Local Church controversies

[awareness]

Just one question :

Has LCD done anything with this?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_..._controversies

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just one question :

Has LCD done anything with this?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_..._controversies

Witness Lee and his damn "mingling". He should have just admitted that it was an imperfect metaphor and moved on. But no, as the MOTA he couldn't be wrong. So he doubled down and went on and on about it for years.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee and his damn "mingling". He should have just admitted that it was an imperfect metaphor and moved on. But no, as the MOTA he couldn't be wrong. So he doubled down and went on and on about it for years.

I think the Wiki entry "Local Church controversies" is a mingling like tea in water of Living Stream Ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

This post is about the accusations of cult (covered on LCD an nauseum).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just one question :

Has LCD done anything with this?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_..._controversies

Article has LSM / DCP fingerprints all over it. Surprised it has not been challenged.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This post is about the accusations of cult (covered on LCD an nauseum).

No, it covers pretty much the whole shebang of controversies. Zeek just jumped on one : Mingling.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Article has LSM / DCP fingerprints all over it. Surprised it has not been challenged.

A good hound dog could easily pick up the LSM/DCP scent on the site.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, it covers pretty much the whole shebang of controversies. Zeek just jumped on one : Mingling.

Mingling is the basis for one of the books that claimed the church was a cult. Also, the topic of mingling has also been thoroughly covered on the LCD forum.

[Evangelical]

All metaphors are imperfect. NO one has ever disproven or proven that mingling is not correct. Can anyone prove that God does not mingle like tea and water. I dont think so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All metaphors are imperfect. NO one has ever disproven or proven that mingling is not correct. Can anyone prove that God does not mingle like tea and water. I dont think so.

So your logic is, since it can't be disproven makes it so?

My question is not concerning mingling or any other haywire Lee doctrine, but why do the Blendeds, or DCP, feel the need for this Wiki page.

Maybe you can provide an answer bro Evangelical. All the controversies are on the internet already, are college students looking it up and not joining the Lee personality cult?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So your logic is, since it can't be disproven makes it so?

My question is not concerning mingling or any other haywire Lee doctrine, but why do the Blendeds, or DCP, feel the need for this Wiki page.

Maybe you can provide an answer bro Evangelical. All the controversies are on the internet already, are college students looking it up and not joining the Lee personality cult?

Makes it a weak reason to call it a cult.

I cant answer for wiki. .anyone can contribute there. Maybe its all written by the vampire slayer Melton.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Makes it a weak reason to call it a cult.

Isn't the fact that it's a Witness Lee personality cult enough?

Originally Posted by E

I cant answer for wiki. .anyone can contribute there. Maybe its all written by the vampire slayer Melton.

Prolly NOT. C'mon, you can come up something better than that. Take an educated stab at it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't the fact that it's a Witness Lee personality cult enough?

Probably. I think it is clutching at straws to pick on the mingling thing, particularly since the Webster dictionary defines it according to Lee's understanding. It's a sign of desperation, and having no real and solid proof that it is a cult.

I think an outsider to Christianity would consider Christianity a cult. I mean, it's a group of people who gather together on a Sunday to pretend to eat human flesh and drink human blood (Catholics, moreso than Protestants).

So the hypocrisy is evident when so called "Christian apologists" are claiming the LC is a cult because of a tea and water analogy, when they are pretending to drink blood and eat flesh on a Sunday.

Originally Posted by awareness

I
Prolly NOT. C'mon, you can come up something better than that. Take an educated stab at it.

I think the article is balanced, it presents both sides well I think. It could be a member who is allowed to use the internet, or an LC supporter like Melton. Someone could have just copy pasted from the DCP websites. No one deep into the Recovery, because the deep ones are not allowed internet access.. is that right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably. I think it is clutching at straws to pick on the mingling thing, particularly since the Webster dictionary defines it according to Lee's understanding. It's a sign of desperation, and having no real and solid proof that it is a cult.

I guess it depends on if you've got the dealio or not. You see brother Evangelical I got the dealio, right in my face. There was no denying I was seeing a cult in action. And once you see it you can't ever unsee it.

Originally Posted by E

I think an outsider to Christianity would consider Christianity a cult.

Yes, it's been considered that from at least Celsus in the 2nd c.

Originally Posted by E

I mean, it's a group of people who gather together on a Sunday to pretend to eat human flesh and drink human blood (Catholics, moreso than Protestants).

Cannibals and vampires ... that practice too was propagandized about early on.

Originally Posted by E

So the hypocrisy is evident when so called "Christian apologists" are claiming the LC is a cult because of a tea and water analogy, when they are pretending to drink blood and eat flesh on a Sunday.

Maybe both are silly bro Evangelical. Especially since the Catholic church teaches that when you partake of the bread and the wine Jesus is actually --- transubstantiation wise -- mingling with you.

