Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Writings of Former Members > Writings and Concerns of Steve Isitt

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-2011, 04:29 PM   #1
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Sisters of the Rebellion

In 2001 I met Sandee Rapoport after meeting with Max for three hours at a brother's home in Riverside, CA. She and others had come in to join us for further fellowship. I met that week in Southern CA with other former leaders, which was my primary objective, after having sent them In the Wake of the New Way, my first writing. My visiting took place December 3 thru 10 exactly ten years ago.

I had several email contacts with Sandee concerning her experience in Anaheim. I was amazed at the love and forgiveness in her heart she continually expressed toward brothers Ron Kangas or Witness Lee and others. Two sisters she got me in contact with had the same spirit of love.

Jane Anderson testified of her “repentance to Lynn Turner and her husband and the sweet experience of brotherly love that resulted” and discussed with elders the need “to be free to open up to one another honestly about our problems and personal situations.”

This, Jane and others saw as a necessary labor of love in the church to build up the Body. But it was apparently viewed by church authority as a part of a sisters’ rebellion against God’s move that damaged God’s building. Thus, church authority was executed to “terminate” the “divisive” and “independent” sister in a scene that was considered to be to this day by the executioner a proper demonstration of the “headship of Christ” in the Body.

http://www.HidingHistoryintheLordsRe...eRebellion.pdf
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 01:06 PM   #2
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
This, Jane and others saw as a necessary labor of love in the church to build up the Body. But it was apparently viewed by church authority as a part of a sisters’ rebellion against God’s move that damaged God’s building. Thus, church authority was executed to “terminate” the “divisive” and “independent” sister in a scene that was considered to be to this day by the executioner a proper demonstration of the “headship of Christ” in the Body.

http://www.HidingHistoryintheLordsRe...eRebellion.pdf
Interesting how misleading Benson is in his speaking. If you did not know the history, Benson is very believable. This word from the 2005 Winter Training was tidy and conveniently shows what happened in 1977 is also a current word. It was a not so subtle precursor to the events about to transpire in 2006. "They didn‟t call it a party, but that‟s what we‟re talking about, a factious party, built up in the church. It may be sisters, it may be brothers, it may be young people, it may be co-workers,". Ironic how consistently facts are not presented accurately, but rather how it fits the present agenda.

A timeline is needed to show local church history 1962-present (year by year with events as they happened).

I lived in Anaheim 1976-1979. As of 1977, Max and Sandee were still with the church in Anaheim. What Benson was alluding to did not happen until 1978. For further verification, I asked one of my sisters. Up to a certain point in 1978, members of my family were still going to Wednesday night meetings where Max would speak.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 06:16 PM   #3
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Leadership for
Entering the Good Land


Houston Sister Speaking Truth
A couple of weeks ago I read a post by Thankful Jane where she once again brought the reader’s attention to the dark side of the church life where she had been a member, mainly in Houston. Her post related the passing over of sin by the elders and their taking the advice of Brother Lee in not dealing directly with the sinning elder. Although Brother Lee had his reasons for suggesting that the brother just re-locate, (which would include avoiding the risk in Houston of a lawsuit by the family), the result of not dealing with the sin in his locality has been catastrophic up to this day.

I had been reading more of her book these days about the issues that grieved her so deeply, the dark events and cruel behavior of elders, especially by Sam Jones and Dan Williams. Since she and others were so negatively impacted, one can understand why she wants to drive home the points she made about leaders, practices, and teachings that are stressed in the Local Churches - and examine the fruit! This is what responsible people do.

I realized yesterday who Sam Jones must be. In a phone call with a former elder in LA and Rosemead, I found out that his wife had repeatedly protested to her husband about the things she knew and that had been covered up in Texas. She had been in at least two Texas churches – Houston and Irving. In order to keep her quiet “the church” had bought a house for this elder and his wife. She has now passed away, only about a month ago.


Enemy's Entrenchment Manifest
Something riveting to me is that not only Jane, but also a brother in Texas spoke of the presence of spiritual darkness while in separate sessions with elders, the brother having the spiritual sight of a black snake spiraling upward behind the backs of the elders. Do I have this right? These testimonies make sense in light of the truth “pressed down” in unrighteousness among them and their evil behavior toward Jane and others, the basic lack of individual care for the members, and obsession with a man and a ministry.

(As a side note, “Steve Smith” and two elders sat behind me in the 1974-75 winter training on Romans, and I never forgot my impression of them. I could hear them talk, infrequently as it was, always low volume and uninspired, dragging, without joy. On breaks, from the beginning, I noticed they were not engaging at all, without light in their countenance or life in their step. They were very weighed down throughout the ten days of training, morning and night. I sensed death and darkness was with them and knew that something was wrong.)

I just share this experience and don’t know what they were experiencing in their lives, as elders one year into the ministry movement spawned by WL and Max in Jan.’74, a movement that escalated with each passing year. Did the crashing of Daystar affect them? Or, I carefully ask, had the elder already been in sin at this time? The reason I would say, yes, is because sin brings in death, and that type of sin would account for this kind of paralyzing death I witnessed. This is only a conjecture, a possibility that I posit.

Whatever the case, I would not have wanted to trust being under their care, and the march underway to the one accord drum beat to align elders with a universal leader precluded expectations that such an important movement would sacrifice its objectives to stop and care for people, and with sin.


The Sisters’ Reaction
The joyful brother in my phone conversation yesterday said that what was called a rebellion by the sisters was actually not a rebellion but a reaction they had to the sins of WL’s two sons. He himself testified that he could sense spiritual death in the office of Living Stream as he passed through it; and then one day he himself became a witness to Philip Lee’s moral misconduct, as was Warren Peterson also on another occasion. This sinning by PL was never treated and dealt with, though Max Rapoport tried. He had approached Brother Lee.

The sisters initially came together to pray, then they also approached Brother Lee and confronted him to deal with his son and the sin in the office of Living Stream. Ten years later reports came again and the church in Anaheim was in an upheaval over the undealt-with sins at Living Stream Ministry.


Focus on a Movement
With focus always on the movement and not on dealing with the sins and the unrighteous and cruel behavior in the leadership, death has now spread to the point of a possible imminent collapse of an unrighteous leadership.

Jane Anderson speaks in her book, The Thread of Gold, about the behavior of Local Church leadership which believes “it needs to protect the Local Church’s reputation and the ministry of Witness Lee”. She says it is “more than disturbing” that they are willing “to preserve their cause at the expense of others and even at the expense of truth”. (p. 263)

She is not alone in this thought. And the numbers are climbing around the globe. There are websites on the local churches that I didn’t know existed, as a brother told me of several, and my own timeline of LC history was sent to me from one of those sites, having been edited by someone and I think improved. In other words, many voices are being heard all around the world and the pressure is increasingly on LC leadership.


Moses Heart for God
As Moses prepared to lead the children of Israel into the good land of Canaan, we see a completely different picture of the leadership expected among God’s people than what has been prevailing in the Local Churches for decades. Moses received word from God for leaders to deal with equity in their oversight of the multitudes under their care.

In Brother Lee’s footnote he says,

“In Deuteronomy, Moses as the spokesman of God was like an aged, loving father speaking to his children with much love and concern.” (Deut. 1 note 2, RCV)

Deut. 1:9 And I spoke to you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you alone.

v 10 Jehovah your God has multiplied you, and now today you are as the stars of the heaven in multitude.

v 11 Jehovah, the God of your fathers, add to you a thousandfold ones like you and bless you as He has promised you!

v 12 How can I alone bear the burden of you and your strife?

v 13 Choose for yourself men who are wise and prudent and well-attested, according to your tribes, and I will make them your leaders.

v 14 And you said, The thing which you have said for us to do is good.

v 15 So I took the leaders of your tribes, men who were wise and well-attested, and I made them leaders over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officials for your tribes.

v 16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the cases, between your brothers and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the sojourner with him.

v 17 You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall respect the small and great alike. You shall not fear the face of man for judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me; and I will hear it.

v 18 And I commanded you at that time all the things you should do.


Steve Isitt
Dec 11, 2011
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 09:55 PM   #4
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post

I realized yesterday who Sam Jones must be. In a phone call with a former elder in LA and Rosemead, I found out that his wife had repeatedly protested to her husband about the things she knew and that had been covered up in Texas. She had been in at least two Texas churches – Houston and Irving. In order to keep her quiet “the church” had bought a house for this elder and his wife. She has now passed away, only about a month ago.
How many sisters were like this elder's wife? Having been aware, protested, not taken seriously, but rather expected to go along.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 05:52 AM   #5
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
(As a side note, “Steve Smith” and two elders sat behind me in the 1974-75 winter training on Romans, and I never forgot my impression of them. I could hear them talk, infrequently as it was, always low volume and uninspired, dragging, without joy. On breaks, from the beginning, I noticed they were not engaging at all, without light in their countenance or life in their step. They were very weighed down throughout the ten days of training, morning and night. I sensed death and darkness was with them and knew that something was wrong.)
For all the careful observation in these posts, I find that these kinds of comments do not fit.

Why do we try to decide how others are spiritually based upon a litmus test of activities? The way they carry themselves?

Talking in low volumes is a sign of a problem? In a place where there was a focus that might not always need to be disturbed by the talk between other people?

Define "light in their countenance" and "life in their step." Do they need halos like from medieval paintings? Does proper position in the LRC require a uniform countenance?

I am not trying to say that there was simply nothing wrong. But the yardstick put up does not seem to be relevant or realistic. Countenance is often a relative thing. It is something that is discernible mainly in its change or in its extremes. If we think that being at the Romans training demanded an extreme of upbeat, joyous countenance, then we were not sober enough to understand the meaning of so much of the content. It should have burned through us to realize that our natural life was, at its best, simply striving to be good. Too much joy in that context should have suggested that we didn't really get it.

But more than that, to judge the character of anyone based on an expectation of joy and and "life in their step" is to ignore the weight of the reality of who we are, and of the tasks placed before us. In fact, the very expectation that the end of every message in that training would result in "must spring from my seat" testimonies constantly punctuated with "hallelujah," "Oh Lord," and "amen" shouted in staccato fashion suggests less-than serious consideration of what is in the messages.

Or a problem with the content of the messages.

Or less than serious realization that some very important things had been glossed over.

The task of the Christian life is not simply exuberance. I say exuberance rather than joy because joy is not always about outward upbeatness. But exuberance is. And I think we incorrectly replace joy with exuberance and write off people for not being exuberant.

And I will not try to defend "Steve Smith" and his foibles (if I am remembering my TOG pseudonyms correctly) but I spent 9 months in the same small, brand new church on his journey between Houston and Irving.

He impressed me as someone who was not just a "hallelujah brother," but was of sober consideration for his tasks as elder in that place. In fact, I would suggest that he might have been as good at the overall job of elder as any of the ones any of us know — except for the sin that he couldn't shake that should have disqualified him from that task.

