I'm a student in the FTT - AMA

Hey brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm currently attending a FTT and am willing to answer any questions regarding the local churches or FTT in general. I hope that this could be a time of fellowship.

sigh!
Are you allowed to talk to outsiders during FTT?
What is AMA?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UnregisteredFTT

Hey brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm currently attending a FTT and am willing to answer any questions regarding the local churches or FTT in general. I hope that this could be a time of fellowship.

Welcome!

Happy Thanksgiving!

[UntoHim]

Welcome to Local Church Discussion! When you get a chance please send and email requesting membership, along with your desired UserName, to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com, and then we will forward a temporary password to you. As a registered member of LCD your posts will appear immediately without having to go through the moderation que (which can take anywhere from an hour to a full day) Also you will then have access to the Private Message area in which you can communicate in privacy with other members.

[SevenSpirits]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

sigh!
Are you allowed to talk to outsiders during FTT?
What is AMA?

Ama means to ask me anything.

I don't know what you mean by outsiders. But if you mean those brothers and sisters that are no longer meeting with the saints in the local church, i don't see why not because we are all believers, and we all love the same God.

[SevenSpirits]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Welcome!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanks brother

Happy thanksgiving to you too! (I'm not from America, but it doesnt mean I don't love me some turkey!! Haha)

[micah6v8]

I would like to know what is the daily schedule in a FTT.

[Intothewind]

I'd love to know if you were raised in the lc or gained off thecampuses.

After peeking around, how complete do you feel your knowledge of lc history is?

Welcome!

[Freedom]

Welcome to the forum SevenSpirits!

I hope that you would find the opportunity for fellowship here that you are looking for.

[aron]

I have a few questions.

- Do they still tell you, "don't waste your time" with the poor, the orphans, the widows, with those who have no means to repay you in the present age? See Luke 14:13,14; cf Prov 19:17. Paul wrote (Gal 2:10) that he was "eager to remember the poor" but I didn't see much eagerness when I was in the FTTA. Instead they were eager for "good building material", such as Caucasian college students. How 'normal' is this disdain for the weak and the sick among us? It doesn't seem like a normal Christian church life, to me.

- Your moniker is SevenSpirits: do you really believe in seven spirits, or in just one spirit, sevenfold intensified to overcome the degradation of the church? If this "seven is really one" idea is true, then why didn't WL use the same methodology throughout the Revelation? Why didn't he say that Revelation 21:12 showed one gate, which had become twelvefold intensified, or that Revelation 8:2 showed merely one angel standing before God, who was sevenfold intensified, or that the seven churches in Rev 2 and 3 were in fact one church, sevenfold? Why use one methodology (seven = one) in one place, and abandon that interpretive method everywhere else? Why the inconsistency of method?

And if Moses built a lampstand holding up seven lamps in Exodus, then was the church already degraded in Exodus when he went on the holy mountain and received the vision? So, why did Moses need to create seven lights in Exodus? In the NT we see only one spirit (e.g. Ephesians 4:4), and then in Revelation 1 (once again?) John beheld seven flames burning before the throne?

I suspect there were seven flames all along, and the "degraded church" idea was something that WL needed to distance himself from every other teacher, all of whom were of course useless. "They're all degraded!!" Only WL had the oracle, so we were taught. Yes, were problems in the Asian churches in Revs 2 & 3, but there also were problems in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. So why seven flames in Revelation? And why WL's need to overturn the plain language right in front of him, and make seven equal one? And if his logic were right, why didn't he consistently use it?

- Why were women prominent in the early "recovery" movement, but now they can't even give a message in church on Sunday morning? Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, etc etc; there were dozens functioning alongside WN. Ironically, one hundred years ago, women couldn't vote or hold public office, but could function in WN's "Little Flock" movement. Today women can run for President but can't speak on Sunday morning? What got recovered, here? Where's Priscilla and Aquila in the Lord's recovery movement? Banished.

I thought about the seven spirits. Please write more on this topic.
I suspect the FTT kid is banned from this site and not allowed to talk to 'insiders' anything 'negative'. He/she reckoned he/she knew it all (having been taught WL all-incisive high peak blah blah) and had confidently declared AMA (ask me anything).
Now this kid is learning. Pray for him/her that The Lord reveals Himself and His own word, that this one in The Lord's hand is supported by The Lord Himself.
Sad spies and sad leaders in the LSM controlled system. Is it worth it? Butcher the young that you shepherded. Lord Jesus Christ is coming soon.

[aron]

Why is the church in Moses Lake a "rebel church", while WN could form an independent church? And Martin Luther, for that matter? Why wasn't WN's church a "rebel church" also? Why wasn't Luther's church a "rebel church"?

If the Lamb went and took the scroll from Him who sat on the throne in Revelation 5:7, how is the Lamb the Father? How can the Lamb take the scroll from Himself? For that matter, how can the Lamb sit at His own right hand? (Psa 110:1, Matt 22:44)

If LSM puts out a magazine called "Affirmation and Critique", why can't LC members also critique WL's writings, as well as affirm them? Why are they told not to be "negative", but encouraged to be negative against everyone and everything else (I.e. "Christianity" and "the world")?

Why is Affirmation and Critique not a name, also? Or Defense and Confirmation Project? Or Bibles for America? Those are names? Or even "the Thursday night prayer meeting at Sister Smith's house" - that is a name, is it not?

If you think I'm playing games with words, I'm not; in fact it's LC members who are playing with words. They do what everybody else does, which is give things names. LC members are called "saints", while everyone else is not? Unaffiliated Christian groups are called "free groups" and are condemned, while affiliated Christian groups are called "denominations" and are condemned also? It's like WL created a fantasy world where nobody is right, and nobody can possibly be right. How can anyone have fellowship in such an atmosphere, heavy with condemnation and judgment? A place where words mean whatever you want them to mean, only to mean something else when the need changes?

As you can see, I'm a prickly sort. Please forgive me. Obviously I didn't make it very far in the LC system. I just couldn't get out of my mind, sufficiently.

For that matter, why did WL think, and reason, while everyone else was deemed hopelessly deficient and simply recited verbatim what the Seer of the Age (WL, naturally) was thinking? Doesn't this seem like we're being respecters of persons, here? One special person gets a special rule, while the great unwashed masses get another rule?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I thought about the seven spirits. Please write more on this topic.

Unfortunately I'm unqualified, and will limit myself to two remarks. The first thing to keep in mind is that the Revelation of John was written 200+ years before the Nicene Creed, and John wasn't beholden to creedal formulas as you and I are. If he wanted to put seven spirits before the throne, he did. Not sure if he'd read Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. Probably, since he addressed the Ephesian church as full of knowledge, but short of love. Paul of course had been in Ephesus for 3 years (Acts 20:31).

But the word "one" in Biblical context doesn't necessitate a numerical understanding, but rather perhaps a functional perspective. Jesus said, "You shall be one, even as I am one with the Father", and this presented a common theme in the Bible, that of agency. A rich person has agents working for them, who are one with his or her wishes, desires, plans. They go forth, and work, and report back to the Boss. As such, they are one. There are many, but they are all one. "I come to do Thy will; behold in the scroll of the book it is written concerning Me" - obedience indicates oneness. Crucial to my understanding was the Centurion's explanation to Jesus, of servants going forth and functioning at his bidding, at which Jesus marveled. Likewise, we see many gospel parables of stewardship, obedience, and faithfulness. It all points to being one with God. (It doesn't mean "becoming God" - the Centurion, with Caesar above him, and servants under him, all remained such. But they were one, with commonality of purpose, intent, function, expression).

So there are seven spirits burning before the throne in Revelation 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6, yet one spirit in Ephesians 4:4, and not perforce a contradiction. There are many but they're one. For example, there are four living creatures, there are twenty-four elders, there are two witnesses, there are uncountable millions gathered around the throne praising and giving thanks and glory and honor. But they're all one.

My second point is this: Moses was told to build everything according to the pattern shown him on the holy mountain. So Moses built a lampstand with seven lamps. What, then, did Moses see - a lampstand? Or seven flames?

Interestingly, when they came down from the mountain, it said that "fire came out from before the throne" and consumed Aaron's sons for their disobedience (Lev 10:2). So there was fire burning before God's throne in heaven, and from the containment and support structure that Moses created on earth, there were actually seven of them - this is what I see John saying, in Revelation 1:4. "As in heaven, so on earth" (Matt 6:10) - as was seen in the heavenly temple, so was created the earthly copy.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I suspect the FTT kid is banned from this site and not allowed to talk to 'insiders' anything 'negative'. He/she reckoned he/she knew it all (having been taught WL all-incisive high peak blah blah) and had confidently declared AMA (ask me anything)...

We've all been there. I was confident, once. I knew all the answers. But life has a way of showing us that God alone has all the answers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Now this kid is learning. Pray for him/her that The Lord reveals Himself and His own word, that this one in The Lord's hand is supported by The Lord Himself. Sad spies and sad leaders in the LSM controlled system. Is it worth it? Butcher the young that you shepherded. Lord Jesus Christ is coming soon.

I'm critical of LSM and FTT thinking, but they're no worse than I or you or anyone; they're just human beings trying to do their best. Unfortunately they're completely blind to the effect of human culture on their understanding, their social arrangements and their behaviors. They think that everything they hold forth to the world is straight from the throne of heaven, unaltered, but it's been distorted by the lens of human culture, and woven in by the passage of human history. And the harder and more stubbornly one holds on, the harder becomes the experience causing one to let go. Let's pray for grace for each other, that we may follow the pattern of our Lord, and empty ourselves.

I'll leave it at this: we probably can't reconstruct exactly what John was thinking, on Patmos, as he composed his message to the mainland. He seems to have been deliberately obscure. In this, he was following the pattern set by his Lord, who spoke parables to the crowds, but secretly revealed to His closest followers. I think that John was essentially writing in open code, and one must dig into John's sources, especially Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. His allusions are constant, but they're often veiled or mashed together. And I suspect deliberately so: one must almost become a "disciple" of John to make any headway (which may have been his intent).

See e.g

Originally Posted by Psalm 78

A Maskil of Asaph. Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.….

Originally Posted by Matt 13

All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.".….

