Good vs. Lee's Trees

John · 03-11-2012, 11:48 AM

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
(Gen 1:31, NASB)

Quite soon after becoming a Christian, I became a member of Witness Lee’s Local Church. After spending 20 years in the group, being indoctrinated by him and his leaders, I came to the conclusion that I was in a religious system virtually bereft of the Spirit, and that I felt just about spiritually dead myself … so, I left.

Lately, after being out for almost 25 years, I have been considering in more depth what I learned from Lee through his Living Stream Ministry. I have wanted to find out what foundational ideas about the Bible that I might still hold, maybe almost unconsciously, that are wrong and that I had accepted from Lee unwittingly. (In the Local Church, we were encouraged not to think, not to use our minds.)

The trees of Lee in the midst of us

One of Lee’s over-arching teachings about the Bible is about the two trees in the garden of Eden. It goes something like this: There were two trees in the garden. One was the tree of life, and the other was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life represents Christ, and the other one, which he called, on occasion, the tree of death, represents Satan. God’s purpose was that mankind was to partake of the tree of life and not the tree of death. Well, mankind failed, ate of the wrong tree, left the garden, and was prevented from returning.

Now, according to Lee, we have been brought back to the place where we can partake of Christ, the tree of life; and, that is what we are supposed to be doing on a regular, if not constant, basis. Conversely, we are to stay away from the other tree, the poisonous tree that consists of knowledge, and of good and evil, and brings death. Witness Lee often preached against dead knowledge and those Christians who would simply study the scriptures to learn. For him and his Living Stream Ministry followers, the whole Bible is mainly about life and death, and we were to only care for life.

Put your mind in gear

As a result of Lee’s teaching on the trees, slogans began to be thrown around in the Local Churches like ones similar to these:

Don’t care about right and wrong; just care for life.

I don’t sense life in what you are saying.

I don’t feel [a sense of life] to help you at this time.

Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear.

As an aside, to those who would say, “Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear,” note the following from The Message:

“So roll up your sleeves, put your mind in gear, be totally ready to receive the gift that's coming when Jesus arrives.” (1 Pet 1:13)

Getting back to the topic, so-called “life” became equated with having wonderful times in Local Church meetings. Nothing else seemed to matter but to get into somewhat of an exuberant state that was referred to as “the enjoyment.” Eventually, I became as one with no moral compass; because, to consider good and evil (right and wrong) was to be in the enemy’s clutches. We were to focus solely on life, which seemed to mean to go along with what was called “the flow,” which was based on what Witness Lee and the leaders were preaching.

What choice do we have?

Witness Lee taught us that we had the same choice as did Adam and Eve. We were not to consider good and evil, right and wrong. We were to forsake knowledge. We were always to choose life and only care for life. This was Lee’s ongoing emphasis. This kind of thinking, I believe, still controls members and many former members of the Local Churches. What about this teaching, though? Is it accurate, according to the Bible, to say that right and wrong, good and evil, are considerations to be avoided by Christians?

Back then, this teaching sounded—dare I say—good. Now that I have thought it through, though, it does not make sense to me. His teaching sounds as if we can be mentally transported back in time to the garden of Eden and given the choice between the two trees, just like Adam and Eve, with the opportunity to just swallow the life one wholeheartedly. Actually, this is not the situation faced by Christians today. In the distant past, Eve and Adam ate of the wrong tree and came to know good and evil. Now, mankind has this knowledge, and there is no going back to a state in which we do not have this knowledge. Yes, we now do have access to Jesus Christ, the One Who is life, and the option to choose Him; but, we are not now able to simply forget about good and evil.

“Not poisoned,” says Barnes

While reading some of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible about Genesis 3:22, I found that he thought that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not poison mankind (as Witness Lee had told us), as if the masticated fruit itself, going into Adam and Eve’s stomachs, could have caused some interaction with their intellects that brought them to know good and evil. Barnes stated, instead, that it was the disobedience itself that caused the knowledge, as in, “Oh no; now I know the guilt and shame of having disobeyed God, which was an evil act on my part.” His commentary may or may not be true; however, I think that it is healthy, for those of us who were immersed solely in incessant indoctrination via Lee, meeting after meeting, to read and consider a contrary view (which is what the Living Stream Ministry does not want any of its captive audience to do).

And another thing, just for argument’s sake, is that the following verse, in the context of Lee’s theology, seems to preclude the two-tree scenario that Lee painted as a choice for us now:

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7, KJV)

According to Lee, overcomers will receive a special reward in the coming kingdom. If God has already given all of us Christians an opportunity to eat of the tree of life now, as Lee preached from Genesis, why would John in Revelation indicate that eating of the tree of life is to be a reward just for overcomers in the future?

This question, like Barnes’ commentary, is not critical to my presentation, so I have not investigated how it might fit in with some larger theology about eating of the tree of life. What these two observations do bring up are possible flaws in Witness Lee’s teaching. My main point is to relate how Lee misled his followers to be afraid of good works in the pursuit of some nebulous thing he called life.

Taking the good out of God

Moving on with Witness Lee’s teaching, he warned us that a person is capable of doing mere human good without God; so, we shouldn’t be involved in just doing good. In the same way, I could say that a person can be involved in mere human life without God; so, according to Lee’s logic, we shouldn’t just focus on what became known as life in the Local Church as a thing in itself. In addition to that, Jesus said, “There is none good but One, that is, God,” further proving that Witness Lee was incorrect.

Regardless of what you think about the accuracy of Lee’s version of what happened in the garden of Eden, whether or not a person who is merely ethical can do good, and the choice we now have today, the result of his teaching for me (and others, I would assume) is that I was left in a moral vacuum, wondering whether or not some good work I might be contemplating was under the initiation of the Holy Spirit or if I was just simply trying to do a good work. If the latter, then it would actually be a dead work (devoid of the Spirit) and in the same category as the mere dead good works that “poor, degraded Christianity” did (Lee’s label). His teaching caused me to retreat from good works and cloister myself away in Local Church doings, things which were safe, approved, and supposedly in the domain of life.

A biblical accounting

So, what does the Bible really say about good works? I did some searching and came up with the following statistics from the New Testament related to God’s people doing good and right, and not doing evil or wrong:

56 passages related to doing good

6 passages related to doing right

6 passages related to not doing wrong

(Did not search for the word “evil”)

The following sections contain some of the 68 noted passages as examples of the good we Christians are to do and the right and wrong that we are to avoid.

The Bible tells us to do good works

Note that most of the following New Testament verses do not give a qualification that the good a person does must be in accord with the Spirit or the result of an outflow from Christ as life, or some such. (I did not check the contexts of these verses, so some may have the idea in surrounding verses.) I am not saying that a person does not need to keep in step with the Spirit when doing good; I am simply saying that most of the verses do not mention it. In other words, we Christians are simply told to do good works and that it is important that we do (to the chagrin of Witness Lee and the so-called “Lord’s Recovery.”

These are the biblical instructions that Witness Lee in some sense hid from us by ignoring them. Before you might decide to just sail through these verses without letting them speak to you, doesn’t it make sense, that after listening to hundreds of sermons about life, we should at least read what God wrote to us about good works? With that in mind, here are many really “good” verses from the New Testament:

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom 2:10, KJV)

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10, KJV)

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Eph 4:28, KJV)

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Eph 6:8, KJV)

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; (Col 1:10, KJV)

17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work. (2Th 2:17, KJV)

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1Ti 6:18-19, KJV)

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. (2Ti 2:21, KJV)

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, ... 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2Ti 3:3, 17, KJV)

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ... 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Tts 1:8, 16, KJV)

7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, ... 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tts 2: 7, 14, KJV)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (Hbr 10:24, KJV)

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ... 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hbr 13:16, 21, KJV)

13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. (Jam 3:13, KJV)

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (Jam 4:17, KJV)

12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1Pe 2:12, KJV)

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? (1Pe 3:11-13, KJV)

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. (3Jo 1:11, KJV)

Now that you have, hopefully, considered the foregoing verses, remember that the book of James was more or less condemned by Witness Lee as off the mark, being, in his opinion, too focused on works rather than life? As you can see by the verses, James was not the only author of New Testament text who wrote about the need for Christians to do good works.

Wouldn’t it have been better if Witness Lee had encouraged us to do good works, as the Bible does, and encouraged us to pray to be in the Spirit when initiating and doing them? For new Christians like me, I think that this kind of encouragement would have had a much better outcome. At the very least, I would have been doing something biblical.

In the “wrong” garlic room

Lee taught us that life was the only important thing and that life would do it all. He not only ignored good works, he steered us away from them by telling us that knowledge and good and evil were on the same satanic tree that we were to avoid.

With Lee’s incessant emphasis on life, we probably hardly noticed this verse:

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hbr 5:14, KJV)

Because we were in Lee’s garlic room for so long, if we did read the verse, we probably didn’t pay it any mind—our senses to discern between good and evil had atrophied to the point that God’s own word could not breach the “life walls” that Lee had built around our minds.

For me, almost everything in the Bible became translated to life by Lee’s voice in my head. I remember having the thought in one meeting in which Lee was asking questions, that every answer was turned by him to be life, that mysterious something that you came to know by experience in meetings. Eventually, I realized that as long as I went to all the meetings and experienced the thing we called life, then I thought that I was fine. This idea, however, does not line up with the Bible, which declares that we are to do good and to learn to distinguish between good and evil.

Right and wrong are important

As I mentioned earlier, it was also stated among us members of the Local Church that we should not be caught up with considerations of what is right and what is wrong. This, of course, became an excuse for leaders to abandon their duty to do the right things in regard to Christ, the members of His body, and society in general. The cloak of “life,” and the belief that forwarding the designs of “the Recovery” was the most important thing, enabled the leaders to set morality and biblical mandates aside.

Because of this mindset, I present the following verses that show that right and wrong are proper considerations for Christians:

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (Mat 20:13, KJV)

57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? (Luk 12:57, KJV)

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. (Act 8:21, KJV)

10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. (Act 25:10, KJV)

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (Eph 6:1, KJV)

25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col 3:25, KJV)

15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; (2Pe 2:15, KJV)

If life is to be the only way, then why did Peter state that those who walk according to the flesh (v 10) have forsaken the right way (instead of “forsaken the way of life”)? If right and wrong are not to be considered, then why did Paul write to the Colossians that God would punish those who did wrong (instead of those who did not “do life”)?

One final thought

Why do you suppose Witness Lee warned us away from good works (works that the Bible tells us to do) and focused us on a thing he called “life,” a life that was mostly defined as a nice feeling in Local Church meetings, a “life” that indirectly included adherence to the programs of Lee and his leaders, a “life” that was only to be found in his Local Church? One of the reasons might be that Witness Lee had so few good works of his own.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:10, KJV)

OBW · 03-12-2012, 04:10 PM

John,

A very good analysis of Lee and his trees.

Almost a year ago, someone spoke concerning the fall in Genesis, and the conclusion, while sounding somewhat different, concluded similarly to yours. The real issue that they pointed to was that it was not that man got something added to him, or that he gained knowledge. Instead, it is more meaningful to state that we changed our allegiance from God to self. We changed our source of right and wrong from what God said to what we reasoned was right or wrong.

The fall was the result of disobedience, not fruit or snakes.

Knowledge is not the problem. Knowledge from our own counsel is.

Right and wrong is not a problem. In fact, right and wrong remain an important thing from the very beginning to the very end. But right and wrong decided by our flawed minds without the counsel of God is very much a problem.

Teaching things like "don’t care about right and wrong; just care for life" is the kind of teaching that Jesus warned against in Matthew 5. It causes many of the least to stumble and it sets aside the command of God in favor of the counsel of a fool.

Ohio · 03-12-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Why do you suppose Witness Lee warned us away from good works (works that the Bible tells us to do) and focused us on a thing he called “life?"

Personally, I do believe all Christians should pay attention to "life," even as Moses admonished Israel to "choose life." This, to me, indicates the utmost importance we should pay to the things of life, that being the eternal and divine zoe life of God. In other words, we must focus on the unseen because the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are unseen are eternal. Hence, our focus should primarily be on God, Christ, the Spirit, faith, love, hope, etc.

With that introduction, I have asked, and been asked, many times why we spent no time or energy on good works? That's the first question. The second question being, why we were excessively instructed never to pay attention to right and wrong, but only to life? It is now my conclusion, after years of study, that both of these questions expose the self-serving motives at LSM. I consider the answer to the first question to be like a benign cancer, and the answer to the second to be like a malignant cancer.

Why no good works?

In a word, because WL (and other LC leaders) only cared to build his own empire. He could not afford to have devoted members of the LC's out visiting hospitals or prisons, when they could be building up the church -- his church. His endless programs and trainings swept thru the recovery to make sure all our time was fully consumed. Why was it that visiting the sick was a "dead work," but volunteering to build ministry halls was exalted as Levitical service? Why was it that carrying out any personal burden was considered "only doing your own thing," but all "true service" to the Lord must be carried out under the supervision and direction of LSM?

Why no attention to right and wrong?

In a word, to coverup the rottenness and unrighteousness at LSM. The rank and file had to be continually trained never to ask questions or have an opinion. We were always trained to receive only the authorized version of events passed down from LSM. In this manner, all manner of corruption could be kept under wraps, and LSM could maintain their pristine image so necessary for their devoted followers. We were regularly fed a diet of fear and condemnation that kept us "safe and secure" within the confines of the recovery Those who rejected the official version would then be labeled rebels and lepers, and be expelled from the fellowship. Why was it that Philip Lee, by all accounts the godless reprobate who managed LSM, loved the saying, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life?" Why is it that as soon as members learn the truth of past events, long covered up, they are immediately "poisoned" by it and leave?

TLFisher · 03-12-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I do believe all Christians should pay attention to "life," even as Moses admonished Israel to "choose life." This, to me, indicates the utmost importance we should pay to the things of life, that being the eternal and divine zoe life of God. In other words, we must focus on the unseen because the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are unseen are eternal. Hence, our focus should primarily be on God, Christ, the Spirit, faith, love, hope, etc.

With that introduction, I have asked, and been asked, many times why we spent no time or energy on good works? That's the first question. The second question being, why we were excessively instructed never to pay attention to right and wrong, but only to life? It is now my conclusion, after years of study, that both of these questions expose the self-serving motives at LSM.

I agree with you wholeheartedly....that is when put into proper context. Problem is "life" is given an unhealthy definition.
Life=all things positive
Death=all things negative

Examine the prophets of the Old Testament and they had many negative things to say. Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In the New Testament we Jesus' ministry. He had many negative things to say. Is this death? Not hardly. Even when there's negative speaking, there's something of life. Something to prick your human spirit. If your human spirit is not touched when Jesus speaks of the Woes in Matthew or the Beatitudes in Luke, I'm at a loss.

UntoHim · 03-12-2012, 09:03 PM

Thanks John for this thread.

First of all, Witness Lee was quite mistaken to teach that "right and wrong" was versus, or opposite of "life". This was a mistaken theological premise that has caused untold spiritual and psychological damage among the members in the Local Church for many years. To say that God cares more for life than he does for right and wrong shows an absolute ignorance, even despite, for the written Word of God.

The Lord Jesus stated that He is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6) Witness Lee, who had zero formal training in biblical Greek, talked Ingalls et all into translating the Greek word ἀλήθεια into the English "realty". No other reputable English translation has translated ἀλήθεια into the English word "reality". This reason for this is simple. Because the Greek word ἀλήθεια, in the context that it is used in the New Testament, does not connote reality, at least not in the sense that Lee taught. Rather it connotes TRUTH...truth as opposed to false, or falsehood. Witness Lee didn't like to use the word truth so much as the unbiblical word of reality. Why was that?

You see, "the life" is not opposed to "the truth" at all. In fact you cannot have one without the other. Those who teach such a thing are false teachers. Those who prophecy such a thing are false prophets.

TLFisher · 05-02-2015, 09:02 AM

To sum up the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) and the Tree of Life in practice,
LSM/LCM group think translates as the Tree of Life
Any call for truth, righteousness, etc that appears remotely critical of LCM leadership translates as the Tree of Knowledge.

HERn · 05-02-2015, 08:17 PM

Terry, thanks so much for bringing this thread back up. I had no idea it was here and I've thought a lot about this topic recently. How many other excellent and helpful threads lay buried I wonder?

Ohio · 05-02-2015, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Terry, thanks so much for bringing this thread back up. I had no idea it was here and I've thought a lot about this topic recently. How many other excellent and helpful threads lay buried I wonder?

In the past, we actually had like an index by Nell to some of the more informative writings and personal accounts by well-respected former leaders.