Originally Posted by E

I think the article is balanced, it presents both sides well I think. It could be a member who is allowed to use the internet, or an LC supporter like Melton. Someone could have just copy pasted from the DCP websites. No one deep into the Recovery, because the deep ones are not allowed internet access.. is that right?

It could be anything or any one, but why? Why put it up? What's that all about? It sure doesn't look like an opposer put it up. A pro-LCer put it up. That can't be denied. It begs the question : WHY???

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

It could be anything or any one, but why? Why put it up? What's that all about? It sure doesn't look like an opposer put it up. A pro-LCer put it up. That can't be denied. It begs the question : WHY???

Maybe to counterbalance the unfactual and untrue statements. I think I might have contributed to there myself actually, nothing major. I tend to make small corrections, pull things apart. It's probably been undone by now.

It sort of disproves your idea that LCer's can't use the internet.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe to counterbalance the unfactual and untrue statements. I think I might have contributed to there myself actually, nothing major. I tend to make small corrections, pull things apart. It's probably been undone by now.

It sort of disproves your idea that LCer's can't use the internet.

I don't believe that "the LCer's can't use the internet", that was never my impression during my time there, actually quite the opposite. There is a computer in the book room that has internet access and many members use the internet on their smart phone during meetings to access hymnal.net, morning revivals that had been downloaded from the web, etc.

I did have multiple people from across localities tell me specifically not to read negative things about LSM, LC, WL, etc online. They said I would be poisoned.

I doubt that many, if any, on this forum think that "the LCer's can't use the internet". What's the word you can use to describe someone that makes an argument on an idea that is not supported by the other side?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't believe that "the LCer's can't use the internet", that was never my impression during my time there, actually quite the opposite. There is a computer in the book room that has internet access and many members use the internet on their smart phone during meetings to access hymnal.net, morning revivals that had been downloaded from the web, etc.

I did have multiple people from across localities tell me specifically not to read negative things about LSM, LC, WL, etc online. They said I would be poisoned.

I doubt that many, if any, on this forum think that "the LCer's can't use the internet". What's the word you can use to describe someone that makes an argument on an idea that is not supported by the other side?

Does this sound like it?

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.

This was classical Evangelical! Here is his prooftext:

It sort of disproves your idea that LCer's can't use the internet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe to counterbalance the unfactual and untrue statements. I think I might have contributed to there myself actually, nothing major. I tend to make small corrections, pull things apart. It's probably been undone by now.

It sort of disproves your idea that LCer's can't use the internet.

And the internet will be their undoing. Just like RK said, it's death.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't believe that "the LCer's can't use the internet", that was never my impression during my time there, actually quite the opposite. There is a computer in the book room that has internet access and many members use the internet on their smart phone during meetings to access hymnal.net, morning revivals that had been downloaded from the web, etc.

I did have multiple people from across localities tell me specifically not to read negative things about LSM, LC, WL, etc online. They said I would be poisoned.

I doubt that many, if any, on this forum think that "the LCer's can't use the internet". What's the word you can use to describe someone that makes an argument on an idea that is not supported by the other side?

Okay, okay, I made the video up in my head. I certainly didn't dream it. I'm a vivid dreamer. I would have remembered a dream with RK in it.

Truth is I don't have a clue what the saints in the LC do with the internet. There weren't no interweb when I was in. I do see that LSM has a solid presence on the web. So I guess it's feasible that they could be reading Witness Lee all day, or watching RK videos.

Hey, when I was in TVs weren't even allowed. I saw plenty of 'em burn in the fire.

I remember when I was in there was an acceptable reading list. So is there a list of approved websites the saints can visit, and a disapproved list? Or are there certain people to avoid, like Steve Isitt, for example? Should they stay away from places that call the LC a cult ... like the Bereans.net

But hey, The Bible Answer Man is okay, he did a cover on the CRI mag. with a picture of Witness Lee, with "We Were Wrong," shouting off the page. He's one of the good ones to visit on the web.

So y'all that do know how the saints use the web, please let us know.

So does Ron Kangas approve of AltV's because I'm the MOTA (moderator of the age) of it, and I'm still his brother in the Lord? Just thinking out loud?

But I have noticed, over the years, with few exceptions, those I've known that are still in the LC tend to avoid me. Even when I got on Facebook and reconnect with ones I use to know back in the day, of the ones still in the LC, after getting to know me now, tend to step back, and away.

I still see cult in that. And don't tell me. 20 years ago or so I joined a yahoo local church group. I lurked on it about 6 months. Then I got tired of reading post after post of Life Studies of Witness Lee. So I jumped in and typed something like, "Hey is this site operated by robots, or a computer algorithm?" Then I discovered there were actual saints doing the postings. Then they got a little stirred up, and started speaking that they were god-men.