But I doubt that could be detected from the row in front of him in the Romans training.

Due to his sin, his position as an elder should have been dealt with when he was in Houston. But it was not. (Just like PL's was not around the same time.) Then it really wasn't again a few years later in Irving. The result is that he could never be restored since he was never dealt with righteously. And the results were ultimately greater than the sin that was privately cast out of the congregation, affecting not only him and his family, but that of at least one other family.

But the problem was less "Steve Smith's" sin. It was mostly the unrighteous dealing with it — twice — and the fallout from it. Without knowing anything about the problems, I saw some of the first fallout a year or so later when their daughter (and probably his wife) returned to Irving to visit one weekend. The daughter was a mess. Turned into quite the rebel. She may have just been putting on appearances before, but no more. That family was already under siege.

I would suggest that it was a lack of proper training in leadership that was at least partly the downfall in this case. Elders with some real understanding of their purpose and charge would not have been so errant in handling this kind of situation. Not the first time or the second. I realize that there are examples of Christian organizations that failed in a similar way, with the RCC priest scandals standing out most recently. But most organizations will not tolerate such things. It is only the insecure that need to hide the sins and hope that new scenery will do what their lack of discipline could not do.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 09:34 AM   #6
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post

The Sisters’ Reaction
The joyful brother in my phone conversation yesterday said that what was called a rebellion by the sisters was actually not a rebellion but a reaction they had to the sins of WL’s two sons. He himself testified that he could sense spiritual death in the office of Living Stream as he passed through it; and then one day he himself became a witness to Philip Lee’s moral misconduct, as was Warren Peterson also on another occasion. This sinning by PL was never treated and dealt with, though Max Rapoport tried. He had approached Brother Lee.

The sisters initially came together to pray, then they also approached Brother Lee and confronted him to deal with his son and the sin in the office of Living Stream. Ten years later reports came again and the church in Anaheim was in an upheaval over the undealt-with sins at Living Stream Ministry.
While listening to a message Ed Marks gave in Spokane, something he said made me wonder, where was Ed Marks in 1978? In Houston, or in Anaheim. His word why there was a turmoil in 1978 was not a reaction to sin as Indiana's post indicated, but rather because the saints got away from reading the Bible.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 09:38 AM   #7
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

In case someone misunderstands what I wrote earlier today, let me be clear on a few things.

I am not dismissing "Steve Smith's" sins. They are significant and made him unfit to be an elder. But the real issue is not his sin, but the handling of it by the rest of the LRC leadership, ultimately including Lee.

I am not suggesting in any way that there is any flaw in Jane's account in TOG. And I don't think she thinks I think that either. I find that her writing is extremely level, if almost overly forgiving concerning the early stages of SS's problems. And that is as it should be. There was no sin against her in it and no knowledge of what sin there was at the time.

I am not picking on Steve, although I have done so in the past. And I often do comment that I wish some of his writing more clearly delineated between what others have said and what he is saying (and there is a little of that here, although I think I figured it out). And for someone concerned about the demeanor of someone else — especially picking on their lack of observable joy — I find these posts excessively cold, clinical, and preachy.

But that was not the point of my post.

My point was to wonder aloud if we (most of us) still consider the Christian life in terms of exuberance, bubbles, a tingly feeling, and a sense of awe at the superiority of our knowledge. Despite my serious misgivings with so much I learned in the LRC, the time did open me to be much more careful in what and how I believe, therefore more critical in thinking and listening to much of anybody. And it drove me to a more serious look at knowledge, even doing some "shade tree" study of philosophy, eventually realizing that, while knowledge is very important, it is not what you know so much as what you do that actually matters.

And it is not whether you are upbeat and joyous in a training, or serious and contemplative. It is what you do with it that matters. And to the casual observer, those who will have an idea what to do with things are those who are careful to observe what it is that they are handling, not those who are babbling about anything and everything and concerned about appearances.

In the case of Steve Smith, all the way back to 1977 there appears to be a need by LRC leadership to hide any hint of wrongdoing. The same thing was happening with PL out in California. And the head honcho himself was responsible for that little preview of things to come. Rather than being sure to deal with sin in the midst, and even make an example of a fallen elder, they just shuffled the deck and sent SS to Arlington. Then he moved on to Irving a little later. Always an elder.

That's just wrong. But rather than point at SS for his sin and his character, point at those who knew and just left him in place without any proper discipline or repentance. Those leaders knew. And they knew they did it wrong. Hope has given us some insight into the second time it all came up and they just shuffled him off to East Texas. Out of sight and out of mind. But not for long. It would come around to destroy more only a few years later. SS is not without blame. But BP and several others, including Lee share in the blame. Yet they remain in their places (sans Lee) just as SS did.

In this case, I am a little concerned that this is a little like one of those speeches by candidates for student body president. Most of the silly teen movies and TV shows (including the current hit "Glee") have at least one candidate who has nothing of substance to say, and has not practiced the little he does intend to say, so he gets stuck, then blurts out some cheer-leading kind of jargon to stir up the student's emotions about something irrelevant.

Steve's post is not like that. But I believe that he is thinking back to a time when he, like so many of us, were mostly stirred up over and over again by high-sounding rhetoric that brought us to our feet with shouts. But it was not necessarily a time when we were being imparted something of lasting significance relating to the real Christian life. I'm not saying that there was absolutely no meat in what we were hearing. But that was seldom the real point. It was all about keeping upbeat and euphoric.

When I think back to the Romans training, I don't remember a lot. But when I started thinking about the real meaning of walking according to the Spirit in recent years, I had reason to go back to look at what was written in the Life Studies on that portion of Romans. And it was just more reason to be turning away from Lee. He spent a lot of time ranting on how anything we do in ourself is just the Law as in Romans 7. He makes a big deal about being free from that (Romans 8:1-2) because the law of sin and death is defeated. Then he has little to say about walking by the Spirit except to call is the "spirit" and then move along.

In hindsight, I think that there is not much "joy" in daily, hourly, minute-by-minute realizing that our natural tendency is to walk according to the flesh and there is significant effort on our part to keep the Spirit in sight and walk that way. So we need a theology that allows us to wait until we get more dispensing to to step out and walk. In the mean time, we just seek out dispensing and joy.

And second-guess anyone who does not seem joyous. Even write them off. Treat them as a plague. Leprous. Unclean. A must to avoid.

So if you are Steve Smith and you want any hope of change, you have to hide your failure and act the part. You can't ask for help. You can't resign your eldership and seek counseling. You have to just go on and wait for the dispensing to overcome your sin.

And we know how sound that advice is.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 09:39 AM   #8
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
While listening to a message Ed Marks gave in Spokane, something he said made me wonder, where was Ed Marks in 1978? In Houston, or in Anaheim. His word why there was a turmoil in 1978 was not a reaction to sin as Indiana's post indicated, but rather because the saints got away from reading the Bible.
Pretty sure that Ed Marks was still in Houston in 1978.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 11:47 AM   #9
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
While listening to a message Ed Marks gave in Spokane, something he said made me wonder, where was Ed Marks in 1978? In Houston, or in Anaheim. His word why there was a turmoil in 1978 was not a reaction to sin as Indiana's post indicated, but rather because the saints got away from reading the Bible.
Ed Marks made a comment about the "saints getting away from the Bible?"

Is that some kind of joke? Has Ed Marks ever promoted "getting into the Bible?" He is perhaps the greatest cheerleader WL ever had.

Furthermore, how would Ed know what really happened in Anaheim in the 70's? His only source of information was the scandalous book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.

Let me say it again folks, I never learned any good, accurate Recovery history listening to LSM. They spin every event for their own gains. There never was anything fair, accurate, or balanced in their record of events. They have little interest in actual facts, neither do they care to do any worthwhile investigation.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 12:02 PM   #10
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Ed Marks made a comment about the "saints getting away from the Bible?"

Is that some kind of joke? Has Ed Marks ever promoted "getting into the Bible?" He is perhaps the greatest cheerleader WL ever had.

Furthermore, how would Ed know what really happened in Anaheim in the 70's? His only source of information was the scandalous book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.
That book briefly touched upon what happened in 1978. I'll say this much you'll hear brothers say so and so was ambitious. That may be so, but ambition was tolerated UNTIL he reacted to a sinful situation. With the turmoils of 1978 and the late 80's, this is the message that's delivered: turmoil was due to ambitious brothers. What is not spoken is certain saints reacted to a sinful situation.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 12:21 PM   #11
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

OBW,

It was a sidenote you commented on. In considering this past weekend on the phone the undealt-with sins in Anaheim and Texas and the picture of suffering and mental and emotional bondage in Jane's book, I wondered how much the sin in her locality attributed to the condition of the church there. As she sought care for sisters and couples in a time with the elders, and one of the elders breaks down and actually is sobbing, I wondered how long he had been in need of care. He had a tremendous amount of emotion built up in him, even offering that the lack of blessing in that locality was because of him.

I know what it is like to be in an overly-spiritual church life where needs with a couple and family are not being met and I spoke and wrote to the elders in Seattle to address serious needs that I observed and had myself.

It is as Jane says in her book, the continual looking to the divine dispensing of the Triune God to be the cure-all makes Christ something of a product we take rather than a Person we love and are in intimate fellowship with. Thus, we have so many leaders and saints so rich in a ministry yet so poor in Christ, although they receive “the ministry” daily for the divine dispensing.

Her point on God’s economy in 1 Timothy is that the end of the charge by Paul is love. The scenes in Anaheim, Seattle, and Houston all show the fruit of being under Witness Lee’s ministry as sadly deficient of Christ, the Person, in elders, in other members, for the building up of the Body in love.

It is not that Brother Lee didn’t realize the lack, he spoke much about this need in his last years. But looking away to the divine dispensing keeps leaders from actually dealing with their conscience, sins, unrighteous matters, and caring for hurting members in the church.
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 08:37 AM   #12
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I'll say this much you'll hear brothers say so and so was ambitious. That may be so, but ambition was tolerated UNTIL he reacted to a sinful situation. With the turmoils of 1978 and the late 80's, this is the message that's delivered: turmoil was due to ambitious brothers. What is not spoken is certain saints reacted to a sinful situation.
Of course they are not going to mention that Witness Lee's son was involved in immorality. That was covered up for another 10 years and many more suffered because of it.

