Handling Matters In House

[TLFisher]

I admit I am a source in this article when I brought to Indiana's attention what a brother's "fellowship" was in regard to his Indiana's many writings found on the internet.

[Freedom]

I've never been in a situation where I have addressed any concerns with LC brothers/elders, however, I can say there have been plenty of times where I have wanted to confront them.

I think that somehow I already knew that bringing up concerns would go nowhere. That's not to say that I always new better, I was really just as naïve as Steve says he was when he first went to the brothers. At one point in time, I really thought that the LC provided an atmosphere of fellowship. Over time I realized that LC "fellowship" was always one-sided.

I think I had this realization through seeing how LC leaders handled themselves publicly. For example, I attended numerous fellowship/coordination meetings. In the vast majority of these meetings, we would read a ministry excerpt and then near the end of the meeting the brother in charge would tell use how things were going to happen. There was no fellowship whatsoever, nor was there the opportunity for anyone to interject. I eventually had to accept the fact that whatever LC leaders wanted was the way it was going to be. By this, I think I realized that addressing concerns that didn't serve the agendas of LC leaders would be fruitless.

When I began to have more serious concerns, I thought about talking to the brothers, and even a few times I just wanted to tell them off. I could have easily done that, but I realized that instead of addressing my concerns with the brothers and risk having them marginalize what I had to say, why not post publicly on the internet where those who truly had interest in what I had to say could engage in discussion. Looking back, I realize it was the only viable route to take.

If LC leaders don't like what is said on the internet, why haven't they taken the opportunity to address those concerns? What I think is that they have done a risk assessment and decided that the defectors that will go to the internet are few and far between, therefore it is not a problem worthy of devoting too much time to. If they throw out labels like "lawless users of the internet" it scares enough LCers to keep in line.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I began to have more serious concerns, I thought about talking to the brothers, and even a few times I just wanted to tell them off. I could have easily done that, but I realized that instead of addressing my concerns with the brothers and risk having them marginalize what I had to say, why not post publicly on the internet where those who truly had interest in what I had to say could engage in discussion. Looking back, I realize it was the only viable route to take.

If LC leaders don't like what is said on the internet, why haven't they taken the opportunity to address those concerns? What I think is that they have done a risk assessment and decided that the defectors that will go to the internet are few and far between, therefore it is not a problem worthy of devoting too much time to. If they throw out labels like "lawless users of the internet" it scares enough LCers to keep in line.

Realistically, the best case scenario from elders (short of repentance for misrepresentation) is conceding your concerns have merit, but adhere to the blended brothers "feeling of the Body".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Realistically, the best case scenario from elders (short of repentance for misrepresentation) is conceding your concerns have merit, but adhere to the blended brothers "feeling of the Body".

I've definitely seen elders admit that concerns have merit, or at least acknowledge concerns, however, it stops there. When it comes to taking action, it just doesn't happen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've definitely seen elders admit that concerns have merit, or at least acknowledge concerns, however, it stops there. When it comes to taking action, it just doesn't happen.

Decades of indoctrination in the LCM have taught local elders not to take any action. Leaders like WL and TC regularly would "make an example" out of brothers who made a decision on their own, or attempted to follow the Lord on their own, or made a local decision which they disapproved of.

Public embarrassment is a strong disincentive to "taking action."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If LC leaders don't like what is said on the internet, why haven't they taken the opportunity to address those concerns? What I think is that they have done a risk assessment and decided that the defectors that will go to the internet are few and far between, therefore it is not a problem worthy of devoting too much time to.

Not true for Kangas. I remember writing to Ron K. when I discovered David Kangas established "www.jimmoranexposed.com." I pointed it out to him and asked two questions. 1) Did he know about it? and, 2) If so why would he be fighting a rear guard rather than go on with the Lord's blessings.

RK wrote back to me with an angry tone, and eventually told me I had no right to question his spirituality.

Also, Kangas publicly called Steve a man of death. And warns the saints against him.

We've seen more evidence that Kangas keeps up with the negative material on the web. For example, back when the old Bereans forum was going my dear friend Hosepipe was calling Witness Lee Witless Lee. Shortly after that, Kangas remarked about that too.

