Responsibility Of Christians In Responding To Aberrant/Abusive Groups

[Freedom]

I don't know if there are really any right answers to this question. The first thing that comes to mind though is that there is nothing wrong with speaking to one's personal experiences. The LC would stigmatize even that as 'attacking' them.

So when it comes to actually speaking out against the LC, I think a lot of it is related to what is the motivation for doing so. For me personally, I saw a lot of dishonestly - things the campus work trying to hide their affiliations. Having been there and participated in that dishonesty, it seems right to speak up about it and help set the record straight.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know if there are really any right answers to this question. The first thing that comes to mind though is that there is nothing wrong with speaking to one's personal experiences. The LC would stigmatize even that as 'attacking' them.

So when it comes to actually speaking out against the LC, I think a lot of it is related to what is the motivation for doing so. For me personally, I saw a lot of dishonestly - things the campus work trying to hide their affiliations. Having been there and participated in that dishonesty, it seems right to speak up about it and help set the record straight.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Proverbs 14:12

There's always a right way and a wrong way. To be sure we need to test our hearts so we don't find ourselves criticizing the Local Churches as the Local Churches have been criticizing others.

[Trapped]

Jo S, while I understand the spirit of what you are saying, which maybe could summarized as "speak the truth in love, don't speak the truth out of vengeance or anger or retribution", I'm afraid what you've said so far implies too strongly that we have to be pure ourselves before we can say anything. In which case we'll be silent for a long time.

Okay, there are no explicit verses titled "steps to take before you speak up about destructive controlling groups", but there are verses relevant to the topic.

2 Corinthians 11:19-20
You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face.

Paul is giving the Corinthians grief that they would put up with the false apostles who treat them wrongly. He's almost mocking them that they would submit to mistreatment. Did he say the Corinthians need to be pure in heart before doing so? No.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

In these verses just prior, Paul readily admits he is taking action to "cut the ground" from under the false apostles. He also is explicitly calling out the false apostles' presence and actions in this letter to the entire Corinthian church.

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Covering them up is having something to do with them. Knowing about them and doing nothing is allowing them to continue, and having something to do with them. Fruitless deeds of darkness are to be exposed.

Revelation 2:2
I know your deeds, your labor, and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate those who are evil, and you have tested and exposed as liars those who falsely claim to be apostles.

This verse is to the church in Smyrna, against which the Lord had that they had abandoned their first love and had fallen to the depths that if they didn't do something about it, he would remove their lampstand.

I bring that verse up to make the point that we can still test and expose and call out liars and false apostles while not being perfect ourselves. Sure, we should not be hypocrites a la Matthew 7, but for the most part that's not hard because none of us are claiming to purveyors of the unique high truths or MOTAs or the head guy of the true church on earth or covering up abuses or spreading patently false doctrines that don't hold up against scripture.

The splinter/beam thing, at least according to the way I've always understood it, is not "clear up absolutely everything in your life first before you can say anything to others", but "clear up that same issue in your life first before you address it in others."

I just fear your stance makes it seem overly required for a fallen sinner to be perfectly pure before they feel they can say anything. The right way/wrong way seems a little too close to the favorite "proper/improper" categorization of the LC. Note that I don't disagree necessarily. I have seen people speak up about the LC that I wish with all my heart would zip their lips because their approach does more harm than good. But for those who are coming from the right place to start with, we don't have to be pure as driven snow to speak up. Although I think you did hit on that when you mentioned not criticizing them in the same way they have criticized. In other words, don't become what you are calling out. That is good advice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know if there are really any right answers to this question. The first thing that comes to mind though is that there is nothing wrong with speaking to one's personal experiences. The LC would stigmatize even that as 'attacking' them.

So when it comes to actually speaking out against the LC, I think a lot of it is related to what is the motivation for doing so. For me personally, I saw a lot of dishonestly - things the campus work trying to hide their affiliations. Having been there and participated in that dishonesty, it seems right to speak up about it and help set the record straight.

