Let's make LocalChurchDiscussions Better for 2013!

[UntoHim]

Let's make LocalChurchDiscussions Better for 2013!

Everyone, please feel free to make suggestions on how we can improve this forum! How can we make it more "user friendly". How can we attract more members, especially current members of the Local Churches.? Are there some technical things that can be done? (Igzy can help us here)

[Cassidy]

UntoHim,

A good New Year to you and yours.

As owner of this forum you define the mission and then manage the forum accordingly. At the moment, the forum is propagandist and is managed that way as the progression of the dialogues in the Duddy book thread and its spin-offs attest to. Participants with differing views have been condemned and eventually discouraged and moderated out of the dialogue.

If your objective is to increase participation from current local church members then you will need to establish an environment where their views can be expressed freely and without antagonism. Given the history in this forum and knowing that those current member views will be different from yours, I doubt that increased participation from current local church members is something you really want. If so, you are not set up for it.

You have a forum now that is very supportive of ex-members needs. You also give voice to those with an anti-local church agenda. I think those are the two sweet spots of your forum so why not leave at that?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How can we attract more members, especially current members of the Local Churches.?

A quote from Cassidy's post summed it up well, "If your objective is to increase participation from current local church members then you will need to establish an environment where their views can be expressed freely and without antagonism. "

I've seen in the past where antagonism exists either at one end of the spectrum or at the other end in respect to the purpose of the forum.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

If your objective is to increase participation from current local church members then you will need to establish an environment where their views can be expressed freely and without antagonism. Given the history in this forum and knowing that those current member views will be different from yours, I doubt that increased participation from current local church members is something you really want. If so, you are not set up for it.

Actually LC system members are not accustomed to a forum format and no doubt that is why they may feel uncomfortable participating in this one. Furthermore they do not like situations that they cannot control.

Antagonism = openly expressed opposition. What's wrong with that? I know LC system members don't like any form of opposition and they learned this from Witness Lee. He ran a monologue and everyone said "amen". And now the more accurately members can repeat his words the louder the "amens" they will receive. But that's not how a forum works. In a forum if someone disagrees with your POV (Witness Lee's POV being repeated by you) then they will openly oppose it.

In addition to receiving open opposition LC system members might be asked direct and concrete questions about their beliefs and practices for clarification purposes. They can either answer these questions or do any number of other things like: ignore them and hope they will go away, throw out a red herring, run away from the forum, etc. Which in a way are answers just not honest ones.

So LC system members can either accept the dynamics of a forum or stay away from the ones they can't control. In this particular forum they can "express their views freely" but should not naively expect to do so without any antagonism.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Cite things. Show people exactly where they can find what is being referenced. There is a lot of "he said he said" here, and I think it would be great for everyone, esp current LC members to be able to look for themselves.

Don't get so easily offended.

Read the entire post.

Answer people's questions, especially if they are clear and directed at you.

Stay on topic.

Really try to understand what people are trying to say. This forum isn't one for casual hobbyists to discuss the latest gadget. It's for people genuinely trying to understand the Word of God and how it's been / is being used.

Be humble.

Always use the Word as your anchor, as your starting point, as the last word. (I think this forum does a pretty good job at this).

Try to discuss the LC as it is today. I realize that for that you'll need to attract more current members, but maybe asking questions about how it is now is one way to go. I know I am not the only current member. Others can comment on how it is now. From what I have read a lot has changed since the 80s and even since the early part of this century.

Don't immediately see an LC member as the enemy/opposition/punching bag. Remember that many are genuine Christians. If what you have to share is valid then reason with them as the Lord did, and pray for them.

I look forward to reading and learning more here in the coming years.

[ABrotherinFaith]

alwayslearning;23141Furthermore they do not like situations that they cannot control.

I don't think this applies any more so to LCers than others.

If anyone, an LC member included, has a valid point they can control a forum conversation provided they communicate clearly.

We can't immediately assume that they can't handle themselves in a forum setting. I am sure many LCers are members of other forums and know how things work.

[UntoHim]

My dear old friend Cassidy,

Thanks for the New Years greeting.