Long story short. I opened up about my local church experience (never once mentioning the c word). I was immediately blocked. So I wrote to Kangas about it. He wrote back that he'd see what he could do. One of the moderators contacted me, and apologized. Telling me that if he had gone thru what I went thru he'd be gone too ; and that saints are instructed to stay away from those that have left the LC , and that's why I got banned. He put me back on. But I was blocked again. He wrote and said he couldn't stop the other moderator from blocking me. "Sorry" he said.

So once again, it's still a cult. Has it changed in the last 20 years? So I've heard, from saints trying to talk me into coming back. But time and time again it is proven, it's still a cult.

And I'm very glad Evangelical is out here, but it breaks my heart that he's a cult member ... as it breaks my heart for all the others that are in there too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, okay, I made the video up in my head. I certainly didn't dream it. I'm a vivid dreamer. I would have remembered a dream with RK in it.

Truth is I don't have a clue what the saints in the LC do with the internet. There weren't no interweb when I was in. I do see that LSM has a solid presence on the web. So I guess it's feasible that they could be reading Witness Lee all day, or watching RK videos.

Hey, when I was in TVs weren't even allowed. I saw plenty of 'em burn in the fire.

I remember when I was in there was an acceptable reading list. So is there a list of approved websites the saints can visit, and a disapproved list? Or are there certain people to avoid, like Steve Isitt, for example? Should they stay away from places that call the LC a cult ... like the Bereans.net

But hey, The Bible Answer Man is okay, he did a cover on the CRI mag. with a picture of Witness Lee, with "We Were Wrong," shouting off the page. He's one of the good ones to visit on the web.

So y'all that do know how the saints use the web, please let us know.

So does Ron Kangas approve of AltV's because I'm the MOTA (moderator of the age) of it, and I'm still his brother in the Lord? Just thinking out loud?

But I have noticed, over the years, with few exceptions, those I've known that are still in the LC tend to avoid me. Even when I got on Facebook and reconnect with ones I use to know back in the day, of the ones still in the LC, after getting to know me now, tend to step back, and away.

I still see cult in that. And don't tell me. 20 years ago or so I joined a yahoo local church group. I lurked on it about 6 months. Then I got tired of reading post after post of Life Studies of Witness Lee. So I jumped in and typed something like, "Hey is this site operated by robots, or a computer algorithm?" Then I discovered there were actual saints doing the postings. Then they got a little stirred up, and started speaking that they were god-men.

Long story short. I opened up about my local church experience (never once mentioning the c word). I was immediately blocked. So I wrote to Kangas about it. He wrote back that he'd see what he could do. One of the moderators contacted me, and apologized. Telling me that if he had gone thru what I went thru he'd be gone too ; and that saints are instructed to stay away from those that have left the LC , and that's why I got banned. He put me back on. But I was blocked again. He wrote and said he couldn't stop the other moderator from blocking me. "Sorry" he said.

So once again, it's still a cult. Has it changed in the last 20 years? So I've heard, from saints trying to talk me into coming back. But time and time again it is proven, it's still a cult.

And I'm very glad Evangelical is out here, but it breaks my heart that he's a cult member ... as it breaks my heart for all the others that are in there too.

Back in the 70s and 80s you could exert influence on the Saint's access to the internet. Not everyone had computers, not everyone had internet access, the internet was still a strange and weird place.

That is a very long time ago. Everyone would have multiple devices that access the internet today, both at home, at work and as a smart phone. So even if it was inconvenient to access the internet at home because of corporate living the same person could access it at work, at school and in their car.

You have to use the internet for work.

So if the LC model is to keep everyone isolated from the internet that is no longer feasible. Major shortcoming of cults is that you have to keep the people isolated. Very hard to do in the internet age.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Back in the 70s and 80s you could exert influence on the Saint's access to the internet.

They didn't have to exert influence, there was no internet. The IBM PC wasn't introduced until 1981, as I've already pointed out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

They didn't have to exert influence, there was no internet. The IBM PC wasn't introduced until 1981, as I've already pointed out.

1969 was the first transmitted message via "network computers".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't believe that "the LCer's can't use the internet", that was never my impression during my time there, actually quite the opposite. There is a computer in the book room that has internet access and many members use the internet on their smart phone during meetings to access hymnal.net, morning revivals that had been downloaded from the web, etc.

I did have multiple people from across localities tell me specifically not to read negative things about LSM, LC, WL, etc online. They said I would be poisoned.

I doubt that many, if any, on this forum think that "the LCer's can't use the internet". What's the word you can use to describe someone that makes an argument on an idea that is not supported by the other side?

What do you call someone who jumps into a discussion they know nothing about that they weren't involved in the first place, and they end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post? Sorry that someone is you right now but don't worry we've all been there.

Awareness made the remark in the "Christianity in the Postmodern Era" thread that there was a rule against LCers using the internet. So does "can't use the internet" make sense now?

