The Local Church of Witness Lee

[TLFisher]

Attached is a document I thought I would post it on the forum for consideration.

[OBW]

Thanks for the link. I never had the opportunity to read this before now. It is an excellent study given what was available to be known at the time. How strange that at least one of the original writers could have such an about face given the even greater wealth of information now available.

[Freedom]

This article was quite interesting to read through. My initial thought after reading it is where are the inaccuracies in this article? I know everyone was told back during that time about all the "lies" and "inaccuracies" that were being published about the LC. I don't see anything that strikes me as inaccurate. Actually, I can relate to the picture of the LC that this article presents. I'm sure others here could say that as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when CRI published their journal titled "We Were Wrong" they argued that the basis for their retraction was that their previous views and statements on the LC and WL had been based on bad information. The appendix for "The Local Church of Witness Lee" lists all their sources and a number of them are WL's own writings.

I don't know where this "bad information" would have come from. It looks to me like they did the best research that they could have with the information that they had.

One interesting (somewhat unrelated) thing that I noticed when reading this article is that their sources (WL writings) have been revised by LSM since 30 or so years ago. Take for example, the quote of the Life Study of
Genesis as it appears in the article:

Let me tell you the secret to being solidly perfected to be a strong pillar for the Lord's move. Brothers like Benson Phillips and John So have been perfected because they have had no concepts of their own. Recently, Brother Benson declared strongly declared strongly that he only knows to follow the ministry of Brother Lee. When John So stayed with us in Los Angeles, he knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry…Even when they say mistakes, they forgot about them, having no time to waste discussing them. Life Study of Genesis, Message 88 - Print Version

This is how the same quote appears at present:

Let me now tell you the secret to being solidly perfected to be a strong pillar for the Lord's move. Certain brothers have been perfected because they have had no concepts of their own. Recently, one brother declared strongly that he only knows to follow the ministry of Brother Lee and to absorb everything of this ministry... Even when they see certain mistakes, they forget about them, having no time to waste discussing them. They only desire to soak in all the positive things. Life Study of Genesis, Message 88 - Current Online Version

The "historical revisionism" by LSM is a different subject, however, it brings up an interesting point. When the "Local Church of Witness Lee" article was published, brother like John So were still in the LC saying things how they "knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry." The article also cites a testimony by Gene Ford, whom I understand to have left the LC in the late 70's. At the time, such statements were viewed by people like the Passantinos as red flags, and rightly so.

When CRI retracted their former position on the LC, why didn't they take into consideration that many of the brothers who said these peculiar statements have long since left? On pg 389 of the article it is stated that "The authors have on file testimonies from ex-Local Church members to whom these "divine threats" were made." Again did such testimonies by ex-members not matter to the CRI when they made their retraction? I have to wonder what kind of "research" was really taking place in recent years. I know the LC can put on a very welcoming face for new members and probably for the CRI, but the side of the LC that I have seen is not pretty and it is not something I would want to bring others into.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When CRI retracted their former position on the LC, why didn't they take into consideration that many of the brothers who said these peculiar statements have long since left? On pg 389 of the article it is stated that "The authors have on file testimonies from ex-Local Church members to whom these "divine threats" were made." Again did such testimonies by ex-members not matter to the CRI when they made their retraction? I have to wonder what kind of "research" was really taking place in recent years. I know the LC can put on a very welcoming face for new members and probably for the CRI, but the side of the LC that I have seen is not pretty and it is not something I would want to bring others into.

I should point out CRI had nothing to do with this book other than the author's ties to Walter Martin who preceded Hank Hanegraff. When CRI produced their retraction, it was 100% about doctrine and 0% about practices. This article refers to doctrine as well as practices. As time permits later in my day, I shall refer to a prior CRI article from their Journal in the late 1980's.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

How strange that at least one of the original writers could have such an about face given the even greater wealth of information now available.

