Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Turmoil and Concerns of the late 1980s

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-15-2011, 11:48 AM   #1
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

It's been a good 20 years since I last read Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Since 1990 there is much more information available now that was not readily available in 1990.
What is transparent is this is book does have some truth, but it's only partial truth. It's the same principle that is seen in Acts 5:1-2.

"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet."

Part of the truth was told, but the rest of the truth was withheld.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 04:47 PM   #2
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
It's been a good 20 years since I last read Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Since 1990 there is much more information available now that was not readily available in 1990.
What is transparent is this is book does have some truth, but it's only partial truth. It's the same principle that is seen in Acts 5:1-2.

"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet."

Part of the truth was told, but the rest of the truth was withheld.
Which part of what we heard and read was truth?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 09:38 PM   #3
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Which part of what we heard and read was truth?
There is much to disccuss. Too much to address in one sitting. In general, Witness Lee used many facts and left out many more pertinent facts. It's these facts being withheld to put the brothers in an unfavorable light.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 10:41 PM   #4
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Joseph Fung

Joseph Fung is now with the Lord. I have never known much from Joseph's point of view. Following are quotes Witness Lee brought out attributed to Joseph Fung

"The Lord has spoken to us...We no longer depend on one giant, but on the Body."
"It is grossly wrong to read only the Life-Study Messages without reading the Bible. This will bring the church into error."
"are uplifting a man and creating a pope"
"the Living Stream Ministry constantly tries to take over the Hong Kong Church Bookroom"
"every time a gimmick comes along, everyone has to follow. Otherwise, a very strong pressure is there"
"those around Brother Lee are but busybodies and cheerers. Everything they do has no result."
"we do not exalt any man"
"we do follow the ministry, but do not do so blindly; rather, we filter it."
Page 11 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"we should all be free to follow the Sprit." Page 12 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion


"messages on the truth and life are good but practices are not" Page 19 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion


Witness Lee did have an issue with Joseph Fung's using RcV New Testament English text for his own book.

"Meanwhile, during this period he put together an interlinear of the New Testament with the English text from the Living Stream Ministry's Recovery Version, and he sent a number of copies of this interlinear to the Gospel Bookroom in Taipei for them to sell. He published this interlinear without ever saying a word to me or asking for my permission to use the text of the Recovery Version." Page 12 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion


There was also a letter Witness Lee sent to the Hong Kong elders with two sets of 10 points. Some of which are already covered in this post.

This publishing incident is a legitimate complaint. That is plagiarism. The other quotes attributed to Joseph Fung, what's the problem with what Joseph said?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 01:26 PM   #5
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Bill Mallon

Witness Lee had harsh words to say about Bill Mallon that placed Bill in a most unfavorable light. Quotes Witness Lee used were from a 10 page letter Bill had written to Witness Lee on December 16, 1987.

"Bill did write me a letter on November 17, telling me that he would withdraw from the work. After I called him concerning this, he wrote another letter to me on December 16, enumerating his complaints. In the letter he said that "there has been the political abuse of the oneness and of the fellowship so as to centralze a power base in order to control others. This is what we call an hierachy" ;that "the mustard herb grows into an hierarchical tree, with high-handed tactics exercised by the branches to control" ; that there is "the insidious pressures of a menacing hierarchy in all of its ramifications, coming in to subdue, control, and take over..." (All these are groundless, unprovable, perverted, and slanderous accusations.)"
Page 57 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"Bill's second letter did not express his concerns in the proper way of fellowship. Rather, it conveyed many items that were based on rumors, gossip, or misunderstandings, with a tone of accusation."
Page 57 The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Of the quotes Witness Lee has used, most or all are found in pages 7-8 of Bill Mallon's letter to Witness Lee. In this publication The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, the speaking is not in line with "truth and reality", but according to what one likes or dislikes. This is why nothing was spoken of Bill's concerns except to acknowledge them as "enumerated complaints". I suggest on selected quotes in proving to damage Bill Mallon were selected. No quotes were used to show the tone in which Bill Mallon wrote to Witness Lee. Were Bill's concerns out of line or unfounded? Read for yourself Bill's concerns in the next post.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 01:34 PM   #6
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Bill Mallon's Letter to Witness Lee

William E. Mallon
11327 SW 172 Street
Miami, FL 33157
December 16,1987

My dear Brother Lee,

I am both grateful to you and appreciative of your telephone Call on Wednesday, December 9. After much consideration, I felt led, being greatly indebted to you, to respond to you in writing, giving you the more detailed explanation you searched for over the phone. I do this out of faithfulness to the Lord and you. Please understand that I respect you very highly, my heart is compassionate toward you, and my sympathies are fully with you during this hour of frustration.
Please permit me to fellowship in all honesty and candor. Knowing that honesty risks arrogance just as humility risks hypocrisy, yet if honesty and humility become tainted, we must "choose the difference between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility." In other words, we should do nothing at the expense of truth and reality.
To write the following is extremely embarrassing, and to touch certain matters is very loathesome. In order to disassociate myself from any hint of self interest, self serving ambition, self righteousness, and self-vindication, I feel inwardly pressed to reiterate the removal of myself from the work; otherwise, I could never feel the liberty to delineate the facts, which I will try to do as accurately as I can. Let us now come immediately to these facts, each of which I will summarize briefly and add a few comments.

1. In the Spring of 1986, the office purchased a house near Davison campus, just north of Charlotte. Their fellowship with the brothers was not only withheld, but the brothers were also censured as being unfit for coordination and too slow for cooperation. Roger Fiero was selected by the office to take charge as a full time worker, a brother of whom everyone in the South was extremely reluctant. I suggested that we should go slow with this brother, but upon hearing this, the office deliberately and hastily purchased the house and install this brother into position, flagrantly declaring that when the Lord moves, He moves quickly, that time is important and the door is now open to North Carolina, and that we have only a little time to be faithful. They utilized this brother and went on a promotional campaign to push this project by means of video tape.
Later, at an Irving training, the office called on the carpet Brothers who represented the churches in the South. With video cameras trained on them, the office reprimanded them for not financially supporting Roger, berated them for not being one with the ministry, and pressured them for monthly pledges under a cloud of intimidation. In fact, the brothers were asked to write out checks totaling $6,000 right on the spot for his personal debts, and then to pay monthly amounts for his pledged support. But before this time, not once was the opportunity for fellowship given to the brothers, for they were not aware of this matter. Afterwards, when Tom Cesar asked Ray Graver for an explanation for the seriousness of the meeting, Ray sharply answered, "we do what we are told!" This incident is contrary to your fellowship with the churches in that the full timers should be approved by the churches. (Recently, it was discovered that Roger had received double, overlapping support for a few months after this training from both the office and the churches what a bungled mess!)
Several months later, Roger Fiero was manifested to be the wrong brother, because of such weaknesses as fabricating stories and practicing opportunism. Once Tom Cesar and John Little called the office about problems he was causing; they were accused of an impure heart, being not supportive of the work on Davison campus. Later, Tom was told that the ministry never makes a mistake!
Although the brothers in the South are not perfect, having many weaknesses, they nevertheless attempt to run backwards in order to be in one accord, but the office fails to give them the opportunity of fellowship to demonstrate their oneness. The principals from the office who are involved in these affairs are Phillip, Benson, and Ray (I hesitate to mention these dear ones by name, but please allow me this liberty for the sake of honesty). Much embarrassment, confusion, harassment, and demoralization resulted from their attitude and behavior. On June 11, 1986, during the time in your home when you fellowshipped with me, you Identified the problem in every region as having the deficiency of the intrinsic fellowship of the one accord, but in this case, it is not the region, but the office who violates this principle and practice. It takes both the giving and receiving sides to release the intrinsic flow of mutual fellowship.

2. The office received a fabricated report that the brothers of the church in Atlanta had made the decision not to be one with the ministry and did not show the video tapes about "The One Accord" training of the elders (Feb. 1986). Moreover, Leo Garrett (one of the elders in Atlanta) had attended the last meeting of those elders' training, when you gave some instructive fellowship to the brothers from the churches in San Jose and Anaheim, which was about rearranging the elders. When Leo Garrett heard this, he was burdened to step aside because of his age and allow younger brothers to replace him. Apparently, Jim Barry (a brother in Atlanta; more will be said about him later) had called the office that Leo Garrett was forced out by the elders and that the elders do not want to play the video tapes mentioned above. Then Benson and Ray called Leo commending him for standing in oneness with the ministry, while censuring the other elders for not cooperating with the ministry; extolling Leo for being pro ministry, while berating the other elders for being anti ministry. They then urged Leo to remain in the eldership so as to defend the ministry. Then Leo told them they were badly mistaken, after which time Benson asked Leo to have Jim Barry to give him a phone call.
However, the church in Atlanta was in fact one with the ministry, and was in fact showing the video tapes on the elders' training about "The One Accord"! A lie was fabricated, action was impulsively taken against the church, and a tale bearer was believed. How ironic that such a situation could exist over the video tapes that is about the one accord! Furthermore, I had served the church in Atlanta for 12 years and had fellowshipped with you over the appointments of the elders in Atlanta, but Benson and Ray never once contacted me about these matters.
Again, permit me the freedom of honesty to ask the following: Why is it so easy for the office to believe a lie? Does the office have the auspicious inclination to quarrel with those who have the appearance of not being one with the ministry, jumping to conclusion that they are doing their own work? Why has the office made advances into the local churches around the country on the pretext of watching over the interests of the ministry? Is the reason for Benson and Ray failing to contact me about matters familiar to me is that of the lack of trust and confidence?

3. A few months ago, after Bob Ellis returned from Taipei, he gave this admonition to the elders at a meeting of elders from the South: Turn everything over to the office and the ministry; Phillip and Brother Lee have big plans for this area; it is imperative for us to give our coordination to Phillip and the office, and they need evidences that we will do anything they want; we have to coordinate with Phillip, and if Phillip beats us to the ground, we have to learn to get up and come back to him, for he has seen Benson and Ray beaten to the ground and they have gotten up and come back.
Is it too much for me to make this honest assumption: Is the one accord which the office promotes the one accord of fellowship, or is it the one accord of lining up with the office? Let me strongly declare that the brothers in the South are committed to do anything and everything in their power to cooperate with any burden you, Brother Lee, may have, but why this harangue?

4. While I have demonstrated the grace to rectified any issue with the office, nonetheless, the office has made a quarrelsome issue over my personal notes on "the one accord" training which were simply copied for the situation as it existed in Miami, but were unfortunately circulated more widespread than I had expected. Why was the matter of these harmless notes inflamed with such furious indignation that this became like a major court case requiring overbearing action? Did anyone consider how delicate and tenuous the Miami situation was, and that to withdraw my notes might be erosive and repercussive? Was this incident taken presumptuously as rivalry and considered to be competitively embarrassing to the office? If so, how ridiculously absurd! Also, was this little instance utilized to make me a public example so as to undermine my service in the South (I heard that Ray Graver's secret motive for telling Phillip was "to do me in". Please know that I am willing to bend over backwards to comply with the requirements of the Living Stream, but Phillip's second letter seemed unduly warranted, insisting on demands that were oppressive to my mind and spirit as well as chilling to my function and my service.

5. Another illustration of the deficient fellowship of the one accord concerns the gospel team a few years ago. The gospel team gave the distinct impression that the churches were not one with the ministry and that only they carried out the ministry. Although we brothers were very happy for them to come to Knoxville, yet their fellowship with us was evasive, the churches were belittled, and the saints generally were given a poor attitude about the churches, then the churches were saddled for their support.
For example, Howard Higashi, Jake Jacobson, and Bill Dudley thrust Jim Barry into full time gospel work, a brother with whom we all have a long, turbulent history and have grave reservations about his approvedness. It was impulsively imposed upon the church in Atlanta to accept and support him. Subsequently, he arrogantly adopted the same attitude that he is the unique brother of the church in Atlanta who is one with the ministry and with Witness Lee's burden. He demoralized many of the saints, became very independent, and opposed the elders and the church. Some members of the church told the elders that they could no longer in good conscience give money to the church since the church supports him. In conclusion, he is now no longer serving and no longer in the church, steps which he himself took. I wish I could mitigate these words, but here is another example showing that outward conformity is imposed in violation to the mutually intrinsic flow of fellowship among the workers. 4

6. The young trainers (Minoru Chan, Howard Higashi, Paul Hon, Jake Jacobson, Benson Phillips, Dan Towle, Andrew Yu) during the 1986 summer training in Irving had sessions of so called fellowship with the elders, grouped according to the different sections of the country, held in Benson's house. Some of these were overheard while eating lunch, analyzing the brothers in order to categorize them, identifying the brothers who presumably control in order to isolate them, and plotting to force the brothers into a mass resignation in order to manipulate them.
Then in the afternoon meeting, these trainers intimidated the brothers with statements like: "You have an incurable disease," "the only cure is amputation," "you are a babylonian protestant, because you do not preach that Witness Lee is a one man show," "we preach that Witness Lee is a one man show. and you brothers have a problem with this," "everyone must go to Taipei to show your oneness”, and "asking what to do is the old way... just present yourself, and don't ask questions."
Don Rutledge tried to speak, but the thick intimidating atmosphere suppressed him. He was later branded with being in the old way. Afterwards, these young trainers said, "We have to be better prepared so no one can speak up like Don did." What kind of attitude is this when brothers should be practicing the inner anointing and the mutual fellowship? You cannot imagine how threatening the atmosphere was, being full of ultimatum and denouncements.
The following was said before that training, at the elders' meeting, which you could not attend due to illness: "We will take your young people... we will train them ... we will never send them back to you, because you control them," "Witness Lee was sick in Taipei, the full timers prayed, and He was healed; I doubt the Lord will even hear your prayers...."
In summary, there was no sense of their identification with the Body, speaking from a mutuality as being members one of another, sharing from the intrinsic flowing out of the divine fellowship. Instead, it tends to tear down, not build up.

7. Another example of glaring violations of this essential fellowship is when the office scheduled an itinerary sending teams into the South to give video tape machines and video tapes to isolated saints (Spring 1986). I was happy about this except that little
fellowship was shared with the brothers in the South. Then the office suddenly scheduled a meeting in Nashville, but never invited me. On the day of the meeting, while catching a plane at the airport in Raleigh, Tom Cesar called me while I was in a dentist's chair in Miami. Immediately, I rushed to the airport and flew to Nashville so that my appearance might cover the situation and prevent deeper reactions, for others were raising questions about why I was being isolated from the activities of the office. You do not know how many times I calmed them down or shielded them from things that tend to unsettle the saints.
After these teams from the office returned to Irving, a report was video taped and sent to all the churches. On tape, Benson and Ray used terms such as "inconsistent care" and "the depravity of care," implicating the churches in the South with negligence. The derogatory way Benson and Ray portrayed the South was grossly exaggerated, which became unsettling and upsetting to the brothers and sisters who served and sacrificed much for the Lord's recovery. Moreover, brothers throughout the country who saw this video tape said that they had a very poor impression about the churches in the southeast. The office told other brothers that they suspected that the reason why these isolated saints were scattered and not in the church was because the elders had problems with them. This is unfair and dishonest. The fact of the matter is that many of them came from other parts of the country, and some from the area of the office! How could the office have the license to incriminate the churches in the South with such blatant and lying insinuations!
Here again is an independent breech of fellowship, the effect of which was extremely undermining and demoralizing to many of the saints. The overall intent, it would seem to me, was to put the poorest construction on the churches in the South, making the brothers with the saints appear as having a careless attitude and an indifferent heart, with callous concerns for the Lord's move, Also, they easily listened to the disparaging talk of unstable and disgruntled people, such as Roger Fiero and Jim Barry and others. No fellowship was attempted to learn of the situation, but it seems as if the office was presumptuously clearer than the ones who live and labor here.
I do not have any more heart to go on into more points. Enough is enough. This letter sounds too arrogant, but to mitigate or soften its tone will both obscure my honesty and incur the risk of hypocritical humility.
Brother Lee, I sympathize with you because the situation appears to be similar to the Iran Contra affair, when responsible men around President Reagan broke the law of Congress and carried on covert activities which were illegal and yet at the same time never informed the President, though many in Congress and the news media questions the President's involvement. Likewise, it appears to me that responsible brothers nearest to you have carried on underhanded activities and gave undermining fellowship without your knowledge. Yet, as the President was willing to accept responsibility and took action accordingly, I trust it will be incumbent upon you to do likewise, according to the wisdom and understanding the Lord gives you.
Although this letter is much too lengthy, I believe the serious nature of the problem merits my continuation with some of the points covered in our telephone conversation on December 9.

1. 1 can understand why you urged me several times to "forget," but this letter should indicate that the problem is not trivial, but seriously reaching to an acute condition and a critical stage. The tendency is to procrastinate, hoping the problem will go away; or, to ignore it, pretending it does not exist. But this is not responsible action. As someone said, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." In order to confront the problem and accept my responsibility, I wrote you a letter, and I cannot now forget about it and leave it alone until it is resolved. If our body is sick, we do not forget about it, but seek a diagnosis and a treatment.