UntoHim has done his best to organize the information, but still it has become unwieldy.

Feel free to address certain pertinent topics. Sometimes other posters will cite helpful references. Terry is good at digging into old stuff.

TLFisher · 05-03-2015, 04:06 PM

In recent one on one discussions, I have noted it's a tactic of elders and blended coworkers to minimize concerns by using the Tree of Life versus Tree of Knowledge analogy. If it comes from the publications/websites LSM endorses, it's of the Tree of Life

However if a brothers attempts to set's the facts straight whether from David Shields, David Canfield, John Ingalls, etc it must be from the Tree of Knowledge.

Freedom · 05-03-2015, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

In recent one on one discussions, I have noted it's a tactic of elders and blended coworkers to minimize concerns by using the Tree of Life versus Tree of Knowledge analogy. If it comes from the publications/websites LSM endorses, it's of the Tree of Life

However if a brothers attempts to set's the facts straight whether from David Shields, David Canfield, John Ingalls, etc it must be from the Tree of Knowledge.

It's funny how Lee never held himself to the standard he created. He was allowed to reason, criticize, and do all the things that were supposedly the "Tree of Knowledge" while no ones else was allowed to do those things. The blendeds now follow in his footsteps.

Ohio · 05-03-2015, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's funny how Lee never held himself to the standard he created. He was allowed to reason, criticize, and do all the things that were supposedly the "Tree of Knowledge" while no ones else was allowed to do those things. The blendeds now follow in his footsteps.

You have rightly defined hypocrisy.

Freedom · 05-03-2015, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have rightly defined hypocrisy.

Lee's continuation (the BB's) have also demonstrated this same hypocrisy. Ron is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of them all. In his infamous Ecuador message he warns everyone against the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and then proceeds to tell everyone who the most evil person on the internet is. And people buy into this garbage, that's what is so sad. It wouldn't be half as bad if that kind of teaching was a standard everyone lived up to, the problem is that it's a teaching that is applied with a severe double standard. Lee and the blendeds are allowed to do things that no one else can. They insulate themselves from criticism by claiming that it's from the Tree of Knowledge.

awareness · 05-03-2015, 07:50 PM

I have to comment on this nugget:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

While reading some of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible about Genesis 3:22, I found that he thought that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not poison mankind (as Witness Lee had told us), as if the masticated fruit itself, going into Adam and Eve’s stomachs, could have caused some interaction with their intellects that brought them to know good and evil. Barnes stated, instead, that it was the disobedience itself that caused the knowledge, as in, “Oh no; now I know the guilt and shame of having disobeyed God, which was an evil act on my part.” His commentary may or may not be true; however, I think that it is healthy, for those of us who were immersed solely in incessant indoctrination via Lee, meeting after meeting, to read and consider a contrary view (which is what the Living Stream Ministry does not want any of its captive audience to do).

We need to nail down what this is, to clearly identify what is actually going on in the LSM local churches.

It is called, and actually is : Cognitive capture.

It is a type of mind control. Getting out of your mind, and into your spirit leaves your mind free to be captured by, in this case, Witness Lee and Company (like a duck fresh out of the egg fixated on the first thing it sees). If it's not cultish, it sure looks like it. Because of the phenomena of cognitive capture happening in the LSM local churches I personally think, for what it's worth, that the LSM local church is undeniably cultish.

Freedom · 05-03-2015, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I have to comment on this nugget:

We need to nail down what this is, to clearly identify what is actually going on in the LSM local churches.

It is called, and actually is : Cognitive capture.

It is a type of mind control. Getting out of your mind, and into your spirit leaves your mind free to be captured by, in this case, Witness Lee and Company (like a duck fresh out of the egg fixated on the first thing it sees). If it's not cultish, it sure looks like it. Because of the phenomena of cognitive capture happening in the LSM local churches I personally think, for what it's worth, that the LSM local church is undeniably cultish.

I would really like to think that Lee didn't have any intention of using a teaching like this (or his other teachings) to control. I'm not convinced that this was the case, however, I wouldn't go as far to make an argument either way. What I can say is that the end result of his teaching was that it became a form a control, as were things like "getting out of your mind". All to often, I've seen these teachings used in a way where one person has power over another to determine what is of the "Tree of Knowledge" or what constitutes being "in the mind".

I'm sure that all the local minion-leaders see this kind of teaching as a easy means to silence the congregation. Like I said, as to whether or not this was the original intention, I don't know. My theory is that many leaders might have picked up on this as an easy way to control the masses. That is really where such a teaching has an impact. If any rational can be silenced as being part of the "Tree of Knowledge", then it is scary what can come of it.

SpeakersCorner · 05-03-2015, 09:47 PM

Quote:

The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is. Modern academia, particularly the humanities -- of which I was part -- eats voraciously from this tree. Eating, rather than simply handling, has caused academia to become the ugly thing that it is.

aron · 05-04-2015, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is.

Interesting point. It connects also with John's delineation in Revelations of the difference between the nations touching the tree of life, or being healed by its leaves (22:2b), versus eating the fruit, which is new every month (22:2a). Perhaps that's a corollary of sorts to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We're to have our faculties exercised to discern between good and evil. But to feed on this, i.e. to take our sustenance from it, is not allowed.

Back to the essay at the beginning of the thread. I think that the point is well made that a focus on "life" was made-up as an excuse to avoid noticing the lack of good works. In addition to the verses John quoted, one which has helped me is in the testimony of Peter, regarding the ministry of Jesus. Peter was speaking to the gentiles, and summarizing Jesus' life in a few brief words. Here's how he phrased it: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." (Acts 10:38) The fact that Jesus "went around doing good" made such an impression on Peter shouldn't be lightly dismissed. And WL's stressing of "life" essentially allowed him to do just that.

Additionally, "we don't care for right and wrong, only for life" becomes a cloak for unrighteousness.

And lastly, in a highly-charged charismatic environment, where feelings can become overwhelming, and "experience" or sensory response our primary focus, relying on your feeling of "life" can be an awful trap. Then the Bible itself becomes "dead letters" to you if you can't extract "life" out of it; conversely, anything barely related to the Bible can give "life" if you get sufficiently excited about it. Thus came the equivalent of braying "four legs good, two legs bad" at meetings: we thought if we shouted something loudly enough, for long enough, it would become real. "It's the life, life, life, that makes me want to shout" went the LC song. But we shouted a lot of slogans that were tenuously related to the Bible, if at all. Our focus was not on Jesus Christ, good works, or even "life"; it was on the experience of repetetive shouting.

Freedom · 05-04-2015, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And lastly, in a highly-charged charismatic environment, where feelings can become overwhelming, and "experience" or sensory response our primary focus, relying on your feeling of "life" can be an awful trap. Then the Bible itself becomes "dead letters" to you if you can't extract "life" out of it; conversely, anything barely related to the Bible can give "life" if you get sufficiently excited about it. Thus came the equivalent of braying "four legs good, two legs bad" at meetings: we thought if we shouted something loudly enough, for long enough, it would become real. "It's the life, life, life, that makes me want to shout" went the LC song. But we shouted a lot of slogans that were tenuously related to the Bible, if at all. Our focus was not on Jesus Christ, good works, or even "life"; it was on the experience of repetetive shouting.

I agree. In the LC, whatever it is that constitutes "life" is something that is highly subjective and usually it is a matter of an elder calling something life, and then calling the alternative death. For the rank and file member, they think Lee's ministry makes them feel happy or excited, so they say it gives them "life" while other ministries don't. It is indeed a trap.

Because they feel that "life" can only exist in the realm of Lee's ministry, they have already narrowed what they are willing to accept as "life". If someone criticizes Lee's ministry, that automatically is labeled as "death", and it might not even be necessary for a brother like Ron to come in and say that. The rank and file member already believes that speaking positively about Lee's ministry is imperative for "life" to exist.

TLFisher · 05-04-2015, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Because they feel that "life" can only exist in the realm of Lee's ministry, they have already narrowed what they are willing to accept as "life". If someone criticizes Lee's ministry, that automatically is labeled as "death", and it might not even be necessary for a brother like Ron to come in and say that. The rank and file member already believes that speaking positively about Lee's ministry is imperative for "life" to exist.

In the LC mind, when it comes to quarantines, to seek the other side of the story is going to the Tree of Knowledge. If you accept without question what the LSM co-workers say, that's the Tree of Life. It's the systems method of controlling the brothers and sisters from seeking information dare the Local churches turn into the next Mars Hill church fallout.

OBW · 05-04-2015, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LC mind, when it comes to quarantines, to seek the other side of the story is going to the Tree of Knowledge. If you accept without question what the LSM co-workers say, that's the Tree of Life. It's the systems method of controlling the brothers and sisters from seeking information dare the Local churches turn into the next Mars Hill church fallout.

So if you do not care for truth, you are living, and if you care for truth, you are dead.

Wow! I want more of that kind of religion.

NOT!

UntoHim · 05-04-2015, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LC mind, when it comes to quarantines, to seek the other side of the story is going to the Tree of Knowledge. If you accept without question what the LSM co-workers say, that's the Tree of Life. It's the systems method of controlling the brothers and sisters from seeking information dare the Local churches turn into the next Mars Hill church fallout.

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is exactly what needs to happen in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Of course what happened at Mars Hill - finally holding the lead apostle of the movement accountable for his actions - cannot possibly happen in the LC because Lee is dead and buried for 18 years now. Many of the elders at Mars hill finally did some long-needed soul searching (after throwing many of their fellow elders/leaders under the bus over a period of years...sound familiar?) and came to the conclusion that the Mars Hill movement had become something of a personality cult. They knew the only way out was to confront and hold accountable "the personality", which was Mark Driscoll. Thankfully, Mars Hill's by-laws had a mechanism in place which made finally holding Driscoll accountable a regrettable, but necessary option possible. Eventually they did the right thing and removed him as the leader of the movement.

We all know that no such mechanism exists in the LC movement. Even in death, the person and work of Witness Lee rule and reign supreme. No mere mortal is allowed to measure his person or work. Even the most reasoned and altruistic attempt at measuring Lee or his ministry is looked upon as abject rebellion against God Himself, and met with the severest of sanctions, or even the dreaded "quarantine". The Blended Brothers are really and truly "brother Lee's continuation" - They shamelessly exalt his person (just as Lee did when he was alive) and endlessly promote his work (aka "the ministry of the age") until everything, including the Word of God, is placed so far in the background as to fade to insignificance among the true believers.

The brothers at Mars Hill finally faced The TRUTH. I'm sure they didn't feel much "life" in the actions they took. But the simple fact is that it is a falsehood to say that truth is in ANY SENSE antithetical to life. In fact, if any teaching from mere men, no matter how much it claims to have "life", is found to be at variance with, much less directly contradict the truths we find in the Word of God, it is to be rejected. Furthermore, the teacher of such doctrine is to be firmly corrected, and if no change and repentance is shown, is to be rejected himself. A lot is at stake. The apostle Paul instructed the believers to reject those who "teach differently". He didn't recommend that we firstly "check with our spirit and see if we feel the sense of life".

aron · 05-04-2015, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The simple fact is that it is a falsehood to say that truth is in ANY SENSE antithetical to life. In fact, if any teaching from mere men, no matter how much it claims to have "life", is found to be at variance with, much less directly contradict the truths we find in the Word of God, it is to be rejected..

A case in point is the statement, "The age of spiritual giants is over. It is now the age of small potatoes." I heard this when WL died. Where is this the truth of such a statement? Or is it merely convenient to your idea of "life"?

TLFisher · 05-04-2015, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The apostle Paul instructed the believers to reject those who "teach differently".

The Local Church concept of teaching differently are those who teach differently according to Lee's ministry. That's not what apostle Paul is speaking about teaching differently.

TLFisher · 05-04-2015, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is exactly what needs to happen in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Of course what happened at Mars Hill - finally holding the lead apostle of the movement accountable for his actions - cannot possibly happen in the LC because Lee is dead and buried for 18 years now. Many of the elders at Mars hill finally did some long-needed soul searching (after throwing many of their fellow elders/leaders under the bus over a period of years...sound familiar?) and came to the conclusion that the Mars Hill movement had become something of a personality cult. They knew the only way out was to confront and hold accountable "the personality", which was Mark Driscoll. Thankfully, Mars Hill's by-laws had a mechanism in place which made finally holding Driscoll accountable a regrettable, but necessary option possible. Eventually they did the right thing and removed him as the leader of the movement.

We all know that no such mechanism exists in the LC movement. Even in death, the person and work of Witness Lee rule and reign supreme. No mere mortal is allowed to measure his person or work. Even the most reasoned and altruistic attempt at measuring Lee or his ministry is looked upon as abject rebellion against God Himself, and met with the severest of sanctions, or even the dreaded "quarantine". The Blended Brothers are really and truly "brother Lee's continuation" - They shamelessly exalt his person (just as Lee did when he was alive) and endlessly promote his work (aka "the ministry of the age") until everything, including the Word of God, is placed so far in the background as to fade to insignificance among the true believers.

The mechanism that existed at Mars Hill had accountability being relative.
As we know in the local churches accountability was either met with disfellowship, cease and desist, or a product of your imagination. Because of the ability to suppress concerns, the local churches won't endure what Mars Hill went through.
Since there's an understanding the brothers have no ear to hear, the endless cycle of attrition will continue. Saints will leave rather than

Cal · 05-05-2015, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Blended Brothers are really and truly "brother Lee's continuation"

They are actually worse than that because the Lee they "continue" is an idealized Lee of their own manipulation for their own purposes. Any on-target calling into account of Lee they can brush aside simply by re-defining him. Thus for example, the BBs tell us that Lee did not really apologize right before he died for being strident and divisive. He apologized rather, they tell us, for the bumbling members who couldn't get his vision right. And so forth.

This is really a dangerous dynamic. I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where Kirk and company visited the planet that had patterned its society after Nazi Germany. The actual leader who initiated the pattern meant well but had grown old and was being drugged and manipulated by his ruthless deputy to accomplish his own ends. All the deputy had to say was "the Führer said this" or "the Führer meant that" or "the Führer would have wanted such-and-such" and no one could argue because supposedly he was closest to the Führer.

(Image deleted: No longer available.)

Sound familiar?

Now, this is not to say Lee wasn't at fault or did not initiate most of the errors in the LCM. But the BBs doubled-down the bet after his death and have utilized the added advantage of being able to manipulate the shadow of "LEE" any way they want for their own purposes. This is exactly what they are doing. No one can argue with them because they "knew Brother Lee's mind."

On the TV show the problem was resolved through bloodshed. I'm afraid that is the only way the LCM problem will be resolved, if only figuratively.

awareness · 05-05-2015, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

They are actually worse than that because the Lee they "continue" is an idealized Lee . . .

They're still stuck there? I did that. Back when I was young and idealistic, with an empty brain, still developing.

So the Blended's growth must be stunted. Mentally and spiritually they haven't grown up. They haven't become critical self thinkers. They're still cognitively captured.

That's a hard pill for me to swallow. That my dear brother Ron Kangas has been mentally captured. He seemed too sharp for such a thing to happen to him. But swallow it I must.

Can you imagine how creative the second generation of Blended's will become. They'll twist and spin Lee's Christology to such heights that Lee will become the embodiment of Christ to them.

For this reason, as time goes on, the LSM local church movement will likely become a spin off of Lee.

Like The Eastern Lightning today. One million strong and growing, out from China (ring any bells?). They're a spin off of Lee ... an interesting example of what comes out of Lee. They already have a living Christ. LSM is lagging ... but will likely catch up, when the second generation of Blendeds inevitably elevate Lee to Christ status.

I'm developing a post on the Eastern Lightning thread, that's on LCD already. It was started by bro InChristAlone, but there wasn't much interest shown in it. I think that's because the name Eastern Lightning throws us, and strikes us as some possible unknown weird fringe movement in China. They also go by the name of, The Church of the Almighty God.

They aren't fringe. They are larger in numbers than the LSM movement. They came out of The Shouters. "One branch of the Shouters held Witness Lee in such high esteem that they began to regard his authority and status as greater than Christ’s.[16] They called Witness Lee, “Lord Changshou” [17] (Changshou is Witness Lee’s given name)."
http://www.facts.org.cn/ebook/201310...11_1137654.htm

Don't y'all realize that Lee is the Tree of Life? not death? Obviously, because you are no longer cognitively captured, you're of the wrong tree. Come back to Lord Changshou.