Additionally note that in public Jesus would speak elliptical sayings, riddles, then close with, "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear..." which is exactly what John wrote to each of the seven churches in Revelations 2 and 3. In other words, I'm not going to reveal my parable, but if you have diligence, and patience, and humility, perhaps God will open your ears and you'll hear the Spirit's speaking. You already have the anointing, and have no need that man teach you anything (1 John 2:20, 27). Be patient and God will speak what He wishes. But you first have to let go of YOUR wishes, your thoughts and intentions. And your culture. It's a hindrance to the Spirit's utterance. So buy some eye-salve.

As usual, I've probably written far too much and muddied things up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why is the church in Moses Lake a "rebel church", while WN could form an independent church? And Martin Luther, for that matter? Why wasn't WN's church a "rebel church" also? Why wasn't Luther's church a "rebel church"?

It all depends on which side of the divide one stands.

I left the Recovery in 2005 during the lead up to LSM's official Whistler ITERO quarantine of Titus Chu. What troubled me so much was the simple fact that we were forced to choose sides. I thought we were a "local" church, with local autonomy. Not so! All my brothers and sisters were forced to choose between regional headquarters in Cleveland, and national headquarters in Anaheim. Things got real ugly.

Martin Luther was condemned and targeted for assassination by the Pope and his thugs. There's a reason why the mafia grew up in Italy. Since I grew up with Prussian ancestry in a Catholic home, Luther was viewed with mixed feelings.

The church in Moses Lake was condemned for no other reason than they wanted to remain true to their vision: a "local" church, with local leadership, answering only to the Lord. LSM will never accept that! They condemn it as "independence," but consider that every single positive example in the Bible exhibited "independence" also. What about Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and Caleb, David, Samuel, Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and so many others I left out? They all were independent, and dependent on God alone! Otherwise they could never be faithful to their Lord and God.

We applauded W. Nee for leaving the "system," but now that same "system" inside the Recovery goes after those who leave for the same reasons!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you think I'm playing games with words, I'm not; in fact it's LC members who are playing with words. They do what everybody else does, which is give things names. LC members are called "saints", while everyone else is not? Unaffiliated Christian groups are called "free groups" and are condemned, while affiliated Christian groups are called "denominations" and are condemned also? It's like WL created a fantasy world where nobody is right, and nobody can possibly be right. How can anyone have fellowship in such an atmosphere, heavy with condemnation and judgment? A place where words mean whatever you want them to mean, only to mean something else when the need changes?

Well said aron. How true, how very true! Great post.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

But the word "one" in Biblical context doesn't necessitate a numerical understanding, but rather perhaps a functional perspective. Jesus said, "You shall be one, even as I am one with the Father", and this presented a common theme in the Bible, that of agency. A rich person has agents working for them, who are one with his or her wishes, desires, plans. They go forth, and work, and report back to the Boss. As such, they are one. There are many, but they are all one.

What I am getting to, is that we can view the idea of being "one" as not a numerical quantity, but rather a quality, a state of being. God is the "God of hosts" but God is one. There are many angels, and many "ministering spirits" (Heb 1:14), but one Spirit (Eph 4:4).

Conversely, Satan presides over a kingdom divided. Its very state is bedlam. Jesus asked, "Who are you", and the demons answered "We are many". They can't be one, they'll never be one. Only God is one. Therefore I don't see seven spirits burning before the throne of God as violating anything, credal or otherwise. There is still one Spirit. There is one Lord, one God and Father over all, etc.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Why is the church in Moses Lake a "rebel church", while WN could form an independent church?

Well, since Lee's ministry became basis for fellowship among local churches, when a local church disassociates from LSM, a locality such as Moses Lake is viewed as being independent. Thus a rebel church.
In my opinion this is the result of an "Us versus Them" mentality that is prevalent among the local churches.
What I believe to be true Moses Lake is open to fellowship with fellow Washington state localities. It is the other Washington state localities that are not open to fellowship with Moses Lake.
That being the ground of the church among LSM churches is the LSM publications. Apart from LSM publications, there is no ground for fellowship with other Christians.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

- Why were women prominent in the early "recovery" movement, but now they can't even give a message in church on Sunday morning? Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, etc etc; there were dozens functioning alongside WN. Ironically, one hundred years ago, women couldn't vote or hold public office, but could function in WN's "Little Flock" movement. Today women can run for President but can't speak on Sunday morning? What got recovered, here?

One of today's leading ones, RK, once told us that he thought the only thing worse than a rebellious brother was a spiritual sister. Do you think he'd be able to say that in front of M.E. Barber, who'd shepherded Watchman Nee? Or to Miss Groves, a missionary co-worker of Barber? Or to Ruth Lee, or Peace Wang, or Dora Yu? I doubt it. I think there is some serious disconnect here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One of today's leading ones, RK, once told us that he thought the only thing worse than a rebellious brother was a spiritual sister. Do you think he'd be able to say that in front of M.E. Barber, who'd shepherded Watchman Nee? Or to Miss Groves, a missionary co-worker of Barber? Or to Ruth Lee, or Peace Wang, or Dora Yu? I doubt it. I think there is some serious disconnect here.

I'm sure that RK's attitude came from Lee himself. The so-called "sisters' rebellion" was an eye-opener. In the early days Lee acknowledged the talents in the sisters and worked with them to care for others. Then the opportune time came to throw them under the bus ... so they did. After that, the sisters' place was in the kitchen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the early days Lee acknowledged the talents in the sisters and worked with them to care for others. Then the opportune time came to throw them under the bus ...

I think this is true, and speaks to a larger issue. In the early days, WL was probably more tolerant, and inclusive, because he had to be. Once he consolidated power, those whom he initially accepted, used, and worked alongside were either suppressed or expelled. Now, they were no longer needed; now they were threats to power. Thus, the motive spirit reveals itself: "It is a spirit of human power, not of love." This was WL's diagnosis of his close followers, but it also applied to himself, as WN's close follower.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sure that RK's attitude came from Lee himself. The so-called "sisters' rebellion" was an eye-opener.

I believe RK's attitude came from something else. As for the so-called sister's rebellion....that's was the politically expedient thing to do at the time. As I see whenever WL had a problem with a particular serving one whether it was Max or Christian, he saw to it their wives were publically shamed when their husband's were out of town. Whether he did the shaming or sent a pawn to do it.

[Lisbon]

How things changed. One of my first trainings in the Anaheim convention center WL thought he had trouble making his point and very spontaneously called at least half dozen people whom he knew could possibly contribute come forward and speak to the subject for a few minutes. Averil Hendrickson was one of them and the only sister. She did very well. To my observation she did as well as any but such an observation is not worth much from 40 years ago. You can be sure something like that would not take place today.

Lisbon

[Timotheist]

We can't have sisters 'blending' with brothers. What kind of testimony would that be?

[HERn]

Our dear brother/sister only posted once. May the Lord destroy the strongholds of satan. And release our brother /sister to post again.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Our dear brother/sister only posted once. May the Lord destroy the strongholds of satan. And release our brother /sister to post again.

I'd have a full-time trainee ask their trainer:

1. "Why were women prominent in the early work of recovery, from Madame Guyon and Jessie Penn-Lewis to Margaret Barber, Peace Wang and Ruth Lee, and 100 years later this is no longer the case? What happened?"

2. "Why did Watchman Nee use Christian writings from ancient sources up to contemporary, while we have "One Trumpet" and only draw from one source? Why could Nee pick through varied writings, taking what was good and balancing them, yet we're expected to accept only Nee and Lee, and that 'whole cloth', complete and entire? Why was Nee able to exercise such discernment and judgment while we're not?"

I could think of other questions, but in the interest of simplicity and brevity offer those two.

My own answers are: 1. Women were used while it was expedient. But eventually it was no longer expedient. Just like with John Ingalls, Max Rapoport, and so many others; they find that this is a ministry of expedience. What's good, or useful, or praised today, may be rejected, suppressed, or forgotten when it's no longer needed. Women had their moment, the "recovery" was established, and then they could be cast aside. The ministry of the age had moved on.

2. Nee had discernment as the Apostle of the Age. God's Deputy. The rest of us are to exercise our discernment to realize that he was God's Man of the Hour; now we no longer need to do the hard work Nee did, of thinking and proving all things.

Ditto with Lee. He was bright enough to realize that Nee was his meal ticket - sorry, that Nee was the Man of the Hour, God's chosen Vessel of the Age. And Lee's heart was pure enough to follow the Vision of the Age without deviation, and bring it to us. The rest of us should realize that it's all figured out, and we can become Witness Lee Tape Recorders in the his God-Man Duplication Factory. Don't bother to read any other materials, because that will just bring in confusion and frustrate God's sole move on the earth today.

That second answer had a touch of sarcasm, sorry. In actuality it's man-elevating and man-worshipping human culture, paired with self-aggrandizement - "everybody else makes mistakes; not me". Present that heady brew to people who need to be told what to say and think, and there's a unholy trinity at work. It's seen in Local Church historical narratives: "From the Darkness (i.e. fallen and degraded Christianity), God raised up His Chosen Servant of the Present Revelation, who alone could lead us all into the Wonderful Recovered Church age!"

I bet if you asked a 'responsible one' in the FTT they would give you a sentence like the last one, with a straight face. All you'll get is recitation of pet phrases.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SevenSpirits

Ama means to ask me anything.

Thought this guy might stick around a little longer the way he talked.

Disciplined.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thought this guy might stick around a little longer the way he talked.

I bet an FTT 'serving one' got wind that a trainee was on the dreaded internet and put a stop to it, right quick. But I wanted to answer them, anyway; eventually another one of them will end up here, looking around. So there's a couple of questions waiting for ya.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I bet an FTT 'serving one' got wind that a trainee was on the dreaded internet and put a stop to it, right quick. But I wanted to answer them, anyway; eventually another one of them will end up here, looking around. So there's a couple of questions waiting for ya.

The hall monitor has his eye on you.

[Peter Debelak]

All (and to AMA):

He/She did get piled on with a multitude of response. It would have been overwhelming.

But if it was a genuine question - a burning one - no amount of push-back would have quelched it.

I remember my initial post, which caused this forum to rain down upon me in critique (snide, sarcastic and otherwise). I didn't realize how pointed and insular my language was. I didn't realize my assumed premises. But I also didn't relinquish one single point until I owned them myself.