2. I appreciate the word that I should forget the circumstances and stand with the basic. This is a good word. But the circumstantial things were mentioned so as to point out to you the symptoms of a very serious root. I wrote the letter to give out signals that are symptomatic of a very fundamental problem, and the way I see it, it is using the power of politics, which is to impose the will of one upon the will of another so as to either overtly or covertly coerce him. There has been the political abuse of the oneness and of the fellowship so as to centralize a power base in order to control others. This is what we call an hierarchy. Hence, it is not a matter of circumstances, personalities, trials, or feelings of discouragement, for these are but symptoms. For example, Benson and Ray, as well as others, promoted Phillip Lee, proclaiming everywhere that Phillip is Witness Lee's closest co worker, that Brother Lee has no one with as much wisdom, energy, and insight as Phillip Lee, that Phillip is Witness Lee's choice regardless of his anger and abuse of the saints, that everyone must submit and contact Phillip Lee and/or the office such audacious promotions are obviously symptoms of a disease.

3. The source of the problem is not Roger Fiero or Jim Barry. How could these two novices be trusted more than the more experienced brothers? The problem in the South is not due to these two brothers, but with brothers outside of the South who have broken the most fundamental principles of the recovery and utilized these two brothers to invade and control the South. We thoroughly know these two brothers, but others, by neglecting the intrinsic fellowship, have thrust these brothers into a position that can be used to tear down what has been built up.

4. I know that this is a big recovery, and I feel very happy that we are trying to return to the scriptural way, and God forbid that I should try to hinder what has been gained already. For me to take the attitude and action that I have taken, however, indicates that I am desperately concerned, lest something so very good as the mustard herb grows into an hierarchical tree, with high handed tactics exercised by the branches to control. I am desperately concerned lest the subtle enemy sneaks some leavening corruption into the fine flour. We must be warned of certain danger signs and beware of our vulnerability for being baited into a snare.

5. You asked, who discredited me: The source is not the trainees, but the young trainers who surround you. I know you have charged the trainees not to touch any person or any church, but the problem is that these trainees have been utilized through some subliminal fellowship, and another element was injected into them beneath the threshold of their consciousness. The effect of this upon the trainees when they arrived home is that they have been either very depressed or very fanatical. These trainees enjoyed your fellowship about the new way of practice for all the churches to follow when they were in Taipei, but once you left the meeting, the young trainers, I am sorry to say, injected another subliminal element into them. For example, a brother here in Miami who finally got cleared up, wrote inadvertently,"Bill Mallon" in his notes in those places such as, "We have 200 churches and one office; churches have reputations with the office!" Immediately, he considered what kind of reputations the office holds about different churches and various brothers. This gives the ground to the enemy to interject many corrupting and disrupting thoughts.

6. You mentioned about what Watchman Nee saw in 1937 and 1949, how he saw the new way of practice for the church life, and now is the time for us to fulfill his vision. I truly want to be a part of this also and give my absolute and overwhelming support. It is all together a different and insidious problem. Your mentioning of Watchman Nee reminded me of what I read in THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH LIFE, especially chapter 7 about Among The Workers" in the Liv. Str. Edition,pages 144 164, which brings to the surface this hidden problem. Here he speaks about spiritual authority vs. official authority, about proper fellowship vs. central control, and about local churches and branch churches. Spiritual authority and the proper fellowship produce local churches, but official authority and central control issue in branch churches. While we need to fulfill Watchman Nee and your burden, yet at the same time we must also beware of another side element subtlely creeping in. Brother Lee, I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority and the intrinsic fellowship in the flow of the river, which brought in the mutual life and love of the local churches. But I fear that another thing is coming in with official authority and central control which will invade the local churches and transmute them into branch churches. We need to identify and isolate where the enemy is attacking and what channels he is using. The real snare is to compromise and sell out in the name of oneness. May it be exposed before there is a total collapse.

7. Brother Lee, although I have written this letter, it does not take away one iota from the deepest appreciation I have for the concern and care both you and Sister Lee have shown for me, my health, and my family over the 24 years that I have been in the recovery. Yes, I do remember how we have worked together first, shoulder to shoulder for 10 years in Los Angeles, and then from a distance in New York, Atlanta, and Miami for 14 years and how we have fought many battles together for the Lord and His recovery. Yes, we can testify that we never had any personal trouble between us for these 24 years. Notwithstanding, and I know we both mutually agree, the problem both you and I should face together is beyond the personal and beyond personalities. The very first step in having love, care, and concern for others is to 1 i s t e n! I earnestly hope you will not take this letter and misapply it to mean that a problem exist between us. A thousand times "no"! But the situation as defined in this letter demonstrates a much deeper and broader problem. Both of my letters reveal the insidious pressures of a menacing hierarchy in all of its ramifications, coming in to subdue, control, and take over the very recovery of the Testimony of Jesus for which we have labored and fought, and in the process, trampling under foot the essential, intrinsic flow of mutual fellowship among the brothers.
Comparatively speaking, it is easy for me to bear my daughter's illness and financial burdens, but I no longer can stomach the evil of playing politics by using and abusing oneness with the ministry and with the office. This absolutely has nothing to do with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual dark forces behind the scene who are working in deception.
Now I wish to conclude this long letter. You will never know of the intensity of my consternation. I have suffered a great dilemma over this matter of speaking with you about the affairs surrounding the office. You probably do not realize how much of a promotional campaign that went on for the office, which would correspond to a political campaign. What compounded the problem and prevented me from coming to you is that Phillip, being your very own son, was positioned into a very prominent place of the work. A message you gave in Anaheim, on April 18, 1983, entitled PRACTICAL TALKS TO THE ELDERS # 6 "Avoiding Family Entanglements": Here you testified that Watchman Nee never brought his relatives into the church leadership or into the work. I can now see the wisdom of this, because in your case, I say this kindly, to have Phillip established into such a prominent place of the work has frustrated and hindered transparent fellowship between you and the workers as well as between you and the churches. In my case I agonized long as to what to do. Finally, I decided to withdraw from the work, thus giving me the basis for writing a letter to you indicating some signals, hoping you could see that these signals are symptomatic of a more fundamental root, as I have attempted to explain above.
You may ask, Why did I not do anything before now? First, for three years I stood against my concerns because they seemed to be founded without supporting evidences. There were a number of insinuations and innuendoes, but I felt to wait until these were more manifested. Second, the principle is that it always takes time. Time is the best means to manifest things. Even today, I expect I know only the tip of the iceberg, which means that much more is submerged beneath the surface. And finally, the third reason, Because of your son, Phillip, who was so conspicuously involved, I was in an agonizing dilemma. To me, it meant that if I touched your son, I would touch you. Please understand that I do not interpret this situation as being related to personalities or circumstances, but the enemy's attack to corrupt and destroy the recovery of the Testimony of Jesus, which we love and treasure so much. Since Phillip was now so intricately involved with the work, I eventually worked through my dilemma and decided to resign from the work. By divorcing myself from the work, I then had the ground and the liberty to be open, transparent, and honest with you.
Finally, I believe that a kind of blind loyalty has been promoted, which issues into a propensity to obstruct truthfulness and single hearted faithfulness. Blind loyalty is very much of the soulish, natural life. It blinds us to honesty and reality, leads us down a narrow and false pathway, and protects our self serving ambitions from challenge and criticism. Honesty opens ourselves to grow in wisdom and effectiveness. May we lay ourselves open to the deepest challenge that is called upon us in this hour until we transcend and transform the natural.
I apologize for the lengthiness of this letter and its frankness. This letter is not meant to be judgmental or cruel. My motivation for writing it is to extend myself to you, for the purpose of nurturing you for our spiritual growth, just as you have always done so in the past. May His prevailing blood cover us, and His sufficient grace supply us.

Always respectfully yours as a faithful brother in Christ,

William E. Mallon
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 09:47 AM   #7
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Rosemead

In The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, this what Witness Lee haf to share regarding the events happening in Rosemead beginning on page 53 to the top of page 54.

"In the winter of 1986, Brothers David Wang and John Wang came to me, asking if Brother Francis Ball ould join them in the eldership there. I felt good about their suggestion. Subsequently, on February 1, 1987, Francis Ball was introduced to the saints in Rosemead by John Kwan and david Wang during a Lord's Day morning meeting. Not long after that, because of the need in Taiwan, Francis went to Taipei.
The first rebellion occurred in Rosemead in September 1987. Prior to the door knocking festival in the San Gabriel valley in September, two brothers, Aaron Lee and Jacob Ho, who were invited to help in the festival, visited Joseph Chu, who was one of the main speakers in the Chinese-speaking meeting in Rosemead. They found out that Joseph was very negative and critical about the recovery and me. Joseph's wife told these brothers that I was old and was surrounded by a group of young people who had made me lose my direction. She also told the brothers that "we have connections with the whole world." During the door knocking festival, the couple and some others with them remained critical of that move. Daniel Chu, Joseph's cousin, told David Dong on September 27, 1987, that they (Brother Daniel and those with him) had a global connection, and that some of the leading co-workers in the recovery were meeting (or were going to meet) together and there would be a communique' in a week or two. By this he meant that the ones in Rosemead were not the only ones who were rebelling; there were others also. This indicates that there was already a conspiracy. During this time, Joseph Chu, Daniel Chu, and those agreeing with them strongly condemned all efforts to have fellowship as interference and began to isolate themselves from other churches around the area.
"

Beginning at the end of page 54 and continuing on page 55,

"In March 1988 I called Joseph Chu and David Wang at the same time and asked to have fellowship with them concerning the problem in the church in Rosemead. At first, David Wang proposed that it would be better for all of us to come together with the whole church in Rosemead and the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. He proposed that we do this on the following Lord's Day morning, and I agreed. He promised to notify all the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. But the next day, David Wang called me and told me that they wanted to keep the church calm for another period of time; after that, we would have the meeting. I agreed with that.
On May 8, 1988, the Board of Directors of the church in Rosemead sent a letter to Francis Ball and another to John Kwan, the two elders, telling them that "commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the church in Rosemead", and that "should you [ Francis Ball and John Kwan] not comply with the directive, we [the Board of Directors] will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted." In their letter to Francis, they charged that "the autonomy of the church in Rosemead" has been "damaged," and they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee.
"
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 11:21 AM   #8
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Rosemead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
In The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, this what Witness Lee haf to share regarding the events happening in Rosemead beginning on page 53 to the top of page 54.

"In the winter of 1986, Brothers David Wang and John Wang came to me, asking if Brother Francis Ball ould join them in the eldership there. I felt good about their suggestion. Subsequently, on February 1, 1987, Francis Ball was introduced to the saints in Rosemead by John Kwan and david Wang during a Lord's Day morning meeting. Not long after that, because of the need in Taiwan, Francis went to Taipei.
The first rebellion occurred in Rosemead in September 1987. Prior to the door knocking festival in the San Gabriel valley in September, two brothers, Aaron Lee and Jacob Ho, who were invited to help in the festival, visited Joseph Chu, who was one of the main speakers in the Chinese-speaking meeting in Rosemead. They found out that Joseph was very negative and critical about the recovery and me. Joseph's wife told these brothers that I was old and was surrounded by a group of young people who had made me lose my direction. She also told the brothers that "we have connections with the whole world." During the door knocking festival, the couple and some others with them remained critical of that move. Daniel Chu, Joseph's cousin, told David Dong on September 27, 1987, that they (Brother Daniel and those with him) had a global connection, and that some of the leading co-workers in the recovery were meeting (or were going to meet) together and there would be a communique' in a week or two. By this he meant that the ones in Rosemead were not the only ones who were rebelling; there were others also. This indicates that there was already a conspiracy. During this time, Joseph Chu, Daniel Chu, and those agreeing with them strongly condemned all efforts to have fellowship as interference and began to isolate themselves from other churches around the area.
"

Beginning at the end of page 54 and continuing on page 55,

"In March 1988 I called Joseph Chu and David Wang at the same time and asked to have fellowship with them concerning the problem in the church in Rosemead. At first, David Wang proposed that it would be better for all of us to come together with the whole church in Rosemead and the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. He proposed that we do this on the following Lord's Day morning, and I agreed. He promised to notify all the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. But the next day, David Wang called me and told me that they wanted to keep the church calm for another period of time; after that, we would have the meeting. I agreed with that.
On May 8, 1988, the Board of Directors of the church in Rosemead sent a letter to Francis Ball and another to John Kwan, the two elders, telling them that "commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the church in Rosemead", and that "should you [ Francis Ball and John Kwan] not comply with the directive, we [the Board of Directors] will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted." In their letter to Francis, they charged that "the autonomy of the church in Rosemead" has been "damaged," and they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee.
"
Several quick observations:

1. Why does "critical" become "rebelling"? If you read this letter it seems that if you disagree with WL you are "rebelling". It seems there is no room for anyone to disagree, to be critical or even to lead their local church as they see fit. It is one thing for a ministry to present a particular way for the gospel to go forth, it is another for that ministry to portray anyone who is critical or decided not to receive this way as "rebelling".

2. Surely Rosemead has as much right as anyone to excommunicate a brother. Citing the autonomy of the Church in Rosemead as the basis for this does seem like a valid reason for excommunication. The first paragraph by WL which likens being critical to being rebellious seems like proof of the allegation.

3. "they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual". This is true. How could WL have an issue with this?

4. "which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Even the most cautious estimate of the impact that door knocking would have would have to be characterized today as "nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies".

4. "Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee." First, WL uses the word "condemned" but I wonder if "characterized" would be more accurate. It seems to me that time has proven this to be true with the teaching of the MOTA and what the BB's have done. Kudo's to the church in Rosemead for taking such a stand so early on.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 01:43 PM   #9
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Rosemead

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Several quick observations:

1. Why does "critical" become "rebelling"? If you read this letter it seems that if you disagree with WL you are "rebelling". It seems there is no room for anyone to disagree, to be critical or even to lead their local church as they see fit. It is one thing for a ministry to present a particular way for the gospel to go forth, it is another for that ministry to portray anyone who is critical or decided not to receive this way as "rebelling".

2. Surely Rosemead has as much right as anyone to excommunicate a brother. Citing the autonomy of the Church in Rosemead as the basis for this does seem like a valid reason for excommunication. The first paragraph by WL which likens being critical to being rebellious seems like proof of the allegation.

3. "they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual". This is true. How could WL have an issue with this?

4. "which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Even the most cautious estimate of the impact that door knocking would have would have to be characterized today as "nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies".

4. "Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee." First, WL uses the word "condemned" but I wonder if "characterized" would be more accurate. It seems to me that time has proven this to be true with the teaching of the MOTA and what the BB's have done. Kudo's to the church in Rosemead for taking such a stand so early on.
You are completely correct. That is why reading these words, taken in this case from an account in Rosemead, and in the earlier post from Bill Mallons' letter, creates for me a mockery of everything that the LRC ever claimed to be for.

I cannot pretend to accept that the LRC's doctrinal and practical statements represent a reasonable understanding of the scripture that they use to support them.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 02:15 PM   #10
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 487
Default Re: Rosemead "Rebellion" - a normal rejection of the Spirit

http://hidinghistoryinthelordsrecove...dRebellion.pdf

“The Church in Rosemead began to suffer heavy trials in early 1986. This situation reflected that the relation between the work and the church was very abnormal. The matter in the Church in Rosemead is a typical “symptom” and just the tip of the iceberg. The ministry work is for the church. The church should not be for the ministry work. That is in accordance with the principle in the Scriptures. Unfortunately, things have gone the wrong direction and men have tried their best to let the work control the churches. “Authority” has been emphasized. The saints are required to follow a person without any questions. This is definitely against the principle in the Bible. I absolutely believe that today there would not be the socalled “Rosemead Incident” if the abnormal situation never happened.” (from A True Account, 1987) - David Wang
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 03:25 PM   #11
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Rosemead "Rebellion" - a normal rejection of the Spirit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
http://hidinghistoryinthelordsrecove...dRebellion.pdf

“The Church in Rosemead began to suffer heavy trials in early 1986. This situation reflected that the relation between the work and the church was very abnormal. The matter in the Church in Rosemead is a typical “symptom” and just the tip of the iceberg. The ministry work is for the church. The church should not be for the ministry work. That is in accordance with the principle in the Scriptures. Unfortunately, things have gone the wrong direction and men have tried their best to let the work control the churches. “Authority” has been emphasized. The saints are required to follow a person without any questions. This is definitely against the principle in the Bible. I absolutely believe that today there would not be the socalled “Rosemead Incident” if the abnormal situation never happened.” (from A True Account, 1987) - David Wang
Do you think it would ever be possible to have a single "MOTA" and a single publishing house, and yet avoid a repeat? Is the real root of the problem having all the churches beholden to a single ministry?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 04:08 PM   #12
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Rosemead

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
1. Why does "critical" become "rebelling"? If you read this letter it seems that if you disagree with WL you are "rebelling". It seems there is no room for anyone to disagree, to be critical or even to lead their local church as they see fit. It is one thing for a ministry to present a particular way for the gospel to go forth, it is another for that ministry to portray anyone who is critical or decided not to receive this way as "rebelling".
There is a translation of criticizing=being negative=rebelling. ALso if/when you are one to openly criticize, you are no longer one with the leading brothers. This oneness with brothers is equated with having the same oneness the Father/Son/Spirit share.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 04:23 PM   #13
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Rosemead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
"On May 8, 1988, the Board of Directors of the church in Rosemead sent a letter to Francis Ball and another to John Kwan, the two elders, telling them that "commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the church in Rosemead", and that "should you [ Francis Ball and John Kwan] not comply with the directive, we [the Board of Directors] will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted." In their letter to Francis, they charged that "the autonomy of the church in Rosemead" has been "damaged," and they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee."
This much is true as Witness Lee says. Although the letter was dated as May 7 and not May 8. Once again there was much content included in the letter to Francis Ball, including reasons why Francis was dismissed, Witness Lee choose not to disclose. The following is text of the letter found on pages 172-176 of Hiding History in the Lord's Recovery.