Ohio · 05-05-2015, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

They are actually worse than that because the Lee they "continue" is an idealized Lee of their own manipulation for their own purposes. Any on-target calling into account of Lee they can brush aside simply by re-defining him. Thus for example, the BBs tell us that Lee did not really apologize right before he died for being strident and divisive. He apologized rather, they tell us, for the bumbling members who couldn't get his vision right. And so forth.

This is really a dangerous dynamic. I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where Kirk and company visited the planet that had patterned its society after Nazi Germany. The actual leader who initiated the pattern meant well but had grown old and was being drugged and manipulated by his ruthless deputy to accomplish his own ends. All the deputy had to say was "the Führer said this" or "the Führer meant that" or "the Führer would have wanted such-and-such" and no one could argue because supposedly he was closest to the Führer.

Reminds me of the skirmishes that existed after Lee passed. Titus had all the GLA full-timers digging thru Lee's books for quotes on critical topics. Reams of bound flyers were put together, which TC hand-delivered to the Blendeds. They basically said thanks, but no thanks, and don't tell us what Lee meant, we were there for all the messages.

Sound familiar?

Lee did the same thing with Nee. When brothers approached Lee back in the 80's and pointed out how he had had violated Nee's principles laid forth in the Normal Christian Church Life, Lee said, "who do you think you are, I was there for those messages."

awareness · 05-05-2015, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of the skirmishes that existed after Lee passed. Titus had all the GLA full-timers digging thru Lee's books for quotes on critical topics. Reams of bound flyers were put together, which TC hand-delivered to the Blendeds. They basically said thanks, but no thanks, and don't tell us what Lee meant, we were there for all the messages.

Sound familiar?

Lee did the same thing with Nee. When brothers approached Lee back in the 80's and pointed out how he had had violated Nee's principles laid forth in the Normal Christian Church Life, Lee said, "who do you think you are, I was there for those messages."

Just because Lee was there doesn't mean he got the message. Obviously not. Lee wouldn't even hold to the autonomy of the locality, the very ground of the church.

I saw this with Ron Kangas in Detroit, back in the early 70s ... when Lee pushed out the existing elders and, replaced them with his.

aron · 05-05-2015, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

and don't tell us what Lee meant, we were there for all the messages.

What I find so fascinating, here, is that the idea of the "ground", which supposedly opened up the "life-gate", goes hand in hand with the idea of "Deputy God". So the first either needs the second, to keep going, or it is a ready mark to be usurped by the second. Either way, if you get the "ground', soon enough you get the Deputy God.

Bear with me here, while I run through it.

First off, the ground of oneness opens up the blessing. The Spirit now flows free. We all see that.

Quote:

Psalm 133. 1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

But the problem is that "life" is so subjective. "So subjective is my Christ to me; real in me and rich and sweet" Hymns, #537.

But what if your subjective Christ gets "life" to do this, and I get "life" to do that? What do we do?

Voila - the Deputy God! Just ask the DG what gives him "life". Heck, we don't even need the Bible. Just ask the DG (or Mota, or "our brother", or "God's oracle" or "the apostle" or whatever we're calling him this month).

Just do what the DG says and you get "life". How simple, how easy. Like awareness says, all your hard work has been done for you. You don't even need to think. And don't worry what WL said, just ask the Blendeds - they were there. They know. They are his "continuation, his life-increase, and his spread". -Hymns, #203

Freedom · 05-05-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

But the problem is that "life" is so subjective. "So subjective is my Christ to me; real in me and rich and sweet" Hymns, #537.

But what if your subjective Christ gets "life" to do this, and I get "life" to do that? What do we do?

Voila - the Deputy God! Just ask the DG what gives him "life". Heck, we don't even need the Bible. Just ask the DG (or Mota, or "our brother", or "God's oracle" or "the apostle" or whatever we're calling him this month).

Just do what the DG says and you get "life". How simple, how easy. Like awareness says, all your hard work has been done for you. You don't even need to think. And don't worry what WL said, just ask the Blendeds - they were there. They know. They are his "continuation, his life-increase, and his spread". -Hymns, #203

When I really think about it, I'm not even sure that you could even put a concrete definition on what Lee meant by "life". Sure I know what I think he meant, but in reality, those in the LC have associated "life" with being some type of feeling. It's mainly something associated with feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. That's where the danger is because: 1) it's completely a subjective concept (there isn't a good working definition) and 2) it can only be associated with certain types of predefined feelings. In normal human interaction, there is no such thing as feeling good all the time or only being able to make decisions that make you feel good. I don't see that kind of example in the Bible either.

Quite to the contrary, the example that Jesus set was partly that of confronting "negative" situations. He debated people, and my favorite is when he confronted the money changers in the temple and drove them out. Obviously that wasn't a positive situation, and I'm sure that those with him wouldn't have sensed "life" in the way the LC defines it. It was a confrontational situation, yet this is part of the example that Jesus set. Jesus and his disciples didn't go out of their way to avoid confrontational situations or reasoning with people. On the contrary, Lee was the one who forbade thinking about right and wrong, considering situation, confronting problems, etc. When brothers called him out for his own money changing activities, he insulated himself. That was always his way out of everything, saying "we need to just focus on life..."

awareness · 05-05-2015, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron quotes

Psalm 133. 1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

Those very verses were pray-read in the meetings, to support the Flow of Oneness that Mel Porter, the lead elder in the church in Ft. Lauderdale, came back from Anaheim with.

The Flow of Oneness was supported with Rev. 22:1. It was said that the river of life, carried the authority of the throne, to the apostle on the earth: Witness Lee.

And Lee was likened to Aaron in Psalms 133. It was said. that, the anointing came down from Lee, thru the elders, and finally, to the "garments," or us little ones.

I couldn't go with the Flow of Oneness, wasn't against God, Christ, or the Bible, but had to go ... according to Mel Porter. Thank God for that.

TLFisher · 05-05-2015, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, this is not to say Lee wasn't at fault or did not initiate most of the errors in the LCM. But the BBs doubled-down the bet after his death and have utilized the added advantage of being able to manipulate the shadow of "LEE" any way they want for their own purposes. This is exactly what they are doing. No one can argue with them because they "knew Brother Lee's mind."

Same can be said for current and future LSM projects or even recent ones such as the training center in Boston. They blendeds could claim it's what Witness Lee wanted even if x number of years later.

TLFisher · 05-05-2015, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of the skirmishes that existed after Lee passed. Titus had all the GLA full-timers digging thru Lee's books for quotes on critical topics. Reams of bound flyers were put together, which TC hand-delivered to the Blendeds. They basically said thanks, but no thanks, and don't tell us what Lee meant, we were there for all the messages.

If in fact they were there which I seriously doubt (1960's in mind), obviously the messages became nothing more than lip-service.

SpeakersCorner · 05-05-2015, 06:54 PM

Quote:

So the Blended's growth must be stunted. Mentally and spiritually they haven't grown up. They haven't become critical self thinkers. They're still cognitively captured.

I doubt they're stunted so much as compromised. They're all in their 60's and beyond. They have nothing outside the "Recovery." I truly pity them. They gave up promising careers, many of them, to go the LC way. The glory days are long since over. Many tribal wars have fought and won ... but there are many scars, many sad memories. Probably sleepless nights. I feel certain the leaders in Chicago have deep regret in their hearts over the cutting off of the rest of the Midwest.

I contend that anyone who seriously gives themselves to follow the Lord ultimately pays a heavy price. Haven't all of us?

Cal · 05-05-2015, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I contend that anyone who seriously gives themselves to follow the Lord ultimately pays a heavy price. Haven't all of us?

There's the price the Lord asks us to bear, and there's the one we inflict on ourselves. Fortunately, somehow, he is able to redeem both.

HERn · 05-05-2015, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Fortunately, somehow, he is able to redeem both.

Thanks Igzy, the LORD IS able to redeem both. May He redeem me from my anger and resentment and may I be able to oppose what He opposes and yet love as He loved.

SpeakersCorner · 05-05-2015, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's the price the Lord asks us to bear, and there's the one we inflict on ourselves. Fortunately, somehow, he is able to redeem both.

Yes, very true.

It is a wonder how the Potter molds us, turns us, tosses aside a hard spot, reworks a soft spot, kicks the wheel again, always the hands upon us. I honestly don't know why he has continued to work me because, let's be honest here, I've got more hard parts than soft. But I do feel his hands still upon me.

Freedom · 05-06-2015, 11:23 AM

In a normal social context (non-LC, non-religious), there are certain terms that can be applied to people who don't care about right and wrong or who demonstrate disregard for right and wrong. That is why it is so concerning to hear the common LC phrases like "We don't care for right or wrong..." I'm not trying to make any particular statement about LC leadership, but I just want to say that it should be of big concern that there are statements that both Lee and LC leaders have made indicating a lack of concern for right or wrong.

The LC alternative to caring about right and wrong is obviously "life". As has been discussed already, that is highly subjective concept. So what you have is a group of people with leaders who vocally state that they don't care for right or wrong, but care instead for this subjective concept of "life". What set of values does the concept of "life" encompass? I would like to think that it encompasses some kind of higher standard. I do have a hard time believing that, given the actions taken by LC leaders to remove those who attempted to address basic issues of right and wrong. Because there is the thought that discerning according to right and wrong brings in "death", and because it is unclear what standard of "life" those in the LC live by, doesn't that make for a dangerous situation? To be fair, I believe many in the LC do care about right and wrong, the problem is that those voices are never heard. How many are there in the LC who have keep silent when it comes to right and wrong? I know that I have. I'm sure there are many others.

TLFisher · 05-06-2015, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC alternative to caring about right and wrong is obviously "life". As has been discussed already, that is highly subjective concept. So what you have is a group of people with leaders who vocally state that they don't care for right or wrong, but care instead for this subjective concept of "life". What set of values does the concept of "life" encompass? I would like to think that it encompasses some kind of higher standard. I do have a hard time believing that, given the actions taken by LC leaders to remove those who attempted to address basic issues of right and wrong. Because there is the thought that discerning according to right and wrong brings in "death", and because it is unclear what standard of "life" those in the LC live by, doesn't that make for a dangerous situation? To be fair, I believe many in the LC do care about right and wrong, the problem is that those voices are never heard. How many are there in the LC who have keep silent when it comes to right and wrong? I know that I have. I'm sure there are many others.

What does this all mean to not care for right or wrong, but care for life? Well! In practice it means "not making an issue of persons, matters or things". It means we (meaning while we're those meeting in the local churches) are not going to be figuratively overturning the money changers table in the temple.

Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; Mark 11:15

TLFisher · 05-06-2015, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

To be fair, I believe many in the LC do care about right and wrong, the problem is that those voices are never heard. How many are there in the LC who have keep silent when it comes to right and wrong? I know that I have. I'm sure there are many others.

As I believe it may be considered admirable if your spirit isn't at peace about right and wrong, some elders may field one's concern once, but will offer a warning to cease and desist (speak no further about these matters to anyone or else). Otherwise sanctions i.e. discipline will come into play.

rayliotta · 05-06-2015, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I doubt they're stunted so much as compromised. They're all in their 60's and beyond. They have nothing outside the "Recovery." I truly pity them. They gave up promising careers, many of them, to go the LC way. The glory days are long since over. Many tribal wars have fought and won ... but there are many scars, many sad memories. Probably sleepless nights. I feel certain the leaders in Chicago have deep regret in their hearts over the cutting off of the rest of the Midwest.

Some of these men have spoken openly about what they will "say to Brother Lee" when they "see him again," in that day. That is not an act. They feel, in their hearts, that they owe this man an accountability beyond the grave.

If it were not for having heard those words, in at least one summer/winter training meeting, I probably would not entertain the word "cult" in relation to the Lord's Recovery. Alas, that attitude is part of the culture of their movement.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Some of these men have spoken openly about what they will "say to Brother Lee" when they "see him again," in that day. That is not an act. They feel, in their hearts, that they owe this man an accountability beyond the grave.

If it were not for having heard those words, in at least one summer/winter training meeting, I probably would not entertain the word "cult" in relation to the Lord's Recovery. Alas, that attitude is part of the culture of their movement.

I may still have one such audio Priestly Scribe had passed on to me some years back of Dan Towle speaking at a Memorial Day conference where he more or less says "what will he say to Brother Lee" when he sees him again?

Because of this attitude, in order to keep Lee's ministry and his legacy positive, brothers such as Dan will continue to cover things over in the spirit of "it's not about right or wrong, it's about life." In other words righteousness is considered irrelevant.

Freedom · 05-07-2015, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I may still have one such audio Priestly Scribe had passed on to me some years back of Dan Towle speaking at a Memorial Day conference where he more or less says "what will he say to Brother Lee" when he sees him again?

Because of this attitude, in order to keep Lee's ministry and his legacy positive, brothers such as Dan will continue to cover things over in the spirit of "it's not about right or wrong, it's about life." In other words righteousness is considered irrelevant.

I have no doubt in my mind that the BB's make decisions based on what they think Lee would have done or would have wanted. That is a problem, because to the average LCer, decision making ability is minimized by keeping them from wanting to focus too on right or wrong. It's easier for everyone to let the BB's tell ever how things are going to be. That way everyone can stay focused on "life". Like I said in my last post. It's a bit concerning when you have a group of people who don't care about right or wrong.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's a bit concerning when you have a group of people who don't care about right or wrong.

Certainly it makes you wonder;

Where's their conscience?
Are they moral or amoral?
Are brothers and sisters valued or are they just considered a means to an end?

Freedom · 05-07-2015, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Certainly it makes you wonder;

Where's their conscience?
Are they moral or amoral?
Are brothers and sisters valued or are they just considered a means to an end?

The BB's and LC leaders either don't know what it means to follow their consciences or they haven't done so for a long time. They place loyalty to a system first. For me, Philip Lin's statement about culture trumping conscience is proof of that.

When the right and wrong is deemphasized or is seen as a something that brings people into death, then it follows that there are amoral leaders in the LC. Of course, with most of them, the goal is to just promote a system and they do everything with that in mind. I don't know that most of them purposely disregard right and wrong, but it's probably more of something that's done selectively in order to suit their agendas.

OBW · 05-07-2015, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Certainly it makes you wonder

But it does explain a lot.

Covering up sexual immorality in the "ministry office"
Creating a business on the investment of the membership that goes belly-up but the MOTA make a bunch of money on it.
Publicly humiliating people for the purpose of either covering up the sins of others, or making points with the dictatorial leader.
Slandering the good name of several brothers who stood up to some of the sins previously mentioned.

awareness · 05-07-2015, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Some of these men have spoken openly about what they will "say to Brother Lee" when they "see him again," in that day. That is not an act. They feel, in their hearts, that they owe this man an accountability beyond the grave.

If it were not for having heard those words, in at least one summer/winter training meeting, I probably would not entertain the word "cult" in relation to the Lord's Recovery.

Once you see it you can't unsee it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Alas, that attitude is part of the culture of their movement.

Amen bro ... amen

And good to see you again. Come visit us in Alternative Views. Ya have to get the password, if you don't have it already, from the moderator.

awareness · 05-07-2015, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Like I said in my last post. It's a bit concerning when you have a group of people who don't care about right or wrong.

If it's not a matter of right and wrong then what was wrong with married sisters sleeping with Philip Lee?

Freedom · 05-07-2015, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

If it's not a matter of right and wrong then what was wrong with married sisters sleeping with Philip Lee?

Exactly. When it came to Lee's ministry, whatever served to promote the success of his ministry is what was accepted and tolerated. In a way, the idea in the LC that right and wrong are of no concern (only "life"), is really just a form of moral nihilism. If LC members are not allowed to make decisions based on right and wrong then what makes something inherently right or wrong within the LC?

Like I'm mentioned before, I don't think those in the LC completely disregard right and wrong. It's just mainly a matter of common sense regarding right and wrong taking a back seat to whatever it is that is promoted as "life".

Ohio · 05-07-2015, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's a bit concerning when you have a group of people who don't care about right or wrong.

When we first heard this saying, it was set in the context of meany nothings that tend to obsess the feeble minded. In that context, I agree that we should focus on what is more pertinent. But that was the problem with the Recovery, once we accepted the saying, "we don't waste our time with right or wrong, we only care for life," the context was changed to cover up ministry corruption.

I heard this during the so-called Ingalls global conspiracy and Anaheim rebellion of the late 80's. In my mind, reinforced by GLA leadership, I thought that the brothers in Anaheim were whining over irrelevant details. In the carefully orchestrated "absence of facts," this was how we were persuaded to throw in our support for WL. Years later we found out the "other side of the story."

I doubt any of the GLA brothers would have known what really happened during that "global conspiracy" had the Blendeds never quarantined us in 2007. That opened up a whole cans of worms which they thought was long buried. Thanks to them (and the world wide web) we know who they really are.