To date, I have had a multitude of debates and disagreements on this forum. And I have had faith-affirming relationships here. Its been years since I posted here, but I have never forgotten the value of the dialogue this forum presents. Its only "damaging" if you don't own your own faith. Otherwise, it is a sharpening stone.

Post or do not post. But do so for the sake of your faith, not your curriculum.

In Love,

Peter

[ACuriousFellow]

My mentor is a graduate of the FTTA. He would become quite angry any time I questioned Recovery doctrine or when I protested the decisions of the elders. There was another graduate who called my testimony "trash" when I tried to bring concerns regarding the elders in my locality and Recovery doctrine in general. Such fascinating people these graduates are.

I would personally like to know, first and foremost, if they've ever heard the names "Jo Casteel," "Steve Isitt," and "John Ingalls."

If the answer is yes, I'd like to know if they have read/heard the testimonies of these people. Not what they think of these people or if they feel these people were good or bad. Simply if they have read/heard their testimonies.

Those two questions are certainly first and foremost in my heart.

You have to remember that in Local church individual discernment is not a thing, but it’s all about the body. The body as in all graduates of FTT and all those who are the layman, have to be subjected to the head, which is the LSM and the apostles blenders. When the letter from Jo surfaced, I was already kind of on my way out of there, and I remember my wife almost literally forbidding me from finding out what was in it, because they were all scared to death that it’s the biggest poison they can read.

I bet 98% of people who are in there, know nothing about it, or read it. I’m not sure which locality she and her husband were in, maybe those are the only few people who read the letter. It was quickly shoved under the rug, and made to be of no need for anyone except the few select “matured” (as I was told) bros to review it. Furthermore, local church is kind of set up like a baby in a mother’s womb, members swim in that water of oneness, protected by the wise master builders, and are fed by the LSM as an umbilical cord that supplies and discerns everything they need for their maturity. They never see a real world, nor in most cases they ever come out of the womb because they will die spiritually.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

My mentor is a graduate of the FTTA. He would become quite angry any time I questioned Recovery doctrine or when I protested the decisions of the elders. There was another graduate who called my testimony "trash" when I tried to bring concerns regarding the elders in my locality and Recovery doctrine in general. Such fascinating people these graduates are.

I would personally like to know, first and foremost, if they've ever heard the names "Jo Casteel," "Steve Isitt," and "John Ingalls."

If the answer is yes, I'd like to know if they have read/heard the testimonies of these people. Not what they think of these people or if they feel these people were good or bad. Simply if they have read/heard their testimonies.

Those two questions are certainly first and foremost in my heart.

I know for a fact the responsible brothers in Bellevue, Washington were paranoid of Steve Isitt. Somehow they had this concept Steve would actively try to poison the young people.
Question 1 - how did Steve get a hand on Speaking the Truth in Love to transcribe electronically? Mother of a FTTA graduate had one. I knew her husband well in the 1990's/early 2000's. Back then I never knew John wrote anything. Anyways part of why Steve remained disfellowshipped is the brothers couldn't trust him and sure didn't want him around prospective FTTA trainees. One elder I knew told me whenever Ron Kangas and James Lee would come to Seattle, they would ask "what is Steve Isitt up to?
Question 2 - I would be pressed if any FTTA graduate had read John Ingalls, Steve Isitt, or Jo Casteel.
I lived in corporate living from March 1995-September 1997. It was a house in Bellevue, Washington owned by Teresa Zimmerman-Liu and her husband. (I feel I can mention Teresa's name since she has articles on this forum). Several brothers I loved with were funny and loved life. These brothers made me laugh and I made them laugh. This was prior to their attending of FTTA. Once they passed through FTTA, it seemed their time at the training robbed these fun-loving brothers of their humor and zest of life. They looked the same, but lost their personality.
Last time I heard from one of them was being asked if my first two children would attend Summer School of Truth?

I’m waiting to reset my password but still wanted to reply. I know you asked if anyone had any questions and you seem sincere. It’s an interesting question though bc my first thought is why you’re not asking why people have left? Why would a group like this be needed? Many of us grew up in the local churches so I could probably predict the answers you’d give. Something in you seems curious if you’re even on this site. Do you have any questions?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I know for a fact the responsible brothers in Bellevue, Washington were paranoid of Steve Isitt. Somehow they had this concept Steve would actively try to poison the young people.
Question 1 - how did Steve get a hand on Speaking the Truth in Love to transcribe electronically? Mother of a FTTA graduate had one. I knew her husband well in the 1990's/early 2000's. Back then I never knew John wrote anything. Anyways part of why Steve remained disfellowshipped is the brothers couldn't trust him and sure didn't want him around prospective FTTA trainees. One elder I knew told me whenever Ron Kangas and James Lee would come to Seattle, they would ask "what is Steve Isitt up to?
Question 2 - I would be pressed if any FTTA graduate had read John Ingalls, Steve Isitt, or Jo Casteel.
I lived in corporate living from March 1995-September 1997. It was a house in Bellevue, Washington owned by Teresa Zimmerman-Liu and her husband. (I feel I can mention Teresa's name since she has articles on this forum). Several brothers I loved with were funny and loved life. These brothers made me laugh and I made them laugh. This was prior to their attending of FTTA. Once they passed through FTTA, it seemed their time at the training robbed these fun-loving brothers of their humor and zest of life. They looked the same, but lost their personality.
Last time I heard from one of them was being asked if my first two children would attend Summer School of Truth?

Oh wow. I know Jared Isit. I think maybe that's who you're talking about here? But Jared got divorced around 2006 and I spent time with him directly after. He was deeply hurt by the divorce and I got to know him as a person and he was not at all the type of person who would initiate a divorce for selfish reasons. I in fact don't know why they got divorced, but I know that he was very very distrought over it and doing his best to maintain positivity

Now, around this time I lived in Kirkland which was very close to Bellevue. My mother and I met at the church in Belleuve. I came from the church in Spokane originally, but due to certain life circumstances I had to move in with my mother and she lived in the eastside area of Seattle (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond). We lived in Kirkland and drove down to the meetings in Bellevue

I remember noticing the distinct difference in life level and enjoyment of the spirit between Bellevue and Spokane. Spokane was very living, very spirit filled, very consecrated, very loving, and just so full of shepherding. Bellevue was like the exact opposite. There was little to no life, little to no genuine spirit that I could detect, and the atmosphere was stuffy and judgmental (this despite them going through all the regular motions of a meeting such as singing, praying, and prophesying). It was church life culture, but I didn't know what that was at the time because i was too young to understand. I just knew that when I came home from the meetings I felt horrible. Like I literally felt terrible when I got home and I felt better when I didn't go. It was pretty crazy to experience that coming from such a spirit filled church in Spokane (not to say Spokane never had problems, they did have problems with culture and judging others for awhile in the 1990's, but when I was there in the early 2000's it was a glorious time. It was also my honeymoon time with the Lord so I think that played a part as well)


Anyway to my point- I remember Jared Isit and I was there for his divorce. But one day there was a brother's meeting in Bellevue and for some rason I felt compelled to attend. I was around 23 years old and I remember Sherman Robertson was speaking and it was the most crazy meeting I've ever been a part of. The entire meeting Sherman was just bashing this brother Jared Isit. Now he never said the name Jared, but everyone seemed to know who he was talking about because he mentioned this brother was meeting with them from another area and he mentioned this brother had just got divorced. I knew exactly who he was talking about but I couldn't understand why he was bashing him. And all the brothers were grunting "AMEN" loudly and it was one of the most spectacular exhibitions of the flesh I've ever seen in my Christian walk. I was pretty astounded that such a thing actually took place

Sherman also would often stand up and literally yell at the members in Bellevue because there was gaps in between prophesying. I couldn't believe this either. It just was such a wild thing to witness. Here you have an elder brother who clearly is the big boss of the locality standing up angrily threatening the members to stand up and share. It was just so crazy

And looking back he really was the leader there in the sense that what he said goes. He had two or three other brothers around him who were like his lackies and it was just a weird exhibition of ambition for position. Wherever he went they would follow him around, and whenever he was by himself or with his wife his wife would always be like two steps behind him and he walked around like he was the president, with an air of superiority. It was a very weird thing to witness. I'm sure it greatly affected the whole church. I remember once I went and sat in the middle in the front row and I got extreme glares from all the "front row" ambitious brothers who probably felt like they were all in the running to be the next elder. Just boggled my mind how such a thing could exist with all the writings brother Lee put out to guard against ambition in the church

I read something recently by brother Lee and he said something along the lines of "when we first come into the church we have a honeymoon period, and then one day that disappears and we see all the faults with the church. and we should understand that the church is glorious despite these faults and it's still the best place on earth." I'm torn on that statement knowing what I know now of his history and what I've experienced with the controlling ambitious leadership in the churches. It seems like brother Lee knew a lot of the small members would run into these problems with the leadership and would eventually uncover what they have been trying to hide. so he was covering himself saying things like this, which he often would say in his speaking. how is that not gaslighting? it's crazy that we would have leadership that is above criticism when it does something wrong. and we are asked to "just take the cross and cover our brothers." when probably they don't deserve their positions. which btw there shouldn't be positions in the church. that's the clergy-laity system

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

Why is the church in Moses Lake a "rebel church", while WN could form an independent church? And Martin Luther, for that matter? Why wasn't WN's church a "rebel church" also? Why wasn't Luther's church a "rebel church"?

If the Lamb went and took the scroll from Him who sat on the throne in Revelation 5:7, how is the Lamb the Father? How can the Lamb take the scroll from Himself? For that matter, how can the Lamb sit at His own right hand? (Psa 110:1, Matt 22:44)

If LSM puts out a magazine called "Affirmation and Critique", why can't LC members also critique WL's writings, as well as affirm them? Why are they told not to be "negative", but encouraged to be negative against everyone and everything else (I.e. "Christianity" and "the world")?

Why is Affirmation and Critique not a name, also? Or Defense and Confirmation Project? Or Bibles for America? Those are names? Or even "the Thursday night prayer meeting at Sister Smith's house" - that is a name, is it not?