"The Church in Rosemead
2454 No. San Gabriel Blvd
Rosemead, Ca 91770
213-280-9991

May 7, 1988

To: Francis Ball,

The primary purpose of this letter is to serve notice to you that as of the date of May 21, 1988, you must vacate the premises of the church in Rosemead. Its secondary purpose is to give you just a few of the many reasons why such a demand is being placed upon you and why it is altogether incumbent upon you to comply with it. All of the contents of this letter were arrived at through much prayer, consideration, and fellowship, with many brothers and sisters before the Lord. As you read each point, we pray that His light would emanate from it into your heart. To touch your conscience and bring you into a very clear and stark realization that you, and many like you in His “recovery” today, though seemingly staunch, stalwart, and adamant for what you call “the ministry”, have actually strayed from His precious pathway of Life.

Commencing with your arrival here in The Church in Rosemead, you, along with both your attitude and actions, have been a constant and increasingly great offense to the majority of the saints meeting here as The Church in Rosemead. What you have consistently espoused and expressed in both words and actions has irreparably damaged the already existing fragile stability and autonomy of The Church in Rosemead (which came about as a result of problems that had arisen through the actions of John Kwan with respect to his apparently secret and subtle instigation of the unscriptural and unrighteous removal of Donald Hardy from the eldership of the Church in Rosemead by you and other “co-workers” of the “ministry”). You and your continued presence here have brought about and sustain the complete polarization and division of the brethren meeting here as The Church in Rosemead.

With respect to your actions:
1.) You, as an extra-local “elder” from another locality, took the lead with four other extra-local “elders” in carrying out the above-mentioned unscriptural and unrighteous removal of Donald Hardy as an elder of this locality.

A. It was unscriptural because there is absolutely no precedent given in the entire New Testament of any individual being removed from the eldership of any church, whether by example or injunction, in the way that you accomplished his removal. The only portion in the New Testament regarding dealing with improper elders is given in 1 Timothy 5:19 and 20. These two verses contain two very clear and specific injunctions given to the New Testament believers by the Holy Spirit for the divine protection of both the elders and the saints: they protect the elders from individuals who might falsely or unreasonably accuse them; and they protect the saints from any “improper” elders and from any individuals who might falsely or unreasonably accuse their “proper” elders. Neither one of these two precious injunctions that were given a divine protection for all of us were carried out by you and those who participated with you in Don Hardy’s removal. Hence, Donald Hardy was afforded absolutely no scriptural protection from you or his accuser whom you became one with. Moreover, the saints in The Church in Rosemead under the eldership of which Donald Hardy was an integral part had absolutely no scriptural protection from you or his accuser either.
B. It was unrighteous because you removed him without ever giving him any reason or explanation for doing so, and hence, you did it without proper cause. Furthermore, it was all done in secret: the accused was never confronted by his accuser before you were his judges in order that he might have the opportunity to respond to his accuser’s accusations. Firstly, you received the accusations against him from his co-elder, John Kwan. Then, you proceeded to seek information from his other two co-elders by calling them to only one meeting and questioning them. After that one meeting with his co-elders, you called him to a meeting in Anaheim at which none of his tree co-elders were present. According to Donald Hardy’s own testimony which he later gave before yourself, John Kwan, and two other brothers from the Church in Rosemead in the elders’ room of The Church in Rosemead (and which was also recorded on tape by one of the two brothers), in that one meeting, when he was told that he should go get a job, he responded by asking, “What about the ‘the work’?” He was then told, “No, no more ‘work’.” Then he asked, “No more eldership?” The response to which was, “No more eldership; we feel you should step aside.” His very next words in his testimony were: “No explanation. No prior knowledge. You could have picked me up off the floor with a blotter. I was in a state of shock!” Even to this very day, he still says he does not know why he is removed. Even the law courts of the world would never allow any judge or group of judges to conduct themselves in such a manner as you conducted yourself in this matter with Don Hardy. (Actually, these two points, A and B, make it quite evident that you, and those who acted in concert with you, had already been predisposed, for whatever reasons, to do away with Donald Hardy; you simply utilized John Kwan, and his coming to you, as a cloak to do it.)
C. Thus, you should now be able to clearly understand why it was stated to both you and John Kwan by the brothers in the November 1, 1987 Lord’s Day morning meeting of The Church in Rosemead: “The eldership of The Church in Rosemead was touched and the government was defiled.”

Moreover, on top of all that has been stated with respect to this one matter, to add to the offense, you came to reside among us, meet with us, and take up and attempt to retain a position in the eldership among us (the very position that you unscripturally and unrighteously removed Don Hardy from) while being fully conscious of the fact that the majority of the saints know all of these things and absolutely refuse to accept you in that capacity.

II. You attended a church home meeting in Abel Chu’s house one Saturday night during which a sister from another locality called on the telephone to tell the saints that there was going to be a combined “ministry” meeting down in Anaheim the very next morning. At the end of that meeting, Daniel Chu, the brother who received the phone call, faithfully made an announcement regarding this suddenly-called Lord’s Day morning “ministry” meeting saying that all who could go should go and that the saints who were unable to go would still be meeting together in The Church in Rosemead meeting hall. That same night you called David Wang after midnight and told him that you had “fellowshipped” with Philip Lee and John Kwan and that your feeling was to “deal with Daniel Chu” regarding his making this announcement, and that it should be done right away. When David attempted to put it off until the next day so that he could hear Daniel Chu’s side of the story, your tone changed and you became obnoxiously persistent that he call Daniel on the phone immediately (at 12:20 A. M.!!!) to “get him out now”. However, David remained adamant in refusing to handle the situation in the way in which you were proposing, and thus, the phone conversation ended. We daresay that if David had not refused to cooperate with you in this Gestapo-like tactic in dealing with a saint (Just who do you think you are?!?!?), there is no telling what kind of damage you may have caused, not only to Daniel Chu himself, but to all the dear saints who were in that meeting with him and heard that absolutely harmless announcement which only expressed a genuine care and concern for the spiritual well-being of all the local saints and who might have heard about what you have done to Daniel after you did it. Actually, as will be proven by the third, fourth, and fifth actions of yours given in points (III, IV, and V.) below, you only have a mind to carry out the desires, activities, and goals of the “ministry” at any and all cost without any regard whatsoever either to the circumstances, condition, or feelings of the individual local saints or to any possible detriment of the Church in Rosemead as a whole. The real reason why you wanted to “deal with Daniel Chu” for making that announcement was because he made a provision in addition to the “ministry” meeting in Anaheim so that the Rosemead saints who, for whatever reason, could not go to the Anaheim meeting on such short notice, could have a meeting and not feel left out or abandoned. Actually, between the two of you, he was the one who exercised the real wisdom and had the proper heart for the local saints. (Solomon knew you should not divide the baby and the mother had the proper heart to not divide the baby.) If Daniel were to have made that announcement according to your desire, he would have had to announce: “Tomorrow morning’s Lord’s day morning meeting of the Church in Rosemead is cancelled because ‘the ministry’ has called a combined ministry meeting down in Anaheim. (Period!)” All of this is clearly proven in the points below.
III. Ten minutes after the first phone call mentioned in point II.) above, which resulted in a failed attempt on your part to get David Wang to cooperate in immediately “dealing with Daniel Chu)”, you called David Wang back again. This second phone call was an attempt on your part to put pressure on David to deal with the meeting that Daniel Chu mentioned in his announcement in Abel Chu’s house that was to be for the saints in the Church in Rosemead who would be unable, for whatever reason, to go the “ministry” meeting that had suddenly been called down in Anaheim on such short notice. In this second phone conversation you said that you and John Kwan felt this way: that the gate to the property of the Church in Rosemead should be locked on that Lord’s Day morning and that a sign should be posted on the gate telling the saints to go to Anaheim. David told you in very strong terms that he absolutely did not agree with your “so-called” feeling. Furthermore, he not only told you that he disagreed, but he also gave you two very good, proper, and valid reasons for his disagreement.
A.) The first reason he gave was that there was no way for him to contact all the saints to let them know in advance that there would definitely be no meeting in Rosemead. Hence, without notice, many of the saints, regardless of their coming and reading the posted sign would not be prepared to go to Anaheim and would thus be turned away because of the locked meeting hall gate.
B.) The second reason was that according to his past experience, it doesn’t matter what kind of meeting there is in Anaheim, people will still come to their locality for the Lord’s Day morning meeting.

After David gave you these reasons, once again your tone changed and you again became obnoxiously persistent. It was here at this juncture that you unfurled your true colors. You said that if we were still going to have the meeting here in Rosemead after knowing that there was a “ministry” meeting in Anaheim, then we were not “one with ‘the ministry’”. Hence, the real reason for attempting to deal with Daniel Chu and for attempting to lock the gate to the meeting hall of the Church in Rosemead came out. Both were simply attempts on your part to stamp out what you perceived to be opposition to being “one with ‘the ministry’”. Thus, the locking of the gate was a ruse used by you, not only to prevent the saints from meeting in the meeting hall, which in and of itself is a very shameful deed on your part, but also to apply some degree of pressure to force them to go down to Anaheim. If you did not have the impure ulterior motive of applying this pressure to make them go to Anaheim, you would have no doubt acted in the same pure way toward the 120 adult saints (who came to the Rosemead meeting hall and remained there for the meeting even after finding out that there was a combined “ministry” meeting down in Anaheim) as Daniel Chu and David Wang did. As was stated above, this clearly reveals that you only have a heart and a mind to carry out the desires, activities, and goals of “the ministry” at any and all cost without any regard whatsoever either to the circumstances, condition, or feeling of the individual local saints or to any possible detriment of the Church in Rosemead as a whole.
Even though your argument with the saints who reprimanded you in the November 1, 1987 Lord’s Day morning meeting for your callousness was that you never really did do it, yet we must point out to you and to anyone else who might read this letter, that your attitude was strongly to do it until you were met with even greater opposition by brothers who genuinely had a heart to take care of the local saints. Only then did you relent, (not “repent!”) and back off from your improper and unkind intentions. If there had happened to be no one there to hinder or interfere with what you had in mind to do, you no doubt would have locked that gate.
IV.) You turned the Lord’s Day morning meeting into a forum and platform from which you could further the work, activities and goals of “the ministry” of another extra-local individual which has lately been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies (where are the 1016 who were saved and baptized in the Chinese-speaking “gospel blitz” in the San Gabriel Valley??? And where are the > 200 people that he boldly stated in the 1987 winter training were “solidly added to the church” in the San Gabriel Valley, as a result of that “blitz”???), rather than the genuine spiritual feeding that he used to give so richly. These matters became the content of the Lord’s Day morning meetings rather than the opening of God’s rich Word for the nurture, admonition, and building up of the saints. In fact, in one of the Lord’s day morning meetings of the Church in Rosemead where you were the main and only speaker, you stated clearly and vehemently that “This big meeting (i. e. this Lord’s day morning meeting here in the meeting hall of the church in Rosemead) is to get rid of the big meeting (i.e. it is to get rid of every Lord’s Day morning meeting here in the meeting hall of the Church in Rosemead)!” Moreover, in another Lord’s Day morning meeting of the Church in Rosemead (October 18, 1987), while the saints were telling you to sit down and to stop taking “the chief seat” among them as exhibited in the way you were chiding with them and upbraiding them, you had said: “This is a ‘ministry meeting’!” This kind of arrogant talk and belligerent attitude toward the saints in Rosemead after months of nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, lies, and even grave abuses of their meeting hall facilities during the previously mentioned gospel “blitz” from those who claim to represent “the ministry”, plus the knowledge of what you did in the matter of Donald Hardy, were the chief reasons why the majority of them reacted to you in the extremely negative way they did. That such a person as yourself with such a terribly presumptuous attitude would be sent into our midst by “the ministry” absolutely does not speak well of “the ministry” at all. Hence, after you exclaimed, “This is a ‘ministry’ meeting!”, you were even forced to sit down by some of the younger brothers.
V.) You contributed to the running up of a major part of the Church in Rosemead’s October phone bill (to the point where it was over $700) with no intention whatsoever of paying for the phone calls that you made. Only when it was pointed out to you by the Board of Trustees of the Church in Rosemead did you “make amends” by paying what you righteously owed. Even then, as you as you were making payment to one of the brothers who pointed out your “breach”, you had the audacity to insist to him that the calls you made (the majority of which were to Taiwan and other long distance places) were “church business”, when David Wang, who was an elder of the Church in Rosemead during the above-mentioned period, knew nothing of the calls that you made. Not only so, this occurred when the giving of the saints had fallen below the level sufficient even to take care of its normal financial obligations (which, incidentally, was the result of the gradually increasing negative response to the “ministry” activities that were being carried out among us at that time and during the previous months). Thus, once again, we have another clear exhibition of your lack of concern and your complete disregard for the well-being of the Church in Rosemead.
With respect to your attitude, which is clearly evident by all the above listed deeds and actions, it has simply reflected your position as an insensitive, hardhearted, stiff-necked, hardened, deceived, and deceitful “co-worker” to a possibly well-intentioned extra-local individual rather than one who genuinely cares for and seeks the welfare of the local brothers and sisters meeting here as the Church in the city of Rosemead. You have made it absolutely clear that your priority is the goals and activities of this extra-local individual without any regard to the feelings of the majority of the local brethren and the local situation here in the Church in Rosemead. The clearest and best example of this is that in spite of the strong vocal objections to you and your presence here in the Church in Rosemead which was expressed by the majority of the local brethren in two of our regularly scheduled Lord’s Day morning meetings (October 18, 1987 and November 1, 1987), you still have not departed from the Church in Rosemead as you told the saints you were going to do in their November 1, 1987 meeting in response to their vehemently expressed desire and request. Moreover, your failure to depart as requested by this majority has brought about the division that is among us today.
In the light of all that has been stated above, and after patiently waiting for six months for you to voluntarily remove yourself as you had said you were going to do, we, the undersigned brothers in the church in Rosemead, hereby inform you that you are no longer permitted to use the facilities of the Church in Rosemead for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, according to the authority vested in us, and based on all of the damage having been wrought and still being wrought on the Church in Rosemead by you and your continued presence here, commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the Church in Rosemead. Should you not comply with this directive, we will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted.

The Board of Trustees of
the Church in Rosemead

David C. Wang, President
Michael T. Dwyer, Secretary
Abel A. Chu, Treasurer
Edward Y. Michioka, Asst. Treasurer
"
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 11:33 AM   #14
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I realize there may be ones reading these thread who may be offended of my inclusion of these letters by Bill Mallon and by the Church in Rosemead's Board of Directors. Point is when Witness Lee referred to these letters in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he did not do so according to truth and reality, but according to his preferences. As result what was spoken in the book comes across as skewed. The letter's entire text are needed in order to read the letter in context.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 01:49 PM   #15
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I realize there may be ones reading these thread who may be offended of my inclusion of these letters by Bill Mallon and by the Church in Rosemead's Board of Directors. Point is when Witness Lee referred to these letters in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he did not do so according to truth and reality, but according to his preferences. As result what was spoken in the book comes across as skewed. The letter's entire text are needed in order to read the letter in context.
Actually, analyzing what Lee did with the letters is not about "truth and reality" v "preferences" but about false statements justified by taking snippets of these letters out of context. The whole idea that either writing had to be about "truth and reality" in the sense that Lee and the LRC use those terms is to allow truth to be ignored, even obliterated, under the guise of some "spiritual" concept that allows truth to become falsehood and falsehood become truth due to some Biblical construct. The Bible does not condone a lie under any guise. A lie is a lie. And The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is the bearing of a false witness against men who never had a rebellious thought or action. That is not only not condoned by any construct of scripture, but entirely forbidden.