I have a neighbor who is a believing Catholic. A real decent and sincere guy. He has a family law practice, and counsels people. I talked to him one time about the pedophilia, which btw hit his local parish and the prominent bishop in town. Personally, I think the root problem is the doctrine of demons forbidding to marry. (I Tim 4.2-3)

Yet with this one terrible issue, he doesn't see fault in his church. Like everyone else, they tend to protect what they belong to. He is convinced that the Communists have infiltrated their Catholic seminaries with gay men in order to destroy their reputation. I thought it was amazing how he could protect his church, especially when that verse spells it all out. But after living with the spin from LSM/DCP for decades, there's not much that can surprise me.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a neighbor who is a believing Catholic. A real decent and sincere guy. He has a family law practice, and counsels people. I talked to him one time about the pedophilia, which btw hit his local parish and the prominent bishop in town. Personally, I think the root problem is the doctrine of demons forbidding to marry. (I Tim 4.2-3)

Yet with this one terrible issue, he doesn't see fault in his church. Like everyone else, they tend to protect what they belong to. He is convinced that the Communists have infiltrated their Catholic seminaries with gay men in order to destroy their reputation. I thought it was amazing how he could protect his church, especially when that verse spells it all out. But after living with the spin from LSM/DCP for decades, there's not much that can surprise me.

In the LC, verses like Matt 7:5 are often misapplied and used as a means to obstruct people from standing up for themselves or speaking out. Instead they want to keep people running around in circles wondering whether they are right with the Lord or not.

So many of the issues present in the LC and similar groups are related to things like deception, covering up, lying, etc. All of these types of problems are addressed not by remaining silent, but by speaking up. Remaining silent is what enables the abuse to keep happening, or for more people to become victimized by it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, verses like Matt 7:5 are often misapplied and used as a means to obstruct people from standing up for themselves or speaking out. Instead they want to keep people running around in circles wondering whether they are right with the Lord or not.

So many of the issues present in the LC and similar groups are related to things like deception, covering up, lying, etc. All of these types of problems are addressed not by remaining silent, but by speaking up. Remaining silent is what enables the abuse to keep happening, or for more people to become victimized by it.

Agreed.

I'm convinced that Matt 7.5 judging is related to hypocrisy, which Jesus regularly condemned. Today's virtue signaling comes close. It is the practice of condemning others for what you are doing yourself. It is the self-righteous judging Paul speaks to in Rom 1.5.

There are far too many verses in the Bible that exhort us to speak up, to not be silent, and to address the error we face. Especially the errors that hurt God's children.

If we must "judge not" at all times, then why didn't Peter condemn Paul in Antioch for judging him about who he ate with? (Gal 2.11-14) And why did John judge Diotrephes? (3 John 9-11) And why did Jesus Himself rebuke the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers during His visit to Jerusalem?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, verses like Matt 7:5 are often misapplied and used as a means to obstruct people from standing up for themselves or speaking out. Instead they want to keep people running around in circles wondering whether they are right with the Lord or not.

So many of the issues present in the LC and similar groups are related to things like deception, covering up, lying, etc. All of these types of problems are addressed not by remaining silent, but by speaking up. Remaining silent is what enables the abuse to keep happening, or for more people to become victimized by it.

Right, Matthew 7 is not commanding us NOT to judge, but HOW to judge. Judge, but not hypocritically. Don't judge others for the very things you do yourself. 7:5 TELLS us to take the speck out of our brothers eye! That's judging. We just can't judge someone for their anger issues while hiding the holes on our walls from the objects we threw at it in anger ourselves.

Absolutely more need to speak up. The problem with speaking up is they have tactics for that too.

If you are in the church and speak up, you are shunned, labeled, ostracized, ignored, shamed, told "you need to take life" and all the other controlling phrases.

And also you risk losing relationships with family members over your speaking up or even risk those family members enduring mistreatment themselves on your behalf even though they may not agree with you!

If you are out of the church and speak up, they announce you publicly and castigate you from their safe zone behind the microphone, call you evil and an opposer, and thus anyone left in the church who still speaks to you will then turn their backs on you out of fear.

The control is epically strong in that place.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The control is epically strong in that place.

Yes, I agree. Terms like "perfecting" are successfully placed over shaming and even abuse. Control and manipulation is re-labeled as "taking the cross" and "restrictions". And there is a code of silence that the Mafia can only dream of. It is extremely powerful, multilayered, woven through with deceptive veils of coded language and culturally-reinforced expectations.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jo S, while I understand the spirit of what you are saying, which maybe could summarized as "speak the truth in love, don't speak the truth out of vengeance or anger or retribution", I'm afraid what you've said so far implies too strongly that we have to be pure ourselves before we can say anything. In which case we'll be silent for a long time.

