Spiritual Discernment

[Freedom]

Something that I’ve been thinking about a lot recently is discernment, and why it is so difficult for members to discern what goes on in the LC. Though this thread isn’t intended to be about Ron, what he spoke in his “man of death” conference encapsulates the LC mindset and ideology:

If we do not exercise discernment in the proper way… our situation will be hopeless. No one will know what is going on…

How do you discern? Well, there are two ways. And, most of the saints follow a certain way, unless they are trained by the Lord.

And, the two ways of discernment are symbolized by the two trees in the garden. There is the tree of life; and with the tree of life is a way of discernment. And, there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…

The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong...

I want to contrast his statement with something from the scriptures:
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Nothing really needs to be said about how far off Ron is, but what I think is worth pointing out is that whatever is being taught in the LC about discernment is clearly relying on the ignorance of members to get them to buy into these kinds of teachings. The Word clearly tells us that there are some who are able to discern good and evil. Why then would this be ridiculed, and why would no one in the LC question it? Have members decided to take Ron’s word over what the Bible teaches? Apparently so.

At a more general level, I think members are only likely to consider addressing concerns that affect them personally. It seems that is what leaders primarily hope to silence, so for the most part, the even larger issues that need discernment go unnoticed.
1 John 4:2-3
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

There are just so many things that are “off” in the LC. While the LC doesn’t deny the doctrine of incarnation, they do divert focus to many other things, and not to mention, they mock anyone who pays to much attention to the basics of the gospel.

In interactions that I’ve had with LC members over the years, I really have been left wondering how many care about Jesus. For some, the Christian life is exclusively about attending a training for 2 years, learning how to abide by strict regulations, and then learning how to impose the same upon others. To others, the LC is a social club. I have known all different types. What is the common to most is that Jesus is a distant shadow in the background. The point is that LCers have put themselves in a position where they couldn't determine and don't even care to know if a spirit is of God or not.

So the LC has basically put a lid on any possibility of discernment taking place within the LC, and there is no desire to even determine the current state of affairs, so it makes sense why the nonsense abounds. It took me a long time to understand that. There are some in the LC who I once looked up to, but then I saw issues that needed discernment/decision be simply shrugged off. I thus lost all respect for such persons. Because there really is nothing complicated about basic spiritual discernment, if leaders can’t demonstrate an ability to properly engage in discernment, it’s a good sign that they are not the proper leaders to take as an example.

[Freedom]

The two trees is a topic that has been discussed in other threads, and it's not my intention to start another discussion about that here, but the way that LCers employ this specific 'analogy' just goes to show how much trust LCers are willing to place in certain things that WL allegorized as opposed to what the Bible actually says. The Bible is very clear about good and evil, yet LCers ignore this.

Despite what the two trees 'analogy' seemingly implies, the Bible doesn't tell us to ignore good and evil. Quite to the contrary it tells us that we should discern and reject evil. Things that contradict the Bible outright should be immediately dismissed. Of course, it's probably fair to say that not everything can be solved according to a metric of good versus evil, but the so-called 'discernment' that goes on in the LC that is according to 'life' is anyone's guess as to the validity or rational of the decisions being made. The Bible is very clear about discerning evil and I believe that when we as Christians engage in any kind of discernment, the processes and rational should be transparent. There's no reason for it not to be:

Psalms 97:10 You who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.

James 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

I could go on all day with posting verses, but this should suffice. The point is that there are many examples of the Word instructing us to reject evil. That involves making a judgment between right and wrong, between good and evil. It is a perfectly reasonable metric of discernment for Christians. What has happened in the LC is that another metric has been projected, one that has little to no concrete meaning. That brings me to my point. The problem is not so much about how their discernment method is rationalized (the two trees), but the fact that no one could put their finger on the rational being used. What is life and what is death? No one knows because in the LC both things have been assigned arbitrary meaning and of course, the understanding of such things varies from person to person.