TFOTPR is a false witness in contradiction of the most basic righteousness of God that was demanded of men.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 03:59 PM   #16
Thankful Jane
Member
 
Thankful Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 298
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Actually, analyzing what Lee did with the letters is not about "truth and reality" v "preferences" but about false statements justified by taking snippets of these letters out of context. The whole idea that either writing had to be about "truth and reality" in the sense that Lee and the LRC use those terms is to allow truth to be ignored, even obliterated, under the guise of some "spiritual" concept that allows truth to become falsehood and falsehood become truth due to some Biblical construct. The Bible does not condone a lie under any guise. A lie is a lie. And The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is the bearing of a false witness against men who never had a rebellious thought or action. That is not only not condoned by any construct of scripture, but entirely forbidden.

TFOTPR is a false witness in contradiction of the most basic righteousness of God that was demanded of men.
Well said, OBW.

Thou shalt not bear false witness means exactly what it says. Those who bear false witness are of the devil. No amount of spiritual lingo can change that fact.
Thankful Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 06:29 PM   #17
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Actually, analyzing what Lee did with the letters is not about "truth and reality" v "preferences" but about false statements justified by taking snippets of these letters out of context. The whole idea that either writing had to be about "truth and reality" in the sense that Lee and the LRC use those terms is to allow truth to be ignored, even obliterated, under the guise of some "spiritual" concept that allows truth to become falsehood and falsehood become truth due to some Biblical construct. The Bible does not condone a lie under any guise. A lie is a lie. And The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is the bearing of a false witness against men who never had a rebellious thought or action. That is not only not condoned by any construct of scripture, but entirely forbidden.

TFOTPR is a false witness in contradiction of the most basic righteousness of God that was demanded of men.
OBW, I was not planning to speak this word so soon. My reference to "truth and reality" stems from Watchman Nee's word What Lies Are. Keep in mind this is not just Watchman Nee's ministry speaking this, it is what the Bible says.

"A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers."
Proverbs 6:19

"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."

Watchman Nee's Collected Works Volume 50

If you read the quoted text, this was and still is the case with The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. I have underlined the applicable portions that relate to the book. Where there was facts in Witness Lee's speaking, it was still according to his likes and his dislikes which Watchman Nee writes is a lie.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 06:42 PM   #18
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane View Post

Thou shalt not bear false witness means exactly what it says. Those who bear false witness are of the devil. No amount of spiritual lingo can change that fact.
Thankful Jane, simple unbelievable and I'll tell you why. In an email correspondence between a brother and a LSM co-worker, the co-worker's response to the brother was, " As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago."
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 05:32 AM   #19
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
OBW, I was not planning to speak this word so soon. My reference to "truth and reality" stems from Watchman Nee's word What Lies Are. Keep in mind this is not just Watchman Nee's ministry speaking this, it is what the Bible says.

"A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers."
Proverbs 6:19

"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."

Watchman Nee's Collected Works Volume 50

If you read the quoted text, this was and still is the case with The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. I have underlined the applicable portions that relate to the book. Where there was facts in Witness Lee's speaking, it was still according to his likes and his dislikes which Watchman Nee writes is a lie.
While I understand and agree (mostly) with what Nee has said, I find that this is a kind of way to ignore the plain meaning of "you should not bear false witness" and obfuscate it with something else. Nee may have intended that this be an add-on to the basic. But it is too full of vague rules. If I withhold something, it is a lie. But what if it is simply an opinion? What if it is not my place to comment?

The withholding of a fact, opinion, etc., is not simply a lie where the whole "truth" serves no meaningful purpose, especially where it merely inflames emotions or causes grief, embarrassment, etc.

It may or may not be a lie to withhold knowledge. If a court is seeking facts and you withhold the truth to the detriment of the accused, then you have lied. But if you merely withhold your opinion, the only thing you have withheld is, well, your opinion. If you are asked to provide your opinion, then your opinion to withhold some or all of your opinion is your legitimate option.

But when we look at the things upon which this thread is based — the fabrications of TFOTPR — there is no withholding. Instead, there are facts that have been misrepresented in a manner that causes what is said to be a lie. It may be true that a particular phrase was actually said by John or Bill, but outside of its context it appears to say something different from what was actually said. That is to misrepresent and is therefore a lie.

This whole thing about preferences is a vague thing. I can argue that there is nothing about God that is my natural preference, therefore if I am taking a position for God (by being for a ministry) then it must be against my natural preference. Then it must not be a lie. But that position is itself a lie. False witness is to make a statement about someone that is not true. If I use their words to cause them to seem to say something that they actually did not say, then I have lied. There is no issue of preferences.

For a ministry of "life" there is the constant layering on of rules and regulations. And those rules and regulations do not agree completely with the simple command of God, therefore they negate the command of God. Unlike Lee, I do not necessarily accuse him of willfully being duplicitous with this teaching. But once you are deep into analyzing your preferences, it is too easy to let that override the simple "it is a lie." If it is a false statement, it is irrelevant whether it is or is not your preference.

I'm not sure that Nee was so wise to come up with more ways to dice the "false witness" onion. If you have caused something not true to be believed about someone else, then you have lied. Whether it was or was not your preference is irrelevant. And Lee drove a Mack truck through the opening that Nee provided.

We really should reconsider whether basing any of our morality, theology, etc., on either Lee or Nee is really valuable. Both provide loopholes to the plain word of God. The only real difference is that Lee used the loopholes while Nee did not (that we know of).
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 06:37 AM   #20
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
"A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers."
Proverbs 6:19

"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."
I think when you read this you have to keep the context of the words "false witness". Although witness can be a very general term, it is also quite specific to examples as cited in this thread about WL's letter. There are many ways to make the "witness" or in this case letter/publication by WL "false". The context is also to "spread strife among brothers". The publication by WL is by definition spreading this word among brothers, therefore it is held to a much higher standard than everyday speech.

On a daily basis it is impossible to always speak in a complete manner that does not leave anything out. But, when you are creating a publication that is a witness and which you know will spread strife among brothers then the standard is much higher and you must speak in a complete manner. So, for example, in this case there were things that were left out that would have weakened, or harmed WL case. According to WN to leave them out is to lie and to be a false witness. (Did WN just call WL "a false witness"?)

Also, if I am speaking to my wife I can safely assume that many things I leave out are already understood by her because of previous conversations. But, when you publish something you cannot make that assumption as you would have no idea who is your reader. Therefore the standard for being complete is of necessity much higher.

So, in my opinion, this case is a clear case of willful deception by WL, let the Lord judge.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 09:08 AM   #21
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I have ignored the "spreading strife among brothers" portion because that is such a subjective thing. A lie can spread strife. The truth can spread strife. And avoiding saying something true that would spread strife is to withhold the truth. In some ways, Nee's formula is overly legalistic and is potentially circular. I sense that if it is my place to speak, then I must be truthful. But I do not need to say things that are not beneficial even if true. And I don't need to refrain from telling the truth just because there will be strife, although that might be a consideration.

Using Nee's "preferences, no strife, etc." rules provides a platform to ignore the clear rule and substitute one that can be manipulated. And it removes the need for wisdom and guidance. "Just follow this formula."

It takes wisdom to know when to speak or refrain from speaking. Preferences can be an issue. But they can also be irrelevant although present. But "do not bear false witness" cannot be ignored because of some overlay of "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo spoken by some guy that people think was so spiritual.

And to be a little more blunt, I don't think that referring to either Lee or Nee to discuss the veracity of TFOTPR is meaningful. They may or may not speak what is actually true. But it is such a crap-shoot to stake your decision on them that I just wouldn't do it. Just refer to the Bible. The 10 commandments are clear. "Preferences" and "strife" provide ways to avoid the commandment. Just let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no."

And TFOTPR fails the "don't bear false witness" test. No need to look further. Doesn't matter what Nee or Lee says about what is true or whether Deputy Authority has an out. A lie is a lie. And TFOTPR is a collection of lies. Period. No weasel room.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 09:20 AM   #22
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
But when we look at the things upon which this thread is based — the fabrications of TFOTPR — there is no withholding. Instead, there are facts that have been misrepresented in a manner that causes what is said to be a lie. It may be true that a particular phrase was actually said by John or Bill, but outside of its context it appears to say something different from what was actually said. That is to misrepresent and is therefore a lie.
With Bill Mallon's letter to Witness Lee and with the Church in Rosemead's letter Francis Ball, the core of those letters were withheld. Through withholding of the core points; Bill's numerated concerns and the Church in Rosemead's reasons for dismissing Francis, the whole context is changed. How the saints viewed the Church in Rosemead and how the Mallon's weren't received is based upon crucial information being withheld. As a result, yes there was misrepresentation.
Sure saints like the Mallon's may have wanted to go on in the recovery. How could they or anyone else in their position, when no one is willing to receive them based on what was said in this publication?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 12:32 AM   #23
rayliotta
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 602
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
I'm not sure that Nee was so wise to come up with more ways to dice the "false witness" onion. If you have caused something not true to be believed about someone else, then you have lied. Whether it was or was not your preference is irrelevant. And Lee drove a Mack truck through the opening that Nee provided.
Mike, I'm confused as to what "opening" you think Nee has provided here, it seems to me that he was presenting a very strict standard as to what it means to be "truthful". A standard that Lee clearly disregarded when he withheld the context of these letters and thereby misrepresented Mallon, et al.
rayliotta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:37 AM   #24
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
Mike, I'm confused as to what "opening" you think Nee has provided here, it seems to me that he was presenting a very strict standard as to what it means to be "truthful". A standard that Lee clearly disregarded when he withheld the context of these letters and thereby misrepresented Mallon, et al.
When WL was asked about how his ways were different than those presented in WN's book TNCCL, WL replied to the effect, "You are questioning me! I was there!"

Once again, WN was presenting "very strict standards," which WL was obviously violating, yet all the time trying to impress us with how "one" he was with WN.

I too am not understanding OBW's statement, "And Lee drove a Mack truck through the opening that Nee provided." Care to reword that comment?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:47 AM   #25
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
Mike, I'm confused as to what "opening" you think Nee has provided here, it seems to me that he was presenting a very strict standard as to what it means to be "truthful". A standard that Lee clearly disregarded when he withheld the context of these letters and thereby misrepresented Mallon, et al.
I disagree. I believe that Nee provided a philosophical construct based on some kind of asceticism or mysticism that incorrectly draws lines between the mind and the emotions. Between the emotions and truth. Between why I say it and what I say. The result is a construct in which truth is defined by things that have nothing to do with truthfulness, and lies by opposite things again having nothing to do with truthfulness.

Here is Nee's passage chopped up and analyzed (at some level).

Quote:
We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying.
Only if the effect of what is said is to say or imply something untrue. The fact that I have an issue and it only relates to part of the story does not make that focus a lie. Unless it is spoken in a manner that speaks or implies something false. This is a misdirection to something that is not about the truthfulness of the saying.

Quote:
Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them.
Profitable is not the same thing as truthful or untruthful.

Quote:
Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying.
The fact that something hurts, damages, or brings loss to others does not make it a lie. It may be that failing to hurt, damage or bring loss to others is to lie. Depends on the facts and circumstances. There are reasons not to hurt, damage or bring loss. But it is not simply about telling lies.

Quote:
Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes.
This is a false dichotomy. What I like or dislike may be in line with the truth. To focus on whether it is a like or dislike is to ignore what is true or false. It is a misdirection.

Quote:
Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying.
Another false dichotomy. In fact, there is not necessarily any tension between like, dislike, and emotions and truth and reality. There may be. But it is not definitional. This little passage claims that the two are incompatible.

Baloney.

Quote:
Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God.
Finally, a word on the subject that is actually on the subject!

Quote:
We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God.
This is another misdirection. We should always speak according to our feeling. I have the feeling to speak on this subject. Or I do not. Speaking according to my feeling does not make it a lie. That is nonsense. My feelings are not simply in opposition to facts and truth. This is some kind of mysticism or asceticism in which the mind and emotions are divorced from one another and from our fellowship with God. This is not healthy spiritual teaching.

Together, all of these misdirections, false dichotomies, etc., create a different standard than "false witness." Something besides the truthfulness of what John or Bill said is used to discredit them. And the same nonsense is used to justify the lies that are told about them in the process. Since it is no longer about "false witness" but emotions, preferences, feelings, likes and dislikes, the truth has been sidelined.

Like the new thread on Doublespeak, this is a form of doublespeak. I doubt that Nee was thinking in this way when he wrote those things. But what he did was effectively negate one of the 10 commandments by providing and alternate and incorrect way to figure it out. It may seem to be more stringent. But it is also more forgiving. If I speak from my emotions then I have lied. If I do not it is the truth. It it is my preference, it is a lie. If not, it is the truth. He didn't directly say it. But it is too easy to arrive at it without twisting the words.

And Lee abused it without violating it.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 06:15 AM   #26
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
With Bill Mallon's letter to Witness Lee and with the Church in Rosemead's letter Francis Ball, the core of those letters were withheld. Through withholding of the core points; Bill's numerated concerns and the Church in Rosemead's reasons for dismissing Francis, the whole context is changed. How the saints viewed the Church in Rosemead and how the Mallon's weren't received is based upon crucial information being withheld. As a result, yes there was misrepresentation.
Sure saints like the Mallon's may have wanted to go on in the recovery. How could they or anyone else in their position, when no one is willing to receive them based on what was said in this publication?
From my own experience, I first heard of the Rosemead incident in while I was in Taipei. I did not know any saints in Rosemead so it was not something I felt personally involved in. But that church was truly vilified from what I heard. So it is really an eye opener to see the other side of the story.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 06:29 AM   #27
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
Mike, I'm confused as to what "opening" you think Nee has provided here, it seems to me that he was presenting a very strict standard as to what it means to be "truthful". A standard that Lee clearly disregarded when he withheld the context of these letters and thereby misrepresented Mallon, et al.
I also agree with Mike. The Bible refers to "a false witness" that "spreads discord" this is the effect of your speech. WN gets into a lot of discussion on motivation and creates a lot of extra Biblical criteria that would be impossible to keep, as well as super spiritual baloney.

For example, this post is surely not "complete", no doubt anyone could take this post and find that I had left something out, does that make it a lie? Second, surely I and others post based on things that we feel strongly about, and we don't post about things that we don't care about. Does that make it a lie? That would be absurd. Third, am I to believe that WL and his cronies were acting in this super spiritual way, not speaking according to their likes and dislikes, yada yada yada. We know that is a bunch of super spiritual baloney.

Liars like things complicated, hence the 10 page legal documents in tiny font written in arcane legalese. The Bible makes this very simple: "false witness". Yes, there are many ways that something can be made false, but in the end you judge by whether the result is false. WN goes into the many ways but pretends they are the be all, instead of pointing out that the finished product is what determines that it is a lie. 2nd, "spread strife". Without a doubt every word out of our mouth has the potential to do this and surely we will be held accountable for every word that we speak. However, if I spoke a word privately to my wife not intended for any other ears and someone was eavesdropping and then used what they heard (which hopefully they misunderstood since it wasn't intended for their ears) to spread strife, then I would be held less accountable, perhaps not even responsible for this at all. On the other hand if I publish a book as a response and explanation of the JI fiasco pretending that this book was thoroughly researched, then I will be held to the highest standard of accountability.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 07:46 AM   #28
Thankful Jane
Member
 
Thankful Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 298
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I agree that all the twists and turns of explanation in Nee’s words can be misleading and can be misused, as we’ve seen happen. The instruction God gave us is simple and the Bible states it plainly.

This thread has caused me to think about something I have not really focused on before: the idea of bearing false witness includes more than just telling a lie. Here is why: Bearing false witness is lying that involves another person. For example if I say that I have never eaten a banana, when the truth is that I have eaten many bananas, I have told a lie. That lie, however, isn’t about another person. (I suppose you could say that I have borne false witness against myself ). But, if someone tells others, or leads others to believe, that I did something which I did not do, they have borne false witness against me and have damaged me to one degree or another (depending on who they told and what they claim I did.) I think it is significant that the commandment says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” In other words, this commandment specifically speaks about action against another person.

The false witness borne against brothers like Bill M. and John I. in Lee’s Fermentation of the Present Rebellion stills stands in print after twenty plus years. There is no printed retraction or correction in existence, even though untruths have been pointed out to the publishers. I think that if those who bore false witness (who are still alive) were to see in God’s light how serious their sin was, they would hit the press today and correct their false witness, hoping to get it published before their biological clocks stop ticking.

Instead, those involved in the publication of the The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion are men who today proclaim they are eating the tree of life and walking in the light of the New Jerusalem. The Bible, however, says:
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Rev. 22:14-15)
I am certain the day will come that any false words we have witnessed against others will be retracted. None of them will be standing by the time of the New Jerusalem. No believer will escape this eventuality. I pray that God will help me live in His light today and that I will do any, and all, needed repenting and retracting in this life, especially in my relationships with others. I also continue to pray that the brothers who bore false witness in this evil publication will do likewise.