And it wasn't the elders of the LC who eventually dealt with it. It was the extended family of the woman involved in the latest despicable acts of Lee's son who publicly insisted something be done about him. Finally the elders stopped kowtowing to Lee long enough to toss his son out on his behind where he belonged along time ago - with Lee whining the whole time how his family was being mistreated. It must have slipped his mind how many people and especially women his son had mistreated over the years which he swept under the carpet. I think the condition is called convenient amnesia.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:53 PM   #13
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
And it wasn't the elders of the LC who eventually dealt with it. It was the extended family of the woman involved in the latest despicable acts of Lee's son who publicly insisted something be done about him. Finally the elders stopped kowtowing to Lee long enough to toss his son out on his behind where he belonged along time ago - with Lee whining the whole time how his family was being mistreated. It must have slipped his mind how many people and especially women his son had mistreated over the years which he swept under the carpet. I think the condition is called convenient amnesia.
Second part first. In all honesty these are examples I've encountered regarding PL.
1. By some currently meeting with the Local Churches, what was reported about Phillip Lee was just a rumor.
2. By some currently meeting in the local churches would admit privately they believe it did happen
3. By some who had left have acknowledged it did happen.
4. Any topic that includes Phillip Lee is not open for discussion.
The first part of your post I'll have to respond to later.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 06:05 PM   #14
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Leadership for Entering the Good Land

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Of course they are not going to mention that Witness Lee's son was involved in immorality.
Call it for what it was and still is; respecter of persons. As I had read the local elders at the time deferred to Witness Lee to deal with his son. Fast forward ten years into the late 80's, it became much more than just an Anaheim matter. Many of the current blended brothers involved in fellowship knew what was going on and weren't willing to touch Phillip Lee.
On the other hand, had it been you or I, the matter would have been dealt with properly, swiftly, and without incident.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:11 AM   #15
bookworm
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 38
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
In the case of Steve Smith, all the way back to 1977 there appears to be a need by LRC leadership to hide any hint of wrongdoing. The same thing was happening with PL out in California. And the head honcho himself was responsible for that little preview of things to come. Rather than being sure to deal with sin in the midst, and even make an example of a fallen elder, they just shuffled the deck and sent SS to Arlington. Then he moved on to Irving a little later. Always an elder.

That's just wrong. But rather than point at SS for his sin and his character, point at those who knew and just left him in place without any proper discipline or repentance. Those leaders knew. And they knew they did it wrong. Hope has given us some insight into the second time it all came up and they just shuffled him off to East Texas. Out of sight and out of mind. But not for long. It would come around to destroy more only a few years later. SS is not without blame. But BP and several others, including Lee share in the blame. Yet they remain in their places (sans Lee) just as SS did.

So if you are Steve Smith and you want any hope of change, you have to hide your failure and act the part. You can't ask for help. You can't resign your eldership and seek counseling. You have to just go on and wait for the dispensing to overcome your sin.

And we know how sound that advice is.
You will note on page 162 of The Thread of Gold that there was a meeting of Jane and her husband along with another Houston couple with Steve Smith (who was the main elder in the Church in Houston at that time) and Sam Jones. Jane and John had been discussing with this other couple regarding the need in the church “to be free to open up to one another honestly about our problems and personal situations, such as husband-wife relationships.” When these two couples shared their concerns “unexpectedly Steve leaned forward, put his head in his hands, and began to weep.” Jane goes on to describe that “he sobbed and was deeply affected.”

Perhaps this was an experience of Steve Smith coming close to asking for help. When he regained his composure Steve Smith told these couples that he and the other elders would get back with them at a later date, but they never did.

Instead several weeks later was the time described in Chapter 1 of The Thread of Gold in which Jane was accused of “the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.”
bookworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 02:59 PM   #16
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Perhaps this was an experience of Steve Smith coming close to asking for help. When he regained his composure Steve Smith told these couples that he and the other elders would get back with them at a later date, but they never did.

Instead several weeks later was the time described in Chapter 1 of The Thread of Gold in which Jane was accused of “the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.”
Actually, I realize this. I have had some discussions elsewhere with Jane about some of this. I see evidence in Steve's initial interest of at least the seeds of his own problem. There are a number of indicators that something was going on with him at that time that needed help.

And the other elders plus Benson put an end to that, and moved Ben to Arlington only a month or so later. And another place it has been indicated that the sin that Ben was ultimately sent away for in 83/84 (can't remember the timing perfectly) was already blossoming in Arlington.

But that is not the important thing to me. It is the total disregard for the care of the flock at the altar of the "ministry." I will note that it was the general lack of real care for people that was the reason my wife and I left in 1987. We didn't have Steve's problems, whatever they were. But they didn't care for either of us.

As Benson said once in a moment of honest reflection, "we've built great walls for the sheep and they are dying." (Clearly a paraphrase, but the meat of it. And he didn't say it to more than two or three at the time.)
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 03:50 PM   #17
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of a Rebellion

Righteous Administration in the Kingdom of God

A leader of the LC movement who believes he is a proper administrator of the true church with the God-appointed administration from the throne of God, spoke on the kingdom of God this November in Bellevue. His name is Ron Kangas. He does not get into the righteous clearing of matters of the past, as is also true with his counterpart, Benson Phillips. For many years sins have piled up and speak louder and louder to the unrighteous rule of these men.

There is no resemblance between these men and those who were expected to lead men, women and children into the good land of Canaan. These were to be men of character, caring for the needs of the people according to God, in righteously judging cases among them.

v 16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the cases, between your brothers and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the sojourner with him.

v 17 You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall respect the small and great alike. You shall not fear the face of man for judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me; and I will hear it. (Deut. 1:16-17)

Moses, according to God, would have leaders raised up to respect the small and great alike in judgment. Not so in the Local Churches. The case of Sandy and Bob was apparently an unrighteous nightmare that has never been dealt with according to God and the same with the case of Steve Smith. It seems that Houston sisters, like the Anaheim sisters, were involved with the righteous dealing with sin in their locality and also for the care of sisters and couples in their church family life.

I was told the sisters rose up in Anaheim because the brothers did not rise up. Sisters were rising up in both places to pray and to equip themselves for both spiritual warfare and shepherding “the flock of God among them” over which they became practical overseers of the church, caring for the souls of men and women who made up the church, bought with the Lord’s blood. When it seemed to the elders they went too far in Anaheim, the elders stepped in to “stop” the sisters’ activity, I’m told.

In Houston, both Sam Jones and Dan Williams were not caring for the flock of God as the sisters were doing, which actually is according to a female’s God-given nature and function to do - to nurture, to love, to care for the family. Sam and Dan did just the opposite and damaged the church by cutting these sisters off and by wrongly judging Jane. Now, Jane has been raised up by God to judge them.

If men do not judge righteously, God might raise up a woman (Judges 4 and 5). He did so in the Old Testament when Deborah, a “woman of torches”, was placed in position to judge disputes; and even Jael, a female warrior, was given to slay an enemy general, Sisera, as Deborah had prophesied would be done by "a woman". Deborah was a counselor, warrior, prophetess, and one of the major judges in the story of Israel's possessing of the land of Canaan.


Steve Isitt
Bellevue, WA
12-15-11
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 04:48 PM   #18
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Good points, Steve.

I was reading back through some of the earlier posts today and realized that one post in which I talked about "Steve Smith" also mentioned you with no designation other than "Steve." It hit me that someone might think I was either talking the whole time about "Steve Smith" or that I thought you and he were one and the same.

I know that I keep "dogging" you in some ways, but you are too good at documenting the ridiculous positions that these rascals are taking that I must admit that you should never take my complaints too seriously. In any case, you are nothing like "Steve Smith."

This may have been more of a STP (shield thy posterior) post than anything. But I realized that for all my attempts at clarity, I manage to mess it up fairly often.

Peace to you, my brother,
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 07:29 AM   #19
bookworm
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 38
Wink Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Actually, I realize this. I have had some discussions elsewhere with Jane about some of this. I see evidence in Steve's initial interest of at least the seeds of his own problem. There are a number of indicators that something was going on with him at that time that needed help.

And the other elders plus Benson put an end to that, and moved Ben to Arlington only a month or so later. And another place it has been indicated that the sin that Ben was ultimately sent away for in 83/84 (can't remember the timing perfectly) was already blossoming in Arlington.

But that is not the important thing to me. It is the total disregard for the care of the flock at the altar of the "ministry." I will note that it was the general lack of real care for people that was the reason my wife and I left in 1987. We didn't have Steve's problems, whatever they were. But they didn't care for either of us.
Interesting OBW that you "let slip" the actual name of Steve Smith in this post.
bookworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 08:46 AM   #20
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Interesting OBW that you "let slip" the actual name of Steve Smith in this post.
My bad. It was not intentional.

And while I consider that the elders of the LRC, or any group for that matter, are public figures and therefore, within the teachings of Paul, subject to disclosure, it is not my place to make it happen. So all my "care" of spell checking, then reading through each post (making the process entirely too lengthy) still fails at times.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 08:52 AM   #21
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,348
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Interesting OBW that you "let slip" the actual name of Steve Smith in this post.
It's my understanding that pseudonyms were used in The Thread of Gold. That was the prerogative of the author. As far as use of real names on this forum, in general, I have allowed the actual names of leaders. This would include Elders, Co-Workers and Ministry officers & officials. In general, spouses and family members are off limits. If anyone feels that there should be exceptions in this general policy, please let us know.
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 11:14 AM   #22
bookworm
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 38
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
It's my understanding that pseudonyms were used in The Thread of Gold. That was the prerogative of the author. As far as use of real names on this forum, in general, I have allowed the actual names of leaders. This would include Elders, Co-Workers and Ministry officers & officials. In general, spouses and family members are off limits. If anyone feels that there should be exceptions in this general policy, please let us know.
Hi Unto,

I agree with this general policy, and I did not mean to chastise OBW. On the contrary, I wanted to point out his revelation.

bookworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 11:46 AM   #23
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Confess yours sins one to another

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
You will note on page 162 of The Thread of Gold that there was a meeting of Jane and her husband along with another Houston couple with Steve Smith (who was the main elder in the Church in Houston at that time) and Sam Jones. Jane and John had been discussing with this other couple regarding the need in the church “to be free to open up to one another honestly about our problems and personal situations, such as husband-wife relationships.” When these two couples shared their concerns “unexpectedly Steve leaned forward, put his head in his hands, and began to weep.” Jane goes on to describe that “he sobbed and was deeply affected.”
From a portion of James 5:16, “confess your sins to one another”. Through the fellowship that was transpiring as Jane wrote about, I believe “Steve Smith” was on the verge of confessing his sins one to another. This is what “Sam Jones” was offended by. Question remains why would ‘Sam Jones” be offended by “Steve Smith” breaking down? My assertion is elders are deputy authorties, and for “Steve Smith” to display conviction in his emotional reaction, indicates a loss of authority. An unveiling of a facade brothers strive to maintain. I say this based on the observation how brothers come across publicly as opposed to private. In private whether at home or within a select few, all the defensive mechanisms come down.