What this alternative style of 'discernment' leads to is confusion. At least from what I noticed, 'discernment' was always considered to be some kind of hocus pocus - a mirror house that only the mature leaders could work their way through. For example, someone in the LC who is considered to have good discernment might be the person who always seems to know what time during the meeting to break the bread. In reality, such things are nothing more than issuing a command, and anyone in the LC who knows the format could make a good guess about when to break the break or the proper chair arrangements, etc. But members are left in a state of confusion and not able to make basic decisions. It's crippling to members and it's tragic because the Bible really makes things simple. There's no magic to it, and it doesn't take anyone special to discern things. That's not to say it's always going to be easy or cut and dry, but for the most part LCers have concerned themselves in 'discerning' unimportant things to which there is no right or wrong answers, and all the while they have ignored the real elephants in the room.

[Cal]

If you Google "discernment," the first result from a Christian source says:

"In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong."

Given the LCM's mantra that discernment is about "life," not good and evil, that's pretty funny.

The bottom line is the LCM's doctrine of life vs good and evil is in error. The lesson of the Tree of Life versus the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a lesson of dependence on God versus independence from God, not a lesson of "Life" vs Good and Evil.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you Google "discernment," the first result from a Christian source says:

"In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong."

Given the LCM's mantra that discernment is about "life," not good and evil, that's pretty funny.

The bottom line is the LCM's doctrine of life vs good and evil is in error. The lesson of the Tree of Life versus the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a lesson of dependence on God versus independence from God, not a lesson of "Life" vs Good and Evil.

It is quite telling that LSM would claim that discernment is something other than what the word discernment is understood to mean. Obviously, what Ron speaks about is outright absurd. Out of curiosity, I took a moment to see what Nee had to say on the subject, and what I found was that he approached it a lot more subtly than Ron did:

Christians do not require other men to instruct them since the indwelling Anointing teaches them everything. This is spiritual discernment, something greatly needed today. If we must pore over many theological references and reason, compare, research, observe and think with our mind until we ultimately reach an understanding of what is lie or what is truth, then only Christians with good minds and education would escape deception. But God has no respect for the old creation; He concludes that all except the newly created spirit must die and be destroyed. Can the wisdom which God demands to be destroyed assist people to know good and evil? No, most emphatically no! God puts His Spirit in every believer’s spirit, regardless how sinful or dull he is. The indwelling Spirit shall teach him what is of God and what is not. This is why sometimes we can conjure up no logical reason for opposing a certain teaching, yet in the very depth of our being arises a resistance. We cannot explain it, but our inner sense tells us this is an error...
Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, P 299

Here Nee doesn't necessarily reject discernment of good and evil as being 'death' like Ron does, but Nee does insinuate that discernment of good and evil would be limited to those with "good minds", implying that it's too complicated for the average person. It's a subtle argument, because it fails to recognize the fact that many issues are not complicated. Just as much as we need to recognize good and evil we must also be willing to act accordingly. The latter is the difficult part, and probably where we actually tend to struggle.

Quite surprisingly, Nee then goes on to say that wisdom shouldn't be utilized to assist in knowing good and evil (because God supposedly has condemned wisdom). This directly contradicts the Word. We can and should utilize wisdom, and if we are lacking in that respect, it's as simple as asking for it:
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Towards the end of the excerpt, Nee moves his argument towards an esoteric "inner sense," which has since been relabeled as the "sense of life." I should say that I'm not against discernment in a prayerful way, but it the case of the LC, it is nothing more than an excuse to bypass common sense and solid principles. Of particular concern, Nee says "This is why sometimes we can conjure up no logical reason for opposing a certain teaching, yet in the very depth of our being arises a resistance." I find this to be highly objectionable. If a personal 'resistance' is to be the metric for discerning teachings, that throws everything else out the window. If I have a personal resistance to my alarm clock, does that mean that I can skip going to work? Of course not. It's a stupid example I know, but that illustrates how easy it is for things to get skewed with something 'inward' and esoteric comes into play. Frankly speaking, if someone says that they have a certain 'sense' about something, I'm not going to question it, but that does not mean it is something they should turn around and project on others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Despite what the two trees 'analogy' seemingly implies, the Bible doesn't tell us to ignore good and evil. Quite to the contrary it tells us that we should discern and reject evil.