Thankful Jane
Thankful Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 11:36 AM   #29
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane View Post
The false witness borne against brothers like Bill M. and John I. in Lee’s Fermentation of the Present Rebellion stills stands in print after twenty plus years. There is no printed retraction or correction in existence, even though untruths have been pointed out to the publishers. I think that if those who bore false witness (who are still alive) were to see in God’s light how serious their sin was, they would hit the press today and correct their false witness, hoping to get it published before their biological clocks stop ticking.

Instead, those involved in the publication of the The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion are men who today proclaim they are eating the tree of life and walking in the light of the New Jerusalem. The Bible, however, says:
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Rev. 22:14-15)
I am certain the day will come that any false words we have witnessed against others will be retracted. None of them will be standing by the time of the New Jerusalem. No believer will escape this eventuality. I pray that God will help me live in His light today and that I will do any, and all, needed repenting and retracting in this life, especially in my relationships with others. I also continue to pray that the brothers who bore false witness in this evil publication will do likewise.

Thankful Jane
Amen to your last paragraph Thankful Jane. I must express exasperation over your first paragraph. Bring up false witness was borne against these brothers to an elder or elders, the response you'll get and at least I have; is perceived wrongdoings. Let's take one word used in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion at least 8 times, conspiracy. That's one example. However those were Witness Lee's words and he's with the Lord. In your final sentence you said, "I also continue to pray that the brothers who bore false witness in this evil publication will do likewise." That indicates those bearing false witness are still among us. Exactly! That and having several brothers whom the book was directed towards are also still among us lies my purpose for this thread.
Many feel these brothers who were maligned in this book were ones who reacted to the turmoil by responding.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 12:54 PM   #30
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,962
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Does anybody know how to get in touch with Bill Mallon? I owe a debt of gratitude to that man.
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:14 PM   #31
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Does anybody know how to get in touch with Bill Mallon? I owe a debt of gratitude to that man.
Steve Isitt would know.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:20 PM   #32
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I had passed on to zeek an email address I had.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 10:02 PM   #33
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Witness Lee on John So and John So's Reponse

"John So first became critical during his visit to Taipei in October 1986, only one and a half months after the start of the first term of the full-time training. In that visit John stayed in Taipei for ten days. During his stay he said that what the training did in the way of baptizing people could be done in Taipei, but that I such a thing were done in Germany, the people there would baptize them instead. He also said that what Brother Lee was doing in the training in Taipei was just for Taipei, but that he, John, had to consider the situation on the whole world. He went on to criticize those taking the lead in the training, blaming them for stirring people up, and saying that their reporting to Brother Lee was deliberately misleading, that the true situation was being kept from Brother Lee, and that there were problems with the new way but that this was kept from Brother Lee. The night before he left Taipei, he spoke to a leading elder and a co-worker during dinner and criticized the training again."

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion pages 40-41

Following is John So's account of the same events.

"Brother Lee was talking about the fermenting, you know, I’m beginning to criticize. I’m beginning to oppose the training, etc. Let me read to you [from Fermentation]. “In that visit, John stayed in Taipei for ten days. During his stay, he said what the training did in the way of baptizing people could be done in Taipei, but if such a thing were done in Germany, the people there would baptize them instead. “I did say that believe it or not. I did say that. But I’m saying it out of my own experience in Germany.

When we went door knocking and tried to baptize people in the bathtub, my goodness, two days later a newspaper came out warning everybody that a group of people are going about door knocking and are going to put you in the bathtub in Eve’s costume. Eve’s costume—that means with nothing on. And warning the public to be careful about those people who are going about and going to dump you with no clothes on in the bathtub. I’m glad they couldn’t identify us. My goodness, if they could identify us, that’s their baptizing us, and this says they’re baptizing us. I explain to the brothers and sisters, I said, “How many times do you take a bath with clothes on? Take a shower with clothes on?” Of course, do you expect this unbeliever—you talk about—“Oh, I’m going to baptize you in the bathtub.”—do you expect them to think right away they’re going in there with their clothes on.? Immediately, they say, “What are you going to do with me there?” Okay.

The Lord knows, I’m not criticizing. We already had baptized people in the bathtub 20 years ago when we were in Germany. When I went to Germany we had no place to baptize people—the best place is to baptize them in the bathtub. I went to East Germany and that was before the new way came, we baptized five people in the bathtub. East Germany. I am not against baptizing people in the bathtub. Don’t think I am. Okay. Then here is the point. He also says, “John So also said that what brother Lee was doing in the training in Taipei was just for Taipei, but that he (John So) had to consider the situation on the whole world.” My goodness. You think I am stupid to say that. If you get into the context what I’m trying to tell our dear brother, young brother Jim Batten, is that this may work in Taipei, but we have to consider the situation of each part of the earth, of the world, may not be the same. Suppose you go to a Moslem country, Saudi Arabia, you go door knocking, you might lose your head! That’s what I mean. But you see, if you manipulate just one word, my goodness, you will think, “My, John So thought Witness Lee is just caring for that little Taipei, but John So cares for the whole world.”

And that is printed here. Yeah, it is fermenting you see. Fermenting John So is opposing the training. I’m sorry, brother, but if this is a testimony against me, I think they will have to deal with it before the Lord. It’s printed, sent to the whole world, Okay. It is sent to the whole world.
"

John So's Testimony March 1990- Pages 6-7
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:31 AM   #34
rayliotta
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 602
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."

Watchman Nee's Collected Works Volume 50
I'm not saying I agree with this quote from Nee. I think it's a good example of him presenting a sophisticated opinion on something, and then passing it off as some kind of super-spiritual precept (not sure if that's really how he meant to pass it off, or just the way I learned to treat it as a kid).

But whether you agree with him or not, whether you think he's being more "philisophical" or more "biblical", is really beside the point. Because he's clearly condemning the kind of "playing fast and loose with the facts" that is exemplified in these defamatory publications.

Consider this excerpt: "Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others."

The context of Bill Mallon's letter was withheld. "Things that are profitable to [Witness Lee's perceived] enemies" -- you know, Mallon's expressions of concern, regret, even solidarity with Witness Lee -- were entirely withheld, in favor of "things that hurt, damage, or bring loss" to Mallon. Surely Nee would have considered TFOTPR as an example of what he was describing here?

Personally I don't think Lee was making use of any kind of "loophole", perceived or otherwise, from Watchman Nee. I think he was just doing whatever the hell he wanted, and if anyone dared ask him about Nee's teachings, in light of his recent actions, his response was essentially, Who do you think you are, you insolent slob?
rayliotta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 04:43 AM   #35
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
I'm not saying I agree with this quote from Nee. I think it's a good example of him presenting a sophisticated opinion on something, and then passing it off as some kind of super-spiritual precept (not sure if that's really how he meant to pass it off, or just the way I learned to treat it as a kid).

But whether you agree with him or not, whether you think he's being more "philisophical" or more "biblical", is really beside the point. Because he's clearly condemning the kind of "playing fast and loose with the facts" that is exemplified in these defamatory publications.

Consider this excerpt: "Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others."

The context of Bill Mallon's letter was withheld. "Things that are profitable to [Witness Lee's perceived] enemies" -- you know, Mallon's expressions of concern, regret, even solidarity with Witness Lee -- were entirely withheld, in favor of "things that hurt, damage, or bring loss" to Mallon. Surely Nee would have considered TFOTPR as an example of what he was describing here?

Personally I don't think Lee was making use of any kind of "loophole", perceived or otherwise, from Watchman Nee. I think he was just doing whatever the hell he wanted, and if anyone dared ask him about Nee's teachings, in light of his recent actions, his response was essentially, Who do you think you are, you insolent slob?
I think you have the basic thesis for a great book that would be very profitable to Christians everywhere. You could use WN's words and WL's actions to demonstrate all the various ways that someone can make a false witness and spread strife. This would profit the body because "we are not ignorant of Satan's devices".
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 06:21 AM   #36
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
I'm not saying I agree with this quote from Nee.

But whether you agree with him or not, whether you think he's being more "philisophical" or more "biblical", is really beside the point. Because he's clearly condemning the kind of "playing fast and loose with the facts" that is exemplified in these defamatory publications.
I agree with rayliotta's conclusion.

WN's exposition (first posted by Terry in post #17) was an attempt to close loopholes in the way people speak, not open loopholes big enough for "Lee to drive a Mack truck through." Is WN the first minister on record who began to detail how we humans can use "white lies" and the like to escape from telling the truth. I just don't see how WN's teaching in any way negates the command, "thou shalt not bear false witness," by replacing the Lord's word with some psychological construct.

Now if MikeH finds fault with the whole teaching on the distinctions of "mind, emotion, will," shouldn't that be be a part of another discussion? Introducing these topics has derailed the current discussion. Contrary to what MikeH has said, I see this as just one more serious instance where WL has seriously violated the teachings, not only of the mentor he claims to closely adhere to, but more importantly the Lord's clear instruction in the Bible.

No amount of rational teaching, least of all WN's quoted teaching, can justify what was recorded in the book Fermentation ... That is about as clear a case of "bearing false witness against your neighbor" as has ever occurred in the annals of history! What hypocrisy! And to think this was done by the same folks who appealed for relief from the US Supreme Court for some perceived injustice by another publisher!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 06:46 AM   #37
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I agree with rayliotta's conclusion.

WN's exposition (first posted by Terry in post #17) was an attempt to close loopholes in the way people speak, not open loopholes big enough for "Lee to drive a Mack truck through." Is WN the first minister on record who began to detail how we humans can use "white lies" and the like to escape from telling the truth. I just don't see how WN's teaching in any way negates the command, "thou shalt not bear false witness," by replacing the Lord's word with some psychological construct.

Now if MikeH finds fault with the whole teaching on the distinctions of "mind, emotion, will," shouldn't that be be a part of another discussion? Introducing these topics has derailed the current discussion. Contrary to what MikeH has said, I see this as just one more serious instance where WL has seriously violated the teachings, not only of the mentor he claims to closely adhere to, but more importantly the Lord's clear instruction in the Bible.

No amount of rational teaching, least of all WN's quoted teaching, can justify what was recorded in the book Fermentation ... That is about as clear a case of "bearing false witness against your neighbor" as has ever occurred in the annals of history! What hypocrisy! And to think this was done by the same folks who appealed for relief from the US Supreme Court for some perceived injustice by another publisher!
Yes, what WL has done is fully condemned in the Bible as making a false witness that spreads strife. And, yes, WN's teaching surely does condemn WL's actions.

The issue with WN's teaching here, for me, is not that it doesn't condemn WL because it does. Rather, I find it makes the entire discussion far too complicated and thereby intimidates people from discussing it. Read it again, and ask yourself could you come up to this standard? I don't think so. Therefore it opens a huge loophole for the WL cronies to condemn anyone that speaks up "you are speaking based on your likes, your dislikes, etc..." I think that teachings like this in the LRC make it much more difficult to respond to a false witness being spread. Also it allows the purveyors of this falsehood to claim that anyone critical of their writing is speaking according to emotion, whereas they are speaking according to truth, etc. You could argue that these are all lies, but if someone is a liar then they will speak lies. All WN has accomplished is to confuse the issue which is the environment that liars like. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with his teaching other than it is ineffective and counterproductive. In my experience when you are dealing with a false witness you want to simplify and keep things as simple as possible.

So for example, in the Fermentation... book, what are the key concepts? First, what is rebellion? Is it rebellion for a church to reject a ministry? What authority do elders have? Is it rebellion to exercise their authority?

If you introduce enough confusion no one will be interested in untangling the ball of string, hence the response recently by elders that this is in our "distant past" and the desire to just forget the whole thing. Liars understand this and make every effort to create a tangled ball of string out of their lies. If you are going to untangle it you have to simplify and I don't think WN is helpful at doing that.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 07:02 AM   #38
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta View Post
Personally I don't think Lee was making use of any kind of "loophole", perceived or otherwise, from Watchman Nee. I think he was just doing whatever the hell he wanted, and if anyone dared ask him about Nee's teachings, in light of his recent actions, his response was essentially, Who do you think you are, you insolent slob?
Though rayliotta has presented this in "courser" terms than I might use, he is accurate, based on all we now know. Though most of us were not actual witnesses of these events, we do have the accounts and the testimonies of most of the parties involved. We can now read both sides and formulate honest opinions.

I personally believed WL's account of the story, supported by so many "testimonies," which were recorded in Fermentation..., for 15 years. At the time, no brother I knew in the Ohio area, spoke anything different. If they knew better, they were silent about it. Only one opportunistic, and not very well-respected, young worker from the region was even included in the book. In the absence of dissenting opinions, the book was accepted in the GLA as "accurate."

We in the GLA never did have the opportunity to weigh the facts individually. There is a reason that the American judicial system demands a "jury of peers." Common folks like us should be able to discern the facts, without a carte blanche acceptance of one side's version of the story based on the decision of TC in Cleveland, who held to some misguided Chinese principle that, "my father's mistakes are none of my business." That principle, like so many other "human traditions," was used to trump the Biblical mandates concerning "bearing false witness." Using such "principles," WL has continually escaped all culpability. History shows us this pattern of abuse, and subsequent endorsements by regional leaders, allowed WL to continue unchecked from the time of WN's imprisonment until WL's death.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 07:22 AM   #39
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Though rayliotta has presented this in "courser" terms than I might use, he is accurate, based on all we now know. Though most of us were not actual witnesses of these events, we do have the accounts and the testimonies of most of the parties involved. We can now read both sides and formulate honest opinions.

I personally believed WL's account of the story, supported by so many "testimonies," which were recorded in Fermentation..., for 15 years. At the time, no brother I knew in the Ohio area, spoke anything different. If they knew better, they were silent about it. Only one opportunistic, and not very well-respected, young worker from the region was even included in the book. In the absence of dissenting opinions, the book was accepted in the GLA as "accurate."

We in the GLA never did have the opportunity to weigh the facts individually. There is a reason that the American judicial system demands a "jury of peers." Common folks like us should be able to discern the facts, without a carte blanche acceptance of one side's version of the story based on the decision of TC in Cleveland, who held to some misguided Chinese principle that, "my father's mistakes are none of my business." That principle, like so many other "human traditions," was used to trump the Biblical mandates concerning "bearing false witness." Using such "principles," WL has continually escaped all culpability. History shows us this pattern of abuse, and subsequent endorsements by regional leaders, allowed WL to continue unchecked from the time of WN's imprisonment until WL's death.
In my experience I was in Taipei when this took place. It was made abundantly clear to me that even asking for details about what happened would put suspicion on you as being rebellious. We were not allowed to discuss it, we were not allowed to ask saints from the region what was going on, it was very clear that those from Anaheim and the area were terrified to even discuss it and felt that they were under constant surveillance.

To me this is the lesson that I take from this that yes, the Biblical mandate is that we should be able to examine the truth for ourselves and be fully persuaded in our own conscience. Any person or group that tries to prevent you from doing that should be considered extremely suspect (red flashing lights and alarm bells should go off inside your head).
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 09:10 AM   #40
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
In my experience I was in Taipei when this took place. It was made abundantly clear to me that even asking for details about what happened would put suspicion on you as being rebellious. We were not allowed to discuss it, we were not allowed to ask saints from the region what was going on, it was very clear that those from Anaheim and the area were terrified to even discuss it and felt that they were under constant surveillance.

To me this is the lesson that I take from this that yes, the Biblical mandate is that we should be able to examine the truth for ourselves and be fully persuaded in our own conscience. Any person or group that tries to prevent you from doing that should be considered extremely suspect (red flashing lights and alarm bells should go off inside your head).
Thanks for sharing that. No one has come forward with that insider information in specifics.

WL often spoke of inoculating the saints from "poison," and how dangerous and contagious the "poison" was. That alone should have caused "red flashing lights and alarm bells to go off inside my head," but it never did. At most I used to wonder how devoted, consecrated saints could radically change overnight just by being "poisoned." What kind of "poison" could that be? The only point of reference I had was the books and websites (like Jim Moran) written against LSM. To me, those were "lies" and gross distortions, but not "poison."

The real "poison" is not what evil things others can conjure up against you. The real "poison" is for your followers to find out who you really are, and what you have really done. What makes "poison" so "dangerous" to WL and the leaders at LSM is the facts of the truth being made known to the saints. What they fear most is a "light shining in a dark place." It's no wonder that the internet scares them so much.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 10:25 AM   #41
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Ohio,

I understand you points. And I do not disagree when it comes to Nee. He did not try to weasel. And he was not trying to alter. Just clarify.

But the way he did it does throw the discussion off the actual command. If you are worried about your preferences, or whether it hurts someone (and the truth always hurts the evildoer), or whether there are emotions behind it, then you are ignoring the simple fact of are you or are you not bearing false witness.

I would bet that some of those Pharisaical rules that Jesus complained about originated in cases in which the result of some rabbi's ruling was consistent with what the underlying command intended. But the way it was carried forward was abused in such a manner that the command was obliterated.