Equating purity of heart to being “pure as the driven snow” is an exaggeration; I did after all use King David as the example to follow rather than walking on water as a prerequisite to exposing evil. Even so, if you think you are a Christian with the indwelling spirit of God, you’re already at an advantage to David. I would assume God expects even more from His children.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Okay, there are no explicit verses titled "steps to take before you speak up about destructive controlling groups", but there are verses relevant to the topic….

If you’ve taken notice to what the majority of my posts here concern, they consist mainly of three things; the preaching of a false gospel, the preaching of a false Jesus, and refuting any doctrine that help support the those two. Knowing this you can conclude my overall view of the Local Churches; that being, just like the Mormons or JW’s, they are not a Christian group at all but one that veils their own ideology within a Christian worldview.

I agree we don’t have any verses telling us what steps to take before speaking up about “destructive controlling groups”, we only have the apostles addressing the Body of Christ, groups of believers that already adhered to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

This then leads me to the question; why do you hold the Local Churches up to scripture if they don’t even preach the true gospel in the first place? Aren’t you just working to validate them as a legitimate Christian group by doing so? Either they are led by “liars and false apostles” or they are a legitimate move of God. You have to choose. Or are you doing like they do and invoking scripture to justify your opposition by thinking you gain the moral high ground in doing so?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I bring that verse up to make the point that we can still test and expose and call out liars and false apostles while not being perfect ourselves. Sure, we should not be hypocrites a la Matthew 7, but for the most part that's not hard because none of us are claiming to purveyors of the unique high truths or MOTAs or the head guy of the true church on earth or covering up abuses or spreading patently false doctrines that don't hold up against scripture.

The splinter/beam thing, at least according to the way I've always understood it, is not "clear up absolutely everything in your life first before you can say anything to others", but "clear up that same issue in your life first before you address it in others."

I just fear your stance makes it seem overly required for a fallen sinner to be perfectly pure before they feel they can say anything. The right way/wrong way seems a little too close to the favorite "proper/improper" categorization of the LC. Note that I don't disagree necessarily. I have seen people speak up about the LC that I wish with all my heart would zip their lips because their approach does more harm than good. But for those who are coming from the right place to start with, we don't have to be pure as driven snow to speak up. Although I think you did hit on that when you mentioned not criticizing them in the same way they have criticized. In other words, don't become what you are calling out. That is good advice.

Hypocrisy in the general sense of the term means claiming standards which do not meet up to your own behavior, but as far as the Christian faith is concerned avoiding hypocrisy entails much more than just that.

Jesus claimed that it wasn’t enough to not murder, he went deeper to the root or heart of the issue. In fact for a believer in Christ it means to even resist anger against your brother. If you thought that was hard enough, Jesus told us to go even further and to love those that persecute you.

By this the expectations for a Christian is higher than that of an unbeliever so when Christ speaks about hypocrisy it’s not enough that you don’t do what you are calling out. The question is; is your heart right and are you doing the right thing in its place by faith?

In a recent post you’ve claimed the Local Churches practice a damaging form of shunning. I don’t doubt that, but let me ask you this question; have you properly shunned them before speaking out against their practices (2 John 1:10)? Or do you still continue to meet with the group?

It's not enough that you choose not to shun anybody, it's whether you love God more than the group to the point you'd shun them biblically. If by staying you believe the Local Churches will change, then like you said, I’m afraid you’ll be waiting a long time…

Paul did in fact call out evil but this was only second to proclaiming the gospel. The local churches pointed out the faults of Christianity in self-righteousness while preaching a false gospel. The majority of posts here seem to be completely lacking the gospel. Which is better then, preaching a false gospel or no gospel at all?

In a greater sense does exposing evil matter if you do nothing to fill the void? Facts of abuse may lead someone out but it's God's truth that truly heals.

If you do leave by your own conviction then seek God and His forgiveness. Repent and believe in the Jesus you weren't taught in the LC's and then lead others out by example or you may find yourself years from now regurgitating the same things in vain all the while deceiving yourself into believing you are doing a service to others. The truth is without a heart transformed by the gospel your efforts will only work to poison others with your bitterness or at best validate each other’s own bitterness. Who benefits from that? It may help you but only for a little while until the pain resurfaces again...

If you do choose to go the social justice route, that’s perfectly fine, but then do like Steven Hassan does and examine the group purely from a psychological and sociological perspective. No need to appeal to scripture lest you risk misusing them. If you do, however, use scripture then make sure that you are living by its standards in preaching the gospel and loving your enemies in the process.