Ohio · 05-07-2015, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

If it's not a matter of right and wrong then what was wrong with married sisters sleeping with Philip Lee?

awareness, I don't think they were "sleeping."

Ohio · 05-07-2015, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Exactly. When it came to Lee's ministry, whatever served to promote the success of his ministry is what was accepted and tolerated. In a way, the idea in the LC that right and wrong are of no concern (only "life"), is really just a form of moral nihilism. If LC members are not allowed to make decisions based on right and wrong then what makes something inherently right or wrong within the LC?

Like I'm mentioned before, I don't think those in the LC completely disregard right and wrong. It's just mainly a matter of common sense regarding right and wrong taking a back seat to whatever it is that is promoted as "life".

You are right. Most of the leaders just did not want to know. The late Francis Ball publicly stated that he would rather be an "ostrich with his head in the sand," than to know any of the "flaws" of the ministry.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

The BB's and LC leaders either don't know what it means to follow their consciences or they haven't done so for a long time. They place loyalty to a system first. For me, Philip Lin's statement about culture trumping conscience is proof of that.

When the right and wrong is deemphasized or is seen as a something that brings people into death, then it follows that there are amoral leaders in the LC. Of course, with most of them, the goal is to just promote a system and they do everything with that in mind. I don't know that most of them purposely disregard right and wrong, but it's probably more of something that's done selectively in order to suit their agendas.

When the brothers deemphasize right and wrong, the subjective matter of life becomes variable. What one considers life can vary according to preferences as long as there is no spiritual consequences. Yet there is. It's an extreme analogy, when right an wrong become deemphasized, the brothers are promoting amorality or the absence of morality. It's okay to get drunk, get high, or whatever just as long as Sunday morning at 10 AM, you're there on the front row. Prepared to prophesy following the Lord's Table.

Last night on Facebook a sister brought the following verses to my attention:

For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
Titus 1:10-16

awareness · 05-07-2015, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, I don't think they were "sleeping."

And to this day it completely and utterly blows my mind that sisters, married or otherwise, could ever do such a thing. I honesty thought they were like angels. Alas, they were human too.

Freedom · 05-07-2015, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And to this day it completely and utterly blows my mind that sisters, married or otherwise, could ever do such a thing. I honesty thought they were like angels. Alas, they were human too.

In certain respects, I think the LC sets members up for failure, by pushing the notion that they're somehow immune to failure. So what happens when humans turn out to be "human"? You see denial and cover-ups to avoid the shame.

OBW · 05-07-2015, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right. Most of the leaders just did not want to know. The late Francis Ball publicly stated that he would rather be an "ostrich with his head in the sand," than to know any of the "flaws" of the ministry.

I don't know that I ever heard FB say that, but I heard statements like it and they sort of bothered me. I guess just not enough at the time.

OBW · 05-07-2015, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And to this day it completely and utterly blows my mind that sisters, married or otherwise, could ever do such a thing. I honesty thought they were like angels. Alas, they were human too.

While in the whole of the sordid details of PL's sins there was probably a bit of human frailty in all of it. But I think that there was an implied authority in PL that he used over them. He was "the ministry office" and all of the LC's followed the ministry and its office. That made him virtually a gatekeeper for the Grand Poobah of the whole thing. People that are too enamored with their leader can be convinced to do things that they wouldn't give a second thought to in any other circumstances. And Lee was next in line for participation in the trinity if one of them managed to die.

Looks like a personality cult with all the trimmings.

HERn · 05-07-2015, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And to this day it completely and utterly blows my mind that sisters, married or otherwise, could ever do such a thing. I honesty thought they were like angels. Alas, they were human too.

Whatmakesya think they was willin? An intimidating immoral man operating under deputy authority and daddy's covering would be hard for a brainwashed sister to resist...to bad her name wasn't Mrs. Bobbit or there could have been a different ending!

Ohio · 05-07-2015, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And to this day it completely and utterly blows my mind that sisters, married or otherwise, could ever do such a thing. I honesty thought they were like angels. Alas, they were human too.

Not all were "willing" bro. You assume too much.

I remember the audio tapes sent out from Anaheim circa August 1988 (referenced in STTIL) to all the LC's, that so "appalled" the GLA brothers, who were then instructed by TC to write "shame on you" letters to John Ingalls and the other Anaheim elders.

Nobody ever questioned what prompted the firestorm in the first place. None of us dared to nor even bothered to investigate the facts of the case. What made the saints in Anaheim so mad at the Lee family? One of the sisters whom PL hit on was a little "disturbed" by his groping and her slightly more "disturbed" husband then went after Phillip "The Office" Lee with a gun. The church was furious that nothing was done! And they had every right to be!

To this day, neither Witness Lee nor his beloved son Phillip ever thanked John Ingalls for intercepting and stopping the irate husband of that unsuspecting victim at LSM, whose only "crime" was that she volunteered her time for what she thought was a Christian ministry.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember the audio tapes sent out from Anaheim circa August 1988 (referenced in STTIL) to all the LC's, that so "appalled" the GLA brothers, who were then instructed by TC to write "shame on you" letters to John Ingalls and the other Anaheim elders.

Remember back in the tape cassette time, tapes were easily accessible from the tape room. All one had to do was borrow the tape and make duplicates.

When there's a complete and total disregard for what's just in regard to Philip Lee, what did one expect but outrage? That's what appeared to transpire in Anaheim.
Outside of Philip Lin, the blendeds know act as if Philip Lee was ever part of the LC history.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

An intimidating immoral man operating under deputy authority and daddy's covering would be hard for a brainwashed sister to resist...

Apart from what's generally known, suppose there's a minor Philip accosted?
Two key words from HERn posts, deputy authority and daddy's covering.
One phrase I have heard for several decades, "cover the brothers". Who would ever imagine the evil being covered?
Benson Phillips and Ray Graver certainly knew when approached by John Ingalls and Ken Unger, but they wanted no part of the conversation. As they considered it a local matter.

HERn · 05-07-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

One phrase I have heard for several decades, "cover the brothers". Who would ever imagine the evil being covered?.

My thinking is that the only being who wants to hide evil is satan, I could be wrong. I'll cover for my brother if he tells me he got angry and cussed his wife...but if he molests my daughter or sister I don't care if he's the son of Jupiter I'm gunna tell others to watch him and don't let him alone with your young sisters...especially if he holds some Nicolaitan rank like "ministry office"..my bad, there isn't any hierarchy in the so-called lords recovery...what's wrong with me...I must not be in my spirit.

TLFisher · 05-07-2015, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

there isn't any hierarchy in the so-called lords recovery...

You must be seeing The Emperor's New Clothes?

Seriously there is hierarchy. responsible brothers kowtow to elders and elders kowtow to Blended co-workers. It's called being one with the brothers or one accord. It's not necessary for the small potatoes to have one accord, but for brothers in responsibility, it's essential. Important item to understand, if you have a problem with one elder, you're going to have a problem with nearly all.

TLFisher · 05-10-2015, 05:03 PM

Another way to understand the two trees is:

Anything the leadership says equals tree of life
Anything that contradicts what the leadership says equals tree of knowledge

The leadership wants to keep all matters with a positive view. The leadership don't want to discuss matters that may be "inwardly disturbing" and have an effect on a brother's or sister's conscience.

Nell · 09-24-2015, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

...He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory....

In bringing this thread back to the top, I'd first like to comment on this "great catch" highlighted above. A "greater catch" is this:

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

Did God repeat the warning to her directly? This is possible.
Did Adam repeat God's warning to her? If so, did he repeat it exactly as told to him by God, or, did Adam add "neither shall ye touch it" when he repeated it to Eve? Possible.
Or, did Eve add "neither shall ye touch it" on her own? Totally possible.

Regardless, it is notable that Eve had not yet been formed when the warning not to eat of the tree of knowlege was spoken. If Lee had "caught" this, he didn't share it with us.

Next, there are only 2 references to the "tree of knowledge" in the Bible: Genesis 2:9 and 2:17.

In verse 2:9 we are simply told of the existance of the tree of knowledge. In verse 2:17, we are commanded not to eat of it on penalty of death. So...either eat of the tree, or don't. Obey or disobey. Nothing about "life". Nothing about "source". Just a command.

Where, in the teachings of Lee, is disobedience to God's command not to eat of the tree of knowledge? OBW states below in Post #2 that "the fall was the result of disobedience, not fruit or snakes." I agree with this. The Bible is full of verses on obedience to God's Word, to His commands, to His commandments, yet Lee takes one verse on the tree of knowledge and forms a "ministry" around it.

Nell

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

*****
Genesis 2: 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
...
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Gen. 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Nell · 09-24-2015, 11:03 AM

This is a bit off topic, but worth noting. Are you ever curious about your IP address? (Your IP address is how your computer is identified and/or tracked on the Internet.)

You can Google "what is my IP address" and a list of web sites will appear.

Or you can go to an LSM web site, like this:
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?p

You'll see this message near the bottom of the page:
Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited.
Your IP address is 166.17.199.18 [10:56:53 AM (GMT -08:00), September 24, 2015].

I was researching the trees for my last post and found a "Life Study" that I would have quoted, but found this warning. Just to get the point across, by adding your IP address, the LSM is saying: "we know who you are, how to find you, and when you were on our website downloading our stuff."

Nell

Freedom · 09-24-2015, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

You'll see this message near the bottom of the page:
Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited.

LSM forgets (or fails to mention) that quoting or citing material is protected by fair use. Maybe they should be more forthcoming about what is considered acceptable use of their material.

Why would they want to scare people away anyways? What are they so afraid of?

Ohio · 09-24-2015, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

LSM forgets (or fails to mention) that quoting or citing material is protected by fair use. Maybe they should be more forthcoming about what is considered acceptable use of their material.

Why would they want to scare people away anyways? What are they so afraid of?

Since they got the richest ministry on the planet, yo gots to pay for it!

Freedom · 09-24-2015, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since they got the richest ministry on the planet, yo gots to pay for it!

As I'm sure LSM is well aware, the FTTA trainees have been distributing unauthorized electronic versions of LSM materials among themselves for a long time. I've heard that the trainers weren't too happy about it either. But Lee said that he wanted his ministry to "spread" so they're only doing what he wanted.

OBW · 09-28-2015, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in. We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

Ohio · 09-28-2015, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again.

It's pretty clear from the Genesis account that God gave that commandment to Adam, who passed it on to Eve. That's why the Serpent was effective when he asked, "Has God said?" The Serpent undermined Adam's credibility at least as much as God's.

Obviously Paul interpreted it this way, since he wrote that Eve was deceived, but Adam transgressed God's command.

Nell · 09-29-2015, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in.

OBW, what are you talking about? What error? What over-thinking? I quoted the verses. The verses are clear. If I'm in error, I want to know. Biblically, where is my error?

Quote:

We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

You are correct. We don't know what happened in the background. We DO know what was written in Scripture. So what if they didn't interact that much? Not my problem. I CAN repeat the Word that Eve had not been made when God spoke the warning to Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

She was told after she was made because she repeated to the devil.

Why does this trouble you?

Nell

Nell · 09-29-2015, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's pretty clear from the Genesis account that God gave that commandment to Adam, who passed it on to Eve. That's why the Serpent was effective when he asked, "Has God said?" The Serpent undermined Adam's credibility at least as much as God's.

Obviously Paul interpreted it this way, since he wrote that Eve was deceived, but Adam transgressed God's command.

Excellent.

Nell

OBW · 09-29-2015, 12:08 PM

You can observe that Eve had not been made when the particular speaking that was recorded in scripture seems to have been made. But that is not the same as being certain that Eve did not hear God say it — later.

I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time.

What do we gain by implying that Eve didn't hear God say it (she may have)? What does this "catch" do for us?

Ohio · 09-29-2015, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time.

I find it a little humorous that OBW could warn another poster not to "fall into the error of over-thinking" the stories in Genesis.

I think the sin in Eden occurred quite quickly. It was perhaps the first time the serpent had ever spoken to Eve, waiting for the first opportunity to catch her alone in the center of the garden. If God had told Eve directly, I doubt if the serpent would ask, "Has God really said?"

Anyways, the max length should be 9 months, unless we should assume that Adam and Eve remained celibate during their "engagement." Perhaps I am overthinking this though, isn't there some new show called "dating naked" inspired by true events.

Otherwise we would have some record of how Eve had given the fruit to her children.

Nell · 09-29-2015, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You can observe that Eve had not been made when the particular speaking that was recorded in scripture seems to have been made. But that is not the same as being certain that Eve did not hear God say it — later.

I am certain Eve was not made when God gave the first warning to Adam. In my first post of this information, I gave 4 options for how Eve knew about God's warning after she was made. The first possibility was that God told her directly later. So we're good here.

Quote:

I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time.

I don't know what that means.

What does that mean?

What was spoken over and over? To whom? There were only 2 people in existence. How long was it from man's beginning...until he decided to go his own way? Why does this matter? Adam didn't "decide" to go his own way. He was expelled from Eden. The verses stand as written.

Quote:

What do we gain by implying that Eve didn't hear God say it (she may have)? What does this "catch" do for us?

I don't know how Eve heard God's warning. As I said, in my first post, I gave 4 possibilities of how Eve heard the warning. My first option was directly from God ... later.

What does this "catch" do for us? I was replying to Speaker's Corner's post in which he commended Lee for a "great catch".

"Speaker'sCorner: ...He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. ..."

Call it what you will. In my opinion, my catch was greater than his. It doesn't do much for you, but you missed Option #1 of my possibilities of how Eve heard the warning, so I guess we're at an empasse. No surprise there.

Let not your heart be troubled.

Nell

OBW · 09-30-2015, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

I am certain Eve was not made when God gave the first warning to Adam. In my first post of this information, I gave 4 options for how Eve knew about God's warning after she was made. The first possibility was that God told her directly later. So we're good here.

Yes, you did. And it is possible that I misread you. But if there are those options, then why is there something to catch that Lee missed? That is what you said, not what SC said. For me it hid the possibly neutral position and colored the reading of your post as standing on the first as the only real position. And your interim response seems to dismiss or question the possibilities and return to only what is actually written-down in two or three verses.

Yes, Lee latched onto what was not there and built a ministry around it. He was the master of making mountains out of molehills and then making real mountains go away. It is one thing to be able to pray that the mountain in front of you is thrown into the sea. It is quite another when the mountain is the plain reading of the text of scripture that stands in the way of your ministry of smoke and mirrors.

But when it comes to the accounts in Genesis 1 – 3, it seems that straight reading of the text as simply factual recording of events is unlikely and it is more likely a metaphorical representation of a much more complicated sequence of events. Did you ever wonder why we think that creation was "very good" yet needed to be subdued? Must not have been as perfect as we think that "very good" really meant.

The point is not that there is a particular answer, but that there is a lot that is not told. Just a little. Is it just don't eat it, or even don't touch it? Is it forgive our debts or forgive our trespasses? (Those are not synonymous.)

Nell · 09-30-2015, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, you did. And it is possible that I misread you. But if there are those options, then why is there something to catch that Lee missed? That is what you said, not what SC said. For me it hid the possibly neutral position and colored the reading of your post as standing on the first as the only real position. And your interim response seems to dismiss or question the possibilities and return to only what is actually written-down in two or three verses.

Ah. You misread me and it's my fault. Got it.

Quote:

Yes, Lee latched onto what was not there and built a ministry around it. He was the master of making mountains out of molehills and then making real mountains go away. It is one thing to be able to pray that the mountain in front of you is thrown into the sea. It is quite another when the mountain is the plain reading of the text of scripture that stands in the way of your ministry of smoke and mirrors.

But when it comes to the accounts in Genesis 1 – 3, it seems that straight reading of the text as simply factual recording of events is unlikely and it is more likely a metaphorical representation of a much more complicated sequence of events.

So you accuse Lee of latching on to what's not there, then in the next paragraph, YOU latch on to what's not there.

I'm just sayin'...

Quote:

Did you ever wonder why we think that creation was "very good" yet needed to be subdued? Must not have been as perfect as we think that "very good" really meant.

That had not occurred to me. Now it has.

Did you ever wonder that the creation was "very good" then God said "It is not good for man to be alone." What happened between "very good" and "not good"? Interesting.

Quote:

The point is not that there is a particular answer, but that there is a lot that is not told. Just a little. Is it just don't eat it, or even don't touch it? Is it forgive our debts or forgive our trespasses? (Those are not synonymous.)

I believe there is a particular answer. It is in the clearly written word of God. Lee built a ministry on what is not told.