If you think I'm playing games with words, I'm not; in fact it's LC members who are playing with words. They do what everybody else does, which is give things names. LC members are called "saints", while everyone else is not? Unaffiliated Christian groups are called "free groups" and are condemned, while affiliated Christian groups are called "denominations" and are condemned also? It's like WL created a fantasy world where nobody is right, and nobody can possibly be right. How can anyone have fellowship in such an atmosphere, heavy with condemnation and judgment? A place where words mean whatever you want them to mean, only to mean something else when the need changes?

As you can see, I'm a prickly sort. Please forgive me. Obviously I didn't make it very far in the LC system. I just couldn't get out of my mind, sufficiently.

For that matter, why did WL think, and reason, while everyone else was deemed hopelessly deficient and simply recited verbatim what the Seer of the Age (WL, naturally) was thinking? Doesn't this seem like we're being respecters of persons, here? One special person gets a special rule, while the great unwashed masses get another rule?

I was born in Moses Lake in 1983. I was around two or three years old when the church in Moses Lake rebelled against brother Lee. I can tell you that I don't know all the reasons they rebelled, but I do think that that rebellion was of satan and greatly used by satan. Our family in fact took a stand with Witness Lee and my father stood up and publicially said he felt to leave the ministry was wrong and they booed him and chastised him and attacked him for it. So our family stopped meeting there and we eventually moved to Spokane in 1990. But we were cut off from the church in Moses Lake for around four years because they defected

Brother Lee was wrong in taking money from the members, but the brothers around him were wrong for trying to hide his involvement in that. And they were wrong for not issuing a public apology and making the error public. Instead they tried to cover it up and to this day I'm sure they still do

But with that said I do believer the Lord's recovery is unique and it's of God, and it's what God is doing today. However the local churches are full of problems and some of those problems need to be addressed and dealt with in a proper way. I do believe there is a type of ambitious leadership control in the recovery. I do believe there is a type of clergy-laity going on that is systematic and longstanding and probably needs to be exposed and corrected. Whether it stemmed from Lee or the brothers directly under him idk. But I also can't throw the baby out with the bath water and say that all of Lee's life work is corrupted. I do believe the church is what God is doing, it's where his blessing is, and I can't fathom going anywhere else. But that doesn't mean there are not large problems to be dealt with within. The Lord said 'many first will be last, and last will be first'

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It all depends on which side of the divide one stands.

I left the Recovery in 2005 during the lead up to LSM's official Whistler ITERO quarantine of Titus Chu. What troubled me so much was the simple fact that we were forced to choose sides. I thought we were a "local" church, with local autonomy. Not so! All my brothers and sisters were forced to choose between regional headquarters in Cleveland, and national headquarters in Anaheim. Things got real ugly.

Martin Luther was condemned and targeted for assassination by the Pope and his thugs. There's a reason why the mafia grew up in Italy. Since I grew up with Prussian ancestry in a Catholic home, Luther was viewed with mixed feelings.

The church in Moses Lake was condemned for no other reason than they wanted to remain true to their vision: a "local" church, with local leadership, answering only to the Lord. LSM will never accept that! They condemn it as "independence," but consider that every single positive example in the Bible exhibited "independence" also. What about Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and Caleb, David, Samuel, Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and so many others I left out? They all were independent, and dependent on God alone! Otherwise they could never be faithful to their Lord and God.

We applauded W. Nee for leaving the "system," but now that same "system" inside the Recovery goes after those who leave for the same reasons!

I think you make some marvelous points here. But also it's nuanced. On the one hand the brothers in Moses Lake seemed right for not bowing down to Lee when Lee was wrong. On the other hand they left the recovery which is what God is doing in this age. So it's a catch-22. I think they felt they were right to break away from corrupt leadership, but they also didn't consider that there is nothing else to go away to. What Nee did was unique and absolutely part of God's movement. It was also 100% biblically correct and because of that there is the blessing on the local church members from God. Make no mistake God WANTS one church per one city

That notwithstanding I've read the history of Lee and Nee's personal problems and the accusations against them. And I believe a lot of it is true. They are fallible humans after all and the amount of reverence placed on them is almost deity like from many of the local church members

So it's all nuanced and hard to decipher which way is right. Ultimately I was born in Moses Lake in 1983 and my parents stayed with Brother Lee. In fact my mother wrote him a letter asking if it was ok to leave the church there because of their rebellion and Lee wrote her back saying it was ok. So our family left when we had an opportunity in 1990, but we didn't meet for around four years after their rebellion

The proof is in the results. The results is that the church in Moses Lake ceased from being a local church and they became a local sect. I can't imagine they had much blessing or spirit after that happened

Maybe neither here nor there, but actually Moses Lake had a church life culture. And it had ambitious member such as Ken Sandburg and Bill Freeman, who would go around Washington and hype up his own ministry. But anyway, my older brother and sister were often spanked publicly in their little daystar church school when they were wrong. And they advocated for public punishment to be meted out by the adults.....any adult. In other words you could spank children who weren't yours whenever you decided they did something wrong, all at their own discretion. And I remember they were big advocates of violent spankings as punishment and my ignorant father thought that was the right way and he ended up beating us often when we were wrong. This was the result of the local church practice in Moses Lake and I believe this greatly affected all of our lives even to this day. We have pain and psychological trauma from that. They also singled out the children from our family because we were poor and we didn't quite fit in with the inner circle there. They treated us as less than, which exposed a lot of their cliqueyness and means that they had certain classes and ranks within

Btw, I've talked to my mom a lot about what happened and she doesn't know details, but from gathering a lot of information over the years it's possible that Bill Freeman from Moses Lake was in competition with brother Lee and when brother Lee got exposed this brother saw an opportunity to capitalize and attempted to gain more power for position by "quarantining" his locality away from LSM. I don't know if that's truthfully what happened, or if that was in his heart at the time, but it's something to consider. Brother Lee felt there was a lot of brothers who were trying to take over localities and regions and he did a lot to throw water on that fire. But on the other hand one has to consider what he himself was doin to control localities and how he propped himself up like the one and only speaker of the age. Which doesn't seem Biblical as at many times in the Bible God spoke through various channels, and these channels being obscure men who have no mention before or after in the word. Which goes to back up the point that God is not a respecter of persons and he will use whomever he chooses to use, for whatever purpose, at whatever time he chooses. I think that at least Lee had a preoccupation with leadership and somewhat of an obsession with it. In the Bible we see many instances of God sending two or more speakers out to preach and establish churches. Lee's preoccupation with their being only one human leader as head oracle doesn't seem Biblical, in fact he himself splintered up the leadership and speaking amongst the "blended" brothers- Kangus, Marks, Taylor, etc. so why on the one hand would he call himself the minister of the age, and on the other hand say that the Lord's recovery is uniquely the Lord's and it's not in anyone's pocket? I suppose you could argue those things aren't mutually exclusive, but you could also argue that all of the major affairs of the local churches went through brother Lee before approval or a decision was made. so how exactly would he NOT be the big exclusive leader of the recovery? It seems that was was said in his messages, and what was actually practiced are two different things. And as others have said it's sometimes imperceptibal that there is administrative control over the churches UNTIL you run up against it in a negative way, and then it glares its ugly head out at you

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

I have a few questions.

- Do they still tell you, "don't waste your time" with the poor, the orphans, the widows, with those who have no means to repay you in the present age? See Luke 14:13,14; cf Prov 19:17. Paul wrote (Gal 2:10) that he was "eager to remember the poor" but I didn't see much eagerness when I was in the FTTA. Instead they were eager for "good building material", such as Caucasian college students. How 'normal' is this disdain for the weak and the sick among us? It doesn't seem like a normal Christian church life, to me.

- Your moniker is SevenSpirits: do you really believe in seven spirits, or in just one spirit, sevenfold intensified to overcome the degradation of the church? If this "seven is really one" idea is true, then why didn't WL use the same methodology throughout the Revelation? Why didn't he say that Revelation 21:12 showed one gate, which had become twelvefold intensified, or that Revelation 8:2 showed merely one angel standing before God, who was sevenfold intensified, or that the seven churches in Rev 2 and 3 were in fact one church, sevenfold? Why use one methodology (seven = one) in one place, and abandon that interpretive method everywhere else? Why the inconsistency of method?

And if Moses built a lampstand holding up seven lamps in Exodus, then was the church already degraded in Exodus when he went on the holy mountain and received the vision? So, why did Moses need to create seven lights in Exodus? In the NT we see only one spirit (e.g. Ephesians 4:4), and then in Revelation 1 (once again?) John beheld seven flames burning before the throne?

I suspect there were seven flames all along, and the "degraded church" idea was something that WL needed to distance himself from every other teacher, all of whom were of course useless. "They're all degraded!!" Only WL had the oracle, so we were taught. Yes, were problems in the Asian churches in Revs 2 & 3, but there also were problems in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. So why seven flames in Revelation? And why WL's need to overturn the plain language right in front of him, and make seven equal one? And if his logic were right, why didn't he consistently use it?

- Why were women prominent in the early "recovery" movement, but now they can't even give a message in church on Sunday morning? Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, etc etc; there were dozens functioning alongside WN. Ironically, one hundred years ago, women couldn't vote or hold public office, but could function in WN's "Little Flock" movement. Today women can run for President but can't speak on Sunday morning? What got recovered, here? Where's Priscilla and Aquila in the Lord's recovery movement? Banished.