Since I referenced James 5:16, how come this verse isn't taught in the recovery with regard to the principle of relationships among Christians?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 12:08 PM   #24
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
But that is not the important thing to me. It is the total disregard for the care of the flock at the altar of the "ministry." I will note that it was the general lack of real care for people that was the reason my wife and I left in 1987. We didn't have Steve's problems, whatever they were. But they didn't care for either of us.
That has been a constant why saints leave the recovery. Maybe someone with more direct insight can respond to my next comment, why are many spouses of elders absent from meetings. I began to notice it in the 1990's and based on other accounts, it's not isolated.
I believe it comes back around from caring. There isn't much love for one another nor is there much compassion. I have rarely seen it exhibited. What there is is a love for a ministry. If you listen to messages in recent years as I have, the focus is on the kingdom age. This is the goal. As a result just as you experienced in 1987, there isn't any caring. Why ? Just as I stated previously the focus is on the kingdom age and the ministry is the best vehicle to arrive there. An old saying had been the ministry through the churchlife will take care of your homelife.
What about love and compassion? This is why I feel those who had left the recovery in recent years are seeking something....seeking something they can identify touching the age of grace. A focus the recovery has missed the mark on. This is where 1 Corinthians 13 can be practically expressed. In my experience the non-denominations and the denominations are focused here, are focused now. Is where I comprehend what John and Jane were after when they met that night with the Smith's in Sam Jones' presence. Point being if you have love and compassion for one another, you'll exhibit the love and compassion.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 09:05 PM   #25
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Steve and Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post

Good points, Steve.

I was reading back through some of the earlier posts today and realized that one post in which I talked about "Steve Smith" also mentioned you with no designation other than "Steve." It hit me that someone might think I was either talking the whole time about "Steve Smith" or that I thought you and he were one and the same.

I know that I keep "dogging" you in some ways, but you are too good at documenting the ridiculous positions that these rascals are taking that I must admit that you should never take my complaints too seriously. In any case, you are nothing like "Steve Smith."

This may have been more of a STP (shield thy posterior) post than anything. But I realized that for all my attempts at clarity, I manage to mess it up fairly often.

Peace to you, my brother,

Thanks OBW. I was wondering too if some would follow the wrong Steve path and get crossed up, thinking you're coming after me. I was looking close myself.

Steve
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 11:45 AM   #26
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Instead several weeks later was the time described in Chapter 1 of The Thread of Gold in which Jane was accused of “the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.”
I am still trying to grasp this concept. How is it Jane is being held accountable? I've never met in Houston nor have I met any of the individuals involved. More I think about this episode and the more I think of BP's unwillingness to meet with the John and Jane (Russia is just an excuse), the more I think pride as an obstacle. I've heard different LC elders talk about being one. Cannot happen while pride is present. Hypothetically one could say, "you need to be one with the brothers". Hypothetically I'll say, "the brothers need to be one with you". To be one doesn't flow in just one direction. It is a two way stream. It flows upstream as it flows downstream.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 12:36 PM   #27
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I am still trying to grasp this concept. How is it Jane is being held accountable? I've never met in Houston nor have I met any of the individuals involved. More I think about this episode and the more I think of BP's unwillingness to meet with the John and Jane (Russia is just an excuse), the more I think pride as an obstacle. I've heard different LC elders talk about being one. Cannot happen while pride is present. Hypothetically one could say, "you need to be one with the brothers". Hypothetically I'll say, "the brothers need to be one with you". To be one doesn't flow in just one direction. It is a two way stream. It flows upstream as it flows downstream.
It seems this whole sad episode started as just a case of BP trying to be "one" with WL, but in actuality BP merely became a second hand copycat via distorted information obtained from PL. As Sandee Rapoport has recorded, BP did not even get his facts straight on pending action in Anaheim because it passed thru the dirty hands of PL.

How Thankful Jane gets blamed for Steve Smith's tearful breakdown is also fallout from this pitiful act of "copycat oneness." WL was about to "deal" with a supposed sisters' rebellion in Anaheim, which in reality was concocted in order to retaliate for Max rebuking PL for his immorality at the LSM offices. PL then relayed to BP that his daddy was about to render justice upon those three "holy sisters," one of whom was Sandee R.

BP guessed there was some connection, and since he was only acting like his mentor, any discipline BP meted out in TX must also be, by definition, the right course of action. Since a "proper" Recovery leader like Steve Smith would never "breakdown" in tears in front of sisters, what happened to him must then be the result of this suspected "rebellion." That was all the "proof" that BP needed.

In 2005, when Jane's book was published, that was just "further confirmation" that BP's actions in 1977 were "correct," as he himself has said.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll let the Andersons weigh in on this.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 04:14 PM   #28
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
the more I think pride as an obstacle. I've heard different LC elders talk about being one. Cannot happen while pride is present.
The hubris of the LC is off the charts! It permeates everything they say and do. They actually believe they are God's government on the earth today that all Christians must submit to. And they wonder why their numbers are tiny especially in the U.S. Everything they are and proclaim is the antithesis of the U.S. which is based on religious freedom not one church claiming to be the sole authority. That was left behind a long time ago starting with the Reformation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 06:55 PM   #29
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

The display in Texas of complete bungling and mishandling of situations and people runs parallel to my experience in Seattle. There were no shepherding elders in my place who cared for truth and equitable judgment. Superficial and wrong judgments were frequently made due to the lack of responsible character in the elders.….

“An overseer should not be sloppy or sleepy but all the time watchful. He must be aware of the situation of the church, and oversee each member of the flock. If so, he will know what the need is and what they should do."
(1991 Elders' Training, Bk 11, W. L.)

The erring elders in Texas would not oversee the saints and judge in the light. The brother could not come to meet with Jane and John over deep concerns; he could not pick up with Lanel and her prepared package for fellowship; brothers could not shepherd Bookworm in her marriage. If the sisters had a "rebellion", it was over the Christless church life they had experienced.

1. “The condition of a church depends upon the eldership in that church. The proper eldership is one in which all the elders contact people daily, weekly, regularly, and consistently. The number of people the elders contact is the deciding factor of the condition of the church in their locality.”

2. “We must first pick up a concern for people and go to contact them. Then we will learn their condition.”

3. “They need to go to each of the saints’ homes outside [the meetings of the church]. This is why Paul said in Acts 20 that he taught the saints publicly and from house to house and that he admonished each one of them night and day with tears. Paul used both the day and the night.”

4. “We mostly use the meeting time to contact the saints. We think that as long as we have attended every meeting we have fulfilled our duty. But that is not the complete fulfilling of our duty. The fulfilling of our duty is also outside the meetings.”

5. “…The elders must pick up the burden of a slave to serve the big family of their Master.”

Ministry Excerpts from Witness Lee: Elders Training, Book 11, 1991
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:05 PM   #30
rayliotta
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 602
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane View Post
4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It seems this whole sad episode started as just a case of BP trying to be "one" with WL, but in actuality BP merely became a second hand copycat via distorted information obtained from PL. As Sandee Rapoport has recorded, BP did not even get his facts straight on pending action in Anaheim because it passed thru the dirty hands of PL.

I'm sorry, but to me, this idea that other leaders misunderstood or distorted Witness Lee here is really kind of absurd. Does anyone honestly think he didn't know what he was doing when he called out "the three sisters" ("holy" or not) in the conference meeting? Do we think he was dumb? Do we think he didn't have enough influence within the group?

We have the benefit of hindsight. Why cast it aside? There's a pattern here, one that has repeated itself so many times. Out of a desire to give the benefit of the doubt, or for some reason, it seems we put on blinders so we can't see the patterns. I did this for so many years...I can't pretend not to see it now...

________________________________

I believe Benson got his facts right. It was one fact, and quite a simple one, really.




.
__________________
And for this cause, the Good Shepherd left the 99 pieces of crappy building material, and went out to recover the one remnant piece of good building material. For the Lord will build His church, and He will build it with the good building material, not the crappy kind.
rayliotta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:17 PM   #31
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post

We have the benefit of hindsight. Why cast it aside? There's a pattern here, one that has repeated itself so many times. Out of a desire to give the benefit of the doubt, or for some reason, it seems we put on blinders so we can't see the patterns.
Sorry to say, man never fails to disappoint. No matter how many times the benefit of the doubt is given, result is always failure. In Jesus, He is sure, He is unfailing, and He is perfect.
In the Local Churches mistakes have been made, but no apologies made, and no confessions given. With the "rebellions", "turmoils", etc which were nothing more than reacting to sin, it's brothers and sisters that get discarded for objecting to sin.
Yes, the benefit of the doubt has been given and I for one did give it. I was proven wrong, not much has changed. There's still verbal condemnation of non-LSM assemblies. I even went to an elder about it and the concern was received with indifference. When there's no compassion, no love, and there's no reality of the Church.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 11:18 PM   #32
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
The erring elders in Texas would not oversee the saints and judge in the light. The brother could not come to meet with Jane and John over deep concerns; he could not pick up with Lanel and her prepared package for fellowship; brothers could not shepherd Bookworm in her marriage. If the sisters had a "rebellion", it was over the Christless church life they had experienced.
Some brothers lacked capacity to shepherd saints outside the concept of the ministry as a "cureall" for every problem and every situation.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 07:21 AM   #33
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
I believe Benson got his facts right. It was one fact, and quite a simple one, really.
A scene from the godfather II?

Care to explain these facts, especially the "simple one?"
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 12:10 PM   #34
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Some brothers lacked capacity to shepherd saints outside the concept of the ministry as a "cureall" for every problem and every situation.
Brothers in Texas, Seattle, Anaheim and elsewhere depend on the ministry as a cure-all. Getting church members plugged into morning revival and meeting ministry fellowship is what leading brothers do; but this is not adequate. “Overseers should oversee” (W. Nee, Church Affairs) “…they watch for your souls” (Heb. 13:17).

Receiving life-supply and knowledge from the word and the ministry is not enough to meet human needs in the church. Witness Lee addressed this deficiency at an elders’ conference: "In the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love". (1996, A Word of Love)

The Body builds up itself in love not in the high peak fellowship. Brothers in the Local Churches get lost in high places and do not like to condescend to men of low estate - down in the valleys, where the problems prevail. Although Paul wrote Ephesians, a book on the church, he says to "walk in love", even in the same chapter that he mentions the great mystery of Christ and the church (5: 32). In 1 Corinthians 12 he speaks on the members of the Body of Christ having the same love for one another that there be no divisions; then in chapter 13 drops the bomb, “if I...know all mysteries and all knowledge…but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:2)
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 12:57 PM   #35
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Brothers in Texas, Seattle, Anaheim and elsewhere depend on the ministry as a cure-all. Getting church members plugged into morning revival and meeting ministry fellowship is what leading brothers do; but this is not adequate. Receiving some life-supply and knowledge from the ministry is not enough to meet human needs in the church.