Freedom, you are absolutely right about discernment being distorted in the Recovery for self-serving motives. Their teachings about "not caring for right and wrong" only cover up unrighteousness by their leaders. It's no wonder at all that Phillip Lee's favorite saying was, "we don't care for right and wrong, we only care for life."

First of all, God's throne is established upon righteousness. Secondly, we were created in the image of God, with a conscience within to correspond with His righteousness. The most important thing in a Christian's living is, as Paul told us, a "conscience void of offense."

The Apostle Paul says we should "exercise ourself unto godliness," which clearly indicates a strong conscience discerning good from evil. A "strong spirit" is not a loud voice quoting banners in a training, but a conscience exercised to discriminate between both good and evil.

Due LC abhorrence of right and wrong, all manner of evil has found an open door into their program. LSM under Philip Lee became a cesspool of corruption. The Blendeds under BP rose to power by covering over and hiding Philip's corruption and his father's deceits.

One of my chief complaints about my LC and the GLA leadership was that we just did not know how to treat one another. Brotherly love was replaced by loyalty to headquarters. That was just one symptom of a system neglecting good and evil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is quite telling that LSM would claim that discernment is something other than what the word discernment is understood to mean. Obviously, what Ron speaks about is outright absurd. Out of curiosity, I took a moment to see what Nee had to say on the subject, and what I found was that he approached it a lot more subtly than Ron did:


Here Nee doesn't necessarily reject discernment of good and evil as being 'death' like Ron does, but Nee does insinuate that discernment of good and evil would be limited to those with "good minds", implying that it's too complicated for the average person. It's a subtle argument, because it fails to recognize the fact that many issues are not complicated. Just as much as we need to recognize good and evil we must also be willing to act accordingly. The latter is the difficult part, and probably where we actually tend to struggle.

Quite surprisingly, Nee then goes on to say that wisdom shouldn't be utilized to assist in knowing good and evil (because God supposedly has condemned wisdom). This directly contradicts the Word. We can and should utilize wisdom, and if we are lacking in that respect, it's as simple as asking for it:
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Towards the end of the excerpt, Nee moves his argument towards an esoteric "inner sense," which has since been relabeled as the "sense of life." I should say that I'm not against discernment in a prayerful way, but it the case of the LC, it is nothing more than an excuse to bypass common sense and solid principles. Of particular concern, Nee says "This is why sometimes we can conjure up no logical reason for opposing a certain teaching, yet in the very depth of our being arises a resistance." I find this to be highly objectionable. If a personal 'resistance' is to be the metric for discerning teachings, that throws everything else out the window. If I have a personal resistance to my alarm clock, does that mean that I can skip going to work? Of course not. It's a stupid example I know, but that illustrates how easy it is for things to get skewed with something 'inward' and esoteric comes into play. Frankly speaking, if someone says that they have a certain 'sense' about something, I'm not going to question it, but that does not mean it is something they should turn around and project on others.

In my experience we need both knowledge/wisdom and the Spirit's leading, and they work together. Knowledge and wisdom give us the general parameters, and the Spirit does the fine tuning. We know, for example, to be humble and kind toward people we meet. That's a given, and we proceed that way in our daily lives. But as we are carrying out such standard behavior, the Spirit may lead us to say or do something more specific to the situation. We may be having a conversation with our neighbor, and feel led to offer to help him fix his fence. We probably wouldn't have even felt this leading if we hadn't held a general attitude of charity toward him in the first place.

So if we don't have the general standard behavior the Bible teaches us to maintain in our relationships and privately, then the Spirit cannot do such fine tuning. He can only try to rebuke us. It's like the difference between a horseman riding a fine show horse and riding a stupid mule.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In my experience we need both knowledge/wisdom and the Spirit's leading, and they work together. Knowledge and wisdom give us the general parameters, and the Spirit does the fine tuning. We know, for example, to be humble and kind toward people we meet. That's a given, and we proceed that way in our daily lives. But as we are carrying out such standard behavior, the Spirit may lead us to say or do something more specific to the situation. We may be having a conversation with our neighbor, and feel led to offer to help him fix his fence. We probably wouldn't have even felt this leading if we hadn't held a general attitude of charity toward him in the first place.