Now I explained to him that it was not the case, but he was just taking my word for it I think.

But your post has value as it provides a second witness that LCers can use the internet. The pro-LC articles are also a witness. So hopefully Awareness is now convinced that things are not how they were when he was in the LC.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does this sound like it?

This was classical Evangelical! Here is his prooftext:

You and leastofthese make a lovely couple.

Yes I do use the old reductio ad absurdum from time to time.

But in this case it was a simple misunderstanding of my use of the word "can't" by leastofthese. So I was not making an argument or putting forward a view that leastofthese and everyone else thinks we can't use the internet. I was responding solely to Awareness who believed that, taking the opportunity to highlight that pro-LC wikipedia pages are proof of LCers using the internet.

However I will take the opportunity at this point to point out that others, besides Awareness here, have claimed that LCers cannot use the internet without Elder's approval. I do recall being asked in one thread whether I have obtained Elder approval for being here.

But I guess now I can also write to you what I wrote to leastofthese:

What do you call someone who jumps into a discussion they know nothing about that they weren't involved in the first place, and they end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

They didn't have to exert influence, there was no internet. The IBM PC wasn't introduced until 1981, as I've already pointed out.

Sounds logical to me. The controlling influence by the Elders was exerted by the fact that the PC was not widely available at the time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What do you call someone who jumps into a discussion they know nothing about that they weren't involved in the first place, and they end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post?

EvanGelly?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Back in the 70s and 80s you could exert influence on the Saint's access to the internet. Not everyone had computers, not everyone had internet access, the internet was still a strange and weird place.

That is a very long time ago. Everyone would have multiple devices that access the internet today, both at home, at work and as a smart phone. So even if it was inconvenient to access the internet at home because of corporate living the same person could access it at work, at school and in their car.

You have to use the internet for work.

So if the LC model is to keep everyone isolated from the internet that is no longer feasible. Major shortcoming of cults is that you have to keep the people isolated. Very hard to do in the internet age.

"the internet" aka world wide web did not really gain momentum until the 90's. So there was no influence on the Saint's access to internet because there was no internet. Who "had internet" in the 70's and 80's?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

EvanGelly?

So you admit you were wrong then?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What do you call someone who jumps into a discussion they know nothing about that they weren't involved in the first place, and they end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post? Sorry that someone is you right now but don't worry we've all been there.

Awareness made the remark in the "Christianity in the Postmodern Era" thread that there was a rule against LCers using the internet. So does "can't use the internet" make sense now?

Now I explained to him that it was not the case, but he was just taking my word for it I think.

But your post has value as it provides a second witness that LCers can use the internet. The pro-LC articles are also a witness. So hopefully Awareness is now convinced that things are not how they were when he was in the LC.

I saw that post in the other thread, so I'm not sure how I was confused or embarrassed. My point was that this (in my experience) is NOT a rule in the LC.

You never cease to surprise me E_Jellz

So now are you the one that, "end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"the internet" aka world wide web did not really gain momentum until the 90's. So there was no influence on the Saint's access to internet because there was no internet. Who "had internet" in the 70's and 80's?

My university had "internet" in the 70s and 80s. Many students at numerous universities had access. So yes, it was a simple matter for elders to warn saints away from the "poison" on the internet.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I saw that post in the other thread, so I'm not sure how I was confused or embarrassed. My point was that this (in my experience) is NOT a rule in the LC.

You never cease to surprise me E_Jellz

So now are you the one that, "end up being embarrassed because they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the post?"

You would have seen then that it was Awareness who gave the idea that LCers cannot use the internet. Not me.

That is why I said "It sort of disproves your idea that LCer's can't use the internet. " "your idea" is referring to Awareness's idea.

Now he did say that, so you cannot claim "the other side" does not believe that LCer's can't use the internet. Awareness does, so your claim about me falls flat.

I've been trying to convince him that LCers can use the internet. Now because you and I all know that LCer's can use the internet, it was actually Awareness doing what you claimed I did. Claiming something not supported by the other side. That is what you and Ohio are confused about - who is introducing the reductio ad absurdum.

Ohio looks foolish because he supported your false idea that I introduced the reductio ad absurdum, when in fact it was Awareness. It seems Ohio did not read or understand the original posts either.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My university had "internet" in the 70s and 80s. Many students at numerous universities had access. So yes, it was a simple matter for elders to warn saints away from the "poison" on the internet.

I doubt there was that much poison to be aware of back then. Why would the elders say that when it was not yet mainstream i.e. the world wide web.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1969 was the first transmitted message via "network computers".

That was long before any LCers would be able to get on the internet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My university had "internet" in the 70s and 80s. Many students at numerous universities had access. So yes, it was a simple matter for elders to warn saints away from the "poison" on the internet.