Witness Lee addressed this deficiency at an elders’ conference: "In the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love". 1988
This is the kind of hypocrisy that just burns me up. Elders and workers from all over the world have been emphatically and deliberately trained to "depend on the ministry as a cure-all." This is what they have been taught for years. Those brothers who knew this would never work either got "re-educated" or they have left the Recovery.

It just amazes me that for decades WL and his minions have actively sown all the necessary ingredients to produce Laodicea, and then they appear surprised when "love is absent among us," and the Recovery folks are "puffed up, and not built up."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 07:38 PM   #36
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It just amazes me that for decades WL and his minions have actively sown all the necessary ingredients to produce Laodicea, and then they appear surprised when "love is absent among us," and the Recovery folks are "puffed up, and not built up."
As surprised as these ones may be, there is no openness to receive "True Fellowship". Wonder why love is absent? The ministry may produce knowledge and pride, but it doesn't produce love. You cannot have the building up without love and love needs to be exhibited. Brothers can say, we love brother/sister so and so, we pray for brother/sister so and so. The question I would ask, if you love brother/sister so and so, why haven't you visited them? Why haven't you contacted them?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 04:41 PM   #37
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It just amazes me that for decades WL and his minions have actively sown all the necessary ingredients to produce Laodicea, and then they appear surprised when "love is absent among us," and the Recovery folks are "puffed up, and not built up."

Brother Lee said in his later years, "according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs." (A Word of Love, 1996)

6. “Paul did not withdraw from his responsibility. Rather, he taught the believers publicly in the meetings and privately from house to house.”

7. “From now on the elders should do more home visitation. By visiting the homes of the saints, the elders can teach and shepherd the saints.”

8. “To shepherd is not just to give a message. This is neither adequate nor primary. The primary responsibility is to go to the saints and shepherd them in their homes. So Paul set up a pattern for the elders by teaching the saints publicly and from house to house. If there is a house, the elders should go. If there are ten houses, they should go to each one to visit each of the saints.”

9. “By visiting a home the real situation of that person’s environment could be seen. Then the elders could render them the proper shepherding.”

10. “Although we need to mow the lawn, keep our house clean and neat, clean the windows, and vacuum the carpet, do not spend that much time on these things. Rather, we should save some of the time to shepherd the saints. If we go to the homes of the saints to shepherd them, there will be a record of this in the heavens.”
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 04:58 PM   #38
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Brother Lee said in his later years, "according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs." (A Word of Love, 1996)
WL taught all the right things, yet at the most urgent times, his ministry, in both word and deed, undid all of the positive things which he taught. This is what makes things so difficult for the saints to sort out, and eventually all of them just end up following their leaders as to which side to stand by.

Why is it when many brothers have approached WL with egregious concerns over the years about the direction of his ministry, he then displayed to them "a human spirit of "power" but not love?" Does anyone else see the ironies here? WL knows all the right things to teach, but the "more powerful teacher" of his own actions will always displace mere words on a page.

I daresay that each and every "storm" or time of "rebellion" in the history of the Recovery under WL since the late 40's could have been prevented had only WL practiced what he preached, and shown the humble spirit of love when others needed this the most. Instead, however, the brothers around WL only witnessed destructive "power," abusive power, power to tear down, rather than power to build up as the real apostles have done.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 06:27 PM   #39
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
WL taught all the right things, yet at the most urgent times, his ministry, in both word and deed, undid all of the positive things which he taught. This is what makes things so difficult for the saints to sort out, and eventually all of them just end up following their leaders as to which side to stand by.

Why is it when many brothers have approached WL with egregious concerns over the years about the direction of his ministry, he then displayed to them "a human spirit of "power" but not love?" Does anyone else see the ironies here? WL knows all the right things to teach, but the "more powerful teacher" of his own actions will always displace mere words on a page.

I daresay that each and every "storm" or time of "rebellion" in the history of the Recovery under WL since the late 40's could have been prevented had only WL practiced what he preached, and shown the humble spirit of love when others needed this the most. Instead, however, the brothers around WL only witnessed destructive "power," abusive power, power to tear down, rather than power to build up as the real apostles have done.
WL is no longer with us. Question to the brothers in Anaheim, Cleveland, etc is do you want to do as WL did or do as WL taught (with scriptural support of course)? Two completely different things that can produce completely different results.
Based on up to date actions, brothers do as WL did.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 10:31 PM   #40
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Can someone please tell me the real names of the people (mainly elders) involved, not just their pseudo names? Dan Williams? Steve? etc. I will undoubtedly know them, yet have no attachment to them, and I want to be able to understand the whole story. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 05:52 AM   #41
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Can someone please tell me the real names of the people (mainly elders) involved, not just their pseudo names? Dan Williams? Steve? etc. I will undoubtedly know them, yet have no attachment to them, and I want to be able to understand the whole story. Thanks.
Dan Williams is Benson Philips, Steve Smith is Ben McPherson, Ed Black is Max Rapoport, Jerry Hughes is James Barber, Guy Andrews is Joe Davis, Sam Jones is Ray Graver, Steven Thompson is Don Looper for starters
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 06:59 AM   #42
AnotherGuest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Why is it when many brothers have approached WL with egregious concerns over the years about the direction of his ministry, he then displayed to them "a human spirit of "power" but not love?"
Part of the problem was that these "many brothers" did not have their own ministries. Their identities and stature were all based on their relationship with Witness Lee and his ministry which was considered to be the ministry. This kind of imbalanced unhealthy culture allows one man a position of power and authority while all others are considered underlings there to do his bidding.

When problems arose Witness Lee was able to easily brush aside any corrective measures and use the communication apparatus of LSM to discredit those who expressed their concerns. In essence his attitude was based on the reality of the situation: this is my ministry and my publishing company and I can do whatever I want with it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 05:02 PM   #43
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherGuest View Post
Part of the problem was that these "many brothers" did not have their own ministries. Their identities and stature were all based on their relationship with Witness Lee and his ministry which was considered to be the ministry. This kind of imbalanced unhealthy culture allows one man a position of power and authority while all others are considered underlings there to do his bidding.

When problems arose Witness Lee was able to easily brush aside any corrective measures and use the communication apparatus of LSM to discredit those who expressed their concerns. In essence his attitude was based on the reality of the situation: this is my ministry and my publishing company and I can do whatever I want with it.

A Spirit of Power on Display

The "spirit of power", not love, that Brother Lee said existed among his co-workers began with him, which his co-workers observed again and again, and learned from. We see it on brutal display throughout The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by both Witness Lee and his co-workers.

In the Fermentation, Witness Lee refers to John So only in the most negative light, never allowing that his former co-worker had legitimate concerns. On page 68, for instance, Brother Lee says, “he spoke past midnight, relating to the brothers the rumors and lies he had heard” [as if they were rumors and lies]. In Brother Lee’s handling of John So’s solemn letter of disassociation, he does not deny the serious charges made against Philip Lee and WL's co-workers. He essentially condemns John for telling the truth and for the truth spilling out to others:

"Less than three weeks after the August 28 meeting, on September 17 [1988], John So and some leading ones of nine churches in Europe wrote a letter to me, accusing me and my close co-workers of covering up and tolerating sins, and thus declaring their disassociation from my ministry. In an attempt to further discredit me he read over the telephone to a riotous brother in Anaheim their aforementioned private letter of disassociation. In a Lord’s Day morning church meeting on October 9, 1988, this brother read that letter to the public. Later the tape of that meeting was sent to many churches. Numerous letters of protest against the riotous meeting in Anaheim were sent to the elders of the church in Anaheim. Thus the private letter sent to me was made widely open in order to defame me."

I am sorry to say that Brother Lee was more concerned about being “discredited” and “defamed” than he was about being truthful. The letter, which was not “private” but written “before the brothers and sisters in the local churches and before the Christian public”, was not written with a base intention to “discredit” or “defame” Brother Lee; rather, it was written to tell the truth and disassociate from the “sins and behaviour” in Brother Lee’s work. There had been no response by Brother Lee to the serious concerns that John and the brothers in Europe had, thus John So and the brothers with him finally decided that they should send Brother Lee the letter of disassociation. Brother Lee made reference to the “irresponsible distribution” of tapes of the “riotous meeting”, yet took no responsibility himself to tell the saints the facts related to the sin, corruption, and divisive activity stemming from his office. Naturally, then, this word got out in other ways, creating a chaotic atmosphere.

Brother Lee disrespectfully refers to a “riotous brother” in Anaheim and denounced him, not disclosing the source of the brother’s grief and the incendiary elements embodied in LSM that provoked many church members to become “riotous dissenters” in Anaheim. Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 08:20 PM   #44
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Brother Lee disrespectfully refers to a “riotous brother” in Anaheim and denounced him, not disclosing the source of the brother’s grief and the incendiary elements embodied in LSM that provoked many church members to become “riotous dissenters” in Anaheim. Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”
So many brothers I knew were just "outraged" at the boisterous condition of the saints in Anaheim. They heaped criticism on John Ingalls and the Anaheim elders without ever asking why the saints were so upset. Shouldn't mature matures in Christ ask why, before they went ahead and passed judgment? Why was no brother able to step back and be objective about the matter?

Both John Ingalls and John So had the highest of respect in the LC's, and rightly so. In all these sad events WL proved that he cared little for righteousness and the needs of God's people. His every concern was motivated by personal interest in his own ministry and reputation.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 10:00 PM   #45
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”
By comparison, I was listening to a message by Art Katz on The Sinfulness of Sin based on Psalm 51. Unlike Witness Lee, Art Katz had no problem speaking on the immoral conduct of his son. Witness Lee however redirected the attention away from his son Phillip towards those who were reacting to Phillip Lee's immorality. First in the late 70's with the so-called "sister's rebellion" and later in the late 80's when the so-called "ambitious" brothers left the recovery.
In recent years the blending brothers have no problem referring to former leading ones who left, but what about Phillip? He's not mentioned, he's not included in official local church history, and my understanding is Phillip Lee was the LSM office manager for over 15 years. No single person I can think of polarized brothers throughout the recovery. Brothers either supported Phillip Lee as "The Office" or brothers expressed deep concern which offended "The Office". John So is one such brother who expressed concern.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 10:33 PM   #46
rayliotta
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 602
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
A scene from the godfather II? Care to explain these facts, especially the "simple one?"
One thousand words, Ohio, one thousand words...
__________________
And for this cause, the Good Shepherd left the 99 pieces of crappy building material, and went out to recover the one remnant piece of good building material. For the Lord will build His church, and He will build it with the good building material, not the crappy kind.
rayliotta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 07:03 AM   #47
Guest 1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
So many brothers I knew were just "outraged" at the boisterous condition of the saints in Anaheim. They heaped criticism on John Ingalls and the Anaheim elders without ever asking why the saints were so upset. Shouldn't mature matures in Christ ask why, before they went ahead and passed judgment? Why was no brother able to step back and be objective about the matter?