I agree with you on the LC treating poor people without love. They treated me this way. I was looked at with disdain for not being an excelling brother, and some brothers have even used condescending language towards me. There was also a brother who came into our locality a few years ago and he got baptized with us and later on ran into some trouble and became homeless. He reached out to the leading brothers and was basically ignored. I was in the room with one of them when he called and asked for help and he was redirected to a different locality where a brother had maybe a room for him. Which was ok I guess, but then that brother got off the phone and said verbatim "we are not a salvation army." And he laughed about it. That has never sat right with me

But I don't agree that Lee was talking about degraded Christianity in an errant way in the sense that he is objectively wrong about them. Certainly the denominations are sectarian and degraded in more ways than one. But we could also argue that Lee's constant bashing of them wasn't righteous either. To the point where you almost get an "us vrs them" type of thought. At the end of the day these are our brothers and sisters in the Lord. They may be to whatever extent lost in the worldly Christian system, but that doesn't make them less than us, and Lee was constantly bashing them and putting them down, which would give the listener an air of superiority over them, as if these were foreign people who didn't deserve our time. Which would make the members of the local churches special and extraordinary in comparison with other believers. And I do think this type of thinking is latent in the recovery. They really do believe they're a special class of Christian and they absolutely do talk like they're more blessed than other Christians. Which is debatable objectively, but it's also not right to talk about yourselves that way. It's certainly a matter of pride

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I agree with you on the LC treating poor people without love. They treated me this way. I was looked at with disdain for not being an excelling brother, and some brothers have even used condescending language towards me. There was also a brother who came into our locality a few years ago and he got baptized with us and later on ran into some trouble and became homeless. He reached out to the leading brothers and was basically ignored. I was in the room with one of them when he called and asked for help and he was redirected to a different locality where a brother had maybe a room for him. Which was ok I guess, but then that brother got off the phone and said verbatim "we are not a salvation army." And he laughed about it. That has never sat right with me

James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Verse 14 totally exhibits the local churches; faith without deeds.
Has it always been this way?
Not my experience. As a child when my parents would move to a new locality, there were families that gave us a place to sleep in their home.
Not many years later (Dec1982/Jan1983) as a 9th grader during winter break we were out of town spending winter break with relatives. The house we lived in burned to the ground. Sure those in our locality could have said "we are not a salvation army". That may epitomize the Recovery today, but 40 years ago it was a different culture. A brother moved out of his home so my parents and my siblings had a place to live. Different ones in our locality donated clothes, appliance, food items. There was faith with deeds.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Verse 14 totally exhibits the local churches; faith without deeds.
Has it always been this way?
Not my experience. As a child when my parents would move to a new locality, there were families that gave us a place to sleep in their home.
Not many years later (Dec1982/Jan1983) as a 9th grader during winter break we were out of town spending winter break with relatives. The house we lived in burned to the ground. Sure those in our locality could have said "we are not a salvation army". That may epitomize the Recovery today, but 40 years ago it was a different culture. A brother moved out of his home so my parents and my siblings had a place to live. Different ones in our locality donated clothes, appliance, food items. There was faith with deeds.

Yeah I knew another brother who was disabled and went to his locality for help because the government wouldn't help him financially. The local church that he went to turned him away and told him that he should keep trying to find help from the world. But he had already tried and told them he had been trying for years with no help. They essentially just gave him the run around. Which I don't think is in the least bit biblical. The brother needed real practical help and they just denied him. While at the same time they basically gaslit him saying they loved and supported him and cared about him, and claimed they would pray for him, yet they wouldn't help him in any practical way. I was really upset by that. I think that despite how much the local church's look down on modern Christianity, I bet you that the denominations would open their wallets and help a sick and needy brother. This happened about a year ago

Also during the time the brother was asking for help, the leading brothers he was communicating with were acting very squirrely when it came to text and email conversations. They always wanted to meet up with him and talk in person as opposed to over text and email. You could say some people communicate better that way, but to the brother it seemed more like they didn't want anything in writing that could be used against them later. He said it was really bizarre how much they tried to avoid putting any of their communication in writing

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Yeah I knew another brother who was disabled and went to his locality for help because the government wouldn't help him financially. The local church that he went to turned him away and told him that he should keep trying to find help from the world. But he had already tried and told them he had been trying for years with no help. They essentially just gave him the run around. Which I don't think is in the least bit biblical. The brother needed real practical help and they just denied him. While at the same time they basically gaslit him saying they loved and supported him and cared about him, and claimed they would pray for him, yet they wouldn't help him in any practical way. I was really upset by that. I think that despite how much the local church's look down on modern Christianity, I bet you that the denominations would open their wallets and help a sick and needy brother. This happened about a year ago

Also during the time the brother was asking for help, the leading brothers he was communicating with were acting very squirrely when it came to text and email conversations. They always wanted to meet up with him and talk in person as opposed to over text and email. You could say some people communicate better that way, but to the brother it seemed more like they didn't want anything in writing that could be used against them later. He said it was really bizarre how much they tried to avoid putting any of their communication in writing

Every month it was demanded that our little LC send money to Headquarters in Cleveland and Anaheim. We had to support LSM/DCP for its almost unlimited litigation against Christians, yet for years on end we had not one penny for our “needy saints.” These were strictly mandated business decisions void of any love.

But Paul plainly told Timothy concerning God’s “economy” that “the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith.” (I Tim 1.5)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every month it was demanded that our little LC send money to Headquarters in Cleveland and Anaheim. We had to support LSM/DCP for its almost unlimited litigation against Christians, yet for years on end we had not one penny for our “needy saints.” These were strictly mandated business decisions void of any love.

But Paul plainly told Timothy concerning God’s “economy” that “the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith.” (I Tim 1.5)

That is what makes local churches more like ministry churches. Financial support is solely for a singular ministry and not plural ministries. If they did offer support to multiple ministries or even non-profit organizations they bear no entity affiliation with, I would not have much of an argument.
Having said all this, I don't recall if local churches actively invest in rental properties for their less fortunate members or even a fund to assist their members in need.
If it happened, I didn't see it. Rather more likely is the case as we see in James:
"If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?"

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

That is what makes local churches more like ministry churches. Financial support is solely for a singular ministry and not plural ministries. If they did offer support to multiple ministries or even non-profit organizations they bear no entity affiliation with, I would not have much of an argument.
Having said all this, I don't recall if local churches actively invest in rental properties for their less fortunate members or even a fund to assist their members in need.
If it happened, I didn't see it. Rather more likely is the case as we see in James:
"If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?"

I know of one in Spokane, which is I think two houses directly behind the Spokane meeting hall. But when I was there they used those houses for hosting speaking brothers and like young people who would come to that locality to blend or possibly consider going full time in the area. And those young people would need to be shining examples and burning for God and consecrated before they could be housed there. At least that's what it seemed like, it could be it's just an extra home for anyone who is visiting, I don't know for sure. But I am fairly certain that they were not at all used for helping the needy saints

I am not sure at all what the actual church gives but as far as I know the decisions of the finances (from local member donations) is solely up to the leading brothers in whatever locality. Meaning it's a local decision what to do with the church's donated funds. But that's just what I've heard from one leading brother. Actually I heard the exact opposite from another older brother who said that the money donated is NOT up to the local administration. So I don't know for sure, but I'm leaning towards the former, the decision is up to the local administration on how to distribute the funds. But I'd also bet that the money they get from selling books and morning revivals etc. goes back to LSM

So ultimately who knows how much they give and to whom and in what way. I know saints who have received donations from other members. When that happens the member who is donating essentially just gives money to the finance dept of whatever local church he is attending and they add a note which says "please give this money to such and such person." Then the administration writes a check from their locality and gives that check to the member in need. I've only seen this happen, I have never seen the administration just give to a needy member from out of the local donations. So I have no idea if they do or do not. But from what I've heard and experienced they are not at all readily giving to members who ask for help

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It all depends on which side of the divide one stands.


The church in Moses Lake was condemned for no other reason than they wanted to remain true to their vision: a "local" church, with local leadership, answering only to the Lord. LSM will never accept that! They condemn it as "independence," but consider that every single positive example in the Bible exhibited "independence" also. What about Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and Caleb, David, Samuel, Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and so many others I left out? They all were independent, and dependent on God alone! Otherwise they could never be faithful to their Lord and God.

We applauded W. Nee for leaving the "system," but now that same "system" inside the Recovery goes after those who leave for the same reasons!

I'm reading this comment again and there's a lot there is either wrong or missing in your thinking here. First of all I was born in Moses Lake in the early 80's and my family was in the middle of the turmoil there. My parents decided to stick with LSM and Lee and we got ostracized because of it, and basically we all stopped meeting. Which was good because that church had a ton of problems, physical abuse of children being one of the major ones

Anyway where I think you're wrong is that I don't at all believe that the leading brothers decided to break away from Lee because "they wanted to remain true to their vision: a "local" church, with local leadership, answering only to the Lord." This may have been said by them as a kind of veneer. But I think it was related to the dissent from a great deal of leaders in general around this time. The leading brothers call this "a storm." But in this particular "storm" there was a ton of testimony going around about Lee's bad business dealings and the serious problems with his sons, and the very serious allegations coming out about one of his sons in particular. If you read Ingalls letter to the church 'Speaking the truth in love' (which you can easily find online, a link is on this website I believe, or just google it), you will see that there was actually quite a few elders and leaders around the country who were really struggling with what was going on. Ingalls resigned as an elder along with at least one other brother, and maybe more over the situation

So with that said, it's entirely within the timeframe that the leaders in Moses Lake were "dissenting" because they didn't want to go along with Brother Lee in his nepotistic protection of his son(s) with regards to their allegations of bad business deals and sexual assault. That makes perfect sense. Now, idk for sure, but it's possible that there was attempted coup on Bro Lee by some of these brothers. I know that Bill Freeman was quarantined in all of Washington state. I was in Spokane around 2005 and meeting with the church there and the elder stood up and told us that Bill Freeman was going to be visiting the city and that we all should stay away from him. How he got that information I don't know, but even in 2005, which is around twenty years since the church in Moses Lake broke away from bro Lee and LSM, they were STILL quarantining Bill Freeman. Which is pretty wild

At any rate we'll probably never know exactly the motivations for the bros in Moses Lake to dissent. But also it's some great points to consider with regards to the abuse of leadership, or the mishandling of leadership and alleged protective nepotism

I don't think it was regarding simply the church in Moses Lake wanting local autonomy. That's too basic in my view. I know that they did want this and I see no reason why Lee would seek to not allow them local autonomy, because as far as I know that's how the local churches function. They are or should be autonomous in a lot of their local dealings and functions. How exactly they interact with LSM is anyone's guess, or maybe people have certain experiences of control idk. But I seriously doubt this was the reason for the dissent in Moses Lake. For sure there was a disagreement between Lee and the leaders of the church of Moses Lake. The details of that I don't know. But I do know that Lee was saying they needed to fall under him and if they didn't they could go their own way, and they chose to go their own way and cut themselves off from the fellowship of all the other churches. I guess you could take from that that Lee DID in fact have autonomous control over all the churches. But again, I highly doubt that the only reason the dissent ensued was simply because Lee wouldn't recognize their autonomy. That doesn't sound right

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

At any rate we'll probably never know exactly the motivations for the bros in Moses Lake to dissent. But also it's some great points to consider with regards to the abuse of leadership, or the mishandling of leadership and alleged protective nepotism

