The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

I will endeavor to follow what the Lord has shown me whether there is an LSM publishing business or not. That also means that if a brother rejects the ministry of life I have received then I will not receive that ones teaching. It also means if someone wants to do their thing then I will not follow them. Most of the time the real issue with opposers and dissenters is not that I follow Brother Nee and Brother Lees ministry, it’s that I refuse to follow theirs.

Drake

This is slander against brothers who chose to follow their conscience.

John Ingalls, for example, could not abide the decade-long cover-up of sexual assault in the LSM office. He also disagreed with the Elders Training loyalty pledge to Witness Lee and the increasing interference of LSM in church affairs.

Do these make Ingalls an "opposer" and "dissenter"?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

John Ingalls, for example, could not abide the decade-long cover-up of sexual assault in the LSM office.

Don’t hide behind Brother John Ingalls. You and others conveniently use him to distract from the present conversation.

Here is some straight talk since you brought him up: John Ingalls should have called the police. He was the leading elder where this assault occurred. He tolerated criminal activity for a decade?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Don’t hide behind Brother John Ingalls. You and others conveniently use him to distract from the present conversation.

Here is some straight talk since you brought him up: John Ingalls should have called the police. He was the leading elder where this assault occurred. He tolerated criminal activity for a decade?

Drake

Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police. How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

Should the sisters assaulted by the MOTA's son leave the LC movement? Or should they stay? And don't misunderstand me, Drake--this is a question about the "ground of the church."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police. How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

Should the sisters assaulted by the MOTA's son leave the LC movement? Or should they stay? And don't misunderstand me, Drake--this is a question about the "ground of the church."

One senior brother at LSM walked into the Ball Road office of Philip Lee with a sister on his lap.

Apparently that was consensual.