Both John Ingalls and John So had the highest of respect in the LC's, and rightly so. In all these sad events WL proved that he cared little for righteousness and the needs of God's people. His every concern was motivated by personal interest in his own ministry and reputation.
They were upset that Anaheim was ruining the charade that the degree of blessing was based on how close you were to WL
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 08:15 AM   #48
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest 1 View Post
They were upset that Anaheim was ruining the charade that the degree of blessing was based on how close you were to WL
Yes, very true.

Along with all the myths about Elden Hall, this "charade" is the driving force at LSM, i.e. WL and WL alone is our only "source" of blessing.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 10:01 AM   #49
AnotherGuest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”
Witness Lee was masterful at directing attention away from himself and the messes he created to others who served as his scapegoats and he had the communications apparatus of the LSM to propagate his lies against them on a wide scale.

That being said the entire system of the LC is set up to allow this kind of behavior because at it's core lies a basic teaching considering Witness Lee as being the one oracle, God's anointed one, etc. with supreme authority over "the work" (which really meant his work). As such he was allowed free reign to do whatever he wanted and that included hiding the ongoing repeated sinful behavior of his son who was declared to be his "top coworker" to whom the elders should submit.

Once an organization either formally or informally gives deference and power to such a man it is extremely hard to put the genie back in the bottle because the arrangement becomes a custom that is deeply ingrained as an accepted norm in the group's culture.

Recently I read an article about Brazil. Political corruption is widespread and has been for a very long time. Even through legal means it is very difficult to eradicate it because it is woven into the fabric of the society. How much more difficult it would be if only relying on the good will and decent manners of the participants to "do the right thing" voluntarily!

In good faith some went to Witness Lee and expected him to listen and take their real concerns into serious consideration and make some necessary changes. This was naive. How dare they question the oracle?

And the king banished these treacherous traitors from his kingdom and sent forth an edict to be read far and wide to all his subjects: "Do not touch the lepers or you will be banished too".
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 12:33 PM   #50
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherGuest View Post

In good faith some went to Witness Lee and expected him to listen and take their real concerns into serious consideration and make some necessary changes. This was naive. How dare they question the oracle?

And the king banished these treacherous traitors from his kingdom and sent forth an edict to be read far and wide to all his subjects: "Do not touch the lepers or you will be banished too".
Trying not to get too far off topic, this has been the trend in the recovery receive the quarantine ones and you too will be considered quarantined (unofficailly), but for sake of the forum just use the term persona non grata.
This is what happened in the late 80's and recently when Titus and his co-workers were quarantined. Those localities who refused to acknowledge the blended brother's quarantine of Titus Chu, were deemed as needing "replastering".
Back to getting on topic. This is my feeling, the sisters as indicated in earlier posts were in WL's good graces. These sisters had access to WL and local elders for fellowship. It wasn't until Philip Lee became an issue did these sisters somehow become "rebellious". Until that point even if there were things the sisters did that bothered other elders, it was condoned. Once concern about Phillip Lee was expressed, these sister's "safety net" was removed.

For clarification what I term as a "safety net" is WL's unwilligness to listen or act towards issues, concerns, etc. You had an elder's wife, a co-worker, and brother's representing a North Carolina locality who expressed grave concern whether in person or in writing. The "office" and LSM co-workers had WL as their "safety net". As long as they were in WL's favor, their "safety net" remained in place and could not be touched.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2011, 05:23 AM   #51
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherGuest View Post
Witness Lee was masterful at directing attention away from himself and the messes he created to others who served as his scapegoats and he had the communications apparatus of the LSM to propagate his lies against them on a wide scale.
I would say that you are absolutely correct about this. Funny that the rest of the time, the attention was virtually always drawn to something special about his ministry rather than just to Christ.

Oh "Christ," and "Christ and the church" were mentioned over and over, but without his ministry, you were not "in the place" where you could really be in those, so the ministry came first.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2011, 08:07 PM   #52
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Hi all,

Thanks for alias names information. I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague? Also, where is Phillip Lee now? Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2011, 06:48 AM   #53
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Hi all,

Thanks for alias names information. I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague? Also, where is Phillip Lee now? Thanks.
PL passed away a few years ago. Not sure which events you are referring to, but John Ingalls account Speaking the Truth in Love is a good place to start.

The hardest thing to come to grips with is the fact that WL was willing to sacrifice and destroy any and all brothers who exposed the immoralities of his son, and thus brought shame to his name and ministry.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2011, 10:57 AM   #54
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 534
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Hi all,

Thanks for alias names information. I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague? Also, where is Phillip Lee now? Thanks.
You can go to pages 96-104 in Deviating from the Path for accounts of Philip Lee's moral misconduct and divisive behavior in and among the churches. Everything concerning him has been kept secret at LSM, but declared here, that members can know and learn from our history. Refer to link.

http://makingstraightthewayofthelord...dsRecovery.pdf


According to the Record
Besides his usurpations of elders, his violations of principles of oneness in the Body of Christ, and the exercise of his evil temper around the saints, Philip Lee was an immoral, fleshly, and fleshy person acting as manager of LSM, with top elders and co-workers answering to him, and coming under his sway and sphere of influence. His relationship with the elders corrupted them. His relationship with sisters in LSM corrupted them. It was a huge mistake to hire him. It was also a huge mistake not to fire him. His tandem leadership relationship with his father damaged Brother Lee and spread corruption throughout the whole recovery. Benson Phillips and Ray Graver followed this person and encouraged others to do the same.

John Ingalls on Philip Lee - Philip Lee’s name is mentioned 51 times with grave concern about him revealed throughout John Ingalls’ book, Speaking the Truth in Love, related to events and concerns of the late eighties turmoil.

Bill Mallon on Philip Lee – 50 times in an 8-page letter to Witness Lee, Philip or the office is referred to with great consternation over interferences from Philip, Benson, and Ray Graver in the Southeastern churches.

John So on Philip Lee – 49 times in his address in Manila, John So referred to Philip Lee or the office as the source of major grief and despair for the brothers in Europe.

LC history book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Witness Lee - Not a contrary word said about him. He was depicted as a perfect God-man.

LC history book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Philip Lee - No mention of his name in the book. He is referred to as “the office” or “the Living Stream manager”, and only in a positive sense.

Yet, voices of truth do speak. John So and the brothers in Europe sent a letter to Brother Lee announcing their disassociation with Witness Lee and his work due to the divisive behavior and moral misconduct of Philip Lee while employed as LSM office manager.

Disassociation Letter
http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/Eur...Depart1989.pdf
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2011, 02:19 PM   #55
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Great, thanks.

I wasn't aware of the "Deviating..." book, thanks. Looks like it was a lot of work.

And what of Ben mcPherson? What was his failure, his sin that led him to be shuffled around, amd eventually out; and where is he now?

Is Don Rutledge related to the Rutledge family that was in Irving, TX?

I always felt bothered that in his ministry Lee would point out the shortages of Darby, and other greatly used believers, in their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but never mention much about Watchman Nee's shortages in vision and practice, i.e. physical NJ, exchanged life, tribulation being a return to the age of law... Etc. The only mentioning I'm familiar with is the difference in thought related to the two witnesses in the tribulation. Nee basically just took all the best beliefs and practices from church history, and put theminto practice. He definitely was gifted, but his primary function was mainly just to be a collector, compiler of recovered items through others. Lee took this collective base and added a little. Everyone did the building of the house, Lee just decorated it. No doubt he also was absolutely gifted and multitalented, however without, Darby, Kelly, Mackintosh, Govett, Panton, Pember, Miller, Law, Murray, McDonough, Paxson, Ryrie, Vine, Vincent, and Kittel, he wouldn't have much to say. If other believers are short in their vision, it is said they are "wrong", but when Née or Lee is short,well then it is said that "the divine revelation is progressive."

Also, is there really a difference between the divergences with the Brethren, and that of the local churches? They are spoken of so negative,y in Lee's ministry for dividing, but have not the local churches had many such dividings? At least the Brethren divided over the honorable matter of doctrine, not morality, control, lies, and ambition. This my understanding of the local churches divergences:
Some separated from Née in china
Some separated from Lee in Taiwan
Then in US there was he late 70's related to Max
The late 80's In Anaheim
The churches in Europe
Dong in S. America
And Titus in the Midwest in 2005.

Does that sound about right? What's with Dong is S. America? What's the story there? Isn't his son an elder in S. Cal?

Dont forget about the Ben McPherson story thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 06:11 PM   #56
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I always felt bothered that in his ministry Lee would point out the shortages of Darby, and other greatly used believers, in their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but never mention much about Watchman Nee's shortages in vision and practice, i.e. physical NJ, exchanged life, tribulation being a return to the age of law... Etc.

Also, is there really a difference between the divergences with the Brethren, and that of the local churches? They are spoken of so negative,y in Lee's ministry for dividing, but have not the local churches had many such dividings? At least the Brethren divided over the honorable matter of doctrine, not morality, control, lies, and ambition.
I've felt for sometime Witness Lee was the 20th century version of John Nelson Darby. To many similarities to ignore relating to practices. While receiving Witness Lee's ministry I have wondered how come none of Witness' fello co-wokers under Watchman Nee were rarely if ever mentioned?

There's really not much difference between the Local Churches and the Exclusive Brethren. Similiar practices, but different terminology.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 07:09 AM   #57
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Is Don Rutledge related to the Rutledge family that was in Irving, TX?
Don Rutledge was an elder in Dallas, then in Raleigh, NC, now no longer in the LRC.

There was another Rutledge in Dallas who married a sister there, then they moved to OKC, then back to Irving. Somewhere in there, that couple divorced. I believe that the sister is still in Irving and her children (well, young adults now) may still be in the area. I had some contact with the brother after their divorce. That is about as much as I know, but all I will say in any case. Their private lives will remain private here.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 03:43 PM   #58
since you asked
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague?
Philip Lee was the General Manager of LSM. He was a sexual predator. In the LC in Anaheim it was the white elephant in the living room. On at least one occassion his actions resulted in a full-on affair with his assistant. This was discovered when a brother working there walked into an office and found them in flagrante delicto. The elders were made aware of this and went to Witness Lee with the information. Lee said he would handle it and this was the result:

1. The sister and her husband were told to move away.
2. The eye witness who reported it was removed from the fellowship of the church.
3. Philip lee stayed on as the General Manager as if nothing happened.
4. One of the elders protested and was also removed from the fellowship of the church.

Fast forward 10 years and Philip Lee has been elevated to a position as Lee's "top coworker" who the elders were expected to submit to. In addition to his father his biggest fan club was Ray Graver and Benson Phillips who had developed the practice of sucking up to an high art form. They campaigned for "oneness with the ministry office" i.e. Philip Lee and one's commitment to the LC and "the work" were measured by the level of their "onenss".