Consider this OBW...given the right campaigning even an obscure senator from Illinois can be elected president.
My point, the principle of balaam comes to thought. Narrow the campaigning scope to doctrinal matters and offer "a donation", one can be persuaded.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Consider this OBW...given the right campaigning even an obscure senator from Illinois can be elected president.
My point, the principle of balaam comes to thought. Narrow the campaigning scope to doctrinal matters and offer "a donation", one can be persuaded.

Oh, we are in agreement on that. I am starting with the thought that we are dealing with reasonable and mostly righteous people. Add in the likelihood of unrighteousness and all bets are off.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I should point out CRI had nothing to do with this book other than the author's ties to Walter Martin who preceded Hank Hanegraff. When CRI produced their retraction, it was 100% about doctrine and 0% about practices. This article refers to doctrine as well as practices. As time permits later in my day, I shall refer to a prior CRI article from their Journal in the late 1980's.

I find it interesting that the current "research" by the CRI neglected practices almost completely. Was is that? To me, that is almost a more important aspect of the LC to address.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The "historical revisionism" by LSM is a different subject, however, it brings up an interesting point. When the "Local Church of Witness Lee" article was published, brother like John So were still in the LC saying things how they "knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry." The article also cites a testimony by Gene Ford, whom I understand to have left the LC in the late 70's. At the time, such statements were viewed by people like the Passantinos as red flags, and rightly so.

When CRI retracted their former position on the LC, why didn't they take into consideration that many of the brothers who said these peculiar statements have long since left?

Speaking of historical revisionism, the word attachment is from a CRI article around 1989. How convenient Phillip Lee disappears from LSM history, but not CRI.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking of historical revisionism, the word attachment is from a CRI article around 1989. How convenient Phillip Lee disappears from LSM history, but not CRI.

I never heard the name Phillip Lee until I started reading things on the internet. I do find it ironic that CRI could mention him, and 30 years later have no concern that he simply "disappeared" from LC history. Neither did they have the interest to look into the matter from the perspective of the present. Perhaps the answer to that question lies in the article itself:

Referring to opposing books that were written against the sect, the pamphlet Reconsideration of the Vision states: "Although they did not state the truth in its entirety, many of their observations regarding Mr. X were accurate and not fabricated from their imaginations. Due to the fact that the points in question were deleted from the written publications of Mr. X's ministry, verifications cannot be made. However, numerous cassettes and videos bear witness to the observations of the so-called opposers.

It would not surprise me at all that LSM had this practice of removing questionable things from WL's publications even back then. We know this is a present practice and it is apparent that CRI was aware of this practice back in the 80's. It should be shocking to anyone that wants to take their research seriously that they did not take these things into consideration.

[Freedom]

One other thing I wanted to mention is that I have read the article before. Back when I was doing some research of my own in regards to this article and the CRI, I came across an interesting article by Elliot Miller regarding many problems he had with William M. Alnor. According to Miller, there were a lot of problems with the "Turmoil in the Local Church" article. He says the following:

In the Fall 1988 issue (Alnor’s second as news editor), the lead story, “Turmoil in the Local Church,” was so filled with problems that I had to step in and rewrite it, and my name appears before Alnor’s in the byline. Nonetheless, a misrepresentation of Local Church elder John Ingalls still made it into the article because it was based on an interview Alnor conducted with him that I had no direct way of cross-checking. Alnor reported that “Ingalls said the church [in Anaheim] has not achieved a complete break with [sect leader Witness] Lee,” and this required a clarification in the following issue that “the church in Anaheim has not broken with Witness Lee, nor does it wish to.” When I brought Ingalls’s objection to Alnor’s attention Alnor replied that he believed Ingalls’s concerns were “semantic in nature.” I pointed out to him that his use of the word achieved “could easily be read as meaning the church is pursuing or considering a complete break with Lee.”
Breaking The Silence: Alnor as News Editor
http://www.equip.org/articles/breaki...istian-books-2

So it appears that even back in the 80's, CRI had problems with the accuracy of their research. I find it particularly ironic that in order for the CRI to admit that they misrepresented what JI said, it contradicts the image the BB's would wish to portray of him. In my mind Alnor's misrepresentation of what JI said is the exact picture that has been portrayed of him by LC leadership. That might be why I have never heard anyone in the LC mention this article by Elliot Miller.