Nell

Ohio · 09-30-2015, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Did you ever wonder that the creation was "very good" then God said "It is not good for man to be alone."

What happened between "very good" and "not good"?

Interesting.

Perhaps God was hoping that the woman would help protect the man from the serpent.

I guess that didn't work out well.

Since we're "reading things" into the story, I thought I'd try too.

Cal · 09-30-2015, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps God was hoping that the woman would help protect the man from the serpent.

I guess that didn't work out well.

Since we're "reading things" into the story, I thought I'd try too.

If we can't figure out what women are thinking how are we going to figure out what God was thinking when he made them?

OBW · 09-30-2015, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Ah. You misread me and it's my fault. Got it.

Just pointing to what made it read that way. Rather than being snarky, you might take note that what you write may not convey what you think it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

So you accuse Lee of latching on to what's not there, then in the next paragraph, YOU latch on to what's not there.

Really?? Giving reason for being less certain is not "latching onto" anything. Instead it is letting go of what is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

I believe there is a particular answer. It is in the clearly written word of God.

Yes. But it would seem that even "clearly written" means different things to different people. That is the reason that "inerrant" is such a meaningless term. I see words and I declare them to "clearly" mean X. You say something different. Not so clear after all.

And Genesis 1 – 3 is about as clear as mud. It is fully meaningful with respect to the fact that God created. It is fully meaningful with respect to the fact that our position with God has been damaged. It is not really very "clear" with respect to the details of how it actually happened. More like intentionally vague.

I have not latched onto anything. You call it latching onto. But if it is, then it is the loosest grip you ever saw. It is the lack of details and the evidence that it is more of a story (that says creation and the fall happened) than a detailed account of history and you say I latched onto something? Rather I let go of saying it is literally, word-for-word exactly as recorded in these three short chapters.

It is quite humorous when people think that backing away from over-analyzing the jots and tittles is a kind of insistence on a particular view. It is not. It is the acceptance that there is much that is not detailed for us. That we have more important things to do with respect to this life than parse the nuances of a centuries-after-the-fact writing (in three chapters) of the account of events that could have taken millions or even billions of year to transpire in full.

And you say I latched onto something in there. Only that there is nothing to latch onto.

Nell · 09-30-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Just pointing to what made it read that way. Rather than being snarky, you might take note that what you write may not convey what you think it does.

Really?? Giving reason for being less certain is not "latching onto" anything. Instead it is letting go of what is not.

Yes. But it would seem that even "clearly written" means different things to different people. That is the reason that "inerrant" is such a meaningless term. I see words and I declare them to "clearly" mean X. You say something different. Not so clear after all.

And Genesis 1 – 3 is about as clear as mud. It is fully meaningful with respect to the fact that God created. It is fully meaningful with respect to the fact that our position with God has been damaged. It is not really very "clear" with respect to the details of how it actually happened. More like intentionally vague.

I have not latched onto anything. You call it latching onto. But if it is, then it is the loosest grip you ever saw. It is the lack of details and the evidence that it is more of a story (that says creation and the fall happened) than a detailed account of history and you say I latched onto something? Rather I let go of saying it is literally, word-for-word exactly as recorded in these three short chapters.

It is quite humorous when people think that backing away from over-analyzing the jots and tittles is a kind of insistence on a particular view. It is not. It is the acceptance that there is much that is not detailed for us. That we have more important things to do with respect to this life than parse the nuances of a centuries-after-the-fact writing (in three chapters) of the account of events that could have taken millions or even billions of year to transpire in full.

And you say I latched onto something in there. Only that there is nothing to latch onto.

You also might take note that what you write may not convey what you think it does.

A little "snark" here and there is an acceptable communication technique... just ask Awareness.

Nell

Nell · 09-30-2015, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

If we can't figure out what women are thinking how are we going to figure out what God was thinking when he made them?

Reminds me of a line from the old "Camelot" movie. King Arthur, is singing "How to Handle a Woman". He breaks in with this little speech: "Merlin once told me...don't be too concerned when you don't know what a woman is thinking...they don't do it very often..."

Dontchalove it?

Nell

Indiana · 10-05-2015, 11:25 AM

This thread by the brother, John, is one of the more constructive for local church members. Of course we understand the positive side of eating of the tree of life; but when this becomes an excuse mechanism to override issues of legitimate concern....

No, I don't think everything said on this forum is true, but 75 % is well worth conscientious thought.

Freedom · 10-06-2015, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

This thread by the brother, John, is one of the more constructive for local church members. Of course we understand the positive side of eating of the tree of life; but when this becomes an excuse mechanism to override issues of legitimate concern....

No, I don't think everything said on this forum is true, but 75 % is well worth conscientious thought.

It's sad to see how so many LC teachings have been used. I do admit there may be truth to certain LC teachings, but the way they are used renders them useless. Long before I came to this forum, I subconsciously understood how the "two trees" teaching was really used. It never had much meaning besides my knowing that I wasn't supposed to talk about right and wrong.

Sometimes I have to wonder if these teachings were ever intended to be practiced in a positive way to begin with. When I really think about the "two trees" teaching, I can't say I've ever seen it practiced in a positive way. It always involves a negative context, such as when Ron spoke in Ecuador about discernment. He hypocritically used the "two trees" to avoid addressing material on the internet, even though he and Kerry once published a book claiming to discern the right and wrong of a previous "turmoil". So they didn't hold themselves to the standard of Lee's "two trees". Now, there is a third "tree" - a tree of lies.

TLFisher · 10-07-2015, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Sometimes I have to wonder if these teachings were ever intended to be practiced in a positive way to begin with. When I really think about the "two trees" teaching, I can't say I've ever seen it practiced in a positive way. It always involves a negative context, such as when Ron spoke in Ecuador about discernment. He hypocritically used the "two trees" to avoid addressing material on the internet, even though he and Kerry once published a book claiming to discern the right and wrong of a previous "turmoil". So they didn't hold themselves to the standard of Lee's "two trees". Now, there is a third "tree" - a tree of lies.

By contrast an audio message of Stephen Kaung's I heard spoken on the two trees was in the positive sense. Quite the contrast of what's spoken in the local churches.
In my honest opinion, LSM's teaching on the two trees is to re-direct brothers and sisters from making issues of persons, matters, or things. As a result there's the concept of all things positive equals being on the Tree of Life. If you're addressing negative matters you're on the Tree of Knowledge. Come to think of it when Nathan confronted King David, how come David didn't tell Nathan, you're on the wrong tree?

One could say the LSM's teaching of the Two Trees is to prevent any cross-examination. The LSM view is compared to being on the Tree of Life and any cross-examining response is compared to the Tree of Knowledge by default.

Ohio · 10-07-2015, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's sad to see how so many LC teachings have been used. I do admit there may be truth to certain LC teachings, but the way they are used renders them useless. Long before I came to this forum, I subconsciously understood how the "two trees" teaching was really used. It never had much meaning besides my knowing that I wasn't supposed to talk about right and wrong.

40 years ago, when I first heard about the two trees, it was taught in context of Moses' exhortation to Israel to "choose life," and Jesus' word to the disciples that "my words are spirit and life." It was a helpful exhortation that we should not get overly occupied with the meany things in life.

It never meant that we should avoid and cover up unrighteous activities by those in leadership positions. But that is how it is now presented by the Blendeds.

TLFisher · 10-11-2015, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It never meant that we should avoid and cover up unrighteous activities by those in leadership positions. But that is how it is now presented by the Blendeds.

Yup!

Should one address unrighteous activities by those in leadership, you might be told "you're being negative" and "on the wrong tree".
As if negative matters = Tree of Knowledge and positive matters = Tree of Life.

Indiana · 10-11-2015, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Yup!

Should one address unrighteous activities by those in leadership, you might be told "you're being negative" and "on the wrong tree".
As if negative matters = Tree of Knowledge and positive matters = Tree of Life.

It is impossible to exhaust the importance of this topic of "the two trees".

Especially to those seeking balance and reality in their Christian life.

awareness · 10-12-2015, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

It is impossible to exhaust the importance of this topic of "the two trees".

It's of extreme importance to those in "the local churches", especially to those seeking balance and reality in
their Christian life.

It's pretty simple. The two trees are used by LC leaders to control their followers. Cults will use whatever is considered authoritative to maintain the cult. The two trees -- in the very Word of God -- are excellent toward that purpose. Just look at them as the steering 'tiller' of the Witness Lee cult.

Then add the covering of Noah as the covering of authority and voila: the leaders can get away with anything, and a cult is born and maintained.

So bro Indiana, the more you consider and treat them like they are authorities of God, the more you honor and propagate their ruse and scam; and energize them and their cult; you build it up and make it stronger, and empower the ones that are rejecting you. What the leaders fear most is if they are ignored, and considered irrelevant. Those that just walk away from the Witness Lee cult are the ones screaming YOUR MESSAGE, bro Indiana, the loudest, sorry to say.

The fact that they -- LSM-Witness Lee-cult-leaders -- are rejecting you should be screaming at you that they are a cult. And you should be leaping for joy that, you are not among them.

Because ... methinks you are wrong, at least in your expectation that all they need to do is repent. They don't just need to repent bro Indiana, they need to drop the whole authority (Moses) system of church governance.

Then they would just dissolve into local churches. And bro Indiana, you'd have no one to petition any more. And elders wherever you chose to meet wouldn't have anyone to report to. As it should be, if we all are fallen sinners, and simple brothers, with Christ as our head.

OBW · 10-12-2015, 07:56 AM

Quote:

. . . the more you consider and treat them like they are authorities of God, the more you honor and propagate their ruse and scam; and energize them and their cult . . .

(Didn't identify the writer because I am not really taking to them.)

I think that this little bit is enough.

The two trees can only be viewed as metaphorical relative to our present life. We have a choice to make . . . do we choose Christ and life or reject Him and choose the consequences. It is not about whether I am currently turning to my spirit, or calling on the Lord. It is figurative about how I choose to order my life. Do I do it on my own according to my ways or according to God's ways, starting with accepting Christ as the one who leads the way.

The extreme view brought to us by Lee is not correct, along with so many other things he taught. When you keep taking the unusual positions that are still not accepted by the bulk of Christianity, you continue to follow the one who brought all the problems and errors that you do see. The Bible really doesn't support eating the chicken and discarding the feathers and bones. It says to reject the whole of a false teacher. Seek a different source. Consider that the things they are teaching you may not be as spiritual as you think.

TLFisher · 10-12-2015, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

It is impossible to exhaust the importance of this topic of "the two trees".

Especially to those seeking balance and reality in their Christian life.

For such balance, one needs to weigh what other Christian commentaries are saying on the two trees compared to Lee's opinion and what the current speaking by the blendeds are.

Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds. Jeremiah 14:14

Unless there are other Christian commentaries that confirm the concept: addressing negative matters is going on the Tree of Knowledge, I would consider such a concept fitting into "a false vision" etc.

As I see the LC/LSM application of the two trees is their passive/spiritual card of squashing any potential conflict.

HERn · 10-12-2015, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Then they would just dissolve into local churches.

Sarcasm on.

Now, that's just crazy talk. If LSM loosened its grip or folded who on God's green earth could manage His economy and implement the God-ordained way? I mean it's obvious the Lord Spirit was not up to the task because prior to Née-Lee-Blendeds it was all screwed-up, and God had no way to manage and coordinate events and people in different continents and ages.

Sarcasm off

First there were the Eastern Orthodox who "stayed the ancient path", even after modern highways were built.

Then there were the Roman Catholics who wanted to be first, even if it meant cutting off one-half of the Body of Christ.

Then there were the Protestants who slashed and burned most everything that had ocurred before them, but have been busy "recreating the wheel" ever since.

Finally, there were the LSM local churches whose leaders considered themselves the coordinators of God's economy, thus relieving the Almighty of an awesome responsibility.

(Apologies to the author of a similar limerick on the Britishers.)

Freedom · 10-13-2015, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The two trees can only be viewed as metaphorical relative to our present life. We have a choice to make . . . do we choose Christ and life or reject Him and choose the consequences. It is not about whether I am currently turning to my spirit, or calling on the Lord. It is figurative about how I choose to order my life. Do I do it on my own according to my ways or according to God's ways, starting with accepting Christ as the one who leads the way.

The extreme view brought to us by Lee is not correct, along with so many other things he taught. When you keep taking the unusual positions that are still not accepted by the bulk of Christianity, you continue to follow the one who brought all the problems and errors that you do see. The Bible really doesn't support eating the chicken and discarding the feathers and bones. It says to reject the whole of a false teacher. Seek a different source. Consider that the things they are teaching you may not be as spiritual as you think.

Lee's problem is that he was too presumptuous in interpreting the Bible. He assigned meaning to things that deserved more than just his interpretation, and he often assumed that things had more "significance" than they actually did. But then again, that's what people wanted. Maybe everyone was bored of reading these stories over and over, so they took liking to his allegorizing everything. As a matter of fact, Lee presumed to have uncovered the "hidden meaning" for just about everything in the OT, and that was eventually said to be his "unlocking" the entire Bible. So it's what people wanted. I don't blame anyone. The main problem I see is that there wasn't any critical analysis of what Lee taught.

I'm not against new teachings. I just think it would have done LCers well to both evaluate the teachings Lee was introducing but to also evaluate how the teachings were being used or had potential to be used. When Lee started talking about the Moses authority model as being a present day metaphor for leaders, that should have set off the alarm bells. And one doesn't have to look far to see how it was abused within the LC, and even how other groups have abused this same type of teaching. Likewise, the two trees ultimately ended up being an excuse mechanism as Indiana put it. When viewed in that light, it is hard to view the two trees teaching of having much value regardless or whether the teaching is valid or not.

TLFisher · 10-13-2015, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

When Lee started talking about the Moses authority model as being a present day metaphor for leaders, that should have set off the alarm bells.

The Moses authority model doesn't wash when it comes to Saul and Samuel or David and Nathan or any other account involving the relationship of kings and prophets.

TLFisher · 10-13-2015, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Likewise, the two trees ultimately ended up being an excuse mechanism as Indiana put it. When viewed in that light, it is hard to view the two trees teaching of having much value regardless or whether the teaching is valid or not.

When Ohio said:

"40 years ago, when I first heard about the two trees, it was taught in context of Moses' exhortation to Israel to "choose life," and Jesus' word to the disciples that "my words are spirit and life." It was a helpful exhortation that we should not get overly occupied with the meany things in life."

I think there is something of merit to what Ohio is saying. However when teaching on the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge gets reduced in practice to an excuse mechanism for covering over unrighteousness, that's heresy and "deception of their own minds".

OBW · 10-14-2015, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not against new teachings.

I generally am unless it becomes obvious that the scripture clearly supports it (not is merely silent on it), there is more than a tiny bit of evidence that it was taught from early-on that way, and/or it becomes evident that contrary ways of understanding were not actually in accord with the scripture and we just didn't realize it for the last 1,800 years or so.

That puts so much of Lee's stuff in the crapper. It generally had an aura of correctness. It was often too good-sounding to argue against. But it was so often not really there, or was actually in conflict with the Bible.

There are reasons to temper the extreme views of sola scriptura and inerrancy. But in the end, the Bible still provides the only reliable benchmark that what we think we get as a "word from God" is really from God. Our feelings are fickle. We feel how we want to feel. An internal agreement with something probably means we are already predisposed to like that kind of thing. That it was brought to us in the midst of a lot of quoting of scripture does not make the scripture quoted support it. (Lee was a master at that.)

So I am generally skeptical of any really new teaching. It lacks a "from the beginning" assurance of truth. I'm not suggesting doing the doctrinal equivalent of a search for evidence of a Pope or MOTA. But to think that what is actually in the scripture was not realized when written is (to me) wrong thinking. They wrote what they meant, not the non-tongues equivalent of speaking in tongues without an interpreter.

I might go so far as to say that overly systematized theology, like Calvinism, and even the doctrine of the Trinity, could fit into this "not from the beginning" category. Not that there is not truth in them, or that they are not true. Rather that they represent too much emphasis on head knowledge about things rather than real knowledge of God. And they tend to lead to division, therefore too much of them is not necessarily a good thing. That God is One God yet displayed in three persons was from the beginning. But trying to systematize it was not.

I am not suggesting that there is nothing new about how we apply things to life and to current culture. But the underlying truth in those has been here from the "beginning," not just figured out last week.

aron · 10-14-2015, 02:03 PM

OBW, I agree with your previous post (#96). I'm now interested in the lineage of ideas, interpretations and teachings. If we only point as far back as Pember or Darby, who teased some "truth" out of the hitherto inscrutable text, I won't grab at it like I used to. Not that it's wrong per se, but just because someone along the line got a plausible idea doesn't mean he got the skinny from heaven after 1,800 years of ignorance. That's what "the seer of the divine revelation" as presented by Lee was, to me. Supposedly impeccable logic, and irrefutable conclusions. Wrong.