The internet was very limited back then, and any "poison" would have been of a scientific nature. Science and the local church don't mix very well ... ZNP case in point.

But as Ron Kangas proved, The Princeton Theological Seminary and the local church mix quite well. Then again, Professor Bart Ehrman received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and given that he writes books like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and is a self professed agnostic, him don't mix well with the local church. So Princeton cuts both ways. How come it didn't make RK as smart as it did Dr. Bart Ehrman?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That was long before any LCers would be able to get on the internet.

I knew an LCer at MIT, I was at Rice, there were quite a few at UT Austin, and UC Berkley.

It may have been long before most could get on the internet, but certainly not long before all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I knew an LCer at MIT, I was at Rice, there were quite a few at UT Austin, and UC Berkley.

It may have been long before most could get on the internet, but certainly not long before all.

Evangelical is right, the modern internet didn't come until the 90s. That's when the commoner LCer would be able to get on the interweb, and any concern from the top of the LC would stick its ugly controlling head up ... if any, according to current and recent LCers out here there was never any concern for the internet.

I'm still wondering why they would be instructing saints to stay away from anything negative about any thing local church. Who do they think they are anyway?

But I think it's good if they do so. As Biblical as they like to claim to be they missed the first fact about human nature taught in the first chapters of the book. That, telling humans "don't" makes them run straight away, making a beeline, for the forbidden fruit.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've been trying to convince him that LCers can use the internet. Now because you and I all know that LCer's can use the internet, it was actually Awareness doing what you claimed I did. Claiming something not supported by the other side. That is what you and Ohio are confused about - who is introducing the reductio ad absurdum.
.

You're clueless bro.

That's the whole point, you are trying to "convince" awareness that LCers use the internet. Do you think awareness believes that LCers don't use the internet?

You sound like a little kid...

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You're clueless bro.

That's the whole point, you are trying to "convince" awareness that LCers use the internet. Do you think awareness believes that LCers don't use the internet?

You sound like a little kid...

I don't know what your (mental?) problem is. Now you are trying to tell me I'm clueless about a discussion I was involved in but you were not. You weren't even involved in these discussions.

After OBW got bothered because I pointed out his hypocrisy in posting off-topic things, Awareness posted a very nice post about me and said that LCers don't use the internet here (in bold): http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=667

Ya know, being here on AltVs is an indicator that our bro Evan is not that deep into the local church. Or maybe like bro Ohio (Titus Chu - independence-Nee & all that) he's getting watered down Kool-Aid, from the Kool-Aid factory. He certainly don't follow Ron Kangas' rules against getting on the internet.


I replied : http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=669

There is no rule in the Recovery about not using the internet.

So Awareness believed (or believes) there is a rule against using the internet. Awareness believed (deep rooted) LCers can't use the internet because there is a rule against it.

So you see, Awareness was making this claim, I was disputing it. Obviously, the non-LCers (i.e. Awareness) were making the claim that LC members can't use the internet.

[zeek]

This article reveals the controversies about the article entitled "Local Church controversies". Needless to say the veracity of "Local Church controversies" is quite controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L..._controversies

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm still wondering why they would be instructing saints to stay away from anything negative about any thing local church. Who do they think they are anyway?

But I think it's good if they do so. As Biblical as they like to claim to be they missed the first fact about human nature taught in the first chapters of the book. That, telling humans "don't" makes them run straight away, making a beeline, for the forbidden fruit.

Ironically the internet is much closer to what the Local church used to be in the 70s than what it is like now. Over years they have been able to eliminate all the unknowns, controlling what people say by using footnotes and other publications.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know what your (mental?) problem is. Now you are trying to tell me I'm clueless about a discussion I was involved in but you were not. You weren't even involved in these discussions.

After OBW got bothered because I pointed out his hypocrisy in posting off-topic things, Awareness posted a very nice post about me and said that LCers don't use the internet here (in bold): http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=667

Ya know, being here on AltVs is an indicator that our bro Evan is not that deep into the local church. Or maybe like bro Ohio (Titus Chu - independence-Nee & all that) he's getting watered down Kool-Aid, from the Kool-Aid factory. He certainly don't follow Ron Kangas' rules against getting on the internet.


I replied : http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=669

There is no rule in the Recovery about not using the internet.

So Awareness believed (or believes) there is a rule against using the internet. Awareness believed (deep rooted) LCers can't use the internet because there is a rule against it.

So you see, Awareness was making this claim, I was disputing it. Obviously, the non-LCers (i.e. Awareness) were making the claim that LC members can't use the internet.

Is there a hand to forehead emoji on here?

Please see my last response. You never cease to amaze me.