First of all I’m the owner of this forum like I’m the owner of my house. This forum, just like my house, has a big fat mortgage against it. When I started this forum I made a promise to God, just like I made a promise to XYZ mortgage company when I started my home. So, before my analogy totally falls apart here….my promise to God was to provide a venue for former and current members of the Local Churches to come and dialogue regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Movement. Of course I fully realized that the person and work of one Witness Lee would come into major play here. I also realized that there would be “3rd party” interests that would come into play. I was hoping (maybe hoping against hope?) that we former and current members could come to come here to some kind of “neutral” ground and have some profitable discussions. I’m still hoping, I’m still praying…and I’m still paying the rent while faithfully doing the first two.

Funny you should bring up the term “propagandist”. Witness Lee was the most influential propagandist I ever knew. Some of his propaganda was biblical, some of his propaganda was just his personal opinions and private interpretations, and some of his propaganda was some of the most harmful and divisive propaganda Christianity has ever known. Hey, but I’m sure you will come back with something like “one man’s propaganda is another man’s ministry”.. or something like that. – Sock it to me bro!

“you will need to establish an environment where their views can be expressed freely and without antagonism”

Dude…when’s the last Local Church meeting you were at? (Don’t answer that…oh wait I don’t have to worry about that…you never do). Really my brother… “without antagonism”? Do you mean without somebody not saying “AMEN!”? If I did that, that would violate my promise that I just told you about. The promise that I made (as weak, feeble and lame as it was) was for a venue…mmm I don’t have time to google the word “venue”…I’ll just have to trust you’re with me on that. I made a promise (to me and God) that this forum would be open to all current and former members. My promise did not include a vow to current members that it would be a Local Church meeting, where everything is positive towards “the ministry” (the person and work of Witness Lee). Conversely, my promise was not to provide a venue for any and all to come and bash said ministry just for the sake of bashing said ministry.

You have a forum now that is very supportive of ex-members needs. You also give voice to those with an anti-local church agenda. I think those are the two sweet spots of your forum so why not leave at that?

How can I be supportive of somebody who doesn’t bother to even show up? I also give voice to those with a pro-local church agenda. You’re living proof of that, aren’t ya? (you set yourself up for that one) The sweet spot has never been hit…and that’s the very reason I started this thread.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Happy New Year to all!

UntoHim, since you asked, I will share what I feel on the matter.

Brothers and Sisters, there are literally dozens of LSM websites out there that promote Witness Lee's theology as the Lord's move and the Ministry of the age. Having those same views aired here does not in any way help anyone "Safely discuss the practices of the 'Recovery'". Everyone who comes to this site is fully aware of what the views of the Recovery are, we don't need someone to excuse them or explain them away.... this isn't some church we dabbled in, it was something we lived - all of us, for years; some for more years than others. Some of us are still living it, and some are living it in absentia; disfellowshipped from the franchise and trying to come to terms with what that means.

My feeling is, that for this Forum to fulfill the mission you've stated (as I understand it), we need to reach out to those damaged by the Recovery with the very love of Christ. It is a sad reality that many who have left fellowship with LSM have also left the faith. These ones need to be ministered to, and we are frankly the only ones who can meet those needs - at least, out here on the web. Yes, they need Godly council locally - fellowship with flesh-and-blood believers. However, in the absence of that, they need to know that what hurt them wasn't Christ and wasn't Christianity... it was a man and a man-made religion.

This site needs more fellowship, more sharing, more getting into the Word... and less excusing or accusing of Lee.

I pray that 2013 brings peace, healing, and clarity to all members of Your Body, Lord. I pray that we, insufficient as we are, can be used through Your sufficiency; remembering that when we are weak, then You are strong. Use these hands and hearts, Lord Jesus.

Amen.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

alwayslearning;23141Furthermore they do not like situations that they cannot control.

I don't think this applies any more so to LCers than others.

If anyone, an LC member included, has a valid point they can control a forum conversation provided they communicate clearly.

We can't immediately assume that they can't handle themselves in a forum setting. I am sure many LCers are members of other forums and know how things work.

Actually by control I meant owning and/or moderating a forum. It is well known that the Anaheim Politburo does not like the Internet except as a means to market LSM i.e. sites they can control. They don't like this kind of forum at all.

I do not assume that they cannot handle themselves in a forum but rather they are not accustomed to the format i.e. a format that includes open opposition by those who disagree with their POVs. Of course this was in response to Cassidy who thinks for some reason LC system members should be able to freely express their views here without any open opposition - which would be in keeping with the LC system environment not a forum.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Try to discuss the LC as it is today. I realize that for that you'll need to attract more current members, but maybe asking questions about how it is now is one way to go. I know I am not the only current member. Others can comment on how it is now. From what I have read a lot has changed since the 80s and even since the early part of this century.