But I will make one distinction between Nee's teaching and the typical thing that rabbi's would do in their considerations. Nee spoke his piece as a general rule to consider while the rabbi typically is dealing with a question raised, often relating to a specific issue and instance. While it was common to then take the immediate ruling and apply it to seemingly similar cases, the initial statement was too often stated for a particular case. But Nee made a general statement. That doesn't make it simply wrong. But it does remove it from the construct of analyzing a particular set of facts and circumstances and determining whether they fall under "bearing false witness" and into a general situation in which you spend your energies looking at preferences, opinions, emotions, profit, harm, etc. rather than at the veracity of the statement and your ability to state that it is a true statement (rather than hearsay that you are unsure of).

That is a minor mark against the general kind of thing that Nee did. And many Christian teachers do this all the time.

The problem is how it gets applied down the road. And Lee absolutely drove a Mack truck through it, ignoring the actual veracity of his witness (or lack thereof — a little interesting coming from a guy named Witness) and chastising the actions of those he defamed by suggesting that their truth was told due to preferences, emotions, envy, strife, a conspiracy, etc., and therefore not actually truth. So Lee Lied about what they did. And he lied about what they said by contextualizing it. And he lied about the truth of what they said by suggesting that Nee's constructs made their statements lies (despite their veracity).

Of course, I've made it perfectly clear that I don't think that Nee was a very good teacher of Christian theology. But I do not mark him with the intentional kinds of error that I say apply to Lee. Nee's analysis of what might constitute bearing false witness could be applicable. But it might not. It is because he thought of it as simply true that I find fault in Nee. But for Lee, the fault is that he not only thought it was simply true, he was willing to use it to call the truth lies and lies the truth. If Nee had to face the facts Lee was facing, he would have done the righteous thing (or at least we have reasonable evidence that this would be the case). Of course, he would also have done the righteous thing months earlier and cast Philip Lee (or his own son if that had been the case) out of the LSM. In fact, he probably would have taken his own advice and not had his son working in such a position in his ministry.

Despite my misgivings about Nee, Nee and Lee are not anything alike. Nee's position on a blunder would have been to admit it and fix it. Lee's was to deny that it was a blunder and shoot anyone who disagreed.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:02 AM   #42
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
...Point is when Witness Lee referred to these letters in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he did not do so according to truth and reality, but according to his preferences. As result what was spoken in the book comes across as skewed. The letter's entire text are needed in order to read the letter in context.
Omission of pertinent material information is also known as lying.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:29 AM   #43
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default A Response to Joseph Fung

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
No amount of rational teaching, least of all WN's quoted teaching, can justify what was recorded in the book Fermentation ... That is about as clear a case of "bearing false witness against your neighbor" as has ever occurred in the annals of history! What hypocrisy! And to think this was done by the same folks who appealed for relief from the US Supreme Court for some perceived injustice by another publisher!
Well Ohio, if you equate defamation to bearing false witness, Witness Lee claimed the same thing when Joeseph Fung said, "Those around Brother Lee are but busybodies and cheerers. Everything they do has no result."
Witness Lee's response was, "This is a defamation of the brothers."

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion pages 17-18

Who was Joseph referring to and who did Witness Lee claim was being defamed?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:37 AM   #44
NeitherFirstnorLast
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 351
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I have to agree with Mike regarding this contrast between Lee and Nee. Lee seemed incapable of owning up to his own mistakes. Listen even to his last message, delivered in Taipei, wherein he supposedly apologizes to the saints in the LSM church as well as to other Christians outside of it. If you read the English translation of what Lee said, it was something to the effect of. "Many times, we have done things, that were not so right.". Not so right? Does that mean they were wrong? Not necessarily. It could mean they were 'not as right as they could be', 'we're not perfect', or 'I could've done more'.

It was Lee's pride which truly prevented him from owning up to his own mistakes. From genuinely becoming the man of God he may have longed to be.This pride, displayed for all to see when he would rant about his qualifications, the numbers of Bibles he'd read, the sheer number of followers he'd been able to gain, really characterized his entire ministry.

Consider: what is the first thing an unbeliever must know in order to be Saved? That he or she is a damnable Sinner, utterly without hope apart from the Grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Does LSM teach this truth? Not in my experience they don't. Lee taught that if you taught a person to say 'O Lord Jesus' three times, that sealed the deal. That was enough - and that is a lie which flies in the face of scripture. That's not enough at all. Our God judges the heart, not what proceeds from the mouth of man (and thank Him for it!). If a heart isn't taught how utterly depraved it truly is, how then can repentance come?

Saints need to judge the heart as well. Don't be fooled by big words and grand assertions of authority. Judge this man you would hold as a teacher against the only standard given us by God Himself: His Son Jesus Christ.

In the Truth of Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast
NeitherFirstnorLast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 12:00 PM   #45
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Ohio,

I understand you points. And I do not disagree when it comes to Nee. He did not try to weasel. And he was not trying to alter. Just clarify.

But the way he did it does throw the discussion off the actual command. If you are worried about your preferences, or whether it hurts someone (and the truth always hurts the evildoer), or whether there are emotions behind it, then you are ignoring the simple fact of are you or are you not bearing false witness.
After reading his quote again, I still think WN attempted to take the matter of lying a step further, beyond just the plain words. I have come across this countless times -- people change their tone when repeating their version of the story, in order to justify themselves. I have done it myself. This "change in tone" WN would call lying, and rightly so. Technically the person was "honest," by repeating the words said, but actually they were being dishonest by changing the tone and mood of the words said. WN here was just addressing these matters.

I see no possible justification for WL to use WN's teaching here. I know ZNP brought up some good points along this line, in his post #37, concluding ...
Quote:
If you introduce enough confusion no one will be interested in untangling the ball of string, hence the response recently by elders that this is in our "distant past" and the desire to just forget the whole thing. Liars understand this and make every effort to create a tangled ball of string out of their lies. If you are going to untangle it you have to simplify and I don't think WN is helpful at doing that.
Actually, it was the teachings of WL himself that attempted to silence any and all critics. He spoke much during this time about having opinions, the danger of opinions producing Laodicea, and the like. He confronted the naysayers about blowing "cold winds" of doubt. I am sure ZNP remembers that. I have no memory of WN's teaching on Proverbs 6.19 being used.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 12:10 PM   #46
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I had previously posted an excerpt of an email from 9/19/2003 where the LSM co-worker said:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. "

As I was re-reading pdf corresponces 3 from Blended brothers to Titus Chu and three from Titus Chu to Blended brothers, I came across this quote on page 7 from the 6/4/2005 letter sent to Titus Chu from and signed by 21 LSM blended co-workers,

"Accordingly, you have published a book entitled The Oneness and the One Accord and another two volumes entitled Being One with the Ministry to Speak the Healthy Words. Frankly, these books use the spiritual language of the Lord's recovery but add your own kind of understanding of these matters, saying the one accord among the churches is in the receiving of the saints and teaching that the ultimate responsibility of the leadership of any local church is to meet its own local need. This ignores and contradicts all the ministry and fellowship on the oneness of the Body of Christ that was released by Brother Lee as a result of the overemphasis on the autonomy of the churches in the 1987 rebellion."

My point being the date of the email versus the date of the letter. Depending on who is addressing who, is the standard of when to bring up the late 80's Turmoil.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 12:41 PM   #47
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I have come across this countless times -- people change their tone when repeating their version of the story, in order to justify themselves. I have done it myself. This "change in tone" WN would call lying, and rightly so.
This is really a different issue to me than tone. It is about witness. Repeating a version of a story is not a witness. Even repeating it word for word deadpan is not a witness. If you are not a witness, then you are not a witness and to say anything is to risk bearing false witness as you do not know for certain that what you are repeating is true. In American jurisprudence, it is call hearsay.

But the fact that due to my considerations surrounding something my tone changes does not create or destroy veracity. What I say stands on its own. And for this reason, I consider that bringing in preferences, opinions, emotions, even tone, etc., is to ignore the veracity of a statement in favor of something truly irrelevant.

And like profiling, it may be that certain kinds of tone (or whatever) could be an indicator of a fabrication. But as it is not definitionally so, it is not a valid determinant. It might be righteously pointed to as a reason to "raise a red flag" or "put up your guard," but it does not determine veracity. Only the facts do that.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:01 PM   #48
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
If you introduce enough confusion no one will be interested in untangling the ball of string, hence the response recently by elders that this is in our "distant past" and the desire to just forget the whole thing. Liars understand this and make every effort to create a tangled ball of string out of their lies. If you are going to untangle it you have to simplify and I don't think WN is helpful at doing that.
Some quotes that this little passage brings to mind:
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! (Sir Walter Scott)

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. (Franklin D Roosevelt)
But I just found the following that takes the cake:
The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal. (Mark Twain)
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:05 PM   #49
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
After reading his quote again, I still think WN attempted to take the matter of lying a step further, beyond just the plain words. I have come across this countless times -- people change their tone when repeating their version of the story, in order to justify themselves. I have done it myself. This "change in tone" WN would call lying, and rightly so. Technically the person was "honest," by repeating the words said, but actually they were being dishonest by changing the tone and mood of the words said. WN here was just addressing these matters.
There is a science to reading whether a person is lying or not. Changing tone may be a good indicator, but it may just indicate stress. In fact many ways of catching a liar involve upping the stress level. This is why lie detector machines try to get a baseline reading on stress and also why one technique used to beat the machine is to be stressed out when they are trying to get the baseline reading.

So I think WN observations are interesting, accurate, and perhaps instructive if he is educating elders on how to discern a lie, but not as a standard for lying. Also, please note, just because you detect an increased level of stress when questioning someone that is not proof of lying. In the end you can never "prove" lying without assembling the facts.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 03:35 PM   #50
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
This is really a different issue to me than tone. It is about witness. Repeating a version of a story is not a witness. Even repeating it word for word deadpan is not a witness. If you are not a witness, then you are not a witness and to say anything is to risk bearing false witness as you do not know for certain that what you are repeating is true. In American jurisprudence, it is call hearsay.

But the fact that due to my considerations surrounding something my tone changes does not create or destroy veracity. What I say stands on its own. And for this reason, I consider that bringing in preferences, opinions, emotions, even tone, etc., is to ignore the veracity of a statement in favor of something truly irrelevant.

And like profiling, it may be that certain kinds of tone (or whatever) could be an indicator of a fabrication. But as it is not definitionally so, it is not a valid determinant. It might be righteously pointed to as a reason to "raise a red flag" or "put up your guard," but it does not determine veracity. Only the facts do that.
Well ... we beat that one to death and made little progress ...
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 07:37 PM   #51
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Friction with The Office (Phillip Lee) Part A


In the summer of 1986 there was some friction between John So and the ministry office. The friction gradually worsened, and it reached its height at the end of 1986. Prior to this I was not aware of some of the things regarding the friction; consequently, it did not gaim my full attention. My regard for him and trust in him remained the same until July 1988, because I did not consider the matters that I was then aware of and that caused the friction as something crucial.

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion page 40


During the summer of 1986, an arrangement was made between the brothers in Stuttgart and the Living Stream Ministry office to have the German books printed in Irving. At the same time, the Living Stream Ministry also decided to set up a branch office in England. In two letters to me, one dated August 18, 1986 and the other January 11, 1987, he expressed to me his unhappiness with that arrangement.
The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion page 41

Below in John So's response.

Well, the question is this: I was accused here [in the book] of pretending to be one with them. but really against them. Tonight let me say a word. I don’t want to vindicate, but I just like to share at least the way we look at it. Everything has two sides. I’m sorry to say it’s not that I’m pretending, it is because the LSM office really has a double standard. There is a public declaration that the office is only for the business side to print books, to duplicate tapes, to serve the churches to send out on the business side. But to my realization, I began to realize that there is another aspect expected of us. During the visit of these two brothers, I’m sorry—these 5 brothers in Stuttgart, two of them stayed with me in my home—two of them. And these brothers began to somehow fellowship with me concerning how that the office is really brother Philip Lee and that brother Philip Lee is the closest and most intimate co-worker of Witness Lee. And that I need to get into the fellowship and that our brother, Witness Lee, he needs his son. And almost after every meeting in Stuttgart, there was a long-distance call to report everything that is happening to the office. To the office.

I was, in short, expected to do the same. I told the brothers in a very good way—we were not fighting—I said, “Brothers, I’m sorry, in short, I just cannot do that. You have the grace to do it, that’s fine, but I just cannot do that.” I told the brothers maybe some other German brothers, like Jorn Urlenbac could do it. I was told, “No, no, no, you are the right person to do it. I said, “Thank you, but I can’t do it.” This to my realization caused problems. This had become a problem. Looking back, it had become a problem. I didn’t realize it at the time, but as time went by, we had problems. Listen to this, dear saints. When I encouraged the brothers to follow the office and to cooperate with the office 100%, I meant it. And we did. We did. The office wanted us to stop printing books and send all of the camera-ready pages to Irving to be printed and then they will print the book and send it back to us. Which according to our feeling, the Germans are very logical people, you know, it was not logical because we have the whole facilities right there in Stuttgart, right next to it, you know, it’s just like in the kitchen, you knead the dough—after you knead the dough to make the bread—the oven is right there, you pull it out and you bake the bread. But we can knead the dough, but we can’t bake the bread. We have to send the dough, the kneaded dough, somewhere to South Africa, I don’t know where, to America, and then they will bake the bread and send it to us, you know. For a German mind this is a little bit illogical, you know the Germans, right? They are very systematic, they are very logical. We did it, believe it or not, we did it. In fact, at that time, some brothers are slightly irritated. I told them, I said, “brothers, listen. “All the books bears Witness Lee’s name, he is the author. It does not matter where the books are printed.” You may not believe we sent within a year and five months, four thousand, one hundred some pages of camera-ready pages to be printed. We did not get an answer, we did not get at that time one page printed, nothing…nothing…!

I’m not following the chronological order any more or what I’ve written down. Maybe it’s better that way, in fact, brothers, listen, in spite of our hearing nothing from them, the brothers wrote a letter to Philip Lee on March 2, 1987. You see, when I say follow the office I meant what Witness Lee publicly said about the office—I do it 100%. The brothers wrote to Philip Lee himself because Witness Lee says, “Please don’t come to me concerning the books. Concerning the books, you all have to go to my son, Philip Lee.” So they write, “Dear brother Philip: We would like to fellowship with you briefly regarding the future publication of the ministry in European languages here.” You could read this. You could really read this. In spite of sending already at that time so many pages and yet we heard not one word, the brothers called. Nothing happened. No acknowledgment of receipt. We still sent a letter to brother Philip Lee. Let me just read a little bit. Okay we reported to them all our activities, pending until that time, because we were already in the program we want to finish that and then we want to ask them what is next. What should we do next?

In point 5 I would just like to read that. “We are concluding the translation work of the following books which were started earlier and we hope to complete them by the end of April, Life-study of John, Message 1 to 51. Life-study of Hebrews, Message 1 to 69, Life-study of Romans, Message 1 to 31, Life-study of Philippians, Message 1 to 31. We would appreciate your fellowship with us concerning the books we should start working on after this time. If you have the time to see us, we would be happy to meet with you for further fellowship. We hope to hear from you soon.” The brothers are even willing to go all the way to Anaheim to see this brother to coordinate with them concerning the books. No reply. This is written on March 2, 1987 until this very day we did not receive the reply from this person, from the manager of the office. So you cannot say that on one hand I say I am for the ministry office, on the other hand, I am not doing it. But I like to let you know something more is expected of us. Let me come back to this.


John So’s March 1990 Testimony Pages 2-3



I got the shock of my life. I was already shocked, but this thing shocked me a little bit more, okay? I thought I am already quite shocked, but then another shock wave came and I was shocked again. I wrote Witness Lee a letter. Remember, brothers, at that time, the Lord knows, I still respected brother Lee. But I am beginning also to boil. I am not a superman, you know. I am not the first class apostle that cannot shed tears. I wrote him a letter, and this is the letter. I wrote him a five-pages letter: one, two, three, four, and five. Four and a half pages, okay? To explain to him, and I did not expect an answer from him, because I still respected him. At that time, I still thought, maybe, he didn’t know exactly what was going on.

Let me backtrack a little bit before I go on, let me finish this, let me finish this. We can make a movie of this, you know. Forgive me, I have to let out some air, you know. I wrote him the letter. I answered quite a few of his charges. He showed this letter in the video. I didn’t see the video yet, because I don’t think I can stand to see it. But I know that this was shown. Out of five pages our dear brother showed five lines to give picture, to give a wrong picture. A wrong impression: “You see, you see, he changed, he changed. Look, he changed.” Why you just show five lines? I wrote five pages. If you want to show, show all the pages.

Then Witness Lee called me about two months later. This paper was written January 11, 1987. It was written there to him. When Witness Lee called me on the phone. That was the end of February. He said, “John,” Oh, the misunderstandings are so numerous, it is impossible to clear up.” I told brother Lee, “I wrote you this letter just to keep the record straight and that’s it. I don’t expect you to answer me.”