So if we don't have the general standard behavior the Bible teaches us to maintain in our relationships and privately, then the Spirit cannot do such fine tuning. He can only try to rebuke us. It's like the difference between a horseman riding a fine show horse and riding a stupid mule.

This is a good post by Igzy. If LCers are reading this thread they might think that there is the intention to be dismissive of the Spirit's leading. It's not that at all, LCers just have things in the wrong order. If they don't understand the basic principles that they should live by and act upon, then any discussion of the Spirit's leading is meaningless.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First of all, God's throne is established upon righteousness. Secondly, we were created in the image of God, with a conscience within to correspond with His righteousness. The most important thing in a Christian's living is, as Paul told us, a "conscience void of offense."

The Apostle Paul says we should "exercise ourself unto godliness," which clearly indicates a strong conscience discerning good from evil. A "strong spirit" is not a loud voice quoting banners in a training, but a conscience exercised to discriminate between both good and evil.

When I consider my LC experience, it seems that it was easy to forget who God really is and get sidetracked with alternate notions. We were so focused on abstract concepts like 'life', that righteousness and good discernment naturally took a back seat.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a good post by Igzy. If LCers are reading this thread they might think that there is the intention to be dismissive of the Spirit's leading. It's not that at all, LCers just have things in the wrong order. If they don't understand the basic principles that they should live by and act upon, then any discussion of the Spirit's leading is meaningless.

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

Witness Lee talked about "living Christ." I think this idea was his attempt to reach this plane of not needing everyday knowledge and wisdom for behavioral decisions, but only the Spirit. He himself confessed failure at achieving this standard.

It is, in fact, a false goal. Certainly we should walk as intimately with God as possible. But have your ever tried to hear the Spirit's leading on every little thing you do moment by moment? God doesn't give it. When I try to do that He seems to say to me, "That's not how it works. I'm not going to micromanage you."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

So true. I can't tell you how many times someone excused away something inappropriate with the saying, "we just need more life," or "I just need to gain more Christ."

With that attitude we will never grow or change, yet the saying is so disarming.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

Witness Lee talked about "living Christ." I think this idea was his attempt to reach this plane of not needing everyday knowledge and wisdom for behavioral decisions, but only the Spirit. He himself confessed failure at achieving this standard.

It is, in fact, a false goal. Certainly we should walk as intimately with God as possible. But have your ever tried to hear the Spirit's leading on every little thing you do moment by moment? God doesn't give it. When I try to do that He seems to say to me, "That's not how it works. I'm not going to micromanage you."

When I think about all I heard about "living Christ" in the LC, it all once seemed so reasonable, but just look at the outcome. Things are a mess, and that's an understatement. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for what Paul spoke of in Phil 1:21 "For me to live is Christ". But what does this actually mean? Barnes notes on this verse has a helpful explanation:

For to me to live is Christ - My sole aim in living is to glorify Christ. He is the supreme End of my life, and I value it only as being devoted to his honor - Doddridge.... This implied the following things:
(1) a purpose to know as much of Christ as it was possible to know...
(2) a purpose to imitate Christ - to make him the model of his life...

It we equate "for me to live is Christ" with a simple desire to glorify Christ and make that our aim, the pieces all fall into place. there is nothing overly complicated or esoteric about that. Let's compare this to what WL says:

The Christian life is not merely an ethical life, a good life, or a moral life. The Christian life, of course, should be ethical, moral, and excellent. But strictly speaking, it is not an ethical life. It is something higher than an ethical life. The Christian life is a life that lives Christ. In our living as a Christian, others should not see merely our goodness, our ethics, or our morality. They should see Christ. We Christians should live a life that lives Christ and magnifies Him.

Witness Lee, The Christian Life, Ch 1

When reading this statement, it might sound somewhat reasonable at first, but there's just something not quite right about it. And that is, of course, the fact that WL tries to separate ethics/morality from "living Christ." What he says seems to be intended to minimize the importance of ethics/morality. The flaw in his logic the failure to recognize that these are interdependent if we desire to glorify God.