David prayed to have a new spirit and a new heart put in him so he could forgive his enemies but he never saw that day come to pass. The good news is that day is now here and it’s available to us yet so many reject that gift in favor of social reform because doing things the right way requires you to first take a good look in the mirror. More often than not the reflection staring back at you will be the very thing you're fighting against and that's too hard of a pill to swallow.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If you are in the church and speak up, you are shunned, labeled, ostracized, ignored, shamed, told "you need to take life" and all the other controlling phrases.

And also you risk losing relationships with family members over your speaking up or even risk those family members enduring mistreatment themselves on your behalf even though they may not agree with you!

If you are out of the church and speak up, they announce you publicly and castigate you from their safe zone behind the microphone, call you evil and an opposer, and thus anyone left in the church who still speaks to you will then turn their backs on you out of fear.

The control is epically strong in that place.

Wow, that is evil. I didn't know this part was as bad as you've described. It helps explain the extreme stress on my 'link' to the LC at the time I stopped meeting, and that persons desperate attempts to retrieve me. So much fear and shame at stake for them.

I am disgusted afresh. Behind the facade is everything that would entrap, enslave subjicate and enslave. And I met with them for so long and they kept it so well hidden!!... for the most part. When I stopped I still had no idea how bad it ultimately is.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Curious

Wow, that is evil. I didn't know this part was as bad as you've described. It helps explain the extreme stress on my 'link' to the LC at the time I stopped meeting, and that persons desperate attempts to retrieve me. So much fear and shame at stake for them.

I am disgusted afresh. Behind the facade is everything that would entrap, enslave subjicate and enslave. And I met with them for so long and they kept it so well hidden!!... for the most part. When I stopped I still had no idea how bad it ultimately is.

In my case, I left over some things that had the potential for a simple resolution, but seeing the way that everything went down afterwards just showed me how toxic the whole thing was. I had two consecutive situations where people were being purposely disrespectful towards me. I had done what I thought was best as far as standing up for myself. Because the problem continued despite that, I felt that it was necessary to just leave abruptly, and I didn’t feel that I owed anyone an explanation. I did, however, mention a few things that I was upset about to a LC family member.

Because I never communicated anything to anyone else as to why I had left, there was obviously some discussion floating around about me afterward. Then that at some point the family member attempted to relay some of my concerns to people who were asking about me (unbeknownst to me). I think they did that probably because everyone was pressing them or questioning them as to why I left, even though any one of these people could have reached out to me directly if they wanted to talk.

So then what I found out later was that there were all these assumptions about me. Not only that, the family member who was in position of relaying ‘negative’ information to LCers probably had no realization that messengers tend to get shot.

It’s just crazy to see the outcome of some of these situations knowing there were so many opportunities for LCers to deescalate or work towards some alternative resolution. Even recently when Jo’s letter was posted, it basically represented a decision to go public right away, knowing that trying to go through all the normal ‘prerequisite’ steps would still have resulted in the same outcome. That is really telling, when members realize that if they speak out or leave, they already know exactly how the LC is going to react.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In my case, I left over some things that had the potential for a simple resolution, but seeing the way that everything went down afterwards just showed me how toxic the whole thing was. I had two consecutive situations where people were being purposely disrespectful towards me.

Perhaps a simple apology extended to you could have easily cleared up the two situations.

But, no, that would be impossible.

Why? Simple. They believe they are God's best, His sole testimony on earth. All others are pitiful and degraded. They can apologize, but not us!

Oh the arrogant pride coming from the top, and leavening the whole lump!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If you are in the church and speak up, you are shunned, labeled, ostracized, ignored, shamed, told "you need to take life" and all the other controlling phrases.

And also you risk losing relationships with family members over your speaking up or even risk those family members enduring mistreatment themselves on your behalf even though they may not agree with you!

This just reminds me so much of what I've read and seen in documentaries about the Amish. But I don't know that even they would go so far as to shun or somehow punish a family member!!

If you could fast forward a hundred years (presuming this present age lasts that long) and the LC was still around (unlikely), it would be interesting to see what they would look like. I bet they'd give the Amish a run for their money!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know if there are really any right answers to this question. The first thing that comes to mind though is that there is nothing wrong with speaking to one's personal experiences. The LC would stigmatize even that as 'attacking' them.