“Yeah, yeah, I knew you would say that, I know you would say that.”

That’s it. I was not going to make any more issue out of that. Something was definitely fermenting. But at that time, it was no longer just fermenting. I don’t know what’s happening. And I don’t know on which side it’s fermenting.



John So’s March 1990 Testimony Pages 14
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 08:26 PM   #52
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Friction with The Office (Phillip Lee) Part B

Witness Lee may not have heard or neglected this next part for whatever reason. John So speaks about it when he gave his testimony in Manila March, 1990.

Our saints were in the training in Taipei. We sent about 25 to 30 young people there. They were the best of our young people. If we are conspiring, we wouldn’t send anybody there. I would send the worst of our young people. Of course, in the church life, everybody is the best, okay? They began to tell our young people [from Stuttgart]—the young people in Taipei--: “Stuttgart stinks like garlic. Don’t go back to Stuttgart.”

Listen, we sent our young people there to Taipei to be trained, not for you to tell them that they stink. Maybe they smell the fermenting there, their own fermenting. I don’t know if fermenting smells or not—I am not an expert, you know. They told our young people, “Don’t go back to Stuttgart. Stuttgart stinks like garlic.” That shocked our young people. That’s worse than my telling Jim Batten, you know that if you baptize people in Germany, they’re going to baptize you. What is worse, tell me? You judge. Na Ning, you challenged me tonight—you judge what is worse?

I never told people Taipei stinks. But they told our young people: “Stuttgart stinks.” Using this word: “stinks”—oh, my goodness. When I heard that, what did they smell when they came.to Stuttgart? The 5 brothers. Maybe they smelled something in Stuttgart, but at least if we stink, please tell me. But the German saints liked the stinking Stuttgart. They probably were “used” to the stink in Stuttgart so they came back. They wanted to come back. So they are disobedient now: “we tell you not to go back, yet you want to go back—you are really this bunch of rebellious people. They are contaminated by John So.”

So they want to go back, they want to go to the training in Irving on the way to stinking Stuttgart. They want to go to Irving training. Fine, you know, go. Even you said we stink, we still let them go to Irving. So the training in Taipei ended on the 15th. These dear young people were so tired out after the training, you know, digging and the full schedule—my goodness—they all lost weight. They want to rest in Anaheim. They made arrangement with the church in Anaheim to take them for hospitality. Al Knoch says, yes, praise the Lord. We’ll take you”. My, my, my. The office found out.

What? Anaheim is going to give hospitality to our young people and they already make plane arrangement to go to Anaheim. Authoritative word came down, “No, you cannot give hospitality to these saints from Europe.” Poor Al Knoch, he had to come there and says, “Sorry dear saints, we cannot give you hospitality.” You know Al Knoch, right? He was so embarrassed. Well, the saints said okay, then we will go straight to Irving. So they change the ticket again. Each time you change, you have to pay fifty dollars each, okay? And these people are not very rich, huh? Like the Filipinos here, right? So they change to go to Irving. Then word came again, “sorry, we cannot take you that early. You should just come one day before the training starts.” And they change again. A 150 dollars altogether each. Then they flew to Irving one day before the training starts.” And when they arrive there, in the office to register they were told, “we are not sure whether you could attend the training…come back tomorrow. By that time our young people are boiling already. You cannot realize, it’s not only fermenting, it’s boiling. It’s really boiling.

You know the Germans, right? You know the Germans. If they boil, they really boil. So they came the next day. “Okay, we’ll let you with a special red tag called the mercy seats, a disciplinary section, right in the back a red section. You have to sit there to show everybody you’re under discipline.” Now they are steaming—from fermenting to boiling to steaming. Do you think they can enjoy the training like that? Sometimes if it’s not the Lord that contains me, I’ll steam up.

One of our leading young brothers there says, “I demand to have an explanation?”

“I don’t know one brother said.” Ray Graver said, “I don’t know who made this arrangement.” What are you doing? Training, or are you playing? Maybe that’s part of the new way, I don’t know. I’ve never heard that before. That’s something new. Then one brother said this, Do you really want to know? Do you really want to know the reason?

“Yes, yes.’

“Ask John So.”

Ask John So? What did I do? And, if it’s really my fault, let me sit there and give me the red tag. What does this young people—these 35 young people—what do they have to do with me? I am not their father, I am not their commander-in-chief. I am not their source. I am not their apostle. Under such circumstances, brothers, tell me who of you have an ear to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches?


John So's Testimony March, 1990 pages 12-13
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 08:07 AM   #53
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Friction with The Office (Phillip Lee) Part B

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
They began to tell our young people [from Stuttgart]—the young people in Taipei--: “Stuttgart stinks like garlic. Don’t go back to Stuttgart.”

They want to rest in Anaheim. They made arrangement with the church in Anaheim to take them for hospitality. Al Knoch says, yes, praise the Lord. We’ll take you”. My, my, my. The office found out. What? Anaheim is going to give hospitality to our young people and they already make plane arrangement to go to Anaheim. Authoritative word came down, “No, you cannot give hospitality to these saints from Europe.”

Then they flew to Irving one day before the training starts.” And when they arrive there, in the office to register they were told, “we are not sure whether you could attend the training…come back tomorrow. By that time our young people are boiling already. You cannot realize, it’s not only fermenting, it’s boiling. It’s really boiling.

So they came the next day. “Okay, we’ll let you with a special red tag called the mercy seats, a disciplinary section, right in the back a red section. You have to sit there to show everybody you’re under discipline.” Now they are steaming—from fermenting to boiling to steaming.


One of our leading young brothers there says, “I demand to have an explanation?” “I don’t know one brother said.” Ray Graver said, “I don’t know who made this arrangement.” What are you doing? Training, or are you playing? Maybe that’s part of the new way, I don’t know. I’ve never heard that before. That’s something new. Then one brother said this, Do you really want to know? Do you really want to know the reason?

“Yes, yes.’

“Ask John So.”
I read this account 5-6 years ago, and my blood also started to boil. What kind of worthless, pathetic, manipulative folks are in charge at LSM? These are the folks that are supposed to be today's Levitical priesthood serving in God's House? How disgusting! And it was demanded of all the churches that we be one with the office?!?

Reports like this one are what convinced me that the burden of the New Way, and I mean the "real" burden, after we machete through all the brush of pseudo-spiritual verbiage, was forced servitude to "The Office."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 11:23 AM   #54
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,962
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

I was never introduced to Philip Lee, but at a training meeting in Dallas I witnessed him have a prolonged screaming temper trantrum after one of the young people charged with video production made a mistake that gave me a negative impression of him as someone to be avoided.

Last edited by zeek; 07-22-2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason: posting errors
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 01:23 PM   #55
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 487
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

www.twoturmoils.com/ADalliancewiththeDevil.pdf


Witness Lee’s hiring of his own non-spiritual son and his reluctance to fire him amid growing confirmed reports of his moral violations and his interferences in the churches was both bizarre and inexplicable. It also had an impure element related to nepotism. The mistake of hiring Philip was far greater than the mistake of “hiring” Max. With the hiring of Philip Lee, Witness Lee brought immorality into the office, chaos into the church in Anaheim, corruption into the churches, and major division into the recovery.
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 01:43 PM   #56
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I was never introduced to Philip Lee, but at a training meeting in Dallas I witnessed him have a prolonged screaming temper tantrum after one of the young people charged with video production made a mistake that gave me a negative impression of him as someone to be avoided.
Apparently his tantrums are legendary. You did right to stay out of his way.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 01:47 PM   #57
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
www.twoturmoils.com/ADalliancewiththeDevil.pdf


Witness Lee’s hiring of his own non-spiritual son and his reluctance to fire him amid growing confirmed reports of his moral violations and his interferences in the churches was both bizarre and inexplicable. It also had an impure element related to nepotism. The mistake of hiring Philip was far greater than the mistake of “hiring” Max. With the hiring of Philip Lee, Witness Lee brought immorality into the office, chaos into the church in Anaheim, corruption into the churches, and major division into the recovery.
I definitely agree Indiana, and the only plausible solution I could come up with is WL was blackmailed by his sons, but I have no facts to prove this. The parallels to old Eli and his sons in the opening chapters of I Samuel are uncanny. Why would Eli allow his sons to cause so much destruction in Israel?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 08:08 PM   #58
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 487
Default Re: Eli and his Sons

Brother Lee Portrayed as Old Eli

Although clear indications warranted it, Brother Lee complained of being “portrayed as the old Eli” from the Old Testament (p. 70, FPR). Instead of acknowledging his record of leniency with his two sons, he complained about the comparison, as he did about every legitimate complaint made about him. Brother Lee had two sons who were reputed as sinful men and evildoers. Many saints knew this and had to live with this knowledge in the church. Both sons were placed in prominent positions in two different businesses of their father. One was made president of a secular, saints-supported business called Daystar, a builder of luxury motor homes. The other was made general manager of a church-related business, the Living Stream Ministry. Both brought corruption to the businesses and into the recovery and into saints’ lives. Both committed sins of sexual immorality at the “doors” of the church. Both the sons and the sins were tolerated. (I don't mean condoned, but not swiftly or properly dealt with.)

The second son’s acts of immorality have been, in part, already represented in appendix 2, where two eye-witness accounts are given of his sexual improprieties. The first son, Timothy, has his history also. (I don't want to mention the first point.)

When work on the motor homes was taking place in Taiwan, rooms at a hotel were provided for the American workers. At the end of the hall from where one American worker stayed was a room where Timothy Lee resided. He frequently was visited by a “certain lady” or ladies and was caught and reported to Brother Lee. The brother, not Timothy, was dealt with, and sent back home to the U. S. This matter became known because of an elder’s wife who knew Timothy’s wife and often had the “Lee clan” into her home where she learned many things. “Tim’s wife would phone [my wife] and pour her ‘guts’ out to her in anger. She had found out about Timothy’s escapades.” This was the person who was put at the head of Daystar, Timothy Lee.

Why would brothers with a conscience in the recovery not compare Brother Lee to the “old Eli”? This same former elder reported: “Timothy had come into our bedroom [where his baby’s bassinet was] and he ended up trying to molest my wife, putting his arms around her. She ran him out of the house and went straight to Brother Lee and reported the incident to him. Witness Lee said, ‘Don’t tell your husband. I will handle it’. The way he handled it was to send my wife and I to San Francisco.” (This is also the way he handled the immoral problem with Philip Lee in the LSM office; he sent the woman, and her husband and family, away to Texas!)

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee. The one side we have "all" enjoyed and appreciated, being the grateful recipients of the riches of Christ that he has dispensed into us through a heavenly ministry for many years; the other side is what we have not all seen, and we certainly cannot enjoy or appreciate, but, we can and should take into account its corrupting effect in the churches.

The story of Eli from the book of First Samuel:

"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel... And he said to them, 'why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people. No, my sons: for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating.'

"Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord...'Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me'... And the Lord said to Samuel, 'Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

In Brother Lee’s final words of his dishonoring talk to the elders and co-workers in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he said, “instead of excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms…” (p. 75). Is the portraying of Brother Lee “as the old Eli” an exaggerated criticism? Actually not. It is a valid criticism, one that he should have humbly acknowledged.

(Because the leadership has covered over the truth and promoted lies through the years, other voices are heard and more detail given than would have been necessary in the beginning.)
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 08:33 PM   #59
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Friction with The Office (Phillip Lee) Part C

From 1986-1988 John So had sought to comply 100% with the LSM ministry office (Phillip Lee), but was frustrated by Phillip Lee's non-responsiveness and lack of co-operation. It all came to a head in the fall of 1988.

"Less than three weeks after the August 28 meeting, on September 17, John So and some leading ones of nine churches in Europe wrote at letter to me, accusing me and my close co-workers of covering up and tolerating sins, and thus declaring their disassociation from my ministry."

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion page 69

Here is the disassociation letter Witness Lee was referring to.

"Dear brother Witness Lee,

It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up. What is worse is that, while this was happening, you and your co-workers were promoting and exalting him to the extent that he was able to intervene in the churches’ affairs in recent years. The peak of this promotion was evident at your elders’ training in Taipei in June 1987. Some of your co-workers were not only themselves under the influence and control of Philip Lee, but were also openly bringing elders and young people of many local churches to come under the same influence and control in your name and for your sake. The five brothers whom you and your Office sent to Europe in your place in May 1986 were trying to do the same here. Our young people who went to your training in Taipei have also testified of the same.

Before God, before the brothers and sisters in the local churches, before the Christian public, and for the sake of the Lord’s testimony, we are compelled by our conscience to fully disassociate ourselves from such sins and behaviour in your work.

(signatories were twenty-one brothers from nine churches in Europe who effectually withdrew from the recovery with this letter on September 17, 1988.)
"
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 08:53 PM   #60
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Toleration of Immorality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
"accusing me and my close co-workers of covering up and tolerating sins,"

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion page 69


" It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up."

Letter of Disassociation
Above are quotes by Witness Lee and the nine disassociating churches regarding allegations of knowledge, toleration, and cover-up by LSM co-workers over Phillip Lee's misconduct.


Here is a quote from page 24 of Speaking the Truth in Love

"On Saturday afternoon, December 19th Ken Unger and I flew to Irving. I did not relate to him what the sister from the LSM office had just told us. On Monday, December 21st, we made an appointment to see Benson Phillips and Ray Graver in the morning. Having been intimate co-workers with them for many years, and knowing that they were aware of many things, we mentioned the concerns that we had presented to Brother Lee on December 12th, excluding the matter of the misconduct in the LSM office. We wanted especially to let them know how strongly we felt regarding the colossal mistake they had made in promoting and exalting the office and Philip Lee, starting in 1981. They said that they did not feel they had erred much. This really surprised and disappointed us. We tried to impress them how serious this matter was. They invited us out for dinner, and we decided to meet again in the afternoon to continue our fellowship.
Upon coming together we attempted amid protests to mention the matter of the misconduct in the LSM office. They steadfastly refused to hear about it, but we proceeded to speak. Ray Graver then quickly rose and exited the room. Benson (in whose home we were meeting) also rose to register his displeasure. We felt that they had knowledge relevant to the matter and wanted to confer with them about it. Benson admitted that the same sister from the LSM office (mentioned previously) had come to him in Taipei to disclose a related event, but he strongly protested our bringing this matter before them.
"

Based on John Ingalls account, Witness Lee's co-workers were not being falsely accused. These co-workers knew, these co-workers tolerated, and these co-workers covered up misconduct.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 08:59 PM   #61
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I was never introduced to Philip Lee, but at a training meeting in Dallas I witnessed him have a prolonged screaming temper trantrum after one of the young people charged with video production made a mistake that gave me a negative impression of him as someone to be avoided.
I was introduced to him one day while he ate lunch. My impression was very strong that this is not a man of God, and I was very much incredulous that RG could respect this man.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 09:01 PM   #62
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I definitely agree Indiana, and the only plausible solution I could come up with is WL was blackmailed by his sons, but I have no facts to prove this. The parallels to old Eli and his sons in the opening chapters of I Samuel are uncanny. Why would Eli allow his sons to cause so much destruction in Israel?
What can man do to me? Jesus tells us not to fear him who can kill you, but Him who after you are killed can toss you into the Gehenna fire. If you have this attitude you couldn't be blackmailed. WL taught this truth but he didn't live it.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 09:08 PM   #63
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I definitely agree Indiana, and the only plausible solution I could come up with is WL was blackmailed by his sons, but I have no facts to prove this.
I've never considered that as a possibility. As a father, Witness Lee loved his sons. He wanted his sons to be successful. At LSM, not only was Phillip Lee succussful, LSM was a success. As Indiana has mentioned before, Phillip Lee instituted the standing order that exists with virtually every LSM local church. Who knows what other processes Phillip implemented which increased LSM's revenue?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 09:19 PM   #64
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,442
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I've never considered that as a possibility. As a father, Witness Lee loved his sons. He wanted his sons to be successful. At LSM, not only was Phillip Lee succussful, LSM was a success. As Indiana has mentioned before, Phillip Lee instituted the standing order that exists with virtually every LSM local church. Who knows what other processes Phillip implemented which increased LSM's revenue?
The bottom line is that whatever the motivation to do what he did, his actions were a direct result of the fact that he was not under authority. JI came to him and John So came to him and Bill Mallon came to him and there was a long line of those that came to him and he rejected. The lesson I take from this is that we all have to submit one to another. That is a safeguard and a protection to us.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 09:24 PM   #65
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I've never considered that as a possibility. As a father, Witness Lee loved his sons. He wanted his sons to be successful. At LSM, not only was Phillip Lee successful, LSM was a success. As Indiana has mentioned before, Phillip Lee instituted the standing order that exists with virtually every LSM local church. Who knows what other processes Phillip implemented which increased LSM's revenue?
I have heard others express this line of reasoning. Sure PL increased revenues at LSM, but why would WL place PL in charge and then do nothing to prevent his son from potentially destroying his entire ministry and reputation. Placing PL as the "office" contradicted thousands of WL's own teachings.

