard on here from you - very concise! God did NOT call it the "tree of death." Yet for our original parents, eating of it did mean death.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That, Trapped, is actually the best defining of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil I've heard on here from you - very concise! God did NOT call it the "tree of death." Yet for our original parents, eating of it did mean death.

Thanks, StG.

It did mean death, yes, but because it was forbidden, not because of what it inherently was. It was described at least twice as being "good for food". The fruit itself (or its nature, its element, its essence) is not the issue. I would still say, "Yet for our original parents, disobeying God did mean death."

[Curious]

I want to chip in here and suggest a very excellent resource on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's a book titled 'There Were Two Trees In the Garden' by Rick Joyner.

I know he's a bit controversial and and out on the loopy end for some, in other of his books, but this book is not loopy at all. I suggest to forget the author and just take the book on its own. Personally, I have read it about 5 times and each time I learned much more, than the time before. Its pretty dense but to me makes so much sense. Just my suggestion to those curious.

It certainly also lays the groundwork to easily expose those such as WL or anyone using what seems good to trap people into a system that served himself at their expense (evil).

I'm fact, thinking about it, WL did care an awful lot for good and evil. At least to present the LC as good not evil. That is, he certainly understood the need to use a 'good' facade to attract newcomers, as if people would think the LC to be bad they wouldn't join. So he used the impression of good to cover over doing evil. And that's the context the above mentioned book explains.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Curious

I want to chip in here and suggest a very excellent resource on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's a book titled 'There Were Two Trees In the Garden' by Rick Joyner.

I know he's a bit controversial and and out on the loopy end for some, in other of his books, but this book is not loopy at all. I suggest to forget the author and just take the book on its own. Personally, I have read it about 5 times and each time I learned much more, than the time before. Its pretty dense but to me makes so much sense. Just my suggestion to those curious.

It certainly also lays the groundwork to easily expose those such as WL or anyone using what seems good to trap people into a system that served himself at their expense (evil).

I have an ever-growing backlog of books to purchase when finances are less tight, so I wouldn't be able to buy this book any time soon, but I took a look on Amazon in hopes there would be a "look inside" feature for it. There was.

While the rest of the book may be more accurate (and it does have a good review rating), I choked on the very first page of chapter 1 where he says "...the Lord did not implement this restriction just to test Adam and Eve; He prohibited the eating of its fruit because He knew it was poison."

I'm sorry, but the verses are simply not there to back this conclusion up. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was literally described as being "good for food". There is just no way to say that poison can be good for food. It was described as "making you like God." "Poison" and "makes you like God" simply don't mesh.

And if you take that the tree itself was poisonous, then you are immediately on your way down the road to "not only is evil poison, but knowledge is poison and good is poison too", and we are forest-deep into a spiritually abusive teaching.

Ah, I just read a little more, and it's right there on the very next page: "the knowledge of good and evil kills us....."

Nope. It's the punishment for disobeying God by being restricted from having access to the tree of life that killed us. (If you are prevented from eating the tree that makes you live forever you.......die.) The bible doesn't say that "sin is death" but that "the WAGES (punishment) of sin is death."

Who punished us with death for our sins? God did. Death was punishment; it wasn't from the TOTKOGAE itself.

He then says, "It is significant that the Tree of Knowledge is found in the center of the garden (see Genesis 3:3). Self-centeredness is the chief malady with which it afflicts us."

Okay.....well he used Genesis 3:3, which refers to the TOTKOGAE only. However, Genesis 2:9 speaks of BOTH trees, and the tree of life is also described as being in the center of the garden, so his negative attribution of the central placement as pertains to the TOTKOGAE also means the tree of life has to do with self-centeredness too, which doesn't make any sense.

Then two pages later he says:

"The fruit of these two tree is to forever be separate and distinct, as the Lord Jesus also testified.

For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its fruit. Luke 6:43-44."

The verse he uses actually supports the conclusion that the TOTKOGAE was not a bad tree. It was described as being good for food. This means the fruit was good for food. It had good fruit. And Luke tells us straight out that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. The TOTKOGAE cannot, Biblically, be a bad tree. Or poisonous. Or death.

I'm not saying there isn't good stuff in his book. In the next page or two he starts speaking of Jesus and it seems good, but that's where the preview cuts off for me .

For better or for worse, I get particular with the two trees teaching because getting it a half inch wrong up front leads so incredibly far off just a mile or two down the road. I don't mean to take away from your enjoyment of the book or your recommendation! The rest of the book may be just wonderful! I've just seen where the misinterpretation of this particular story leads, and the way it is used in the LC, and so I'm not super loosy-goosy about this one. Happy to get into it if someone disagrees, but this is just what I see.

Originally Posted by Curious

I'm fact, thinking about it, WL did care an awful lot for good and evil. At least to present the LC as good not evil. That is, he certainly understood the need to use a 'good' facade to attract newcomers, as if people would think the LC to be bad they wouldn't join. So he used the impression of good to cover over doing evil. And that's the context the above mentioned book explains.

Yeah, and he also cared for good and evil when he thought others were perpetrating his version of "evil" upon him!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I have an ever-growing backlog of books to purchase when finances are less tight, so I wouldn't be able to buy this book any time soon, but I took a look on Amazon in hopes there would be a "look inside" feature for it. There was.

Here is free PDF you can download.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Curious

In fact, thinking about it, WL did care an awful lot for good and evil. At least to present the LC as good not evil. That is, he certainly understood the need to use a 'good' facade to attract newcomers, as if people would think the LC to be bad they wouldn't join. So he used the impression of good to cover over doing evil. And that's the context the above mentioned book explains.

In fact, thinking more about it, WL actually redefined for the LC movement what is good and what is evil.

His definitions superseded those in the scripture. His definitions of good and evil replaced those in the Bible. The LC's today operate according to WL's new definitions for what is good and what is evil.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In fact, thinking more about it, WL actually redefined for the LC movement what is good and what is evil.

His definitions superseded those in the scripture. His definitions of good and evil replaced those in the Bible. The LC's today operate according to WL's new definitions for what is good and what is evil.

That reads to me as a really profound and true insight. Yes, his own self-serving definition, fed to his followers as truth. Illustrating that us humans cannot seperate from the concept of good and evil. Weather twisted or true, it is an unavoidable fact of our existence that it sits at the core of us, including any fool that thinks they can develop a theology that dismisses it!

I am seeing the mistake of Rick Joyner in this light. Its like he found a good puzzle piece, with the main content of his book, but he put his puzzle piece in completely the wrong place in the puzzle! (the theological position he gave it). And the simple reason why? He's not been part of a group that abused this Genesis account in the way WL did. So he hasn't seen that wisdom, or perceived how it can be an opening for evil to be done.

That's where the gift of particular wisdom comes from our own experiences and lessons learned, then these then can serve and protect the whole body of Christ from error. Just me sharing my own reflections on this issue. (IMOO)..... 🐄