I think discussing the LC system history and how it is today are both necessary. So how is it today? How is it different then it was in the 1980s? Please let us know because what we see and hear is pretty much more of the same but maybe we are reading it wrong. For example, when Titus Chu was ousted in Whistler the Anaheim Politburo openly admitted they asked themselves this question: "What would Witness Lee do?" and in answer to that they went out and in absentia kicked out Chu. Later Ray Graver said there are no lampstands in the Midwest. So how is this different than how things operated in the 1980s?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Cite things. Show people exactly where they can find what is being referenced. There is a lot of "he said he said" here, and I think it would be great for everyone, esp current LC members to be able to look for themselves.

These points are valid and well taken. However there is a big problem with this as it relates to the teachings of Witness Lee - He taught contradictory things, even things that touch the very core of the Christian faith. The best example might be Lee's teachings regarding the trinity. At times his teachings regarding the trinity seemed to be very close to what any evangelical, orthodox Christian might hear in their church, and at other times his teachings contained a strong "flavor" of modalism. He used commonplace language, such as "three in one", "the triune God", "the three of the trinity", etc. He also used modalistic terms, such as "stages". He also plainly stated that the Son is called the Father and that the Son became the Holy Spirit. Now defenders of Lee will try to explain away such a contradiction by pulling out the old “economical versus essential” argument, or the even more lame “he was teaching both sides of the same truth” argument. My point is that for every reference you might give of Lee’s heretical teachings, LCers will pull out a seemingly orthodox statement. They have been trained to defend Lee and his teachings no matter how silly or contradictory they sound. There is only so much time and space available on a forum for this kind of nonsense.

Don't get so easily offended. Read the entire post. Answer people's questions, especially if they are clear and directed at you. Stay on topic.

Amen, Amen, Amen and AMEN!

Try to discuss the LC as it is today. I realize that for that you'll need to attract more current members, but maybe asking questions about how it is now is one way to go. I know I am not the only current member. Others can comment on how it is now. From what I have read a lot has changed since the 80s and even since the early part of this century.

I would concur with alwayslearning here. The simple fact is that most of the changes have been “cosmetic” in nature. Most of the American younger brothers no longer look like they’re in the Marine Corps, and most of the younger American sisters have moved into the 21st century in appearance as well. However, since the teachings and practices are virtually the same, the hearts and minds of the average member are not much different..and neither is their attitude towards former members or even current members with a different opinion.

Don't immediately see an LC member as the enemy/opposition/punching bag. Remember that many are genuine Christians. If what you have to share is valid then reason with them as the Lord did, and pray for them.

I have tried my best to provide an atmosphere that is conducive to open and safe dialogue. However, there is only so much that one person can do. Igzy has been kind enough to take on the burden of the day-to-day operation and moderation. But really, at the end of the day, it is the majority of the forum members that set the tone. Thankfully, we are blessed with quite a number of reasonable people.

[Cassidy]

"Of course this was in response to Cassidy who thinks for some reason LC system members should be able to freely express their views here without any open opposition..."

Good up until bold.

What gives you that idea?

I think opposition is healthy.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I think opposition is healthy.

Excellent! So what's the problem?

[Cassidy]

-1

We have a different definition of "antagonism".

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

We have a different definition of "antagonism".

I'm referring to the dictionary definition. But anyway why don't you give us a few specific examples based on your definition of antagonism toward LC system members in this forum so we can hopefully understand more clearly what your concerns are.

[Cassidy]

Your definition is that antagonism = open opposition. Debate is open opposition.

Antagonism is much more than open opposition. It includes hostility.

Of course, an environment free of antagonism is necessary for every participant.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Antagonism = openly expressed opposition. What's wrong with that? I know LC system members don't like any form of opposition and they learned this from Witness Lee. He ran a monologue and everyone said "amen". And now the more accurately members can repeat his words the louder the "amens" they will receive. But that's not how a forum works. In a forum if someone disagrees with your POV (Witness Lee's POV being repeated by you) then they will openly oppose it.

In this particular forum they can "express their views freely" but should not naively expect to do so without any antagonism.

The issue is not whether one is no longer meeting in the local churches or currently meeting in the local churches, but being able to receive and discuss varying point of view.
On this forum, I've seen many posters come and go in large part to an inability to recieve opposing point of view.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Your definition is that antagonism = open opposition. Debate is open opposition.