Just like the MSM networks, the LC does a lot of spinning the narrative.
If you speak to one's personal experiences, on the surface, "it's your experience". By no means is t meant to imply your experience is a systemic problem. If you do say my experiences is due to LC practices, you're "attacking the ministry". For example if you say you've repented for having an elitist view and say the ministry had a role in fermenting that view; you're attacking the ministry. From personal account it could something as benign as having a building permit approved for the meeting hall. Any delay of the permit being approved is construed as "an attack of the enemy".

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's an interesting question you've asked. You are right that I'm treating them as part of the church and thus subject to Biblical principles. I'll just think out loud here, so give me a little grace as I work through it.

I suppose since they themselves are claiming to be a legitimate Christian group, and not only part of the church but THE church itself, then I would "play the game" by holding them up to their own supposed principles. This is kind of the approach Ravi Zacharias and other apologists take sometimes in disproving the materialistic worldview, for example. They would assume the opposing position as true and show how it crumbles by undoing it from the inside. Self-defeating. This way, they LC is undone by their own hand. Hoist on their own petard, as it were. That's just one approach. You take their own stance and dismantle them using their own stand. This appeals to the thinkers in the group, of which there still are some.

Another approach is to begin by taking the position that they are not a legitimate Christian group. If you start out by negating the very thing they think they are, though, you also may lose a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to listen, even if you are right to negate them.

Trapped, what I see is that you’re not just “treating” the Local Churches as part of the church, but like others here, it’s what you personally believe.

I understand you can assume their claims for the sake of argument but that’s not the same as assuming it’s true for yourself. Ravi and other apologists go into debates with the presupposition that their opposition’s premise is false and their worldview is true. Only then do they use their opponents own claims to argue against their position.

In the majority of arguments on the forum I notice a lack of challenge toward the very foundation of the Local Church’s claim but rather there’s more focus on secondary matters. Why is that?

I believe that to accept the possibility that the Lord’s Recovery was never a move of God and that they have always taught a different Jesus and a false gospel has personal implications many are not willing to confront. That’s especially true for those born into the movement and to those that lost decades to it.

It’s best to speak the truth no matter whether it’s accepted or not as it’s the truth that sets people free and not the outward approach. Yet it’s only in love that truth remains truth and so you won’t be able to set others free unless you first are free. Until you see the Lord’s Recovery movement for what it really is, only then can you move forward with an effective approach. To see that, however, you first need to address your own walk and that’s a place where many refuse to go. Being lukewarm toward the Recovery and its doctrines only gets you stuck in the past and so at this point you’re resorted to picking at specks all while the log remains in your own eye.

Originally Posted by Trapped

However, go back to 2 Corinthians 11 and take a look again. Paul says in verse 4:

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Paul is talking about the Corinthians who have received a false gospel, false Jesus, different spirit, and are putting up with it. I think this is an accurate comparison to the local church. He doesn't shun the Corinthians as you seem to be suggesting would need to happen.

It’s important to note that Paul starts off this chapter in hyperbole meaning rather than taking what he is saying as literal there’s an overarching principle that he’s teaching to the church.

“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”

Paul uses the term “may” meaning he’s not speaking to a group that has already been led astray but to one that is being lax and passive toward false doctrine.

The message here is intolerance toward falsities by being bold in the truth.

Where your comparison of the LC’s to the church in Corinth fails is that Corinth was founded on the gospel whereas the Local Churches were founded on an ideology.

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only two options are a legit move of God or led by liars and false apostles, so no, I don't have to choose.

I think God moves in individual people, not in the "this group of people is a move of God" type way.

Either the LC’s are as they claim or they are not. A movement cannot be a partial move of God, can it? If you claim that the LCs were a move of God at one point but were overtaken by so called liars, false prophets, and legalists then you’re questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began. Because of that, not only is it not a false dichotomy, it’s the only dichotomy.

Trapped, you don’t have to choose but you’re lack of resolve will only work to delay the inevitable.

Originally Posted by Trapped

The field of wheat has tares sown among the wheat. There is no field of only wheat and field of only tares, one or the other. This is why leaving the group is such a deep internal struggle for many. It's a mixture of light and darkness.

If we are going to use garden analogies then let’s also include the seeds which fell among the thorns.

In Corinth, the group of believers were putting up with those preaching mistruths but the implication is that there was still a majority adhering to the gospel as Paul taught it. Because of this, Corinth would accurately portray tares among the wheat.