Oddly enough through the years Philip was able to jerk elders around at will and some were reduced to playing games as they navigated their way around this ill-tempered man's behavior.

In the late 1980's the s#*t hit the fan when he aggressively made sexual advances at his then current female assistant who was a wife, mother and grandmother with a large extended family in the LC in Anaheim. Her husband was so incensed at this violation he threatened to get a gun and pay Philip a visit. John Ingalls - an elder in Anaheim - was able to calm him down and help him gain some perspective.

It so happned that around this time but prior to the incident Ingalls and some other coworkers were already concerned about the influence Philip Lee was exercising over "the work" because they knew what his character was like. His latest predatory action confirmed their concerns.

The LC in Anaheim was in an uproar over this because it had been festering for years as Philip was a known quantity to many of them already. Many were vocal and wanted Philip Lee excommunicated from the church and thought the elders were moving too slow on it. So some just excommunicated him one Sunday morning and the leaders caught up with them and did it formally the next week or so.

But to complicate matters further there was an English church with 3 elders and a Chinese church with 2 elders and the 2 Chinese elders proclaimed publcily that they disagreed with the excommunication.

Further to this part of the concern of the 3 English elders in Anaheim was Witness Lee's ministry becoming so dominant and the churches being for the ministry instead of visa versa so they put together a 17 point talk and published it. It was almost verbatim Lee's own teaching on the place of ministry in the church. This pissed Lee off and his ranting about being God's one oracle on the earth with the divine authority started to go full swing.

Eventually there was a big division in the LC in Anaheim. Those for Lee and his son and those who were completely disgusted with the pair of them. Godfred Otuteye resigned from the eldership but Ingalls and Knoch held on a while longer naively thinking they could swim in the shark tank with the pro Lee crowd. LOL! They were out on the street in a few weeks.

Philip Lee remained as the General Manager of LSM and even had the new elders in Anaheim (loyalists to Lee during the turmoil) write him a public letter of apology for what the previous elders had done in excommunicating him!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 06:06 PM   #59
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by since you asked View Post
Philip Lee remained as the General Manager of LSM and even had the new elders in Anaheim (loyalists to Lee during the turmoil) write him a public letter of apology for what the previous elders had done in excommunicating him!
In case you were not aware, the apology letter had to be re-issued since the first one wasn't signed.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 06:12 PM   #60
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by since you asked View Post
Further to this part of the concern of the 3 English elders in Anaheim was Witness Lee's ministry becoming so dominant and the churches being for the ministry instead of visa versa so they put together a 17 point talk and published it. It was almost verbatim Lee's own teaching on the place of ministry in the church. This pissed Lee off and his ranting about being God's one oracle on the earth with the divine authority started to go full swing.
This was exactly why Ingalls and others' were quarantined, condemned for mounting some supposed "global conspiracy," and had their names and reputations smeared in public meetings, and subsequently published in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 09:17 AM   #61
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by since you asked View Post
Philip Lee was the General Manager of LSM. He was a sexual predator. In the LC in Anaheim it was the white elephant in the living room. On at least one occassion his actions resulted in a full-on affair with his assistant. This was discovered when a brother working there walked into an office and found them in flagrante delicto. The elders were made aware of this and went to Witness Lee with the information. Lee said he would handle it and this was the result:

2. The eye witness who reported it was removed from the fellowship of the church.
4. One of the elders protested and was also removed from the fellowship of the church.
What's the grounds for removal from fellowship?
Would the protesting elder be MR?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 10:48 AM   #62
since you asked
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
What's the grounds for removal from fellowship?
Would the protesting elder be MR?
1. He knew too much and Witness Lee wanted to protect the image of his ministry.

2. If by MR you mean Max Rapoport the answer is yes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 11:34 AM   #63
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

"1. He knew too much and Witness Lee wanted to protect the image of his ministry."

Same person accused of circulating Sal Benoit/WL recordings. When WL sent JI to this person's home, this same person told JI if WL had something to say, WL can deliver the message in person. EOM.

"2. If by MR you mean Max Rapoport the answer is yes. "

In other words, yes Max protested the sinful situation, and yes Max was ambitious, but it's not protesting the sinful situation that was circulated throughout the recovery (why Max and Sandee were no longer meeting). It was ambition. In 1993 shortly after moving to the NW. I had asked a direct question. What about Max? The direct answer I was given, "he was ambitious". The answer not given "he protested an immoral situation".
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 12:22 PM   #64
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
In other words, yes Max protested the sinful situation, and yes Max was ambitious, but it's not protesting the sinful situation that was circulated throughout the recovery (why Max and Sandee were no longer meeting). It was ambition. In 1993 shortly after moving to the NW. I had asked a direct question. What about Max? The direct answer I was given, "he was ambitious". The answer not given "he protested an immoral situation".
"He was ambitious?" Max was ambitious!?! Did anyone in the LRC ever think about what this expression really means? Was that not why WL promoted Max in the first place, because he was so ambitious?

Is being "ambitious" somehow become bad? God created ambition in mankind, and now, that is to be condemned? Without a little ambition, perhaps no one would even get out of bed in the morning. Wasn't WL a bit ambitious? How about the Blendeds?

It's these sort of word games at LSM that really drive me crazy. I think some in Corinth played the same word games with Paul, and he got so frustrated he blurted out "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 03:56 PM   #65
since you asked
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
"He was ambitious?" Max was ambitious!?! Did anyone in the LRC ever think about what this expression really means? Was that not why WL promoted Max in the first place, because he was so ambitious?

Is being "ambitious" somehow become bad? God created ambition in mankind, and now, that is to be condemned? Without a little ambition, perhaps no one would even get out of bed in the morning. Wasn't WL a bit ambitious? How about the Blendeds?

It's these sort of word games at LSM that really drive me crazy. I think some in Corinth played the same word games with Paul, and he got so frustrated he blurted out "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."
It was a word game for sure. What's wrong with ambition? Certainly Witness Lee and his son Philip were ambitious and so was Benson Phillips who had a dream when he was young that one day he would be in charge of a ministry and he systematically worked at his goal until it came to fruition.

Nothing happened to Max Rapoport until he called Philip Lee out on his immoral behavior. It was not about him being ambitious. Like any normal person he was wondering why an immoral man was allowed to be in charge of a Christian ministry especially one which advertised itself as God's best. But he was 10 years ahead of his time. The cover up continued for another decade until finally the people in Anaheim rose up to do something about it and the elders were more or less obligated to follow suit.

By the way James Barber privately considered Philip Lee and the way he operated LSM as a "fly in the ointment". How many years ago was that? While he was still an elder in the Valley.

Philip Lee was a known quantity to many people but it was kept hush hush for the most part until it blew wide open in the late 1980s. After that who ended up out of the LC? Philip? Nope. Elders and people who finally wouldn't tolerate the situation any longer. Even some who helped to start it in LA back in the 1960s were on the outs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 01:12 PM   #66
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

So after reinstatement, PL stayed in church life until his death? Why was he reinstated? Any reason given by the new elders? Is Witness Lee the NT version of Eli? Seems pretty similar.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 01:33 PM   #67
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
So after reinstatement, PL stayed in church life until his death? Why was he reinstated? Any reason given by the new elders?
Yes, and here:

August 22, 1993
The elders would like to make a statement regarding brother Philip Lee.
As many of the saints know, three former elders of the church in Anaheim took public
action toward Philip Lee on November 6, 1988.
The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public
declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper. We feel
very sorry that their action has caused suffering to Philip Lee's family.
Further, it is the unanimous decision of the elders that all discipline of the church toward
Philip Lee be lifted, and it is our desire that he be fully restored to the fellowship of the
church.
The elders of the church in Anaheim
Signatories: Carl Althaus Francis Ball Eugene Gruhler Moses Kuo
Eric Lee Albert Lin Jr Ed Marks Daniel Sun
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 02:11 PM   #68
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Yes, and here:

August 22, 1993
The elders would like to make a statement regarding brother Philip Lee.
As many of the saints know, three former elders of the church in Anaheim took public
action toward Philip Lee on November 6, 1988.
The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public
declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper. We feel
very sorry that their action has caused suffering to Philip Lee's family.
Further, it is the unanimous decision of the elders that all discipline of the church toward
Philip Lee be lifted, and it is our desire that he be fully restored to the fellowship of the
church.
The elders of the church in Anaheim
Signatories: Carl Althaus Francis Ball Eugene Gruhler Moses Kuo
Eric Lee Albert Lin Jr Ed Marks Daniel Sun
Then there was a followup letter apologizing for not having signed the above one.

"September 24, 1993
Dear Brother Philip,
We, the elders of the church in Anaheim, want to ask you to forgive us for the
letter which was sent to you on August 22, 1993 without signatures. All the
elders are in full agreement that it was wrong and improper to send you such
an unsigned letter. We deeply regret the suffering which this has caused you.
Now we want to correct our wrong and improper action by signing this letter,
which includes the body of the letter we wrote on August 22, 1993 as follows:
“We would like to let you know of a decision the elders made and announced
today at both the Chinese and English speaking meetings of the church in
Anaheim. The announcement which we read is as follows…
We would like to assure you that it is our sincere desire that your
fellowship with the church would be fully restored so that we may go on together
for the Lord's purpose in the church.”
Sincerely yours,

The elders of the church in Anaheim
"

Was Philip Lee a brother? Only the Lord knows. Of the Anaheim elders mentioned in the August 22, 1993 letter I know Francis is with the Lord. Of the remaining brothers listed (Carl Althaus, Gene Gruhler, Moses Kuo, Eric Lee, Albert Lin Jr, Ed Marks, and Daniel Sun), I'd like to ask them did that letter honestly reflect their conviction?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 05:12 PM   #69
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Was Philip Lee a brother? Only the Lord knows. Of the Anaheim elders mentioned in the August 22, 1993 letter I know Francis is with the Lord. Of the remaining brothers listed (Carl Althaus, Gene Gruhler, Moses Kuo, Eric Lee, Albert Lin Jr, Ed Marks, and Daniel Sun), I'd like to ask them did that letter honestly reflect their conviction?
They were only truckling to the bidding of WL, cleaning up "loose ends" in the aftermath of that tragic "rebellion," thus preserving the pristine image of the MOTA.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 05:51 PM   #70
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
They were only truckling to the bidding of WL, cleaning up "loose ends" in the aftermath of that tragic "rebellion," thus preserving the pristine image of the MOTA.
That may have been. What about now? Is that letter and their signatures still indicative of their convictions? At anytime these remaining elders can recant and claim their signature is not representative of how they really feel within.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 07:51 AM   #71
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,931
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
That may have been. What about now? Is that letter and their signatures still indicative of their convictions? At anytime these remaining elders can recant and claim their signature is not representative of how they really feel within.
In such a closed system as the LRC, I doubt that there is much room for a change of heart. Lee apparently began to move in that direction and before he could make more than vague, general apologies, the whole thing was hushed. Few ever heard about it. And if they did, it was explained as more vague than it already was. Or recast as something else.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 03:09 PM   #72
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
In such a closed system as the LRC, I doubt that there is much room for a change of heart. Lee apparently began to move in that direction and before he could make more than vague, general apologies, the whole thing was hushed. Few ever heard about it. And if they did, it was explained as more vague than it already was. Or recast as something else.
Keeping on topic, this relates very much to this thread. You have co-workers who claim to keep things in-house, but are unwilling to full disclosure. Rather cherry-picking to disclose that beneficial to the ministry and withholding that which is detracting. As a result brothers and sisters in the recovery are misled and misinformed which has had several decades of severed relationships still evident today.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 03:20 PM   #73
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
"He was ambitious?" Max was ambitious!?! Did anyone in the LRC ever think about what this expression really means? Was that not why WL promoted Max in the first place, because he was so ambitious?