I don't think it was regarding simply the church in Moses Lake wanting local autonomy. That's too basic in my view. I know that they did want this and I see no reason why Lee would seek to not allow them local autonomy, because as far as I know that's how the local churches function. They are or should be autonomous in a lot of their local dealings and functions. How exactly they interact with LSM is anyone's guess, or maybe people have certain experiences of control idk. But I seriously doubt this was the reason for the dissent in Moses Lake. For sure there was a disagreement between Lee and the leaders of the church of Moses Lake. The details of that I don't know. But I do know that Lee was saying they needed to fall under him and if they didn't they could go their own way, and they chose to go their own way and cut themselves off from the fellowship of all the other churches. I guess you could take from that that Lee DID in fact have autonomous control over all the churches. But again, I highly doubt that the only reason the dissent ensued was simply because Lee wouldn't recognize their autonomy. That doesn't sound right

There may always be ulterior motives, such as those of Titus Chu in Ohio, but you can see in John Ingalls' testimony that autonomy was a primary concern of many elders and localities even long before Phillip Lee's sins were widely known. John Ingalls and Godfred Otuteye made much of this clear in their fellowship with other elders and regional/national leaders of The Local Churches. More and more orders and demands were coming in from LSM as if they had some kind of authority over the church, and those who resisted were often reprimanded by Lee or his subordinates. This only became worse when Phillip, who was not at all seen as a mature believer by many or even a believer at all by some, began to exercise this authority as well with little, if any, checks and balances from the churches. With time this culminated with more and more authoritarian teachings within The Lord's Recovery with doctrines such as "Minister of the Age," "God's deputy authority," "apostolic succession," "1000 years of darkness," "one publication." This goes hand in hand with their teachings of reflexively labeling any critics of LSM materials as "dissenters" and "poisonous" people who should absolutely be avoided regardless of whether or not you think they are right or are good people.

Autonomy was a pivotal and foundational reason for the localities in the Local Churches to express dissent because what they were seeing over the years reeked of the hierarchy and clergy/laity that Witness Lee had supposedly been standing against for so long. It went against everything that Lee had supposedly taught that The Lord's Recovery should be. Many elders disregarded the red flags for many years, but it became clear what kind of system was being built by Lee and his loyal followers, and it wasn't at all what Lee had promised them. Lee's reaction to these concerns was not proper humility, fellowship, and assurance, but public shaming of others, the tightening of the noose around many localities, and the culling of any who would speak up against him, leaving him and his successors with even more absolute control over the localities associated with The Lord's Recovery.

So while you may technically be right in saying that the issue of autonomy was not the only concern or motivation, for there are many involved with their own personal ideas and goals, it was the foundational and most widespread one since it led to Witness Lee's and Phillip Lee's abuse of power not only within the publication company known as Living Stream Ministry, but over many localities in the Local Churches.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

There may always be ulterior motives, such as those of Titus Chu in Ohio, but you can see in John Ingalls' testimony that autonomy was a primary concern of many elders and localities even long before Phillip Lee's sins were widely known. John Ingalls and Godfred Otuteye made much of this clear in their fellowship with other elders and regional/national leaders of The Local Churches. More and more orders and demands were coming in from LSM as if they had some kind of authority over the church, and those who resisted were often reprimanded by Lee or his subordinates. This only became worse when Phillip, who was not at all seen as a mature believer by many or even a believer at all by some, began to exercise this authority as well with little, if any, checks and balances from the churches. With time this culminated with more and more authoritarian teachings within The Lord's Recovery with doctrines such as "Minister of the Age," "God's deputy authority," "apostolic succession," "1000 years of darkness," "one publication." This goes hand in hand with their teachings of reflexively labeling any critics of LSM materials as "dissenters" and "poisonous" people who should absolutely be avoided regardless of whether or not you think they are right or are good people.

Autonomy was a pivotal and foundational reason for the localities in the Local Churches to express dissent because what they were seeing over the years reeked of the hierarchy and clergy/laity that Witness Lee had supposedly been standing against for so long. It went against everything that Lee had supposedly taught that The Lord's Recovery should be. Many elders disregarded the red flags for many years, but it became clear what kind of system was being built by Lee and his loyal followers, and it wasn't at all what Lee had promised them. Lee's reaction to these concerns was not proper humility, fellowship, and assurance, but public shaming of others, the tightening of the noose around many localities, and the culling of any who would speak up against him, leaving him and his successors with even more absolute control over the localities associated with The Lord's Recovery.

So while you may technically be right in saying that the issue of autonomy was not the only concern or motivation, for there are many involved with their own personal ideas and goals, it was the foundational and most widespread one since it led to Witness Lee's and Phillip Lee's abuse of power not only within the publication company known as Living Stream Ministry, but over many localities in the Local Churches.

Ok, thanks for bringing more clarity on that point. I talked to my sister last night who was older than I was during the Moses Lake schism and she said that from her viewpoint and understanding of the situation that:

1. Brother Lee was very critical of the church in Moses Lake, claiming that locality was full of works of the flesh and full of fleshly believers doing whatever they wanted. Which I can somewhat confirm. For several reasons-

A. I believe there was a type of hierarchy for sure being practiced there with Bill Freeman and Ken Sandburg, brothers who acted like supreme authorities in their leadership. And I know that these brothers went around Washington state to recruit members. Which is actually how my family ended up moving there from Seattle a year or so before I was born. They promised my dad that the elders there were "really cool, and really loving" and because he had problems with his dad he was always looking for a father figure type and he bought into the story and moved over there. There may or may not have been some opinions about the leadership in Seattle from the lower ranking members which may have precipitated certain feelings which led my dad to want to leave that area. In the sense that let's say hypothetically he felt that the leaders in Seattle were too legal or were too stuck in their power and rigid.....then that would make an elder who is "really cool and really loving" seem very attractive to a downtrodden member like my dad who needed a lot of brotherly love and care at the time

B. There was physical abuse of children in their daystar meetings (they named the school attached to the church 'daystar'), where if a child did something wrong it was permitted behavior for ANY adult to use physical punishment on the child, regardless if the child was their own or not. Which they absolutely did and practiced, which reminds me of the Catholic church. I was too young to attend the school, and ultimately never did because we left that locality, thank God. But my brother and sister were spanked for very very questionable offenses such as like not tying their shoes correctly and things like that. Which is pretty much abuse any way you slice it and would damage these children. My brother grew up to have a lot of psychological problems

C. I know that some members got away with a lot of bad behavior such as drinking and certain familial abuses that was not called out because there was a type of brotherhood there that just fostered and tolerated certain loose behaving brothers. Possibly because they had experienced legalism from elders in other localities and they didn't want to be controlled or dictated to anymore. But that doesn't excuse the bad behavior


2. she confirmed that she felt the church in Moses Lake was very fleshly and they were doing things that were kind of outside of the scope of what a normal local church would do. but I suppose this falls into the local church autonomy category. But again, she felt that Lee was correct to say they were a rebel church because of how they behaved and how they didn't have much outside fellowship over decisions they were making. she felt they were hiding a lot of bad behavior and they practiced a lot of things that were just kind of culty. Didn't get much examples of those things from her, but I know that sometimes localities can get weird in their behavior

I'm not saying all that to say brother Lee was 100% right about them in every aspect and he was right to assert authority over them or anything like that. But rather say that to say on both sides it seems there is a lot of extra information and nuance that could be being overlooked. Maybe both sides were majorly wrong in a lot of their behavior. so ultimately brother Lee just claimed the high ground and stood upon his laurels of being the founder of the local churches in America and this meant the bros in Moses Lake got cut off if they chose not to fall under him. He basically just claimed superiority through past merit and accomplishments despite both parties being majorly wrong in certain things. so to simply say that "the church in Moses Lake was rebellious for not bowing down to Lee" is really shorting the scenario of information. Probably both parties were majorly wrong and possibly because of Lee's major wrongness in certain things the Moses Lake brothers felt they had impetus to dissent. Now maybe they wanted to dissent anyways because they didn't want to be exposed of their bad behavior, but if Lee was majorly wrong then they had justification to "rebel" against him

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm not saying all that to say brother Lee was 100% right about them in every aspect and he was right to assert authority over them or anything like that. But rather say that to say on both sides it seems there is a lot of extra information and nuance that could be being overlooked. Maybe both sides were majorly wrong in a lot of their behavior. so ultimately brother Lee just claimed the high ground and stood upon his laurels of being the founder of the local churches in America and this meant the bros in Moses Lake got cut off if they chose not to fall under him. He basically just claimed superiority through past merit and accomplishments despite both parties being majorly wrong in certain things. so to simply say that "the church in Moses Lake was rebellious for not bowing down to Lee" is really shorting the scenario of information. Probably both parties were majorly wrong and possibly because of Lee's major wrongness in certain things the Moses Lake brothers felt they had impetus to dissent. Now maybe they wanted to dissent anyways because they didn't want to be exposed of their bad behavior, but if Lee was majorly wrong then they had justification to "rebel" against him

How disheartening. Whether leaders are decent or terrible, and I certainly believe Lee ultimately proved to be the latter, there are always those lurking below seeking to gain their own little kingdoms and abuse God's sheep.

Ezekiel 34:1-16

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them. 7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them. 11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

...

I'm curious. Have you ever read Steve Isitt's account of the Rosemead locality? He titled his book "The Rosemead Rebellion."

If you wanna talk more about it, TLF made a thread about it already.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I am not sure at all what the actual church gives but as far as I know the decisions of the finances (from local member donations) is solely up to the leading brothers in whatever locality. Meaning it's a local decision what to do with the church's donated funds. But that's just what I've heard from one leading brother. Actually I heard the exact opposite from another older brother who said that the money donated is NOT up to the local administration. So I don't know for sure, but I'm leaning towards the former, the decision is up to the local administration on how to distribute the funds. But I'd also bet that the money they get from selling books and morning revivals etc. goes back to LSM

Jay, now you see the difficulty I faced as a church Treasurer. Repeatedly the official line of autonomy was proclaimed, but behind the scenes we were subservient to the “ministry,” which in our case was both Cleveland and Anaheim. In reality local elders were little more than franchise managers. They were also regularly scapegoated since HQ is “always right, even when they are wrong.”