In the LC’s however what I’ve seen were a larger majority adhering to community centered around special revelation along with small minority of baby Christians whom became ensnared by the group for the purpose of furthering that ideology. These kinds of groups represent thorns that choke off the seedlings.

Originally Posted by Trapped

No, there's definitely no thought in me that I'm gaining some kind of moral high ground in anything. The thought in me is much more along the lines of "what is my responsibility here?" and "how, as a Christian, am I called to behave in this situation?"
It’s a good thing to ash such a question

I think it's a pretty good practice for one of the steps to be to ask "does Scripture have anything to say about this?" before doing something like speaking publicly and exposing certain things, whether a genuine church or not. I personally am not a rash person and would hope to have some solid Biblical footing before doing something like that. Even though I would be speaking the truth, the exposing of numerous things in the local churches would have incredibly detrimental and reverberating effects. Some people depend on the local church for their lives and social support, and genuinely have no clue what's going on on the inside, and simply don't have the complex thought processes to see past the controlling teachings. They just love the Lord and love the saints and have simply never had an experience to show them anything otherwise. They are naive, not malicious. None of that excuses the other stuff that's going on in the LC, and none of it means that what is in the darkness shouldn't come to light, but these are all things I would be highly aware of, and simply think it's good to start with the Bible. Considering the repercussions up front can shape your approach.

I agree, it’s a great practice to refer to scripture just as long as you don’t use it solely for rebuking but also use it for personal conviction. Otherwise using the scriptures so one-sidedly you risk misusing them for condemnation rather than for encouragement.

Whether you’re seeking the moral high ground or not, statements like the ones above portray high-mindedness. No one comes to God unless He draws them. It’s only by God’s grace that we know Him and His truth and not through our own “critical thinking abilities” lest we should boast. Even the most brilliant individuals get caught up in these kinds of groups.

With that said, did you know that Mormons also call each other ”brothers” and “saints”? They are after all the “church of latter day saints”. Would you consider them brothers and saints as well?

Please understand that groups use these kinds of terms as unifiers toward a common cause but outside of that specific cause this level of affection is non-existent. That’s a sign that the movement isn’t based on God’s love for His church but a love for group exclusivity.

A hard but necessary question to ask is; do these people really love the Lord or do they value community over the truth? If it's the Lord then do you believe His love would keep them in a "destructive controlling group"? Is it really critical thinking skills that people lack or could it be a lack of love toward God and His truth?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think you are crossing two things here. Yes, Jesus has a higher standard than anyone was used to. Murder and lust, etc, are now heart matters as far as sin is concerned.

But hypocrisy and judging are not spoken of in those terms. Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." In other words, if you judge someone for murder, you will also be judged if you have murdered. It doesn't say "if you judge a physical matter, then your corresponding deep heart matter will be judged in the same way". The example is also of a splinter in the other person's eye and a beam in your own. This means, for example, don't judge someone for their anger (splinter) when you have murdered (beam) yourself. This is a "don't strain someone else's gnat and swallow your own camel" kind of thing. If we were to analyze in the depth you are describing (which is take care of your own gnat before dealing with someone else’s camel), the splinter would be in our own eye and the beam would be in the other persons. But it's not. It's the other way around.

Jesus speaks of two things in judging, “ways” and “measures”. The manner in which you present your argument is that God will judge you for a specific sin only when you judge others for the same sin. That’s not true. God will judge your sins no matter if you’ve judged others for the same. This verse has nothing to do with what sin is being judged but by which manner and measure you are judging by.

So the question is; do you first properly examine your own heart before criticizing others? If the Local Churches teach the same, well good; then do as they say and not as they do. Or will you thrown the baby out along with the bath water?

Originally Posted by Trapped

2 John 1:7-11 speaks specifically of not welcoming people who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. To my knowledge, the LC does acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, therefore, there would not be the need to shun them in the manner you describe.

This is a different thing than the Corinthians receiving a "different Jesus". To me, 2 John 1 is a denial of Jesus Himself, His divinity, His sacrifice. The Corinthians (I am assuming here) received a different Jesus in the sense of He had still come in the flesh, but was then enslaving and oppressing them, rather than freeing them.

It's strange. It’s like they do preach Jesus, but then once saved, they feed the new convert the guiled milk of the word rather than the guileless milk of the word.