The LC leadership is very concerned about what's being said about Lee and the LC on the web. They do their best to counter it by covering up the web with all their material. Just read wiki on Watchman Nee if you want to read a sample of it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not true for Kangas. I remember writing to Ron K. when I discovered David Kangas established "www.jimmoranexposed.com." I pointed it out to him and asked two questions. 1) Did he know about it? and, 2) If so why would he be fighting a rear guard rather than go on with the Lord's blessings.

RK wrote back to me with an angry tone, and eventually told me I had no right to question his spirituality.

Also, Kangas publicly called Steve a man of death. And warns the saints against him.

We've seen more evidence that Kangas keeps up with the negative material on the web. For example, back when the old Bereans forum was going my dear friend Hosepipe was calling Witness Lee Witless Lee. Shortly after that, Kangas remarked about that too.

The LC leadership is very concerned about what's being said about Lee and the LC on the web. They do their best to counter it by covering up the web with all their material. Just read wiki on Watchman Nee if you want to read a sample of it.

I just meant that they must see suppressing concerns as worth the risk of people taking concerns to the internet.

Some of the BB's have made it obvious that they read things on the internet. What you say about Ron's son David, that's interesting. Sounds like David is a "lawless user of the internet".

Ron is the one who has made it clear that he is bothered about what is on the internet. Of all the BB's he's the one that seems to reference it the most. If he's really that concerned about it, why doesn't he come here for a friendly debate?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Of all the BB's he's [Kangas] the one that seems to reference it the most. If he's really that concerned about it, why doesn't he come here for a friendly debate?

That would be great. Then he could really let me have it. It would be worth it to hear from him out here.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ron is the one who has made it clear that he is bothered about what is on the internet. Of all the BB's he's the one that seems to reference it the most. If he's really that concerned about it, why doesn't he come here for a friendly debate?

I believe your answer is found in the following verse:

He who is slow to anger has great understanding, But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly. Proverbs 14:29

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

RK wrote back to me with an angry tone, and eventually told me I had no right to question his spirituality.

Also, Kangas publicly called Steve a man of death. And warns the saints against him.

Something I posted in 2013:

I noticed when Steve released An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations, was from November, 2006. I have considered when Ron gave his man of death rant was at an International Conference estimated in 2007. It was a direct reaction to this specific writing by Steve Isitt. Not knowing Ron Kangas, I consider this to be out of character for him. Same conference, there was opportunity to name another brother by name (Bill Mallon) and he did not. Even as recent as November, 2012 there was another opportunity to name a brother by name (Bill Freeman) and he did not. Perhaps this writing of Steve’s was being circulated by Dong’s co-workers and by nature blended brothers do not allow themselves to be put on the defensive. Which is why instead defending what he and Kerry wrote, Ron chose to go after Steve Isitt. Question, isn't possible Ron’s “man of death” rant was a direct attack against Steve?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

RK wrote back to me with an angry tone, and eventually told me I had no right to question his spirituality.

Also, Kangas publicly called Steve a man of death. And warns the saints against him.

And RK has the right to question Steve's spirituality?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If LC leaders don't like what is said on the internet, why haven't they taken the opportunity to address those concerns?

It's a basic attitude of arrogance. I understand ignoring stupid accusations. A teacher can't spend all his time dealing with opposition. But ignoring genuine concerns and serious questions that keep coming up is arrogant, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ron is the one who has made it clear that he is bothered about what is on the internet. Of all the BB's he's the one that seems to reference it the most. If he's really that concerned about it, why doesn't he come here for a friendly debate?

Because he's afraid he'd lose.

[Cal]

To summarize my previous post, LCM leaders are motivated either by fear or by arrogance or by both. The reason they will not address genuine concerns about their beliefs, practices and history is either they are afraid they will be proven at fault, or they are so arrogant they think they are above being accountable. If there's another possible reason, I can't think of what it might be.

I've spoken in other threads of the LCM tendency to be less than forthcoming. This Chinese trait, which Nee used to make himself mysterious and unapproachable (and now appears to have been meant to hide his sexual dalliances) was well-learned by his followers and still practiced, even by some who've left the movement. It's just a convenient way of not being accountable.