If you want me to explain it in a sesame street version, I may have time this weekend.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

This article reveals the controversies about the article entitled "Local Church controversies". Needless to say the veracity of "Local Church controversies" is quite controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L..._controversies

This is a controversy about the controversies. One controversy Talk brings up that's missing from the LSM Wiki page is the Philip Lee sexual controversy. And that's a big one. The leadership was shattered. John Ingals, Bill Mallon, Max Rappoport, et all, walked away from being coworkers with Lee, and left the LC (It didn't seem to bother Ron Kangas)

Why wasn't this controversy brought up?

And Daystar isn't brought up either. Seems LSM has selective memory, or at least are selective of the controversies they want to put to bed. Some of them are too ugly and shameful to mention.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know what your (mental?) problem is. Now you are trying to tell me I'm clueless about a discussion I was involved in but you were not. You weren't even involved in these discussions.

After OBW got bothered because I pointed out his hypocrisy in posting off-topic things, Awareness posted a very nice post about me and said that LCers don't use the internet here (in bold): http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=667

Ya know, being here on AltVs is an indicator that our bro Evan is not that deep into the local church. Or maybe like bro Ohio (Titus Chu - independence-Nee & all that) he's getting watered down Kool-Aid, from the Kool-Aid factory. He certainly don't follow Ron Kangas' rules against getting on the internet.


I replied : http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=669

There is no rule in the Recovery about not using the internet.

So Awareness believed (or believes) there is a rule against using the internet. Awareness believed (deep rooted) LCers can't use the internet because there is a rule against it.

So you see, Awareness was making this claim, I was disputing it. Obviously, the non-LCers (i.e. Awareness) were making the claim that LC members can't use the internet.

And Awareness is still stuck on this LC internet thingie. I've been digging into it. So I called "the man of death," so called, by Ron Kangas publicly, Steve Isitt. He was on the freeway and it was hard to talk to him. But he told me to look up "Ron Kangas fast track to outer darkness" concerning Ron speaking against the internet. I couldn't find anything, so Steve is going to get back to me with where to find it.

I have the transcript of Kangas calling Steve the man of death in Ecuador. Ron doesn't come right out and say stay off the internet. However he does scare the bejeebers out of everyone by speaking of the "death" on the internet.

So until I have more I have to ask, who does he think he is? He's telling everyone to stay away from death and only seek life, warning them about death, and telling them to go to www.afaithfulword.org for the tree of life.

If that's not a rule coming from the top I don't know what is.

More proof later, as I dig into this matter.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Awareness is still stuck on this LC internet thingie. I've been digging into it. So I called "the man of death," so called, by Ron Kangas publicly, Steve Isitt. He was on the freeway and it was hard to talk to him. But he told me to look up "Ron Kangas fast track to outer darkness" concerning Ron speaking against the internet. I couldn't find anything, so Steve is going to get back to me with where to find it.

I have the transcript of Kangas calling Steve the man of death in Ecuador. Ron doesn't come right out and say stay off the internet. However he does scare the bejeebers out of everyone by speaking of the "death" on the internet.

So until I have more I have to ask, who does he think he is? He's telling everyone to stay away from death and only seek life, warning them about death, and telling them to go to www.afaithfulword.org for the tree of life.

If that's not a rule coming from the top I don't know what is.

More proof later, as I dig into this matter.

Awareness - so Ron is saying not to use the internet, but he is telling them to go to "www.afaithfulword.org"... on the internet?

Are you saying that Ron said not to ever use the internet (for work, scripture, morning revivals etc) or are you saying that Ron is making a rule not to use the internet for ANYTHING that would hurt the LSM position?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Awareness - so Ron is saying not to use the internet, but he is telling them to go to "www.afaithfulword.org"... on the internet?

Are you saying that Ron said not to ever use the internet (for work, scripture, morning revivals etc) or are you saying that Ron is making a rule not to use the internet for ANYTHING that would hurt the LSM position?

Sounds like the latter. Actually, reading the transcript of Kangas calling Isitt the man of death it seemed clear that the death RK was talking about was precisely anything that hurts Lee, LSM, or the local church, in that it will make the reader die to the local church. And conversely life, the tree of life, is anything that speaks positively of the LC. Thus, RK's advice was to go to afaithfulword. Cuz it has "life." Only a few places on the web has life. Get it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Awareness - so Ron is saying not to use the internet, but he is telling them to go to "www.afaithfulword.org"... on the internet?

Are you saying that Ron said not to ever use the internet (for work, scripture, morning revivals etc) or are you saying that Ron is making a rule not to use the internet for ANYTHING that would hurt the LSM position?

This discussion has never been about "not using the internet" for work, scripture etc, but whether there was a rule from RK and other LB's preventing LCers from visiting places like this and other places, and whether or not that rule was enforced in any particular way. You'll get it eventually.

But please state your sesame street version if you like. I want to hear you correct me about what the discussion was actually about, coming from someone who wasn't actually part of that discussion. It will give me something to laugh about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Awareness - so Ron is saying not to use the internet, but he is telling them to go to "www.afaithfulword.org"... on the internet?