Speaking of the Christian life, WL says, and I quote "it is not an ethical life." Ummm, yes it is. Very much so. It is impossible to glorify Christ if we're morally deficient or lacking in basic ethics. Jesus himself said: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Of course, this doesn't mean that righteousness is found in ourselves, but through faith in Christ (Phil 3:9).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I think about all I heard about "living Christ" in the LC, it all once seemed so reasonable, but just look at the outcome. Things are a mess, and that's an understatement. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for what Paul spoke of in Phil 1:21 "For me to live is Christ". But what does this actually mean? Barnes notes on this verse has a helpful explanation:
It we equate "for me to live is Christ" with a simple desire to glorify Christ and make that our aim, the pieces all fall into place. there is nothing overly complicated or esoteric about that. Let's compare this to what WL says:
When reading this statement, it might sound somewhat reasonable at first, but there's just something not quite right about it. And that is, of course, the fact that WL tries to separate ethics/morality from "living Christ." What he says seems to be intended to minimize the importance of ethics/morality. The flaw in his logic the failure to recognize that these are interdependent if we desire to glorify God.

Speaking of the Christian life, WL says, and I quote "it is not an ethical life." Ummm, yes it is. Very much so. It is impossible to glorify Christ if we're morally deficient or lacking in basic ethics. Jesus himself said: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Of course, this doesn't mean that righteousness is found in ourselves, but through faith in Christ (Phil 3:9).

Yeah, and this all relates back to the LCM's erroneous stance of making Good somehow at odds with God. True good is never at odds with God. And if good is at odds with God, then it isn't truly good. But the LCM acted as if a person sincerely trying to be good is somehow actually evil in some way. Certainly our good works can't save us. But the idea that God is not pleased when human beings are, for example, sincerely kind to one another, sacrificing, loving and so forth, is just a weird, twisted reading of things.

This thinking has led LCMers to scoff at all kinds of genuinely good works done by others, while doing none themselves. I'm sure, for example, than many LCMers are unimpressed with Mother Theresa, who may have done more to spread the genuine love and testimony of God than anyone who ever lived.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I consider my LC experience, it seems that it was easy to forget who God really is and get sidetracked with alternate notions. We were so focused on abstract concepts like 'life', that righteousness and good discernment naturally took a back seat.

We should really be focused on love, which we are regularly commanded to do in the scriptures, which keeps our attention on our relationships with God and those around us, rather than on "life" which can be counterfeited as feelings.

Lee and Company effectively neutralized the saints' discernment by using the concepts of "life" and "truth" to steal our attention away from the right things, like love and righteousness, in order to build up his ministry.

Coming from Titus Chu country in Ohio, we often heard him say that Lee was his "spiritual father," and his mistakes were none of TC's business. (The unsaid message was that they were none of our business either.) It all sounded so spiritual, but the discernment of our conscience was thus rendered useless regarding endless unrighteousness and corruption at LSM.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, and this all relates back to the LCM's erroneous stance of making Good somehow at odds with God. True good is never at odds with God. And if good is at odds with God, then it isn't truly good. But the LCM acted as if a person sincerely trying to be good is somehow actually evil in some way. Certainly our good works can't save us. But the idea that God is not pleased when human beings are, for example, sincerely kind to one another, sacrificing, loving and so forth, is just a weird, twisted reading of things.

This thinking has led LCMers to scoff at all kinds of genuinely good works done by others, while doing none themselves. I'm sure, for example, than many LCMers are unimpressed with Mother Theresa, who may have done more to spread the genuine love and testimony of God than anyone who ever lived.

Not too long ago, I saw a LCer make a Facebook post of a video with some pastor speaking. The title of the sermon was something like "Good or God?" Of course, just about the only reason that an LCer would post such a video is because it reflects Lee's ideology. But I did find it troubling that this whole notion of "good versus God" isn't just limited to the LC. I'm inclined to think that within the LC, members are simply afraid of the boogeyman called 'good' that Lee created. Thus any teaching that 'protects' them from this is held with the utmost esteem.