PL's vices were well known in to those related to LSM. If WL just wanted his sons to be successful via some business venture, then why not just funnel money to him? Only the accountants would then know, rather than risking scandals regarding rape and immorality.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 10:57 PM   #66
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The lesson I take from this is that we all have to submit one to another.
Amen. I was listening to a brother whose message I downloaded off semonindex.net. He touched what you've said, we won't express on earth the oneness that exists between Father-Son-Spirit until we organically submit and defer to one another.
Speaking of submitting, in a letter the blended brothers sent to Titus Chu in June, 2005, they wanted Titus to submit and be limited by the blended brothers. This type of submitting is not what issues in the type of oneness as typified by John 17:21. It's submitting to one another that could issue in this quality of oneness.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 06:24 AM   #67
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,985
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The bottom line is that whatever the motivation to do what he did, his actions were a direct result of the fact that he was not under authority. JI came to him and John So came to him and Bill Mallon came to him and there was a long line of those that came to him and he rejected. The lesson I take from this is that we all have to submit one to another. That is a safeguard and a protection to us.
I see the Lee's as a little clan. Dad was the front, and the sons worked the back end. When all could be seen, they were a clan of grafters.

And grafters can smell those willing to "submit one to another," like sharks to blood in the water. Submitters make the easiest marks.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 07:42 AM   #68
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The lesson I take from this is that we all have to submit one to another. That is a safeguard and a protection to us.
Abusive leaders always teach us to submit. The real lesson is to obey the Lord. Church history is filled with men of God who refused to submit, for conscience sake, even to their death. The Bible spends far more time rebuking the rotten leaders than it does teaching the sheep to submit to their leaders.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2011, 04:40 AM   #69
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Abusive leaders always teach us to submit. The real lesson is to obey the Lord. Church history is filled with men of God who refused to submit, for conscience sake, even to their death. The Bible spends far more time rebuking the rotten leaders than it does teaching the sheep to submit to their leaders.
That is partly because, despite the writing of some being to everyone (such as the gospels) to some extent, the letters are to the leaders even when the whole congregation is addressed.

But just because the amount of rebuking of leaders is great does not diminish the importance of the small amount of teaching to submit. Those who "refuse to submit, for conscience sake, even to their death" are generally not refusing to submit to spiritual authority. If they are, then they there is nothing praiseworthy in their testimony.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2011, 05:53 PM   #70
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 487
Default In Search of the Golden Administration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
Fermentation of the Present rebellion

(Because the leadership has covered over the truth and promoted lies through the years, other voices are heard....)

THE GOLDEN ADMINISTRATION

The LC leaders desire a golden administration and those of us seeking today must desire the same as we go on "outside the camp". There are many administrations in Christianity, but are they golden? Are they of God?
God’s administration itself is golden, but those who claim to represent it in the LC might not be so golden. In the church of no accountability many corrupt words have proceeded out of the mouths of leaders, and many corrupt actions have been done. Yet, no leader among them becomes accountable to the church for his sins. These are the facts of history among current leaders. So, what kind of administration could exist with them? Golden?

http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...nistration.pdf


DEVIATING FROM THE PATH

They have not only deviated from the path in the Lord's recovery, they have put all blames for problems upon others in order to keep certain one's image golden. But who really has the gold? Perhaps it is with those with a good conscience and pure heart who now meet outside the camp, seeking the Lord alone. The following book is a full refutation of the book of lies, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/deviating...dsrecovery.pdf


LAWSUIT

Since those of the LC leadership have not capitulated to the facts and charges against them of bearing false witness, they received a lawsuit against them, from me. Still they would not move into fellowship with me, and others, and onto a righteous path, for themselves and for the Local Churches. According to a forthcoming article by a quarantined brother, it is time to move on and away from the system to Christ alone, putting our trust in Him, upon a proper ground of oneness.

www.twoturmoils.com/COMPLAINTFeb24.pdf
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 08:20 PM   #71
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Beating a Dead Horse

I know I am beating a dead horse, but in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, I could not recall how many times "conspiracy" was used or ifferences to a conspiracy.
This past week I had been reading in Isaiah 8.

“You are not to say, ‘It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy, And you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. “It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.
Isaiah 8:12-13
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 08:28 PM   #72
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Thanks to Indiana, following are several excerpts from The Mysteries in God's Economy as it pertains to The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.

"During this period I was silent for another reason: I wanted to see what the Lord's hand was doing and what the mind of the Lord was. I had indeed heard enough, but I did not think I should express my opinion. That was why I was silent."
Page 11

"I spoke twice to all the elders and co-workers from different countries, once after the Thanksgiving conference and another time after the winter training. Based on the messages and fellowship in these two times, I compiled the two books The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion and The Present Situation of the Churches in the Recovery throughout the World. These two books are my clarifying and concluding word to the saints in the Lord's recovery throughout the whole world. I also prepared this clarifying and concluding word for the sake of history. The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but it's content was edited afterwards by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of the book includes personal testimonies from over 30 brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore."

Page 11
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 08:47 PM   #73
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post

"I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore."

Page 11
When as a single brother living in a brother's house, the eldest in the brother's house taking the lead had a saying "I have spoken it". In his joking fashion he was giving the papal decree meaning the discussion ends here. In the same manner this is what Witness Lee was saying. He did not want to be examined. In the spirit of Acts 5, some of the facts were withheld and what facts were disclosed in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was expected to pass as the whole. In 1997 Witness Lee was taken by the Lord. Since that time there has been opportunity to re-evluate and re-examine this period as alternative versions of the turmoils events have been available since 1990. Time has served the last sentence "I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore" as a type of constitutional amendment that cannot be overturned.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:17 AM   #74
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
"I spoke twice to all the elders and co-workers from different countries, once after the Thanksgiving conference and another time after the winter training. Based on the messages and fellowship in these two times, I compiled the two books The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion and The Present Situation of the Churches in the Recovery throughout the World. These two books are my clarifying and concluding word to the saints in the Lord's recovery throughout the whole world. I also prepared this clarifying and concluding word for the sake of history. The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but it's content was edited afterwards by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of the book includes personal testimonies from over 30 brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore."

Page 11
In the Witness Lee scheme of things, the above quotation is the final decision and last word of the high court. He has "properly" performed all the necessary duties of the prosecutor, judge, jury, and stenographer. He has determined which witnesses were allowed to speak, and what their testimony should include. He has informed us that his decision is thorough, accurate, unbiased, and confirmed by multiple witnesses. The accused were thus sentenced in absentia without possibility of an appeal.

The criminals, of course, have no legal rights. They were not permitted legal representation nor defense witnesses, neither could any of Lee's witnesses be cross-examined. The accused were not even permitted to be present at these proceedings to speak on their behalf. After the Apostle Paul appealed to Caesar, and then stood before King Agrippa, at least he was allowed to make his own defense. (Ac 26.1) Not so for John Ingalls and company. Witness Lee only used Paul's appeal to Caesar when the occasion suited him, as in his many lawsuits.

Though it is a righteous and noble undertaking, for Steve Isitt or any others to expect an honorable response at reconciliation from LSM officials is kind of like expecting the judge and the convicted murderer to kiss and make up. These judged criminals must live out their days in solitary confinement. As with lepers in Leviticus, not even their own wives should be allowed contact with them, lest they too become contaminated. Neither Witness Lee nor his Blended Bailiffs ever considered their official quarantines a personal dispute between brothers. In their distorted scheme of things, Fermentation was the definitive and official disposition of fact. It belongs as a footnote in the continuing book of Acts.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:40 PM   #75
alwayslearning
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 417
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
In the Witness Lee scheme of things, the above quotation is the final decision and last word of the high court. He has "properly" performed all the necessary duties of the prosecutor, judge, jury, and stenographer. He has determined which witnesses were allowed to speak, and what their testimony should include. He has informed us that his decision is thorough, accurate, unbiased, and confirmed by multiple witnesses. The accused were thus sentenced in absentia without possibility of an appeal.
This episode in LC system history gives us a window into what Witness Lee thought of himself. He is self-appointed to play all the roles in his kangaroo court. Then like a king he gives an edict that all the elders and corkers were not allowed to discuss the matter any further. The last word has been spoken - by him and only him. This was around the same time he publicly declared that he was the only oracle of God on the earth since 1945. And yes...this is the same man who declared that he didn't control anyone or anything!
alwayslearning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:57 PM   #76
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Since the 1990's I have struggled with the thought responsible brothers had not been bothered in their spirit, had no conviction how things were handled, and that Phillip Lee had no role whatsoever in the turmoil. Only to respect the "feeling of the Body".
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 01:51 PM   #77
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Since the 1990's I have struggled with the thought responsible brothers had not been bothered in their spirit, had no conviction how things were handled, and that Phillip Lee had no role whatsoever in the turmoil. Only to respect the "feeling of the Body".
Once these so-called "responsible" brothers, who have now assumed the duties of "God's Blended Deputy Authorities," absolved their consciences of a deliberate coverup for the all the crimes of the profligate Son of Lee, a.k.a. the LSM Office Manager during the New Way, it is altogether reasonable to expect that they would have no qualms whatever about these same parties never reconciling in this life.

Without so much as a casual mention of Philip Lee in this book, how can anyone with a sane mind, even remotely knowledgeable of the circumstances surrounding the so-called "rebellion" in the late 80's led by Ingalls, Mallon, So et. al., consider Fermentation to be anything but a farce?

That's kind of like discussing the end of Richard Nixon's presidency without mentioning Watergate.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 07:29 PM   #78
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Once these so-called "responsible" brothers, who have now assumed the duties of "God's Blended Deputy Authorities," absolved their consciences of a deliberate coverup for the all the crimes of the profligate Son of Lee, a.k.a. the LSM Office Manager during the New Way, it is altogether reasonable to expect that they would have no qualms whatever about these same parties never reconciling in this life.
How much is peer pressure and how much is conviction?
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 08:37 PM   #79
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 487
Default Re:Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Once these so-called "responsible" brothers, who have now assumed the duties of "God's Blended Deputy Authorities," absolved their consciences of a deliberate coverup for the all the crimes of the profligate Son of Lee, a.k.a. the LSM Office Manager during the New Way, it is altogether reasonable to expect that they would have no qualms whatever about these same parties never reconciling in this life.

Without so much as a casual mention of Philip Lee in this book, how can anyone with a sane mind, even remotely knowledgeable of the circumstances surrounding the so-called "rebellion" in the late 80's led by Ingalls, Mallon, So et. al., consider Fermentation to be anything but a farce?

That's kind of like discussing the end of Richard Nixon's presidency without mentioning Watergate.
I wonder why Dan Towle and Dan Sady at DCP will not publicly Defend or Confirm their time-honored official version of church history when confronted publicly with the problematic unfiltered version of LC history. They have printing presses, speakers, writers and the global authority to condemn. Why won't they do it?


http://twoturmoils.com/DalliancewiththeDevil.pdf
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 08:49 PM   #80
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,957
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
How much is peer pressure and how much is conviction?
LSM leaders have the integrity and steely conviction of Lance Armstrong.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:01 PM   #81
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Dalliance with the Devil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
I wonder why Dan Towle and Dan Sady at DCP will not Defend their own version of LC history or Confirm it, publicly, when confronted with our unofficial, unpopular, ununfiltered version. They have the printing presses, speakers, and writers and the global authority to condemn. Why won't they do it?
I have read your one concise one page pdf document. To say "no one is perfect" as Andrew Yu did, that's the difference between Kings Saul and David.
Saul was one who would use the cop-out "no one is perfect" to excuse not following God's commandment to him. David was one who took responsibility and accountability for his transgressions.

To say no one is perfect is true in a sense, but it does not pardon our culpability. We will be held responsible for our actions and our falure to act.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:08 PM   #82
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
How much is peer pressure and how much is conviction?
History as shown while brothers are part of the work, their words and their actions are driven by peer pressure. Once no longer part of the work, due to being touched in their conscience, they are able to repent for decisions they made which were directly influenced by peer pressure.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 05:50 PM   #83
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default October 9 1988

Reading 5 letters included in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, they were all based on a meeting at the Church in Anaheim held October 9, 1988 and subsequently audio tapes began to be circulated.
The letters were from Mike Wright, Bill Lawson (Church in Hartford), Phillip Staples (Church in Lewiston, Maine) , Bob Little, and the Church in Seattle. By themselves these letters were quite condemning , but last time I checked there was two sides to a coin. Meaning what was the other side of the story?

The Anaheim elders could have ended the meeting immediately. They didn't and were included in the criticism. Following are some excerpts from Speaking the Truth In Love to present the other side of the coin.

"The next Lord’s Day morning, October 9, 1988, Godfred, Al, and I met as usual in the Elders’ Room before the meeting. We were expecting to fellowship that morning regarding the last part of Ephesians chapter 1. I went upstairs to the meeting hall, the other brothers lingering behind in the Elders’ Room to attend to some matter. As I reached the top of the stairs, I saw all the saints who had spoken out hotly against Brother Lee and the LSM office lined up in the rows near to the front. Some of them had ceased coming to the meetings, but this morning they were all there in force. Moreover, I saw saints from other churches entering the meeting hall whom I knew to be agitated and vocal concerning the current problems. There were some from Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Torrance, and elsewhere. I knew something was up. Obviously, others had been alerted and they were planning to do something. I turned around and hastened down the stairs to notify Godfred and Al. This was it. We must decide what to do.
We sang a hymn or two and had some prayer as usual. Meanwhile Godfred and I were conferring together in whispers as we sat on the front row. We could just dismiss the meeting. But that, we knew, would cause a tumult to erupt. After a little consultation we felt it would be better to just let them speak and get it over with once for all, and then we could go on in the coming meetings with a good order.
" Page 47

"It was said then by these saints that since the elders had not dealt with problems publicly, they could not keep quiet. They felt fully exasperated by the elders for continually delaying to take public action against disorders, the judgment of which they felt was long overdue. Such feeling had intensified to the bursting point.
Further reference was then made to the misconduct in the LSM office, and a brother in the meeting who was a former law enforcement officer interrupted the speaker, shouting, "Did you see it? Did you see it? And indicated that if he did not see it he should not talk about it. This ignited some other brothers, one of whom claimed to be an eye-witness, who proceeded to give detailed accounts of the misconduct in anguish and outrage, mentioning the names of involved parties. Such things never should have been spoken publicly. He said, "It’s a shame for us to have to stand up here and talk like this, but if we don’t do it there will never be any blessing on us, " indicating that because of a sinful situation among us, God’s blessing was not with the church. These saints surely felt they had cause for action. For over two hours they went on exposing some things and accusing the elders for not having dealt with them. The elders were just as much a target of their accusations as anyone else. One sister said that "the elders were weak spiritually, psychologically, and physically," and that is why they hadn’t dealt with the problems.
" Page 48

The Anaheim elders were under scrutiny in the letters for allowing audio tapes to be circulated. How were the brothers supposed to stop it. It would be one thing to control Anaheim's own recording, but what about saint's who did their own recording? Following are the responses to the charges in Speaking the Truth in Love,

"To our great dismay we learned later that some saints who had recorded the October 9th meeting had sent out copies of the tapes to the elders of the churches in this country. We had no idea that they intended to do this or were carrying it out, and when we heard we strongly disapproved of their action. Just recently (March 1990) we found that the one responsible for this distribution was someone in another place, another church, altogether apart from the saints in Anaheim. But he had used the P.O. Box of someone in Anaheim who was not meeting with us for a return address.
We then began to receive numerous letters from elders all over the country addressed to the elders in Anaheim, castigating us for allowing such a meeting to take place. Many of them sent a copy of their letter to Brother Lee. But I wonder what they would have done had they been in our shoes and passed through what we had passed through. It is easy to criticize from a distance (I think that many who wrote were glad to be at a distance from the church in Anaheim), but when you are in the middle of the problem and have to deal with it, it is another story.
"

Several quotes from Mike Wright in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion follows as:

"And why was Don allowed to speak things that he had observed at the Living Stream office as if they were a church matter? Things occurring at the Living Stream are the Living Stream's problems. Things belonging to the church are the church's matters." Page 152

My response I would quote Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux from A Response to Recent Accusations:

"Since the material in this document concerns an event that took place in the church in Anaheim and since we, the authors, do not live in Anaheim, we believe that it is appropriate for us to state our grounds for writing this material. First, we are organic members of the Body of Christ, and what took place in Anaheim was not only a local matter but also a Body matter."
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:48 PM   #84
Terry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,047
Default Colossians 3:12-14

I realize some may see this thread and maybe read a few posts and think why bring this up? This is ancient history. Sad to say, it is not ancient history. Some saints have forgiven and asked for forgiveness from quarantined brothers. Others still harbor animosity towards quarantined brothers.

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.
Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 AM.


3.8.9