It's just circumspection, is all. It's the ideational equivalence of "don't lay hands quickly on any new convert" in 1 Timothy 5:22. Or "prove all things" - 1 Thess 5:21. "Brother Lee said" or "Darby said" or "Lang said" isn't good enough. Even Lee taught this, in his sober moments.

Nell · 02-25-2021, 07:00 AM

In light of our recent discussions on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, here is a golden oldie discussion from 2015.

I was also interested in this quote from Nee's Latent Power of the Soul on the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"I have frequently spoken on the spiritual meanings of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is independence, the taking of independent action. The tree of life, though, signifies dependence or reliance on God. The significance of this tree further tells us that Adam's original life is but a human life, and that therefore he needs to depend on God and receive God's life in order to live. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil discloses that man does not need to depend on God but he can work and live and bear fruit all by himself. Why do I bring up these matters? Simply to show you the cause of Adam and Eve's fall. If we can release Adam's latent power we too may work wonders. But are we permitted to do so?

Satan knew there was such wonder-working strength in man, hence he tempted man to declare his independence from God. The fall in the Edenic garden was none other than man taking independent action, separating himself from God. Upon learning the story of the fall in the garden, we can perceive what the purpose of Satan was. He aimed at gaining the soul of man. And when man fell, his original ability and miraculous strength all fell into Satan's hand. "

The first time I heard "The Latent Power of the Soul" mentioned by Lee in a meeting, he added at the end, something like "You don't need to read this book. It's not for you."

So of course, I immediately went out to a bookstore, found it, bought it, and read it...cover to cover. I read through it again today and have a new perspective on what he was saying.

I beg you, don't follow the above link, don't download this .pdf, and don't read this 28 page title. It's not for you.

Nell

Awoken · 02-25-2021, 10:34 AM

Hm... but has Lee really said, "Ye shall not read of every book of the library?"

Well, Nell... now we all know how you fell from the Garden of Lee-den.

(In all seriousness I'll try to check that PDF out soon. I have a ton of non-LSM Watchman Nee books sitting on my shelf but I've been kind of Lee-ry... about reading any of them.)

Nell · 02-25-2021, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awoken

Hm... but has Lee really said, "Ye shall not read of every book of the library?"

Well, Nell... now we all know how you fell from the Garden of Lee-den.

(In all seriousness I'll try to check that PDF out soon. I have a ton of non-LSM Watchman Nee books sitting on my shelf but I've been kind of Lee-ry... about reading any of them.)

Shhhhhhhhh.......don’t tell anybody....

Awoken · 03-05-2021, 07:52 AM

Well, I tried reading Nee's "Latent Power of the Soul", but I didn't get far. All the Nee-isms in there are just producing too much of a Nee-jerk reaction in me, at present (ooh, I didn't know I had such a talent for inducing pain... the LR really has given me a gift!)

We have been reading "My Side of the Mountain", and I think I'm going to buy a Chronicles of Narnia box set, as that was foundational for my early faith as a child and I'd like to share. So as far as lighter reading, seems like we (meaning my wife and I) are all set. I do really need to expand my reading horizons though. I used to be a voracious reader and that has kind of fallen off in the wake of being in the LCs due to fear of "poisoning".

I did find this book, "Can I Become A God?: A Guide to Christian Healthy Self-Concept", while Amazon-surfing today. Grabbed it for Kindle. Looks interesting; I will report my findings once I dig in a little further.

Nell · 03-05-2021, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awoken

Well, I tried reading Nee's "Latent Power of the Soul", but I didn't get far. All the Nee-isms in there are just producing too much of a Nee-jerk reaction in me, at present (ooh, I didn't know I had such a talent for inducing pain... the LR really has given me a gift!)

We have been reading "My Side of the Mountain", and I think I'm going to buy a Chronicles of Narnia box set, as that was foundational for my early faith as a child and I'd like to share. So as far as lighter reading, seems like we (meaning my wife and I) are all set. I do really need to expand my reading horizons though. I used to be a voracious reader and that has kind of fallen off in the wake of being in the LCs due to fear of "poisoning".

I did find this book, "Can I Become A God?: A Guide to Christian Healthy Self-Concept", while Amazon-surfing today. Grabbed it for Kindle. Looks interesting; I will report my findings once I dig in a little further.

WHAT??? You read it?? I told you not to read it!!! Oh no!

You gotta forget what you read...quick. Although it does explain a few things, but don’t read anymore.

UntoHim · 03-06-2021, 06:02 AM

Original Opening Post
I have reached out to the opening poster to get his thoughts and perspective after posting this about 9 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John - 3/11/2012

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
(Gen 1:31, NASB)

Quite soon after becoming a Christian, I became a member of Witness Lee’s Local Church. After spending 20 years in the group, being indoctrinated by him and his leaders, I came to the conclusion that I was in a religious system virtually bereft of the Spirit, and that I felt just about spiritually dead myself … so, I left.

Lately, after being out for almost 25 years, I have been considering in more depth what I learned from Lee through his Living Stream Ministry. I have wanted to find out what foundational ideas about the Bible that I might still hold, maybe almost unconsciously, that are wrong and that I had accepted from Lee unwittingly. (In the Local Church, we were encouraged not to think, not to use our minds.)

The trees of Lee in the midst of us

One of Lee’s over-arching teachings about the Bible is about the two trees in the garden of Eden. It goes something like this: There were two trees in the garden. One was the tree of life, and the other was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life represents Christ, and the other one, which he called, on occasion, the tree of death, represents Satan. God’s purpose was that mankind was to partake of the tree of life and not the tree of death. Well, mankind failed, ate of the wrong tree, left the garden, and was prevented from returning.

Now, according to Lee, we have been brought back to the place where we can partake of Christ, the tree of life; and, that is what we are supposed to be doing on a regular, if not constant, basis. Conversely, we are to stay away from the other tree, the poisonous tree that consists of knowledge, and of good and evil, and brings death. Witness Lee often preached against dead knowledge and those Christians who would simply study the scriptures to learn. For him and his Living Stream Ministry followers, the whole Bible is mainly about life and death, and we were to only care for life.

Put your mind in gear

As a result of Lee’s teaching on the trees, slogans began to be thrown around in the Local Churches like ones similar to these:

Don’t care about right and wrong; just care for life.

I don’t sense life in what you are saying.

I don’t feel [a sense of life] to help you at this time.

Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear.

As an aside, to those who would say, “Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear,” note the following from The Message:

“So roll up your sleeves, put your mind in gear, be totally ready to receive the gift that's coming when Jesus arrives.” (1 Pet 1:13)

Getting back to the topic, so-called “life” became equated with having wonderful times in Local Church meetings. Nothing else seemed to matter but to get into somewhat of an exuberant state that was referred to as “the enjoyment.” Eventually, I became as one with no moral compass; because, to consider good and evil (right and wrong) was to be in the enemy’s clutches. We were to focus solely on life, which seemed to mean to go along with what was called “the flow,” which was based on what Witness Lee and the leaders were preaching.

What choice do we have?

Witness Lee taught us that we had the same choice as did Adam and Eve. We were not to consider good and evil, right and wrong. We were to forsake knowledge. We were always to choose life and only care for life. This was Lee’s ongoing emphasis. This kind of thinking, I believe, still controls members and many former members of the Local Churches. What about this teaching, though? Is it accurate, according to the Bible, to say that right and wrong, good and evil, are considerations to be avoided by Christians?

Back then, this teaching sounded—dare I say—good. Now that I have thought it through, though, it does not make sense to me. His teaching sounds as if we can be mentally transported back in time to the garden of Eden and given the choice between the two trees, just like Adam and Eve, with the opportunity to just swallow the life one wholeheartedly. Actually, this is not the situation faced by Christians today. In the distant past, Eve and Adam ate of the wrong tree and came to know good and evil. Now, mankind has this knowledge, and there is no going back to a state in which we do not have this knowledge. Yes, we now do have access to Jesus Christ, the One Who is life, and the option to choose Him; but, we are not now able to simply forget about good and evil.

“Not poisoned,” says Barnes

While reading some of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible about Genesis 3:22, I found that he thought that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not poison mankind (as Witness Lee had told us), as if the masticated fruit itself, going into Adam and Eve’s stomachs, could have caused some interaction with their intellects that brought them to know good and evil. Barnes stated, instead, that it was the disobedience itself that caused the knowledge, as in, “Oh no; now I know the guilt and shame of having disobeyed God, which was an evil act on my part.” His commentary may or may not be true; however, I think that it is healthy, for those of us who were immersed solely in incessant indoctrination via Lee, meeting after meeting, to read and consider a contrary view (which is what the Living Stream Ministry does not want any of its captive audience to do).

And another thing, just for argument’s sake, is that the following verse, in the context of Lee’s theology, seems to preclude the two-tree scenario that Lee painted as a choice for us now:

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7, KJV)

According to Lee, overcomers will receive a special reward in the coming kingdom. If God has already given all of us Christians an opportunity to eat of the tree of life now, as Lee preached from Genesis, why would John in Revelation indicate that eating of the tree of life is to be a reward just for overcomers in the future?

This question, like Barnes’ commentary, is not critical to my presentation, so I have not investigated how it might fit in with some larger theology about eating of the tree of life. What these two observations do bring up are possible flaws in Witness Lee’s teaching. My main point is to relate how Lee misled his followers to be afraid of good works in the pursuit of some nebulous thing he called life.

Taking the good out of God

Moving on with Witness Lee’s teaching, he warned us that a person is capable of doing mere human good without God; so, we shouldn’t be involved in just doing good. In the same way, I could say that a person can be involved in mere human life without God; so, according to Lee’s logic, we shouldn’t just focus on what became known as life in the Local Church as a thing in itself. In addition to that, Jesus said, “There is none good but One, that is, God,” further proving that Witness Lee was incorrect.

Regardless of what you think about the accuracy of Lee’s version of what happened in the garden of Eden, whether or not a person who is merely ethical can do good, and the choice we now have today, the result of his teaching for me (and others, I would assume) is that I was left in a moral vacuum, wondering whether or not some good work I might be contemplating was under the initiation of the Holy Spirit or if I was just simply trying to do a good work. If the latter, then it would actually be a dead work (devoid of the Spirit) and in the same category as the mere dead good works that “poor, degraded Christianity” did (Lee’s label). His teaching caused me to retreat from good works and cloister myself away in Local Church doings, things which were safe, approved, and supposedly in the domain of life.

A biblical accounting

So, what does the Bible really say about good works? I did some searching and came up with the following statistics from the New Testament related to God’s people doing good and right, and not doing evil or wrong:

56 passages related to doing good

6 passages related to doing right

6 passages related to not doing wrong

(Did not search for the word “evil”)

The following sections contain some of the 68 noted passages as examples of the good we Christians are to do and the right and wrong that we are to avoid.

The Bible tells us to do good works

Note that most of the following New Testament verses do not give a qualification that the good a person does must be in accord with the Spirit or the result of an outflow from Christ as life, or some such. (I did not check the contexts of these verses, so some may have the idea in surrounding verses.) I am not saying that a person does not need to keep in step with the Spirit when doing good; I am simply saying that most of the verses do not mention it. In other words, we Christians are simply told to do good works and that it is important that we do (to the chagrin of Witness Lee and the so-called “Lord’s Recovery.”

These are the biblical instructions that Witness Lee in some sense hid from us by ignoring them. Before you might decide to just sail through these verses without letting them speak to you, doesn’t it make sense, that after listening to hundreds of sermons about life, we should at least read what God wrote to us about good works? With that in mind, here are many really “good” verses from the New Testament:

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom 2:10, KJV)

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10, KJV)

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Eph 4:28, KJV)

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Eph 6:8, KJV)

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; (Col 1:10, KJV)

17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work. (2Th 2:17, KJV)

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1Ti 6:18-19, KJV)

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. (2Ti 2:21, KJV)

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, ... 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2Ti 3:3, 17, KJV)

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ... 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Tts 1:8, 16, KJV)

7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, ... 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tts 2: 7, 14, KJV)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (Hbr 10:24, KJV)

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ... 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hbr 13:16, 21, KJV)

13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. (Jam 3:13, KJV)

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (Jam 4:17, KJV)

12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1Pe 2:12, KJV)

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? (1Pe 3:11-13, KJV)

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. (3Jo 1:11, KJV)

Now that you have, hopefully, considered the foregoing verses, remember that the book of James was more or less condemned by Witness Lee as off the mark, being, in his opinion, too focused on works rather than life? As you can see by the verses, James was not the only author of New Testament text who wrote about the need for Christians to do good works.

Wouldn’t it have been better if Witness Lee had encouraged us to do good works, as the Bible does, and encouraged us to pray to be in the Spirit when initiating and doing them? For new Christians like me, I think that this kind of encouragement would have had a much better outcome. At the very least, I would have been doing something biblical.

In the “wrong” garlic room

Lee taught us that life was the only important thing and that life would do it all. He not only ignored good works, he steered us away from them by telling us that knowledge and good and evil were on the same satanic tree that we were to avoid.

With Lee’s incessant emphasis on life, we probably hardly noticed this verse:

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hbr 5:14, KJV)

Because we were in Lee’s garlic room for so long, if we did read the verse, we probably didn’t pay it any mind—our senses to discern between good and evil had atrophied to the point that God’s own word could not breach the “life walls” that Lee had built around our minds.

For me, almost everything in the Bible became translated to life by Lee’s voice in my head. I remember having the thought in one meeting in which Lee was asking questions, that every answer was turned by him to be life, that mysterious something that you came to know by experience in meetings. Eventually, I realized that as long as I went to all the meetings and experienced the thing we called life, then I thought that I was fine. This idea, however, does not line up with the Bible, which declares that we are to do good and to learn to distinguish between good and evil.

Right and wrong are important

As I mentioned earlier, it was also stated among us members of the Local Church that we should not be caught up with considerations of what is right and what is wrong. This, of course, became an excuse for leaders to abandon their duty to do the right things in regard to Christ, the members of His body, and society in general. The cloak of “life,” and the belief that forwarding the designs of “the Recovery” was the most important thing, enabled the leaders to set morality and biblical mandates aside.

Because of this mindset, I present the following verses that show that right and wrong are proper considerations for Christians:

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (Mat 20:13, KJV)

57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? (Luk 12:57, KJV)

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. (Act 8:21, KJV)

10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. (Act 25:10, KJV)

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (Eph 6:1, KJV)

25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col 3:25, KJV)

15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; (2Pe 2:15, KJV)

If life is to be the only way, then why did Peter state that those who walk according to the flesh (v 10) have forsaken the right way (instead of “forsaken the way of life”)? If right and wrong are not to be considered, then why did Paul write to the Colossians that God would punish those who did wrong (instead of those who did not “do life”)?

One final thought

Why do you suppose Witness Lee warned us away from good works (works that the Bible tells us to do) and focused us on a thing he called “life,” a life that was mostly defined as a nice feeling in Local Church meetings, a “life” that indirectly included adherence to the programs of Lee and his leaders, a “life” that was only to be found in his Local Church? One of the reasons might be that Witness Lee had so few good works of his own.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:10, KJV)

Trapped · 03-06-2021, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is. Modern academia, particularly the humanities -- of which I was part -- eats voraciously from this tree. Eating, rather than simply handling, has caused academia to become the ugly thing that it is.

Thanks for bringing this thread back up Nell.

Just want to comment six years later on SpeakersCorner's post here, for anyone reading down the road. He seems to make the classic mistake of calling the tree "the tree of knowledge" and comparing it to what goes on in academia.

It's not the tree of knowledge. It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Two very different things.

I mention this mainly because truncating the name of the tree, while convenient for typing, ends up changing what it is entirely. Lee also did this - called it the tree of knowledge - and used that to condemn knowledge. Well, it's not the tree of knowledge generally. It's specifically the tree of the knowledge of good and evil only.

After they ate of it God didn't say "behold they have become like us, knowing things, or having knowledge". God said, "behold they have become like us, knowing good and evil."

Trapped · 03-06-2021, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in. We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

I also don't understand OBW's strange resistance to what Nell pointed out here. Many people, including Harvest House's John Ankerberg in an interview series with physicist Hugh Ross note explicitly that quite some time went by between Adam's creation and admonishment not to eat of the tree, and Eve's eventual creation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YkHSBG5fm0 - they start around 2:11:38 and Hugh mentions around 2:21:00 that it was probably months or years between Adam's creation and Eve's. (You can adjust the speed to up to 2x and they are still understandable if anyone doesn't have 15 minutes to spare.)