We know that WL had his motivations for downplaying good, and it was none other than to desensitize members to his shenanigans. Good is nowhere near the 'problem' that some have made it out to be. I do recognize the possibility of being distracted from God by good, however, this doesn't necessitate approaching the topic of good suspiciously nor does it imply that there is a fundamental problem with good. As Christians we believe that good and God are synonymous and that all good things come from God. I choose to live my life accordingly.

There has already been good discussion about good versus evil acting as a pivot point by which we operate. The danger is not trying to do good and then messing up or failing. The danger is when something else, even something unknown becomes what we claim to live by. In the LC they say they want to operate according to 'life'. What is life? No one knows for sure, because it has been ill-defined. But one thing they sing in the LC is that "it's the life life life that makes us want to shout." So we know that 'life' is something that lead them to shout. Kind of bizarre if you ask me. But what's so different between that and other groups who were led by the life life life to go out to the jungle to and drink kool aid. The difference is only the severity. Neither behavior can be rationalized by any ordinary metric, and that's the danger in demonizing the basic standards that God gave us to live by.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Not too long ago, I saw a LCer make a Facebook post of a video with some pastor speaking. The title of the sermon was something like "Good or God?" Of course, just about the only reason that an LCer would post such a video is because it reflects Lee's ideology. But I did find it troubling that this whole notion of "good versus God" isn't just limited to the LC. I'm inclined to think that within the LC, members are simply afraid of the boogeyman called 'good' that Lee created. Thus any teaching that 'protects' them from this is held with the utmost esteem.

I wonder what the intent was? To ridicule non-LSM Christianity? On the topic of Facebook posts, I do know Pastor Greg Locke is popular with LCers I know.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I wonder what the intent was? To ridicule non-LSM Christianity? On the topic of Facebook posts, I do know Pastor Greg Locke is popular with LCers I know.

It seemed like the intention was to show that supposedly pastors are "lining up" to WL's teachings.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Something that I’ve been thinking about a lot recently is discernment, and why it is so difficult for members to discern what goes on in the LC. Though this thread isn’t intended to be about Ron, what he spoke in his “man of death” conference encapsulates the LC mindset and ideology:

Mindset of LC Leader on Display

http://www.leadersofthelordsrecovery...gasEcuador.pdf

"The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. “Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?” As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation." RK

"but the spiritual discerns all things, and he is discerned of no one." 1 Cor. 2:15 Darby
-our Jerusalem brothers mindset-

This link was posted on the MERGED THREAD: Leaders of the Lord's Recovery post #4 - 2013

Especially for those wondering what was the "man of death conference".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seemed like the intention was to show that supposedly pastors are "lining up" to WL's teachings.

We were told for decades that eventually Christianity would begin to receive Lee's teachings and go the way of the Recovery. It's hard to believe seeing their shrinking numbers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Mindset of LC Leader on Display

http://www.leadersofthelordsrecovery...gasEcuador.pdf

"The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. “Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?” As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation." RK

Yes, they did. And worse. They should repent. And you should be the first.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We were told for decades that eventually Christianity would begin to receive Lee's teachings and go the way of the Recovery. It's hard to believe seeing their shrinking numbers.

Is there any estimate that their numbers are shrinking? I know me and my family left, but what is the trend in membership numbers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Is there any estimate that their numbers are shrinking? I know me and my family left, but what is the trend in membership numbers?

They lost thousands when they quarantined Brazil and the GLA.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seemed like the intention was to show that supposedly pastors are "lining up" to WL's teachings.

Could be the case for some and for others it may be attending the local LSM church is tradition. They were raised in the local churches and don't know any other Christian fellowship, but when it comes to ministry regarding the family, LSM churches just doesn't meet that need and have to go to non-LSM ministries to have the need met.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Is there any estimate that their numbers are shrinking? I know me and my family left, but what is the trend in membership numbers?

Only based on visits to the locality my parents meet with, there's growth with Spanish speaking brothers and sisters. Same remains true with Chinese speaking, but among English speaking there's no increase. Ones that remain are just older from the time I met there as a teen.
Whether it's true or not my suggestion is the late 80's turmoil caused many English speaking to become disillusioned. Those that remained, their children were recruited for FTTA. That could explain why many localities have a void among their young adults. it's either scarce or non-existent.