Antagonism is much more than open opposition. It includes hostility.

Of course, an environment free of antagonism is necessary for every participant.

In a free and open forum, no one can guarantee the absence of what someone might term "hostility." Emotions and confrontation are part of discussion. Grown-ups realize that and deal with it.

Besides, hostility comes in various forms. I would say, Cassidy, you regularly engage in the passive/aggressive type of hostility. You maintain a patina of niceness (to which you like to call attention) which conceals an underlying hostility not only toward people who have problems with the LRC, but also toward those who care for open, honest discussion minus game-playing BS.

Personally, I think your brand of hostility is worse, because it masquerades as something else, and wastes everyone's time and patience. I'd rather have someone be up front and call me a jerk than say sweet things to me and stab me in the back. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I'm not one of them. Never have been.

Even so, I like you, strangely enough. I'd love to share some coffee with you some time and talk for hours, not the least because I know you couldn't pull the kind of nonsense face-to-face that you've elevated to high art here.

Igzy

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think discussing the LC system history and how it is today are both necessary. So how is it today? How is it different then it was in the 1980s? Please let us know because what we see and hear is pretty much more of the same but maybe we are reading it wrong. For example, when Titus Chu was ousted in Whistler the Anaheim Politburo openly admitted they asked themselves this question: "What would Witness Lee do?" and in answer to that they went out and in absentia kicked out Chu. Later Ray Graver said there are no lampstands in the Midwest. So how is this different than how things operated in the 1980s?

I agree alwayslearning. If you don't learn from the past, you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The meetings I've attended, I have seen little to change my point of view. However if you use the past as a barometer, it was encouraging to hear the report a former Anaheim elder attended at least one of the meetings at the November regional conference in Seattle/Bellevue.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Your definition is that antagonism = open opposition. Debate is open opposition.

Antagonism is much more than open opposition. It includes hostility.

Of course, an environment free of antagonism is necessary for every participant.

As I understand Cassidy what he means from antagonism vs debate. Both are open opposition.
Debate is much more objective.
Antagonism leads to hostilities when it comes from strong subjective feelings.

It is ideal to have an environment free of antagonism, one can try to be objective and conscious not to wilfully antagonize, but sometimes a well-meaning brother or sister may unknowingly say something to provoke reactive feelings resulting in hostilities.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Your definition is that antagonism = open opposition. Debate is open opposition.

Antagonism is much more than open opposition. It includes hostility.

Of course, an environment free of antagonism is necessary for every participant.

Actually by definition antagonism does not have to include hostility but nonetheless since that is the definition you are using please provide us some examples of it towards LC system members participating in this forum so we can understand what you are referring to.

Speaking for myself I hold no hostility towards any LC system member and I hold dear religious liberty as a fundamental right in a civil society. LC system members could wear pumpkins on their heads and shout Witness Lee 3 times at the top of their lungs and teach this as a required practice and I would defend their right to do so. But at the very same time others have the right to openly oppose this teaching and practice if they disagree with it.

So again if you have some concrete examples in this forum of antagonism per the definition you are using please point them out to us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Actually by definition antagonism does not have to include hostility but nonetheless since that is the definition you are using please provide us some examples of it towards LC system members participating in this forum so we can understand what you are referring to.

Speaking for myself I hold no hostility towards any LC system member and I hold dear religious liberty as a fundamental right in a civil society. LC system members could wear pumpkins on their heads and shout Witness Lee 3 times at the top of their lungs and teach this as a required practice and I would defend their right to do so. But at the very same time others have the right to openly oppose this teaching and practice if they disagree with it.

So again if you have some concrete examples in this forum of antagonism per the definition you are using please point them out to us.

I would say that purposely antagonizing people through passive-aggressive behavior and then yelling "hostility!" when they finally react with anger is the worst kind of hostility. It's like teasing a dog and then shooting him when he finally bites you.

Obviously we all need to do our best to roll with the punches. But as far as I'm concerned the main test of a poster is not how he maintains a patina of civility against the screams of protest of others. The main test is whether a poster posts honestly and in good faith. As messy as anger and frustration are, I understand them. What I don't and probably never will understand is trying to provoke anger in others in order to discredit them or the forum they operate in.

[Cal]

Here are my suggestions.