Ohio's subsequent comment that Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed is dead on. There is explicit record that Adam was told directly. Eve is created later, no record of God telling her, she doesn't get the benefit of the time to build a relationship with God and trust in God that Adam did, and then the serpent deceives her.

I would say this actually IS a "good catch" because it helps push back against the implicit thought in the LC that sisters are more easily deceived. The Bible never says or implies that...ever...and what we actually see in Genesis is that it really is important for us to hear God directly.

John · 07-29-2021, 07:36 AM

A few days ago, the Lord reminded me of an email I received from UntoHim over four months ago, which included this:

I was reviewing a LCD thread recently revived by Nell, and upon scanning back to the opening post I found that it was made by "John" way back in 2012….

I was wondering and hoping that I could talk you into giving us your thoughts about the subject "Good vs. Lee's Trees" all these years later.

I replied that I didn’t have the time. The reason, which I didn’t explain to him, was that my wife (“Thankful Jane”) and I were authoring a book together: Return To Follow the Rightful King, and it was requiring our time and focus. When, a few weeks after publishing it, I was reminded of UntoHim’s email (in a surprising way that got my attention), I decided I should post a response.

Good

My post was mostly about how Lee turned us away from biblical good and gave us a false choice between two trees. We then had to choose “life,” of course, which enabled him and the others to narrowly focus us on “life,” which came to have a new definition in practice. Good became effectively “bad.” Regarding this topic, to distill my journey to this point into a sentence, I went from looking for good, to pursuing “life,” to wondering why the Bible had so much good to say about good if it was really bad (that is, not “life”), to choosing the good part.

We Americans are told that we have a right to “the pursuit of Happiness.” Is that what we Christians are supposed to be pursuing? I have recently thought about the title of a Christian classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, and wondered where in the Bible we Christians are promised a happy life pre-eternity (as Americans would probably define “happy”). I don’t recall it, although I am just writing from memory here (maybe there is a passage). I do recall that those who leave all to follow the Lord are promised persecution. Think about someone like Paul: Did he have what many Christians in the United States would consider a happy life? I recall one passage in which he wrote about the beatings and stoning he endured, the times he was hungry and thirsty, as well as his time in the deep. Thinking about myself, I have spent my own time in “the deep,” that is, the deep of the Christian religion (not saying that my difficult times compare with Paul’s, of course).

When I came back to the main page of this forum in route to my post about good versus Lee’s trees, I saw a thread entitled, “Trying to find a good church in AUSTIN TX.” It caught my eye because Austin is in our neck of the woods. The thread title reminded me of a really big problem I have had until fairly recently (until the last two years or so). I always found myself, to one degree or another, in pursuit of a “good church.” In addition to all the indoctrination about church that I got from Witness Lee, I still remember the gist of part of what I was told when I was first born again: “Now that you’re a Christian, find a good church to attend.” So, exactly what constitutes a good church, and how would a newborn Christian possibly be equipped to go about finding one? (I mean no disparagement to anyone looking for a good church.) Well, Jane and I (new-Christian John) thought we had found a great church, only to see it morph into the church that is now the subject of this website. (That story is in The Thread of Gold.) Even if it were possible to find a good church (whatever that means), it is now plain to me that this is not to be my main endeavor.

Him

These days, I am not so much focused on things like the meaning of the two trees and other such things from the library of Lee (although I still spend time investigating basic Christian assumptions, including those of Lee). The “good” I am pursuing now is Him. After all these years, I want to be more like Mary, about whom Jesus said,

… but one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42)

What I am trying to learn day by day is to focus on my living King, Jesus. I’m endeavoring to turn away from so many other voices, thoughts, methods—whatever (or whoever)—and learn to follow my rightful King by listening to and hearing His living word, that is, paying particular attention to Him as I read the Bible with Him, pray to Him, talk to Him, type a post with Him, and so forth. You might say, “Well of course, John, everyone knows that.” I might say then, “It’s one thing to know about how to know Him and another to actually get to know Him in your everyday, hour by hour experience.”

In my view nowadays, I see only one King, one leader (Matt. 23:10, NASB). The job of mankind’s leader has been filled by the resurrected Jesus; He is the leader I am told to follow. If Jesus leads me to XYZ Church, I will follow Him there, whether or not I think it is a good church. He is taking me there for His reasons. As I am there, I will do my best to keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). If He leads me out of XYZ, I will follow Him out. If He doesn’t lead me to some kind of conventional church, I’ll stay as close to Him as I can. Jesus has shown me that I am to follow Him regardless of what others are doing. (In John 21, Jesus tells Peter to follow Him and not to be concerned at all with what John is doing.) Therefore, I desire to be completely focused on Jesus and on following Him, not on participating in a “good church” and following a “good pastor.” I can trust that Jesus will lead me to other believers as He sees fit in line with His plans for me in His kingdom.

One thing that Witness Lee did to most of us, if we weren’t already programmed that way by Christian culture, was to make the church all-important. However, Jesus is all-important, the most important, not any church. (Again you might say that everyone knows that.) Yes, it should be obvious that Christ is to be in first place (pre-eminent); but in my experience, Christian church culture often doesn’t leave room for Him to be first.

It is clear to me from the Bible that we are called out to be in His kingdom where He reigns supreme. We are to keep Jesus as our first love and to spend time with Him, not focus on programs or methods or various kinds of groups or churches run by men. We are to find out from God what He wants us to be doing. We are to get to know Him—really know Him—and follow Him. We are to trust Him to lead us. Being with Jesus every day makes every day a new day! Sometimes, the excitement in a day reminds me of how I felt when I was first born again!

Them

Jane and I have had quite a journey learning to follow Him together. In recent years, we have had experiences of Him speaking to each of us individually and then, as we fellowship and put together these “speakings” from Him, we find clarity about our pathway forward. As we stay right with Him and with one another, we have seen Him answer specific prayers we have prayed together, often in amazing ways.

I think that what I have written expresses how I feel and where I am right now in my Christian walk. Let me conclude with verses that Jane and I have been working with for awhile:

So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen. 1:27–28, NKJV)

Christians are to have dominion on earth over God’s enemy (not each other). Simply put, in our case as a married couple, Jane and I have been learning from Jesus to be a “them.” (This motif is fully explained on our website, “LemonsToGrapes.com.”) To us, this means that we are to be responsible to be right with God and with each other, and then to take care of, in concert with Him, what He has put in our sphere. We also have been learning about the importance of being similarly right with other believers for the same purpose of dominion on the earth over God’s enemy.

I hope that what I have written in brief won’t be misunderstood. My intent with this writing is to be helpful to others on their journey with the Lord. In my experience now, it is liberating and fulfilling to concentrate on keeping the Lord set before me (Psa. 16:8) rather than being distracted with other things. I do so hope that all believers will be encouraged to pursue our common calling of being in fellowship with the Son of God (1 Cor. 1:9), which includes having an experiential, first-hand, intimate knowing of Him (Eph. 4:13).

05-02-2015, 09:02 AM	#6
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees To sum up the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) and the Tree of Life in practice, LSM/LCM group think translates as the Tree of Life Any call for truth, righteousness, etc that appears remotely critical of LCM leadership translates as the Tree of Knowledge.

05-02-2015, 08:17 PM	#7
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 960	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees Terry, thanks so much for bringing this thread back up. I had no idea it was here and I've thought a lot about this topic recently. How many other excellent and helpful threads lay buried I wonder?

05-06-2015, 11:23 AM	#37
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees In a normal social context (non-LC, non-religious), there are certain terms that can be applied to people who don't care about right and wrong or who demonstrate disregard for right and wrong. That is why it is so concerning to hear the common LC phrases like "We don't care for right or wrong..." I'm not trying to make any particular statement about LC leadership, but I just want to say that it should be of big concern that there are statements that both Lee and LC leaders have made indicating a lack of concern for right or wrong. The LC alternative to caring about right and wrong is obviously "life". As has been discussed already, that is highly subjective concept. So what you have is a group of people with leaders who vocally state that they don't care for right or wrong, but care instead for this subjective concept of "life". What set of values does the concept of "life" encompass? I would like to think that it encompasses some kind of higher standard. I do have a hard time believing that, given the actions taken by LC leaders to remove those who attempted to address basic issues of right and wrong. Because there is the thought that discerning according to right and wrong brings in "death", and because it is unclear what standard of "life" those in the LC live by, doesn't that make for a dangerous situation? To be fair, I believe many in the LC do care about right and wrong, the problem is that those voices are never heard. How many are there in the LC who have keep silent when it comes to right and wrong? I know that I have. I'm sure there are many others.

05-10-2015, 05:03 PM	#63
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees Another way to understand the two trees is: Anything the leadership says equals tree of life Anything that contradicts what the leadership says equals tree of knowledge The leadership wants to keep all matters with a positive view. The leadership don't want to discuss matters that may be "inwardly disturbing" and have an effect on a brother's or sister's conscience.

09-24-2015, 11:03 AM	#65
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,059	The LSM knows how to find you... This is a bit off topic, but worth noting. Are you ever curious about your IP address? (Your IP address is how your computer is identified and/or tracked on the Internet.) You can Google "what is my IP address" and a list of web sites will appear. Or you can go to an LSM web site, like this: http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?p You'll see this message near the bottom of the page: Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited. Your IP address is 166.17.199.18 [10:56:53 AM (GMT -08:00), September 24, 2015]. I was researching the trees for my last post and found a "Life Study" that I would have quoted, but found this warning. Just to get the point across, by adding your IP address, the LSM is saying: "we know who you are, how to find you, and when you were on our website downloading our stuff." Nell

03-11-2012, 11:48 AM	#1
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	Good vs. Lee's Trees God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen 1:31, NASB) Quite soon after becoming a Christian, I became a member of Witness Lee’s Local Church. After spending 20 years in the group, being indoctrinated by him and his leaders, I came to the conclusion that I was in a religious system virtually bereft of the Spirit, and that I felt just about spiritually dead myself … so, I left. Lately, after being out for almost 25 years, I have been considering in more depth what I learned from Lee through his Living Stream Ministry. I have wanted to find out what foundational ideas about the Bible that I might still hold, maybe almost unconsciously, that are wrong and that I had accepted from Lee unwittingly. (In the Local Church, we were encouraged not to think, not to use our minds.) The trees of Lee in the midst of us One of Lee’s over-arching teachings about the Bible is about the two trees in the garden of Eden. It goes something like this: There were two trees in the garden. One was the tree of life, and the other was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life represents Christ, and the other one, which he called, on occasion, the tree of death, represents Satan. God’s purpose was that mankind was to partake of the tree of life and not the tree of death. Well, mankind failed, ate of the wrong tree, left the garden, and was prevented from returning. Now, according to Lee, we have been brought back to the place where we can partake of Christ, the tree of life; and, that is what we are supposed to be doing on a regular, if not constant, basis. Conversely, we are to stay away from the other tree, the poisonous tree that consists of knowledge, and of good and evil, and brings death. Witness Lee often preached against dead knowledge and those Christians who would simply study the scriptures to learn. For him and his Living Stream Ministry followers, the whole Bible is mainly about life and death, and we were to only care for life. Put your mind in gear As a result of Lee’s teaching on the trees, slogans began to be thrown around in the Local Churches like ones similar to these: Don’t care about right and wrong; just care for life. I don’t sense life in what you are saying. I don’t feel [a sense of life] to help you at this time. Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear. As an aside, to those who would say, “Get out of your mind; get your spirit in gear,” note the following from The Message: “So roll up your sleeves, put your mind in gear, be totally ready to receive the gift that's coming when Jesus arrives.” (1 Pet 1:13) Getting back to the topic, so-called “life” became equated with having wonderful times in Local Church meetings. Nothing else seemed to matter but to get into somewhat of an exuberant state that was referred to as “the enjoyment.” Eventually, I became as one with no moral compass; because, to consider good and evil (right and wrong) was to be in the enemy’s clutches. We were to focus solely on life, which seemed to mean to go along with what was called “the flow,” which was based on what Witness Lee and the leaders were preaching. What choice do we have? Witness Lee taught us that we had the same choice as did Adam and Eve. We were not to consider good and evil, right and wrong. We were to forsake knowledge. We were always to choose life and only care for life. This was Lee’s ongoing emphasis. This kind of thinking, I believe, still controls members and many former members of the Local Churches. What about this teaching, though? Is it accurate, according to the Bible, to say that right and wrong, good and evil, are considerations to be avoided by Christians? Back then, this teaching sounded—dare I say—good. Now that I have thought it through, though, it does not make sense to me. His teaching sounds as if we can be mentally transported back in time to the garden of Eden and given the choice between the two trees, just like Adam and Eve, with the opportunity to just swallow the life one wholeheartedly. Actually, this is not the situation faced by Christians today. In the distant past, Eve and Adam ate of the wrong tree and came to know good and evil. Now, mankind has this knowledge, and there is no going back to a state in which we do not have this knowledge. Yes, we now do have access to Jesus Christ, the One Who is life, and the option to choose Him; but, we are not now able to simply forget about good and evil. “Not poisoned,” says Barnes While reading some of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible about Genesis 3:22, I found that he thought that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not poison mankind (as Witness Lee had told us), as if the masticated fruit itself, going into Adam and Eve’s stomachs, could have caused some interaction with their intellects that brought them to know good and evil. Barnes stated, instead, that it was the disobedience itself that caused the knowledge, as in, “Oh no; now I know the guilt and shame of having disobeyed God, which was an evil act on my part.” His commentary may or may not be true; however, I think that it is healthy, for those of us who were immersed solely in incessant indoctrination via Lee, meeting after meeting, to read and consider a contrary view (which is what the Living Stream Ministry does not want any of its captive audience to do). And another thing, just for argument’s sake, is that the following verse, in the context of Lee’s theology, seems to preclude the two-tree scenario that Lee painted as a choice for us now: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7, KJV) According to Lee, overcomers will receive a special reward in the coming kingdom. If God has already given all of us Christians an opportunity to eat of the tree of life now, as Lee preached from Genesis, why would John in Revelation indicate that eating of the tree of life is to be a reward just for overcomers in the future? This question, like Barnes’ commentary, is not critical to my presentation, so I have not investigated how it might fit in with some larger theology about eating of the tree of life. What these two observations do bring up are possible flaws in Witness Lee’s teaching. My main point is to relate how Lee misled his followers to be afraid of good works in the pursuit of some nebulous thing he called life. Taking the good out of God Moving on with Witness Lee’s teaching, he warned us that a person is capable of doing mere human good without God; so, we shouldn’t be involved in just doing good. In the same way, I could say that a person can be involved in mere human life without God; so, according to Lee’s logic, we shouldn’t just focus on what became known as life in the Local Church as a thing in itself. In addition to that, Jesus said, “There is none good but One, that is, God,” further proving that Witness Lee was incorrect. Regardless of what you think about the accuracy of Lee’s version of what happened in the garden of Eden, whether or not a person who is merely ethical can do good, and the choice we now have today, the result of his teaching for me (and others, I would assume) is that I was left in a moral vacuum, wondering whether or not some good work I might be contemplating was under the initiation of the Holy Spirit or if I was just simply trying to do a good work. If the latter, then it would actually be a dead work (devoid of the Spirit) and in the same category as the mere dead good works that “poor, degraded Christianity” did (Lee’s label). His teaching caused me to retreat from good works and cloister myself away in Local Church doings, things which were safe, approved, and supposedly in the domain of life. A biblical accounting So, what does the Bible really say about good works? I did some searching and came up with the following statistics from the New Testament related to God’s people doing good and right, and not doing evil or wrong: 56 passages related to doing good 6 passages related to doing right 6 passages related to not doing wrong (Did not search for the word “evil”) The following sections contain some of the 68 noted passages as examples of the good we Christians are to do and the right and wrong that we are to avoid. The Bible tells us to do good works Note that most of the following New Testament verses do not give a qualification that the good a person does must be in accord with the Spirit or the result of an outflow from Christ as life, or some such. (I did not check the contexts of these verses, so some may have the idea in surrounding verses.) I am not saying that a person does not need to keep in step with the Spirit when doing good; I am simply saying that most of the verses do not mention it. In other words, we Christians are simply told to do good works and that it is important that we do (to the chagrin of Witness Lee and the so-called “Lord’s Recovery.” These are the biblical instructions that Witness Lee in some sense hid from us by ignoring them. Before you might decide to just sail through these verses without letting them speak to you, doesn’t it make sense, that after listening to hundreds of sermons about life, we should at least read what God wrote to us about good works? With that in mind, here are many really “good” verses from the New Testament: 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom 2:10, KJV) 10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10, KJV) 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Eph 4:28, KJV) 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Eph 6:8, KJV) 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; (Col 1:10, KJV) 17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work. (2Th 2:17, KJV) 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1Ti 6:18-19, KJV) 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. (2Ti 2:21, KJV) 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, ... 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2Ti 3:3, 17, KJV) 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ... 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Tts 1:8, 16, KJV) 7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, ... 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tts 2: 7, 14, KJV) 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (Hbr 10:24, KJV) 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ... 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hbr 13:16, 21, KJV) 13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. (Jam 3:13, KJV) 17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (Jam 4:17, KJV) 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1Pe 2:12, KJV) 11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? (1Pe 3:11-13, KJV) 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. (3Jo 1:11, KJV) Now that you have, hopefully, considered the foregoing verses, remember that the book of James was more or less condemned by Witness Lee as off the mark, being, in his opinion, too focused on works rather than life? As you can see by the verses, James was not the only author of New Testament text who wrote about the need for Christians to do good works. Wouldn’t it have been better if Witness Lee had encouraged us to do good works, as the Bible does, and encouraged us to pray to be in the Spirit when initiating and doing them? For new Christians like me, I think that this kind of encouragement would have had a much better outcome. At the very least, I would have been doing something biblical. In the “wrong” garlic room Lee taught us that life was the only important thing and that life would do it all. He not only ignored good works, he steered us away from them by telling us that knowledge and good and evil were on the same satanic tree that we were to avoid. With Lee’s incessant emphasis on life, we probably hardly noticed this verse: But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hbr 5:14, KJV) Because we were in Lee’s garlic room for so long, if we did read the verse, we probably didn’t pay it any mind—our senses to discern between good and evil had atrophied to the point that God’s own word could not breach the “life walls” that Lee had built around our minds. For me, almost everything in the Bible became translated to life by Lee’s voice in my head. I remember having the thought in one meeting in which Lee was asking questions, that every answer was turned by him to be life, that mysterious something that you came to know by experience in meetings. Eventually, I realized that as long as I went to all the meetings and experienced the thing we called life, then I thought that I was fine. This idea, however, does not line up with the Bible, which declares that we are to do good and to learn to distinguish between good and evil. Right and wrong are important As I mentioned earlier, it was also stated among us members of the Local Church that we should not be caught up with considerations of what is right and what is wrong. This, of course, became an excuse for leaders to abandon their duty to do the right things in regard to Christ, the members of His body, and society in general. The cloak of “life,” and the belief that forwarding the designs of “the Recovery” was the most important thing, enabled the leaders to set morality and biblical mandates aside. Because of this mindset, I present the following verses that show that right and wrong are proper considerations for Christians: 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (Mat 20:13, KJV) 57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? (Luk 12:57, KJV) 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. (Act 8:21, KJV) 10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. (Act 25:10, KJV) 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (Eph 6:1, KJV) 25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col 3:25, KJV) 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; (2Pe 2:15, KJV) If life is to be the only way, then why did Peter state that those who walk according to the flesh (v 10) have forsaken the right way (instead of “forsaken the way of life”)? If right and wrong are not to be considered, then why did Paul write to the Colossians that God would punish those who did wrong (instead of those who did not “do life”)? One final thought Why do you suppose Witness Lee warned us away from good works (works that the Bible tells us to do) and focused us on a thing he called “life,” a life that was mostly defined as a nice feeling in Local Church meetings, a “life” that indirectly included adherence to the programs of Lee and his leaders, a “life” that was only to be found in his Local Church? One of the reasons might be that Witness Lee had so few good works of his own. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10, KJV)