Jesus deflected insincere questions. But he answered sincere ones. The LCM way is to consider all questions they don't want to answer as insincere, which is most questions they get asked, excepting perhaps "What time is the meeting?" Any probing questions are deflected as fleshly, soulish or "of the wrong tree." Yes, very convenient.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To summarize my previous post, LCM leaders are motivated either by fear or by arrogance or by both. The reason they will not address genuine concerns about their beliefs, practices and history is either they are afraid they will be proven at fault, or they are so arrogant they think they are above being accountable. If there's another possible reason, I can't think of what it might be.

I've given it thought. If we're honest regarding elders we have crossed paths with, there's agreement they're good brothers. For some as Ohio as states many times, the system has produced bullies out of good brothers.

Another possible reason I have considered, many elders are ignorant or uneducated regarding unedited LC history. Generally accept what has been passed by Witness Lee/Blended brothers is received by elders as being concise factual accounts. When at best it's half truths blended in with misrepresentations and besmirching of former leading ones.
Naturally I would expect a DCP monitor to lurk on forums such as this and eventually a report would be submitted to certain blended brothers for their disseminations. Which of course would be withheld from local elders. Until elders decide to educate themselves, they are only able to see one side of the coin.

The fear you have mentioned Igzy is none other than fear of man. There is fear of being described as being independent should they try to exercise their function with impartiality. To do that he would no longer be considered "in one accord". Thus there is fear which binds him to be PARTIAL.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To summarize my previous post, LCM leaders are motivated either by fear or by arrogance or by both. The reason they will not address genuine concerns about their beliefs, practices and history is either they are afraid they will be proven at fault, or they are so arrogant they think they are above being accountable. If there's another possible reason, I can't think of what it might be.

I agree that the blendeds operate by fear of the LC being exposed for what it is. I see local leaders as operating mainly by fear of the unknown. The arrogance is common to both groups of LC leaders, that being the notion that they are the ones leading God’s move on earth.

I would guess that most local leaders probably aren’t aware of most of the things discussed on this forum or the important parts of LC history that aren’t known to many.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've spoken in other threads of the LCM tendency to be less than forthcoming. This Chinese trait, which Nee used to make himself mysterious and unapproachable (and now appears to have been meant to hide his sexual dalliances) was well-learned by his followers and still practiced, even by some who've left the movement. It's just a convenient way of not being accountable.

Any leader who isn't held accountable has a free pass and that's dangerous. Given what we know, it makes a lot more sense now why Nee shrouded himself in mystery, he likely wanted it that way.

It seems Lee was more blatant about not wanting to be forthcoming or accountable. This statement of his comes to mind:
"Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do."

He used that kind of talk to cover what he was doing. When Sal Benoit questioned him about Daystar his response was: "Well, Sal, I will say this is not your business."

Sorry to say, Lee was manipulative. He took advantage of the respect he had. He had much to hide, so was able to avoid accountability.

The BB's have also sidestepped accountability. I think they differ from Lee in that they have sought to improve the public image of the LCM, even though their actions have indicated that they still follow in the footsteps of Lee in regards to not allowing themselves to be held accountable.

Something that occurred to me is that that while the BB's were busy working with CRI to prove the Lee's teachings were orthodox, they simultaneously ignored the concerns related to internal matters (Daystar, quarantines, etc), which are arguably more important issues for ex-LC and current LC members. So they have tried to improve public image and all the while things within the LC couldn't be more warped.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

I've given it thought. If we're honest regarding elders we have crossed paths with, there's agreement they're good brothers.

Terry, Can you (we) define what is a "good brother?"

Originally Posted by Freedom

I would guess that most local leaders probably aren’t aware of most of the things discussed on this forum or the important parts of LC history that aren’t known to many.

Arrogance + ignorance is not a formula for success.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Something that occurred to me is that that while the BB's were busy working with CRI to prove the Lee's teachings were orthodox, they simultaneously ignored the concerns related to internal matters (Daystar, quarantines, etc), which are arguably more important issues for ex-LC and current LC members. So they have tried to improve public image and all the while things within the LC couldn't be more warped.