1. Post openly, honestly and in good faith.
   
   
2. Do your best to understand the other person's point of view.
   
   
3. Do not engage in semantical arguments or word games.
   
   
4. Do not nitpick.
   
   
5. Back up declarative statements with explanation and evidence.
   
   
6. If you post, you take on an obligation to explain yourself. If you make an assertion, be prepared to answer any questions about it. When someone asks you a direct question, do your best to answer it. Don't just post things and disappear in the face of opposition. Don't hide behind silence.
   
   
7. Have a thick skin. Try not to take things personally.
   
   
8. Keep an open mind and be a learner. It just might be that you have something to learn.
   
   
9. Give people room to breathe.
   
   
10. Be kind. But don't feel the need to tolerate someone who abuses the grace of others.
    
    
11. Do not abuse the grace of others.

[Cal]

I think there are a lot of reasons LCers don't post more here:

1. They are officially told not to participate in these types of venues, or even read them. So once an LCer ventures here, he has already gone against the warnings of "the brothers."
   
   
2. LCers by nature recoil from what they would term "spiritual death." Which to them includes any negativity toward their movement and especially its leaders.
   
   
3. If they do come here as staunch LCers, the only reason for doing so would be to defend the LC. Since LCers are really not equipped to intelligently defend their beliefs and practices, but rather only equipped to accept them unquestioningly, they ultimately cannot handle questions. Since many facts about the LC are simply indefensible, this results in either a swift and embarrassing exit, or continuing on a relentless path of closed-mindedness and denial which relies on word games, dodging questions, pretense, callousness, etc.
   
   
4. Then there are non-staunch LCers. They also end up being unable to defend the history of the movement, but simply see things as a matter of weighing the good against the bad and believing the good wins out. These people usually begin feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed at being unable to answer the probing queries of those genuinely hurt by the movement.
   
   
5. So what's left are those who are on their way out or out. These make up the mass of participants. They vary in their defense of the movement, but usually don't make a huge issue out of any defense.

[countmeworthy]

Hello all!

And a very Happy, Blessed, prosperous and healthy 2013.

I liked what Neitherfirstnorlast wrote:


"we need to reach out to those damaged by the Recovery with the very love of Christ.

It is a sad reality that many who have left fellowship with LSM have also left the faith. They need to be ministered to, and we are frankly the only ones who can meet those needs"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
They need to be assured God has plans for them to prosper and not to harm them. Plans that give them [and US] Hope and a (bright) future. Jeremiah 29:11

Too often, posters here (including me) have wanted to impress the readers how intelligent we have become since leaving the LC/LSM. We forget they need to be encouraged in the FAITH.

Hopefully we will be more thoughtful, considerate and more Christ loving in 2013.

Peace and Goodwill towards all human beings.

Carol Garza

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Hello all!

And a very Happy, Blessed, prosperous and healthy 2013.

Hi sister CMW,

I agree that love is the indispensable requirement. People need the love of Christ more than information about how bad the LCs became for some, or the deficiencies of their theology/practices. What moved us out of the world was the beckoning love of Christ.

Unfortunately it is hard to share love over the internet so we settle on information, which itself is difficult enough. Look how much wrong information is presented on the internet! Here included, I am sure. So we settle on trying to present information. "God loved the world so much He sent His only begotten Son..." and we love the LC/ex-LC'ers so much that we send them information showing them that the doorway to the Father is Jesus Christ our Lord (not a "minister of the age" or a "ground of oneness" or an "economy of God").

It seems to me that Lee used the Bible and his/Nee's logic to run a lot of Christians "off the reservation"; i.e. out of fellowship with their peers. So we can use the Bible and our collective intelligence to show that it is okay, in fact pleasing to God, to meet with the Podunk Community Church (and others), and to have a "free group" (unaffiliated) Bible study in our neighbor's kitchen.

Peace & blessings to you & to all who read this.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think there are a lot of reasons LCers don't post more here:

I think you overlooked a biggie: fear. Take a look at the gospel of John, chapter 7, verse 13: "But no one would say anything about Him publicly for fear of the Jews".

I think a lot of LC'ers know that something smells rotten in Denmark, but fear has paralyzed them into inactivity. The LSM leadership, beginning with Lee and continuing through the current curators of his ministry, made a lot of hay by publicly castigating everyone that couldn't be "one" with the LSM program. People are afraid to be on the wrong side of the LSM lash. LC'ers would rather sit and listen to the Blendeds castigate someone else, than have someone else sit and listen to the Blendeds castigate them.