After facing endless hypocrisy and blame, one day I reached my limit, and abruptly resigned. The Lord within helped me “grow a spine” and end my participation in this hypocrisy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

At any rate we'll probably never know exactly the motivations for the bros in Moses Lake to dissent. But also it's some great points to consider with regards to the abuse of leadership, or the mishandling of leadership and alleged protective nepotism

I don't think it was regarding simply the church in Moses Lake wanting local autonomy. That's too basic in my view. I know that they did want this and I see no reason why Lee would seek to not allow them local autonomy, because as far as I know that's how the local churches function. They are or should be autonomous in a lot of their local dealings and functions. How exactly they interact with LSM is anyone's guess, or maybe people have certain experiences of control idk. But I seriously doubt this was the reason for the dissent in Moses Lake. For sure there was a disagreement between Lee and the leaders of the church of Moses Lake. The details of that I don't know. But I do know that Lee was saying they needed to fall under him and if they didn't they could go their own way, and they chose to go their own way and cut themselves off from the fellowship of all the other churches. I guess you could take from that that Lee DID in fact have autonomous control over all the churches. But again, I highly doubt that the only reason the dissent ensued was simply because Lee wouldn't recognize their autonomy. That doesn't sound right

It had to do with words Witness Lee spoke in one of the 1986 elders training meetings. Something to the effect of "if you're not here for me and my ministry, then you might as well not be here". The two elders from Moses Lake walked out on that.
Speaking of autonomy, in my few visits to Spokane in the mid-90's the local church there seemed far more autonomous than my experiences in Bellevue, Seattle, Portland, and Bellingham to name a few.
My take from correspondence with Ken Sandburg, the Church in Moses Lake was open to fellowship with other local churches. Local churches in Washington state were not open to fellowship with Moses Lake.
In my time meeting in Bellevue, when I asked an elder about the Church in Moses Lake, I was told they're a rebel church. I knew more than a few that came from the Church in Moses Lake.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I know that some members got away with a lot of bad behavior such as drinking and certain familial abuses that was not called out because there was a type of brotherhood there that just fostered and tolerated certain loose behaving brothers. Possibly because they had experienced legalism from elders in other localities and they didn't want to be controlled or dictated to anymore. But that doesn't excuse the bad behavior

This was and probably still is a problem in many churches and not just local churches. When you have a brother who prophesies in meetings, he's going to be well thought of even when behaving badly. Those in church leadership don't want to discipline such brothers. It is far more easier to discipline a reserved yet concerned brother. If he's not prophesying in meetings, a reserved brother might have their standing in the church under scrutiny.
An example I used to use a brother can go drinking or get high on Saturday night, come an prophesy on Sunday morning and he's a brother in good standing. Then you could have a spiritual brother who comments we should drop the Holy Word for Morning Revival and just use the Bible. He might be requested to come to the fellowship room for an Inquisition.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It had to do with words Witness Lee spoke in one of the 1986 elders training meetings. Something to the effect of "if you're not here for me and my ministry, then you might as well not be here". The two elders from Moses Lake walked out on that.
Speaking of autonomy, in my few visits to Spokane in the mid-90's the local church there seemed far more autonomous than my experiences in Bellevue, Seattle, Portland, and Bellingham to name a few.
My take from correspondence with Ken Sandburg, the Church in Moses Lake was open to fellowship with other local churches. Local churches in Washington state were not open to fellowship with Moses Lake.
In my time meeting in Bellevue, when I asked an elder about the Church in Moses Lake, I was told they're a rebel church. I knew more than a few that came from the Church in Moses Lake.

My family moved to Spokane around 1990 (we were basically churchless for three years or so after Moses Lake cut off from Lee, and my father stood up in a meeting and said it was the wrong thing to do and our family got attacked by the members who were ok with the dissent. a few other families had the same experience as us and ultimately moved away from ML), and I spent a couple years as a child in Spokane LC. But I stopped going after my parents split up in 1995, and I was out in the world from that time to around 2003 when I moved to Bellevue and sort of started meeting there, and then ultimately moved back to Spokane from 2004-2006ish. I absolutely adore Spokane, both the city and the people there as well as the local church there. They had so much Christ when I was with them. They had the spirit and the shepherding and just everything at that time. They did have problems in the 90's that I somehow missed. They were acting culty and exclusive over how people dressed and they confronted some members about wearing jeans and one family I knew got so offended by that that they stopped meeting. It was pretty sad. But they just wanted to stay away from the world so they would act weird when people dressed worldly. Anyway it wasn't really like that in 2004 when I met with them. I guess they grew out of it, but they had so much life and the spirit when I was with them and I never wanted to leave

Unfortunately I did have to leave and moved back to Bellevue area. And it was a crappy experience because I just felt like Bellevue had no life, and they had no spirit. They were going through the motions but it was just a dead or dormant atmosphere as far as the enjoyment of Christ. It was a different type of church culture. Kind of elitist and judgmental. But very subtly so. It took me many years to figure out why because I had no frame of reference for problems within the church. I learned later that probably the reason why they were choked spiritually was because of eldership control and a type of clergy-laity vibe that they practiced. There was a lot of hidden ambition for position and a lot of brothers were trying to work their way up the ladder of church administration to become prominent members. So for sure that was a huge subtle problem and it just sucked because I was in love with God when I moved away from Spokane. But that locality just killed a lot of it. I needed the saints to be loving and living and shepherding like what I experienced in Spokane and they just weren't. I felt judged, I felt like I didn't fit in, and I felt like there was no spiritual food there. I think that was my first introduction to a lot of what people on this site are talking about with regards to the "special class" of leadership in the LC

The only thing I know about how other churches treated Moses Lake was that one time when I was in Spokane, maybe 2005 I think, the elder there stood up and told everyone that Bill Freeman was visiting Spokane, possibly moving there, and he advised everyone to stay away from him, and don't talk to him. And said something about how poisonous he was. That seemed very odd to me at the time because Spokane usually never talked about anything besides Christ and God's economy. I have a mild opinion about the elder there, but it's nothing solid and for the most part that locality was not "controlled" nor did it have an atmosphere of being controlled by any elder, not like Bellevue did. I think part of the reason for that is that there were so many living brothers there who were NOT at all caught in ambition for position. For instance in Bellevue there were like three elders who always sat in the front row and you could tell they thought they were powerful and at times they exercised control over the saints. And it was just so weird because you could tell easily who was number 1, who was number 2, and who was number 3 elder. It was like a moving ranking system which never sat right with me. But in Spokane the brothers all just had one thing in common- they wanted to enjoy Christ, and that made the locality there so living and enjoyable

But Bill Freeman eventually died a few years after that and the leading elder in Bellevue died maybe 10 years ago now? I forget. But I wonder how the locality there has changed. I've moved to a nearby locality and I've run into problems with the leadership as well and seen things that really are very troubling

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

This was and probably still is a problem in many churches and not just local churches. When you have a brother who prophesies in meetings, he's going to be well thought of even when behaving badly. Those in church leadership don't want to discipline such brothers. It is far more easier to discipline a reserved yet concerned brother. If he's not prophesying in meetings, a reserved brother might have their standing in the church under scrutiny.
An example I used to use a brother can go drinking or get high on Saturday night, come an prophesy on Sunday morning and he's a brother in good standing. Then you could have a spiritual brother who comments we should drop the Holy Word for Morning Revival and just use the Bible. He might be requested to come to the fellowship room for an Inquisition.

Well this is a hard thing because I feel like the elders and other members really have no business knowing about the personal lives of the saints. However in some cases from Moses Lake some wives of abusive brothers came forward for help to the eldership and were basically ignored. I know of one though at least who was told they supported her if she left her husband. But I don't think they were going to support her financially or anything like that. They just gave her the amen to leave if he was physically abusing her, which he was. But she was too scared to leave

So it's kind of a catch-22 because we don't really belong in other people's business in their personal lives. And I would not want to be in a locality that did exercise control over what people do in their personal lives. But I do understand the scenario that you're painting. You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

But in Spokane the brothers all just had one thing in common- they wanted to enjoy Christ, and that made the locality there so living and enjoyable

I felt in Spokane there was more autonomy than other Washington state localities. There were several brothers from the brothers house in Spokane that came to the wedding reception of my wife and I back in September 1997. I appreciated their thoughtfulness of coming. It was at the Bellevue meeting hall.
I was surprised or not so surprised when one of them became an elder in Spokane.
In regards to Moses Lake, that locality as well as ones in the Great Lakes area make my argument why local churches are ministry churches. The denominating factor is affiliation with Living Stream Ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well this is a hard thing because I feel like the elders and other members really have no business knowing about the personal lives of the saints. However in some cases from Moses Lake some wives of abusive brothers came forward for help to the eldership and were basically ignored. I know of one though at least who was told they supported her if she left her husband. But I don't think they were going to support her financially or anything like that. They just gave her the amen to leave if he was physically abusing her, which he was. But she was too scared to leave

So it's kind of a catch-22 because we don't really belong in other people's business in their personal lives. And I would not want to be in a locality that did exercise control over what people do in their personal lives. But I do understand the scenario that you're painting. You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

It is a catch-22. On one hand we don't want "responsible ones" knowing about home lives of the saints. On the other hand we want the "responsible ones" to show care. It's not so easy. I think that's part of what led Steve Isitt to write "In Wake of the New Way". It was from a lack of care.
There is a fine line between knowing and caring versus knowing and controlling.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It is a catch-22. On one hand we don't want "responsible ones" knowing about home lives of the saints. On the other hand we want the "responsible ones" to show care. It's not so easy. I think that's part of what led Steve Isitt to write "In Wake of the New Way". It was from a lack of care.
There is a fine line between knowing and caring versus knowing and controlling.

Really good point. In some recent experiences I have seen the so called elders not care about certain needy saints. And it's given me a bad taste in my mouth. I feel like genuine love and care should be a prerequisite for leadership in a church. But what I see is some very talented and capable brothers in those positions based on their capacity but not based on their growth in life and growth in the love and humanity of Jesus. Which in my view should disqualify them from a leadership role

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I felt in Spokane there was more autonomy than other Washington state localities. There were several brothers from the brothers house in Spokane that came to the wedding reception of my wife and I back in September 1997. I appreciated their thoughtfulness of coming. It was at the Bellevue meeting hall.
I was surprised or not so surprised when one of them became an elder in Spokane.
In regards to Moses Lake, that locality as well as ones in the Great Lakes area make my argument why local churches are ministry churches. The denominating factor is affiliation with Living Stream Ministry.