03-12-2012, 04:10 PM	#2
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees John, A very good analysis of Lee and his trees. Almost a year ago, someone spoke concerning the fall in Genesis, and the conclusion, while sounding somewhat different, concluded similarly to yours. The real issue that they pointed to was that it was not that man got something added to him, or that he gained knowledge. Instead, it is more meaningful to state that we changed our allegiance from God to self. We changed our source of right and wrong from what God said to what we reasoned was right or wrong. The fall was the result of disobedience, not fruit or snakes. Knowledge is not the problem. Knowledge from our own counsel is. Right and wrong is not a problem. In fact, right and wrong remain an important thing from the very beginning to the very end. But right and wrong decided by our flawed minds without the counsel of God is very much a problem. Teaching things like "don’t care about right and wrong; just care for life" is the kind of teaching that Jesus warned against in Matthew 5. It causes many of the least to stumble and it sets aside the command of God in favor of the counsel of a fool. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

03-12-2012, 09:03 PM	#5
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,797	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees Thanks John for this thread. First of all, Witness Lee was quite mistaken to teach that "right and wrong" was versus, or opposite of "life". This was a mistaken theological premise that has caused untold spiritual and psychological damage among the members in the Local Church for many years. To say that God cares more for life than he does for right and wrong shows an absolute ignorance, even despite, for the written Word of God. The Lord Jesus stated that He is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6) Witness Lee, who had zero formal training in biblical Greek, talked Ingalls et all into translating the Greek word ἀλήθεια into the English "realty". No other reputable English translation has translated ἀλήθεια into the English word "reality". This reason for this is simple. Because the Greek word ἀλήθεια, in the context that it is used in the New Testament, does not connote reality, at least not in the sense that Lee taught. Rather it connotes TRUTH...truth as opposed to false, or falsehood. Witness Lee didn't like to use the word truth so much as the unbiblical word of reality. Why was that? You see, "the life" is not opposed to "the truth" at all. In fact you cannot have one without the other. Those who teach such a thing are false teachers. Those who prophecy such a thing are false prophets. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-03-2015, 04:06 PM	#9
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees In recent one on one discussions, I have noted it's a tactic of elders and blended coworkers to minimize concerns by using the Tree of Life versus Tree of Knowledge analogy. If it comes from the publications/websites LSM endorses, it's of the Tree of Life However if a brothers attempts to set's the facts straight whether from David Shields, David Canfield, John Ingalls, etc it must be from the Tree of Knowledge.

09-29-2015, 12:08 PM	#73
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees You can observe that Eve had not been made when the particular speaking that was recorded in scripture seems to have been made. But that is not the same as being certain that Eve did not hear God say it — later. I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time. What do we gain by implying that Eve didn't hear God say it (she may have)? What does this "catch" do for us? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

10-05-2015, 11:25 AM	#83
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: tree of life - This thread by the brother, John, is one of the more constructive for local church members. Of course we understand the positive side of eating of the tree of life; but when this becomes an excuse mechanism to override issues of legitimate concern.... No, I don't think everything said on this forum is true, but 75 % is well worth conscientious thought.

10-14-2015, 02:03 PM	#97
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees OBW, I agree with your previous post (#96). I'm now interested in the lineage of ideas, interpretations and teachings. If we only point as far back as Pember or Darby, who teased some "truth" out of the hitherto inscrutable text, I won't grab at it like I used to. Not that it's wrong per se, but just because someone along the line got a plausible idea doesn't mean he got the skinny from heaven after 1,800 years of ignorance. That's what "the seer of the divine revelation" as presented by Lee was, to me. Supposedly impeccable logic, and irrefutable conclusions. Wrong. It's just circumspection, is all. It's the ideational equivalence of "don't lay hands quickly on any new convert" in 1 Timothy 5:22. Or "prove all things" - 1 Thess 5:21. "Brother Lee said" or "Darby said" or "Lang said" isn't good enough. Even Lee taught this, in his sober moments. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

02-25-2021, 07:00 AM	#98
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,059	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees In light of our recent discussions on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, here is a golden oldie discussion from 2015. I was also interested in this quote from Nee's *Latent Power of the Soul* on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "I have frequently spoken on the spiritual meanings of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is independence, the taking of independent action. The tree of life, though, signifies dependence or reliance on God. The significance of this tree further tells us that Adam's original life is but a human life, and that therefore he needs to depend on God and receive God's life in order to live. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil discloses that man does not need to depend on God but he can work and live and bear fruit all by himself. Why do I bring up these matters? Simply to show you the cause of Adam and Eve's fall. If we can release Adam's latent power we too may work wonders. But are we permitted to do so? Satan knew there was such wonder-working strength in man, hence he tempted man to declare his independence from God. The fall in the Edenic garden was none other than man taking independent action, separating himself from God. Upon learning the story of the fall in the garden, we can perceive what the purpose of Satan was. He aimed at gaining the soul of man. And when man fell, his original ability and miraculous strength all fell into Satan's hand. " The first time I heard "The Latent Power of the Soul" mentioned by Lee in a meeting, he added at the end, something like "You don't need to read this book. It's not for you." So of course, I immediately went out to a bookstore, found it, bought it, and read it...cover to cover. I read through it again today and have a new perspective on what he was saying. I beg you, don't follow the above link, don't download this .pdf, and don't read this 28 page title. It's not for you. Nell

02-25-2021, 10:34 AM	#99
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees Hm... but has Lee really said, "Ye shall not read of every book of the library?" Well, Nell... now we all know how you fell from the Garden of Lee-den. (In all seriousness I'll try to check that PDF out soon. I have a ton of non-LSM Watchman Nee books sitting on my shelf but I've been kind of Lee-ry... about reading any of them.)

03-05-2021, 07:52 AM	#101
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Good vs. Lee's Trees Well, I tried reading Nee's "Latent Power of the Soul", but I didn't get far. All the Nee-isms in there are just producing too much of a Nee-jerk reaction in me, at present (ooh, I didn't know I had such a talent for inducing pain... the LR really has given me a gift!) We have been reading "My Side of the Mountain", and I think I'm going to buy a Chronicles of Narnia box set, as that was foundational for my early faith as a child and I'd like to share. So as far as lighter reading, seems like we (meaning my wife and I) are all set. I do really need to expand my reading horizons though. I used to be a voracious reader and that has kind of fallen off in the wake of being in the LCs due to fear of "poisoning". I did find this book, "Can I Become A God?: A Guide to Christian Healthy Self-Concept", while Amazon-surfing today. Grabbed it for Kindle. Looks interesting; I will report my findings once I dig in a little further.

07-29-2021, 07:36 AM	#106
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	The Good Part A few days ago, the Lord reminded me of an email I received from UntoHim over four months ago, which included this: I was reviewing a LCD thread recently revived by Nell, and upon scanning back to the opening post I found that it was made by "John" way back in 2012…. I was wondering and hoping that I could talk you into giving us your thoughts about the subject "Good vs. Lee's Trees" all these years later. I replied that I didn’t have the time. The reason, which I didn’t explain to him, was that my wife (“Thankful Jane”) and I were authoring a book together: Return To Follow the Rightful King, and it was requiring our time and focus. When, a few weeks after publishing it, I was reminded of UntoHim’s email (in a surprising way that got my attention), I decided I should post a response. Good My post was mostly about how Lee turned us away from biblical good and gave us a false choice between two trees. We then had to choose “life,” of course, which enabled him and the others to narrowly focus us on “life,” which came to have a new definition in practice. Good became effectively “bad.” Regarding this topic, to distill my journey to this point into a sentence, I went from looking for good, to pursuing “life,” to wondering why the Bible had so much good to say about good if it was really bad (that is, not “life”), to choosing the good part. We Americans are told that we have a right to “the pursuit of Happiness.” Is that what we Christians are supposed to be pursuing? I have recently thought about the title of a Christian classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, and wondered where in the Bible we Christians are promised a happy life pre-eternity (as Americans would probably define “happy”). I don’t recall it, although I am just writing from memory here (maybe there is a passage). I do recall that those who leave all to follow the Lord are promised persecution. Think about someone like Paul: Did he have what many Christians in the United States would consider a happy life? I recall one passage in which he wrote about the beatings and stoning he endured, the times he was hungry and thirsty, as well as his time in the deep. Thinking about myself, I have spent my own time in “the deep,” that is, the deep of the Christian religion (not saying that my difficult times compare with Paul’s, of course). When I came back to the main page of this forum in route to my post about good versus Lee’s trees, I saw a thread entitled, “Trying to find a good church in AUSTIN TX.” It caught my eye because Austin is in our neck of the woods. The thread title reminded me of a really big problem I have had until fairly recently (until the last two years or so). I always found myself, to one degree or another, in pursuit of a “good church.” In addition to all the indoctrination about church that I got from Witness Lee, I still remember the gist of part of what I was told when I was first born again: “Now that you’re a Christian, find a good church to attend.” So, exactly what constitutes a good church, and how would a newborn Christian possibly be equipped to go about finding one? (I mean no disparagement to anyone looking for a good church.) Well, Jane and I (new-Christian John) thought we had found a great church, only to see it morph into the church that is now the subject of this website. (That story is in The Thread of Gold.) Even if it were possible to find a good church (whatever that means), it is now plain to me that this is not to be my main endeavor. Him These days, I am not so much focused on things like the meaning of the two trees and other such things from the library of Lee (although I still spend time investigating basic Christian assumptions, including those of Lee). The “good” I am pursuing now is Him. After all these years, I want to be more like Mary, about whom Jesus said, … but one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42) What I am trying to learn day by day is to focus on my living King, Jesus. I’m endeavoring to turn away from so many other voices, thoughts, methods—whatever (or whoever)—and learn to follow my rightful King by listening to and hearing His living word, that is, paying particular attention to Him as I read the Bible with Him, pray to Him, talk to Him, type a post with Him, and so forth. You might say, “Well of course, John, everyone knows that.” I might say then, “It’s one thing to know about how to know Him and another to actually get to know Him in your everyday, hour by hour experience.” In my view nowadays, I see only one King, one leader (Matt. 23:10, NASB). The job of mankind’s leader has been filled by the resurrected Jesus; He is the leader I am told to follow. If Jesus leads me to XYZ Church, I will follow Him there, whether or not I think it is a good church. He is taking me there for His reasons. As I am there, I will do my best to keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). If He leads me out of XYZ, I will follow Him out. If He doesn’t lead me to some kind of conventional church, I’ll stay as close to Him as I can. Jesus has shown me that I am to follow Him regardless of what others are doing. (In John 21, Jesus tells Peter to follow Him and not to be concerned at all with what John is doing.) Therefore, I desire to be completely focused on Jesus and on following Him, not on participating in a “good church” and following a “good pastor.” I can trust that Jesus will lead me to other believers as He sees fit in line with His plans for me in His kingdom. One thing that Witness Lee did to most of us, if we weren’t already programmed that way by Christian culture, was to make the church all-important. However, Jesus is all-important, the most important, not any church. (Again you might say that everyone knows that.) Yes, it should be obvious that Christ is to be in first place (pre-eminent); but in my experience, Christian church culture often doesn’t leave room for Him to be first. It is clear to me from the Bible that we are called out to be in His kingdom where He reigns supreme. We are to keep Jesus as our first love and to spend time with Him, not focus on programs or methods or various kinds of groups or churches run by men. We are to find out from God what He wants us to be doing. We are to get to know Him—really know Him—and follow Him. We are to trust Him to lead us. Being with Jesus every day makes every day a new day! Sometimes, the excitement in a day reminds me of how I felt when I was first born again! Them Jane and I have had quite a journey learning to follow Him together. In recent years, we have had experiences of Him speaking to each of us individually and then, as we fellowship and put together these “speakings” from Him, we find clarity about our pathway forward. As we stay right with Him and with one another, we have seen Him answer specific prayers we have prayed together, often in amazing ways. I think that what I have written expresses how I feel and where I am right now in my Christian walk. Let me conclude with verses that Jane and I have been working with for awhile: So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen. 1:27–28, NKJV) Christians are to have dominion on earth over God’s enemy (not each other). Simply put, in our case as a married couple, Jane and I have been learning from Jesus to be a “them.” (This motif is fully explained on our website, “LemonsToGrapes.com.”) To us, this means that we are to be responsible to be right with God and with each other, and then to take care of, in concert with Him, what He has put in our sphere. We also have been learning about the importance of being similarly right with other believers for the same purpose of dominion on the earth over God’s enemy. I hope that what I have written in brief won’t be misunderstood. My intent with this writing is to be helpful to others on their journey with the Lord. In my experience now, it is liberating and fulfilling to concentrate on keeping the Lord set before me (Psa. 16:8) rather than being distracted with other things. I do so hope that all believers will be encouraged to pursue our common calling of being in fellowship with the Son of God (1 Cor. 1:9), which includes having an experiential, first-hand, intimate knowing of Him (Eph. 4:13).