Are you saying that Ron said not to ever use the internet (for work, scripture, morning revivals etc) or are you saying that Ron is making a rule not to use the internet for ANYTHING that would hurt the LSM position?

Back in '99, an operative for LSM told me specifically not to trust the internet, and he mentioned a few conspiracy stories to confirm that. For years I heard LSM ministers like RK warn us to be careful on the internet since we could get "poisoned." In those days Jim Moran, Troy brooks, and Daniel Azuma were the most "dangerous" threats. Few took them seriously.

The Bereans forum, however, really made LSM nervous, because now there were many former members online. They were not just talking about obscure esoteric teachings like modalism, but could interact and talk about insider things like Daystar. They knew the jargon. Until then it was outsiders who really did not know the inner workings of LSM, and hence were easily dismissed.

The Bereans changed all that. Now there was a place to post the accounts of former co-workers like Ingalls, So, Mallon, Zehr, Rutledge, Unger, etc. who had long disappeared in the late '80's "Storm," and for the first time we could all learn there side of the story. That was an eyeopener. We also learned what really happened to Max R. back in the late '70's "Storm."

It was Steve Isitt who networked with many of these former members to post their stories in this central location easily found with search engines. His writings like "In the Wake of the New Way," filled out the stories with factual accounts of LC history. The snowball rolling down the hill was picking up size and speed.

Had LSM let things lie covered over, and focused positively on our true mission as Christians, they still could have survived quite nicely. Their insecure blinded leaders just could not settle for the will of God. They had to remove any and all potential rivals, hence they had to blackball Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lon. With the advent of this LCD forum, members from all over the planet spoke up. Their writings together exposed numerous falsehoods that had once gripped a huge number of former members. The Great Shepherd of the sheep held the gate wide open.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This discussion has never been about "not using the internet" for work, scripture etc, but whether there was a rule from RK and other LB's preventing LCers from visiting places like this and other places, and whether or not that rule was enforced in any particular way. You'll get it eventually.

But please state your sesame street version if you like. I want to hear you correct me about what the discussion was actually about, coming from someone who wasn't actually part of that discussion. It will give me something to laugh about.

Sorry to crash your "party"

I don't feel like re-reading those threads, so I'll go ahead and concede. You're right, I'm wrong. Not the first time, nor the last.

So your argument was, instead, that there is not a spoken or unspoken rule about visiting sites like these?? That is a well documented fact (that this is a rule) so I assumed this wasn't your argument.

Am I still missing it? Sorry maybe I'm a little slow

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Had LSM let things lie covered over, and focused positively on our true mission as Christians, they still could have survived quite nicely.

Great post bro Ohio. Thanks.

Back when Jim Moran was in play on the web, a website showed up at www.jimmoranexposed.com.

I looked it up and found that it was created by RK's son David. So I wrote to RK in email asking if he knew what David was up to. Saying something like, "If so then why fight a rear guard, why not just go on with the Lord?"

Ron wrote back with an angry tone, telling me not to question his spirituality.

Jim Moran died, his sons got the intellectual property rights to his domain and material, LSM bought those rights, shutdown all Jim's websites and had all the archived copies saved by google removed.

But bro Ohio had a very thick copy of all of Jim's websites and material. He mailed them to me and I scanned them into a pdf document. Apparently after LSM bought Jim's intellectual property rights, all of Jim's material is considered copyrighted by LSM, and putting it up on the web is against copyright law.

But I have a rebellious streak and have them up on the web ... or I think it's still up there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Sorry to crash your "party"

I don't feel like re-reading those threads, so I'll go ahead and concede. You're right, I'm wrong. Not the first time, nor the last.

So your argument was, instead, that there is not a spoken or unspoken rule about visiting sites like these?? That is a well documented fact (that this is a rule) so I assumed this wasn't your argument.

Am I still missing it? Sorry maybe I'm a little slow

Correct! I believe there is no rule about visiting websites like these, nor wikipedia critiques or anything like that. I have never seen such a rule documented. That does not mean however that certain elders and overseers may not provide godly advice to certain members who may be swayed by Alternative Views and what not. That is part of their role as elders. But there is no blanket rule because as Zeek said before (this thread or another), in the Recovery there are no rules.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Correct! I believe there is no rule about visiting websites like these, nor wikipedia critiques or anything like that. I have never seen such a rule documented. That does not mean however that certain elders and overseers may not provide godly advice to certain members who may be swayed by Alternative Views and what not. That is part of their role as elders. But there is no blanket rule because as Zeek said before (this thread or another), in the Recovery there are no rules.

You bring up a good point bro Evan. Bro Ohio and I have talked about this. My experience in Ft.Lauderdale, with Mel Porter was way different than Ohio's experience under Titus Chu in Cleveland.