In John 7:13 people knew something was up concerning this guy Jesus, something of God, but were paralyzed from saying anything publicly because of fear. Also look at subsequent references such as John 9:22 and 12:42, where people disagreed with the Pharisees' take on Jesus, but didn't vocalize their beliefs "...for fear they would be put out of the synagogue." The LSM program is to get people to be "sold out" or "broken", i.e. to feel irrevocably committed; then those people become afraid to do anything, including recognize or point out obvious truths about God's salvation in Jesus Christ, lest they should be put out of the LSM synagogues.

Perhaps the main service provided by a forum such as this is that someone can point out the obvious, and the earth won't open up and swallow them. My sense is that a lot of LC'ers will, very privately and softly, admit that their beloved "ministry" was and is not perfect, nor ideal. But they see no healthy, open middle ground. One either does nothing about it or else one risks being branded as another "Steve Isitt, Man of Death". Therefore fear keeps them quiet.

[countmeworthy]

(Since I am writing from my phone, it is difficult to cut & paste).

Aron is bringing up some very good points as well as Igzy and all who are sharing their thoughts.

Fear is a horrible stronghold on the LSMrs, especially those who have a very long standing with Lee's ministry (or any other religious (Christian) ministry.

It may be difficult to share the Love of Christ over the internet but it IS MORE, more than possible for with God ALL things are possible.

What we might all try doing as we expose the falsehoods of Lee's ministry, we can encourage people not to give up on their SAVIOR. It is JESUS Who drew us to Himself, saved us and delivered us.

He did not merely save us from hell, He is constantly saving us. He has plans for us to prosper and succeed, -not to harm us- He promises to give us Hope and a bright Future. (Jeremiah 29:11.

We have to encourage them and help one another to renew our Faith in Christ, to walk and speak in LOVE with Patience. For GOD is LOVE and this Love, God through His Precious Word, JESUS and by the power of His Holy Spirit lives and operates in us.

We have to reconnect ourselves to HIM so we can connect with one another and be the LIGHT to the world giving them Hope.

If all we do is give out information and expose the LSM/Lee, people will not have hope and faith in Christ.

So...this is my contribution to this thread. :-)

Blessings of innerpeace, Joy, Prosperity, Success, true LOVE, excellent health in spirit, mind and body to all in 2013!

Cheers!

Carol Garza

[Cal]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Aron is bringing up some very good points as well as Igzy and all who are sharing their thoughts.

Great points, Carol!

This is precisely why we need more sisters posting.

Great stuff, and needed, needed, needed.

Igzy

PS Also, Carol, we have lots of new smiley icons. So feel free to use them.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

So how is it today? How is it different then it was in the 1980s? Please let us know because what we see and hear is pretty much more of the same but maybe we are reading it wrong. . . So how is this different than how things operated in the 1980s?

I can't say. I don't really remember how it was in the 80s. I was a kid.

I can tell you now that there is still an atmosphere separation, being apart and other than Christianity. It's something that bothers me to no end because I see no end to it. I know that when Christianity is mentioned it's always the system, not the individuals, but I can't help thinking that that system is comprised of individuals and the more one denigrates the former the more easily the latter is grouped in to that denigration.

There is a lot of unnecessarily over the top lingo.

There is a lot of the Bible in the meetings. It is often, not always, colored by the ministry.

There is a lot of rote repetition of things. Say such and such three times, for example. Why ALWAYS three times precisely?!

There many genuine believers seeking the Lord, struggling with the world, overcoming at times, at times overcome.

There is a lot of enjoyment, and I believe it often leads to the Lord.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I think a lot of LC'ers know that something smells rotten in Denmark, but fear has paralyzed them into inactivity. The LSM leadership, beginning with Lee and continuing through the current curators of his ministry, made a lot of hay by publicly castigating everyone that couldn't be "one" with the LSM program. People are afraid to be on the wrong side of the LSM lash. LC'ers would rather sit and listen to the Blendeds castigate someone else, than have someone else sit and listen to the Blendeds castigate them.

Without question some saints may think, but it's another thing to speak it. For many years saints have been trained to speak a positive word. To verbally express they think something is "off the mark" would be regarded as speaking negative. Some are shipwrecked for nothing but the local churches. Where would they go? Best recourse is to go along silently.