Is being "ambitious" somehow become bad? God created ambition in mankind, and now, that is to be condemned? Without a little ambition, perhaps no one would even get out of bed in the morning. Wasn't WL a bit ambitious? How about the Blendeds?

It's these sort of word games at LSM that really drive me crazy. I think some in Corinth played the same word games with Paul, and he got so frustrated he blurted out "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."
Let's talk about perception. When it's said a brother is ambitious, the teaching usually indicates he's a type of diotrophes. As you have pointed out Ohio, we're all ambitious. Does that make us all a type of Diotrophes? My life ambition was to be a husband and father. To be able to provide for my family. Some people have other types of ambition. A Master's degree. A Doctorate. Ownership of a company. Material possessions. Being a worker in a ministry.
True brothers have been given a bad rep through the label of ambition. Is this label more of a smoke and mirrors ploy to misdirect saints from the real issue at hand? That being the immoral behavior of the LSM GM.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 01:43 AM   #74
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper.
The elders of the church in Anaheim
Signatories: Carl Althaus Francis Ball Eugene Gruhler Moses Kuo
Eric Lee Albert Lin Jr Ed Marks Daniel Sun
Why don't they believe it was justified or proper? Please notice they never explain why they believe what they believe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 06:31 AM   #75
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Why don't they believe it was justified or proper? Please notice they never explain why they believe what they believe.
WL branded John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred, the former Anaheim elders, as rebellious "lepers."

How could such persons excommunicate PL, who was WL's most loyal and trusted co-worker? How dare they!

As WL stated publicly to all the elders, "How can you say that you are one with my ministry, yet you are not one with my ministry "office." I bet not a one of them could imagine that when WL was referring to "my ministry office," he was really referring to his profligate son Philip, who ran the place.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 09:24 AM   #76
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Why don't they believe it was justified or proper? Please notice they never explain why they believe what they believe.
Ohio probably explained it best once you get to the bottom. As for the letter, it was political.
Here's my take on it. If you have read Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls got into the awkwardness of dealing with Philip Lee. Here was an immoral man who managed LSM's business in Anaheim, but he did not meet with the Church in Anaheim. Was this a local matter or an extra-local matter? Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter. How can it be a local matter, when you have someone not meeting locally, but has his hands in localities' business throughout the world? Eventually the Anaheim elders do take action and by those that met in Anheim probably feel it was 10 years overdue.
The other hand of playing games probably came to fruition in 1993. How can the elders discipline the LSM General manager who doesn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. It's not a local matter, it's an extra-local matter.
Understand how the game is played? The situation changes like sinking sand when it benefits the ministry.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 09:39 AM   #77
77150
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 115
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
WL branded John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred, the former Anaheim elders, as rebellious "lepers."

How could such persons excommunicate PL, who was WL's most loyal and trusted co-worker? How dare they!

As WL stated publicly to all the elders, "How can you say that you are one with my ministry, yet you are not one with my ministry "office." I bet not a one of them could imagine that when WL was referring to "my ministry office," he was really referring to his profligate son Philip, who ran the place.
Proverbs 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour:

and

Proverbs 12:11b but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.

Both come to mind.
__________________
PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
77150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 09:40 AM   #78
77150
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 115
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Ohio probably explained it best once you get to the bottom. As for the letter, it was political.
Here's my take on it. If you have read Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls got into the awkwardness of dealing with Philip Lee. Here was an immoral man who managed LSM's business in Anaheim, but he did not meet with the Church in Anaheim. Was this a local matter or an extra-local matter? Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter. How can it be a local matter, when you have someone not meeting locally, but has his hands in localities' business throughout the world? Eventually the Anaheim elders do take action and by those that met in Anheim probably feel it was 10 years overdue.
The other hand of playing games probably came to fruition in 1993. How can the elders discipline the LSM General manager who doesn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. It's not a local matter, it's an extra-local matter.
Understand how the game is played? The situation changes like sinking sand when it benefits the ministry.
Proverbs 12:5b the counsels of the wicked are deceit.
__________________
PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
77150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 11:03 AM   #79
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 9,571
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Ohio probably explained it best once you get to the bottom. As for the letter, it was political.

Here's my take on it. If you have read Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls got into the awkwardness of dealing with Philip Lee. Here was an immoral man who managed LSM's business in Anaheim, but he did not meet with the Church in Anaheim. Was this a local matter or an extra-local matter? Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter. How can it be a local matter, when you have someone not meeting locally, but has his hands in localities' business throughout the world? Eventually the Anaheim elders do take action and by those that met in Anheim probably feel it was 10 years overdue.
The other hand of playing games probably came to fruition in 1993. How can the elders discipline the LSM General manager who doesn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. It's not a local matter, it's an extra-local matter.

Understand how the game is played? The situation changes like sinking sand when it benefits the ministry.
Benson said it "was a local matter." How convenient!

Did not Benson spearhead the quarantine of TC 2,000 miles from Anaheim?

How hypocritical!

Did not Benson supervise the quarantine of DYL in Brazil 5,000 miles from Anaheim?

Hypocrisy upon hypocrisy!

Like you said Terry, they are only playing a game in the sand, sinking sand!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 11:30 AM   #80
AnotherGuest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter.
Sucking up to Philip Lee (and Witness Lee) was the gateway for Benson Phillips to fulfill his dream of running an international ministry. Otherwise how could he stomach it for so long?

In kingdoms and corporations this kind of behavior is not usual. Those who want to rise to the top have to suck up to the right people and the right people are relatives if nepotism exists. Phillips and Graver openly promoted an immoral man and became his advocate before elders and coworkers expecting them to submit to Lee's son without question or risk being ostracized. A lot of these elders and coworkers had families to support and depended on income from the church and this serious and legitimate concern was always weighing on them. At their age being out of the work force for so long what will they do if they get kicked out? How will they eat? How will they clothe their children? How will they pay their mortgages? Others had better options so the risk was not so great. But who ever thought when they joined the LC and "the work" that one day they would be one paycheck away from being on the street if they didn't join the collective Philip Lee suck up bandwagon?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 05:53 PM   #81
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherGuest View Post
A lot of these elders and coworkers had families to support and depended on income from the church and this serious and legitimate concern was always weighing on them. At their age being out of the work force for so long what will they do if they get kicked out? How will they eat? How will they clothe their children? How will they pay their mortgages? Others had better options so the risk was not so great. But who ever thought when they joined the LC and "the work" that one day they would be one paycheck away from being on the street if they didn't join the collective Philip Lee suck up bandwagon?
I'm sure there are many in the know regarding Philip and his methods of messing with localities (i.e. withholding ministry publications until proper apologies were made), who thought to themselves "this is not what I thought serving full-time was about". In other words full-time brothers thought they were doing the Lord's work through a ministry and not placating an immoral man.
For years I have thought as you've posted. Many brothers serving full-time could not be one with John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and other elders who had concerns to raise. Once they no longer have support of the churches, what would they do, how would hire them? Best approach is to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. In other words look the other way.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 07:34 PM   #82
77150
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 115
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I'm sure there are many in the know regarding Philip and his methods of messing with localities (i.e. withholding ministry publications until proper apologies were made), who thought to themselves "this is not what I thought serving full-time was about". In other words full-time brothers thought they were doing the Lord's work through a ministry and not placating an immoral man.
For years I have thought as you've posted. Many brothers serving full-time could not be one with John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and other elders who had concerns to raise. Once they no longer have support of the churches, what would they do, how would hire them? Best approach is to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. In other words look the other way.
20:11 Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
20:12 The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.

No coworker will be able to claim ignorance. None can say they couldn't see or that they didn't hear.
__________________
PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
77150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 08:03 PM   #83
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by 77150 View Post
No coworker will be able to claim ignorance. None can say they couldn't see or that they didn't hear.
They can say "If there is a quarantine of some by the body, I feel to honor it, and the ones quarantined, should also have some response."

It is lip service to say "the ones quarantined, should also have some response." Problem is when ones are quarantined elders/co-workers don't want to know the response. That would be learning the other side of the coin. In Blended speak that would be eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is simply the current dillemma we're facing with.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2012, 04:16 AM   #84
77150
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 115
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
They can say "If there is a quarantine of some by the body, I feel to honor it, and the ones quarantined, should also have some response."

It is lip service to say "the ones quarantined, should also have some response." Problem is when ones are quarantined elders/co-workers don't want to know the response. That would be learning the other side of the coin. In Blended speak that would be eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is simply the current dillemma we're facing with.
11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished:

Saying that you are "honoring the will of the body" i.e. "though hand join in hand" does not exonerate you from following the wicked way.

What is the dilemma? The Lord told us these things would happen. The only dilemma I can see would be if they didn't happen.
__________________
PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
77150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2012, 12:39 PM   #85
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,173
Default Re: Sisters of the Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by 77150 View Post
Saying that you are "honoring the will of the body" i.e. "though hand join in hand" does not exonerate you from following the wicked way.

What is the dilemma? The Lord told us these things would happen. The only dilemma I can see would be if they didn't happen.
FYI, these were words communicated to me by a blended co-worker. The will of the body equals the feeling of the LSM leadership. While these brothers are members of the body, they do not and cannot represent the feeling of all the members of the body.
Rather such speaking is out of desire to seek approval of man. In John 5 Jesus points that out, I do not receive man’s approval/glory (depending on translation).
Jesus would not receive honor from man. Receiving honor from man versus the love of God. Each are mutually exclusive. Cannot equate receiving honor from man with the love of God. One might say in order to receive honor from God, you need to experience dishonor (Luke 6:22-23). Invariably when an elder or a co-worker is focused with being “one with the brothers”, he is in fact concerned about being dishonored by men.
In my effort to remain on topic, this dishonor seen in Luke 6 is what happened to these sisters and to brother Max.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 PM.


3.8.9