Mel Porter may have been a special case, but it was what he brought from Anaheim that led to my downfall, so it looked to me to be coming from Lee, and the way it was in the whole Recovery.

You may never have heard of a rule against the internet, and some other locality my forbid it. So where are you meeting? What's your exposure to the top dogs, like Ron Kangas?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Correct! I believe there is no rule about visiting websites like these, nor wikipedia critiques or anything like that. I have never seen such a rule documented. That does not mean however that certain elders and overseers may not provide godly advice to certain members who may be swayed by Alternative Views and what not. That is part of their role as elders. But there is no blanket rule because as Zeek said before (this thread or another), in the Recovery there are no rules.

Do you really think they could put a rule like that in writing?

#11 Thou shalt not use the internet.

Have you ever been to a campus meeting? They don't bring Bibles or Hymnals anymore. They have all that and more on their I-Phones.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you really think they could put a rule like that in writing?

#11 Thou shalt not use the internet.

Have you ever been to a campus meeting? They don't bring Bibles or Hymnals anymore. They have all that and more on their I-Phones.

Isn't that the same thing as calling it death?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

You bring up a good point bro Evan. Bro Ohio and I have talked about this. My experience in Ft.Lauderdale, with Mel Porter was way different than Ohio's experience under Titus Chu in Cleveland.

Mel Porter may have been a special case, but it was what he brought from Anaheim that led to my downfall, so it looked to me to be coming from Lee, and the way it was in the whole Recovery.

You may never have heard of a rule against the internet, and some other locality my forbid it. So where are you meeting? What's your exposure to the top dogs, like Ron Kangas?

Some other locality might forbid it. The localities are autonomous and its up to the elders.

Our meeting hall has wifi, and 3 of the leading brothers visit regularly (monthly or bi-monthly) including Ron.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

You may never have heard of a rule against the internet, and some other locality my forbid it. So where are you meeting? What's your exposure to the top dogs, like Ron Kangas?

When I was in the LC I wouldn't have told you my locality. Too worried to be called out on "the rule" that wasn't a rule. But then again, I didn't visit this forum while I was in the LC...

"No reading about the LSM on the internet - aside from dedicated LSM sites. It's poison."

I don't think Evan_g is comfortable sharing his locality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

When I was in the LC I wouldn't have told you my locality. Too worried to be called out on "the rule" that wasn't a rule. But then again, I didn't visit this forum while I was in the LC...

"No reading about the LSM on the internet - aside from dedicated LSM sites. It's poison."

I don't think Evan_g is comfortable sharing his locality.

How about telling his exposure to the top dogs? Can he do that? Funny how there ain't no rules, but there are.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some other locality might forbid it. The localities are autonomous and its up to the elders.

Our meeting hall has wifi, and 3 of the leading brothers visit regularly (monthly or bi-monthly) including Ron.

If you mind me asking, who are those 3 leading brothers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some other locality might forbid it. The localities are autonomous and its up to the elders.

Localities are autonomous in doctrine only, not in practice.

You know better than that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you mind me asking, who are those 3 leading brothers?

Ron, James and Dick, and Ed sometimes, but not often. Andrew too, but not often.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Localities are autonomous in doctrine only, not in practice.

That was the first hypocrisy I discovered, of Lee, concerning the ground of the church doctrine.

Kangas, and the other elders in the church in Detroit, at a conference in L.A., talked me into leaving the church in Santa Cruz, Ca. and moving to Detroit.

Then, after moving, I found out about what Lee really thought of the autonomy of the locality. The church in Detroit was started by some Assemblies of God brothers, that discovered Nee, then Lee, and founded the c. in Detroit, elders and all. Then they contacted Lee and company. Lee sent in his elders and dismissed the established elders. WHAT!!! went off in my head ... bells rang. I put the question on the shelf and went on.

Then, after a year or so, Lee ordered the c. in Detroit, and 5 other localities, to migrate to Ft. Lauderdale (for the Spring Break college students that were gathering there). The bells rang again. I shelved that too.

When we got to Ft. Lauderdale, Bob Mumford, and Derek Prince, had declared the ground in the city of Ft. Lauderdale. I remember the conflict. Under Nee and Lee's doctrine of the ground we were to meet with them. But Mumford and Prince weren't following Lee. No problem. Kangas didn't care, he ran off. But Mel Porter, made lead elder by Lee, just ignored Mumford et al, and we declared that we were the church in Ft. Lauderdale.

Lees' hypocrisies to his and Nee's doctrine of the ground just kept piling up.

That's the very old practice, going back to early Christianity, of heterodoxy over orthodoxy ... practice over doctrine.

My advice : Look at what they are doing, not what they are teaching, to know what the leaders really believe. And : Follow the money.

And ... AND ... oh! don't forget to ... Run like hell!!!!