Yeah I can't really argue that because 1. I don't see what goes on behind closed doors and why and how they make their decisions, and 2. I would have to agree that I sense that kind of hierarchy amongst the churches on the west side of the mountains in Washington state. I sense that they are answering up to someone in Anaheim that is higher ranking than them. I just sense that fear about these brothers who call themselves elders, leaders, administration, and responsible ones. There's just this latent fear in their eyes and behavior like they're answering up to someone higher than them in position that I never felt or saw in Spokane

I would also agree that the church in Spokane felt a lot more autonomous than the churches on the West coast. Actually I've even seen something that looked like subterfuge while preaching the gospel over here. When I was preaching with the local brothers from Renton they made it a really big point to say "Bibles for America is not associated with the church in Renton." I just felt them being so adamant about that point was so odd. Like maybe that is true on paper, but the way they kept repeating it was like a guilty person keeps repeating "I am not guilty." Just kind of an odd thing that stood out strangely to me. They were saying it to just regular civilian people who would come up to the booth to get a Bible. Looking back it was just weird. I don't even really see the necessity to say that, actually despite BFA being a separate entity from LSM......we all know it's still of the LSM goal and business plan. And we all know that LSM has everything to do with the local churches. So clearly so does BFA. Which if it's to gospelize and "churchize" the entire earth then why not just say that it's all the same goal and source? But to make it an adamant point to separate those LLC's really comes across like you've got something to hide. Possibly they've been accused of building up their own ministry or authoritarian control over the gospel and the local churches. But it just seems unnecessary to me. Because they ARE affiliated with the local churches and BFA IS definitely out of the local churches. So to say they're not affiliated is just really duplicitous and pretty much lying. Sure TECHNICALLY they are not the same company, but we all know they're affiliated. That's just obvious. I just don't really get it and it always sat weird how the leading preachers kept repeating that to people

And for the record I am behind and in support of BFA, BFE, etc. I want the Bible to go out and I love my Bible with footnotes and use it just about every day. And I think it's the best tool to fulfill 1 Timothy 2:3-4

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Yeah I can't really argue that because 1. I don't see what goes on behind closed doors and why and how they make their decisions, and 2. I would have to agree that I sense that kind of hierarchy amongst the churches on the west side of the mountains in Washington state. I sense that they are answering up to someone in Anaheim that is higher ranking than them. I just sense that fear about these brothers who call themselves elders, leaders, administration, and responsible ones. There's just this latent fear in their eyes and behavior like they're answering up to someone higher than them in position that I never felt or saw in Spokane

I would also agree that the church in Spokane felt a lot more autonomous than the churches on the West coast. Actually I've even seen something that looked like subterfuge while preaching the gospel over here. When I was preaching with the local brothers from Renton they made it a really big point to say "Bibles for America is not associated with the church in Renton." I just felt them being so adamant about that point was so odd. Like maybe that is true on paper, but the way they kept repeating it was like a guilty person keeps repeating "I am not guilty." Just kind of an odd thing that stood out strangely to me. They were saying it to just regular civilian people who would come up to the booth to get a Bible. Looking back it was just weird. I don't even really see the necessity to say that, actually despite BFA being a separate entity from LSM......we all know it's still of the LSM goal and business plan. And we all know that LSM has everything to do with the local churches. So clearly so does BFA. Which if it's to gospelize and "churchize" the entire earth then why not just say that it's all the same goal and source? But to make it an adamant point to separate those LLC's really comes across like you've got something to hide. Possibly they've been accused of building up their own ministry or authoritarian control over the gospel and the local churches. But it just seems unnecessary to me. Because they ARE affiliated with the local churches and BFA IS definitely out of the local churches. So to say they're not affiliated is just really duplicitous and pretty much lying. Sure TECHNICALLY they are not the same company, but we all know they're affiliated. That's just obvious. I just don't really get it and it always sat weird how the leading preachers kept repeating that to people

And for the record I am behind and in support of BFA, BFE, etc. I want the Bible to go out and I love my Bible with footnotes and use it just about every day. And I think it's the best tool to fulfill 1 Timothy 2:3-4

When I was meeting with Bellevue, it seemed the Puget Sound localities viewed Spokane being out of step. Doing their own thing and not in coordination with the other localities. Personally I viewed Spokane, as a place where someone with a bad rap could go to get a fresh start. That seemed to change once Spokane's lead elder passed away.
Affiliations always seem to have a tie to a parent company. If there is no affiliation, that would be plausible if the volunteers for BFA never met with the local churches, but with other denominations or non-denominational church. I met with the Church in Renton for about a year. Back when their meetings were still held at Renton High School.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

Hate to burst your bubble Jay but in a genuine Biblical Church community, nobody's personal life is their own business when abuse of another is taking place - mine included. And the so-called "anti-gossip" verse you quoted above has absolutely nothing to do with exposing someone's private personal matters - please read it again, but in context.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee would have us to believe otherwise though, and the rotten fruit of decades of leaders (or overbearing men in general) getting by with living a double life (under "the covering") is starting to ooze out at the corners of certain Ministry Churches; so much so that Civil Authorities have been forced to get involved.

A recent court case in Oklahoma directly involved the eldership of a Ministry Church there which I am pretty sure proves my point. I have emphasized certain sections in red to help us all see the Nee/Lee rotten fruit which was laid out plainly before the so-called heathen there in the "Bible Belt".



Full Document (this was page 16) can be read here: https://blendedbody.com/4LCD/THE-COU...F-OKLAHOMA.pdf

WARNING! This document describes abuse of all kinds toward innocent women & children (including a Full Time Serving Sister) and it does so in graphic detail - so please view this at your own discretion.

P.S.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

When I was meeting with Bellevue, it seemed the Puget Sound localities viewed Spokane being out of step. Doing their own thing and not in coordination with the other localities. Personally I viewed Spokane, as a place where someone with a bad rap could go to get a fresh start. That seemed to change once Spokane's lead elder passed away.
Affiliations always seem to have a tie to a parent company. If there is no affiliation, that would be plausible if the volunteers for BFA never met with the local churches, but with other denominations or non-denominational church. I met with the Church in Renton for about a year. Back when their meetings were still held at Renton High School.

Are you talking about Tennef? Not sure I spelled his name correctly. When I met there he was very old. He owned a jewelry shop downtown Spokane and all his employees were saints. I'm sure he did pass away not many years after I left Spokane in 2006 for Bellevue. Anyway I remember Jim Clark was acting as the lead elder. It could be that he was under Tennef idk. But as I stated earlier I had a certain spidey sense about Jim Clark. But I also enjoyed the Lord a lot around him. But I remember one time when I moved to Bellevue he was visiting and he was meeting with the Bellevue brothers and they had a kind of weird little pow wow in one home meeting that just stood out to me. I see a great deal of clergy-laity type behavior in the Puget sound churches. With a kind of hierarchy and a lot of brothers "in line" for the special class. It's a weird thing that I never experienced in Spokane. I don't want to bad mouth Jim Clark, but I sensed something about him and when he had that pow wow it was something that stood out to me. Years later I see the problem of this hierarchy a lot in Renton and Bellevue, so I wonder how the church in Spokane is doing now. I wonder if they've been affected by any type of clergy-laity or hierarchy problems. I know that a church in Cheney was raised up in the last decade or so. Cheney is about 15 miles east of Spokane

I've only been to Tacoma once, and only to Seattle a handful of times, probably less than five or six times. Anyway, I'm sure that type of leadership problem is all around in this area. I never had a good feeling about Willie Wise or Sherman Robertson, and I've mentioned elsewhere about the line of leadership in Bellevue and how weird those "front row" brothers acted when I was meeting there. I've been meeting with Renton since around 2016ish and it's definitely there latently amongst some of the young leading brothers and I've brushed up against it and I don't like it. There's a lot of brothers who desire to be speakers and others who desire to be elders. To me this is ambition for position, and brother Lee spoke out strongly against it many times. On the other hand we have a verse such as 1 Timothy 3:1 which says 'if anyone aspires to the [eldership], he desires a good work.' Maybe a catch-22 here. But I do believe the motive probably matters here. If one has ambition for a position to glorify himself then his heart is wrong. Whereas if one has the desire to help and serve the saints then possibly his desire is pure. I've heard many times from the ministry that an elder is a slave to the body. But often I see elders sitting in their positions as if it's a position of glory. To me that's the uplifting of the self and should automatically disqualify these ones from the position

But I agree, the whole BFA gospel behavior is fishy and duplicitous. It could be some weird legal reason or it could be these brothers are caught up in what the dissenters say and it's all orders from Anaheim headquarters. Whatever it is it doesn't seem normal or along the line of Christ. I think this special class of leaders hides a lot of their behaviors from the nominal members, and the nominal members don't think to ask. I was literally at the gospel preaching watching it happen and it didn't come up in my mind to really ask WHY he made a point to differentiate the two. To this day I don't really know. But I also am happy that the Bible expounded is going out and reaching people and they are gaining the full truth of the word. I am thankful for that regardless of whatever duplicity is going on

[Jay]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Hate to burst your bubble Jay but in a genuine Biblical Church community, nobody's personal life is their own business when abuse of another is taking place - mine included

P.S.

I don't disagree with you when it comes to matters of abuse and lawbreaking. But that wasn't my point. In general the personal lives of saints is no one's business but God's. But yes, if it comes to abuse and breaking the law within the church then those things matter and I agree with others sentiments here that abuse should be called out publicly and I believe the law should be involved if it involves large crimes such as sexual abuse that people have claimed has happened within the walls of the church buildings. Absolutely it should go to the law, and that person should be removed from the church. I've read other's testimonies of these things being swept under the rug and I can't at all agree with that behavior. If an elder or the leadership in a given church did that and ignored an abuse of that magnitude then they are fully wrong

But that's not what I was talking about so you're taking something I said and adding a twist onto it that leads in a different direction, and then acting like I'm saying something I'm not saying, like I'm ok with abuse being ignored or something. No, I'm not. So please don't do that. Please don't twist my words into something that I didn't say and don't mean