Interesting point.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Naturally I would expect a DCP monitor to lurk on forums such as this and eventually a report would be submitted to certain blended brothers for their disseminations. Which of course would be withheld from local elders. Until elders decide to educate themselves, they are only able to see one side of the coin.

Oh I can guarantee that DCP operatives have filing cabinets and hard drives full of Isitt's, Tomes', and others' posts, organized by severity of "libel," with which they have consulted with injury lawyers concerning.

To an agency like DCP, "fight the good fight" means to file another lawsuit. Otherwise they are not doing their jobs.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Interesting point.

To me, the silence on the part of the blendeds/DCP says a lot. Obviously Ron couldn’t quite keep his mouth shut and called Steve a “man of death”. I agree with Terry’s hypothesis, that this was mainly Ron’s reaction to An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations. Did Ron let his temper get the best of him? It sure seems he slipped up. I say this because there has been no formal response produced for any of Steve’s writings, so it would not be unreasonable to assume the official stance in regards to Steve’s writings is that of silence.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh I can guarantee that DCP operatives have filing cabinets and hard drives full of Isitt's, Tomes', and others' posts, organized by severity of "libel," with which they have consulted with injury lawyers concerning.

To an agency like DCP, "fight the good fight" means to file another lawsuit. Otherwise they are not doing their jobs.

It’s hard to know for sure what DCP is doing. By the time the Titus quarantine had wrapped up, it seems like DCP stopped producing responses to the writings of Nigel and others. They haven’t responded to any of his recent writings. I think with respect to Steve, they fear the truth coming to light. That being said, I’m sure they are monitoring his writings, but their legs are tied.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Terry, Can you (we) define what is a "good brother?"

Kind, cordial, compassionate. Until the system changes their pleasant disposition.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Kind, cordial, compassionate. Until the system changes their pleasant disposition.

Is it possible to remain a good brother and be for the system too?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To me, the silence on the part of the blendeds/DCP says a lot. Obviously Ron couldn’t quite keep his mouth shut and called Steve a “man of death”. I agree with Terry’s hypothesis, that this was mainly Ron’s reaction to An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations. Did Ron let his temper get the best of him? It sure seems he slipped up. I say this because there has been no formal response produced for any of Steve’s writings, so it would not be unreasonable to assume the official stance in regards to Steve’s writings is that of silence.

I'm not so sure if that is the sole reason because RK spoke that to a small gather of South American discontents during the time Dong Yu Lan and Brazil was being quarantined. RK was hanging on to SoAmer with all he had.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It’s hard to know for sure what DCP is doing. By the time the Titus quarantine had wrapped up, it seems like DCP stopped producing responses to the writings of Nigel and others. They haven’t responded to any of his recent writings. I think with respect to Steve, they fear the truth coming to light. That being said, I’m sure they are monitoring his writings, but their legs are tied.

If they could do something legally to Steve, they would have done it already. Guaranteed they have had numerous meetings both in Anaheim and the Northwest with "what to do about Steve" being the topic of discussion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Is it possible to remain a good brother and be for the system too?

When Titus Chu publicly said that brother so-n-so, who was not in the meeting, was a "dear brother," it implied that the brother was opinionated, and had problems with the program.

"Good brothers" were loyal brothers, loyal to the program.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If they could do something legally to Steve, they would have done it already. Guaranteed they have had numerous meetings both in Anaheim and the Northwest with "what to do about Steve" being the topic of discussion.

In military terms, for DCP to take legal action against Steve would be like going into battle without any ammunition. DCP has the financial resources, but Steve has truth on his side.
I doubt the blended brothers want to subject themselves to depositions....Which brings us to Leviticus 5:1

Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

In military terms, for DCP to take legal action against Steve would be like going into battle without any ammunition. DCP has the financial resources, but Steve has truth on his side.
I doubt the blended brothers want to subject themselves to depositions....Which brings us to Leviticus 5:1

Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

Many a righteous man has gone bankrupt with "truth on his side." Happens all the time.