John mentions the heresy of Docetism but the main focus of this chapter when viewed in its entire context is “the teaching of Christ”. So what is the teaching of Christ? This cannot be referring to Christ coming in flesh as that was apparent to those which were with Jesus when he walked the earth so Christ did not need to teach he was a real flesh and blood human. Rather John is referring to the two commandments which Christ taught; love God and love you neighbor.

So now ask yourself; do the Local Churches love the Body of Christ or do they only extend their warmth to those within their group? The overwhelming consensus to that is that they do in fact lack love toward the Body of Christ in practice and in speech.

When you disregard one commandment you disregard the other. By this, shunning the Local Church does in fact line up with 2 John 1.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Agreed. Christ set us free so we would be free. That is one of the facets of the gospel that is sorely missing in the local church. It is hard because the local church does preach the gospel, but then immediately negates it by putting handcuffs and shackles on those who were just set free. I think that’s why it’s hard for some people to speak up. Because on some level you know there are some salvations occurring within the group. Many saints, particularly the farther away they get from any proximity to the leadership, whether extra-local or local, simply don’t deal with or even have to swallow the deviated doctrines in their daily life. No MOTA, no deputy authority, no “head in the sand we don’t care about right and wrong”. They are saved Christians who sing hymns and “take the table” on Sundays and who are more free in Christ in their daily lives than many die-hard ministry bots. They are some of the ones who would be collateral damage if the thing is exposed. We are dealing with a lot of human lives.

People aren’t slaves to legalism, they are slaves to sin. Christ sets Christians free from condemnation but not from conscience. You’re still expected to honor the commandments. Legalism is a sign and manifestation of sin within a group collective. The goal isn’t to flee legalism, it’s to do something you were not taught in the Local Churches; that is, to repent and believe in the Jesus of scripture. That applies to abusive authority as well. This is the only way you'll be freed from legalism in good conscience.

[Sons to Glory!]

Oh boy, I think Jo has now taken the lead in the longest response category! (it remains to be seen if it takes 1st place for the best however . . .)

Now St. Peter will probably let you into the gates of heaven a nanosecond before (before what, I'm not sure)!

All jocularity aside, I do have one question for you, Jo: Is the Roman Catholic Church a real Christian church?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh boy, I think Jo has now taken the lead in the longest response category! (it remains to be seen if it takes 1st place for the best however . . .)

Now St. Peter will probably let you into the gates of heaven a nanosecond before (before what, I'm not sure)!

All jocularity aside, I do have one question for you, Jo: Is the Roman Catholic Church a real Christian church?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic ecclesiology professes the Catholic Church to be the "sole Church of Christ" i.e., the one true church defined as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" in the Four Marks of the Church in the Nicene Creed.

Does this boast sound familiar?

If you believe the Local Churches can't be the sole Church of Christ on earth then neither can the Catholic Church.

My answer to your question is No.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic ecclesiology professes the Catholic Church to be the "sole Church of Christ" i.e., the one true church defined as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" in the Four Marks of the Church in the Nicene Creed.

Does this boast sound familiar?

If you believe the Local Churches can't be the sole Church of Christ on earth then neither can the Catholic Church.

My answer to your question is No.

Thanks for the clear answer (that you don't think the RCC is really a church)! Yes, certainly several apparent parallels between the LC and Roman Catholic Church. Many theologians (at least non-Catholic ones) think there is good cause to consider that the church in Thyatira represents the RCC. So considering your point that the LC and the RCC aren't really Christian churches because of their numerous bad teachings and practices . . . if the Lord calls the RCC a church (albeit a badly misbehaving one), shouldn't we?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the clear answer (that you don't think the RCC is really a church)! Yes, certainly several apparent parallels between the LC and Roman Catholic Church. Many theologians (at least non-Catholic ones) think there is good cause to consider that the church in Thyatira represents the RCC. So considering your point that the LC and the RCC aren't really Christian churches because of their numerous bad teachings and practices . . . if the Lord calls the RCC a church (albeit a badly misbehaving one), shouldn't we?

StG, I recall you mentioning you meet with the Catholic church and it's members? Is that correct?

I don't agree with your equivalency however. Thyatira had faults but they were not yet apostate. But where is the Church of Thyatira now? The city no longer exists.

The Catholic church is a church, it's even a Christian church in name but is it a genuine Christian church? No. The only genuine church will be the church gathered in the New Jerusalem at Christ's second coming.