[Nell]

Freedom,

There is a legacy thread on this forum started by Thankful Jane titled "Can the Local Church Leadership Say 'We Were Wrong' ". TJ responds to the CRI article "We Were Wrong" by Elliot Miller and to the LC Leadership.

What This Letter Is and What It Is Not
It is important to understand from the outset what this letter is and what it is not.
It is:
 Some commentary on the articles about the LC in the Journal (vol. 32, no. 06)
 An argument against and condemnation of the systemic bad practices of the LC leadership
 Evidence that supports my argument, mostly firsthand, obtained during 20 years of experience in the LC and 20 years recovering from that experience after leaving the LC
 A criticism of a few specific LC teachings
 A painstakingly prepared document, as one piece of evidence for the record
 A call for Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, Dan Towle, and Benson Phillips to repent publicly and in writing for their sin against me
 A call for Benson Phillips to come together with me and my family before a number of third parties (believers) in order for them to investigate and make a judgment before the, Lord, for the record, concerning Benson Phillips having publicly borne false witness against me over a period of three decades (Deut. 19:15)
(This open letter is dated May 2, 2010, and to date, this call has gone unheeded...no surprise there.)

It is not:
 A complete analysis of the CRI Journal article about the LC
 The result of an exhaustive, academic study by an independent party
 An exhaustive analysis and critique of all of Witness Lee‘s teachings
 An exhaustive analysis of LC practice
 A condemnation of everything about the LCs

Excellent read.

Nell

[TLFisher]

On Page 380 you can see the seed of an emphasis of deputy authority that exists to this day from an excerpt of Angus Kinnear's biography on Watchman Nee:

Witness Lee was careful. of course, to disown the concept of "organization."....But he exhorted everyone in the church to be submissive. "Do nothing without first asking," he urged. "Since the Fall, man does as he pleases. Here there is order. Here there is authority. The Church is a place of strict discipline."

[UntoHim]

This is an article that appeared in the L.A. Times around the time in question. (1/7/1989)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

Attached is a document I thought I would post it on the forum for consideration.

Just to be clear, this article is from a book produced by Walter Martin called "The New Cults" published in 1980.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is an article that appeared in the L.A. Times around the time in question. (1/7/1989)

Thanks for providing this article UntoHim. This must be the article my professor (when attending University of La Verne) was referring to regarding the turmoil in the Local Churches.

So Witness Lee said we are so free in our thinking? Maybe, if we are not free with our opinions and concepts.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

So Witness Lee said we are so free in our thinking? Maybe, if we are not free with our opinions and concepts.

According to the dictionary, "concepts" bear a strong resemblance to "ideas". It is interesting that we were so "free in thinking" when we are constantly being told to "drop our concepts" and "that's just your concept", etc.

What freedom of thought can there be, where there is not freedom of ideas?

concept, definition, from dictionary.com:

1. a general notion or idea; conception.
2. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

concept, definition, from merriam-webster.com:

1. something conceived in the mind: THOUGHT, NOTION
2. an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Originally Posted by Terry

Consider this OBW...given the right campaigning even an obscure senator from Illinois can be elected president.
My point, the principle of balaam comes to thought. Narrow the campaigning scope to doctrinal matters and offer "a donation", one can be persuaded.

"obscure senator"??? ha ha aha ha!

Were you orbiting Mars when he made the key-note speech and introduced John Kerry at the Democratic convention of 2004?

Maybe the word 'obscure' has become the new euphemism for something else? ...for 'red' or for 'pink' or for 'yellow', perhaps?

..

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

According to the dictionary, "concepts" bear a strong resemblance to "ideas". It is interesting that we were so "free in thinking" when we are constantly being told to "drop our concepts" and "that's just your concept", etc.

What freedom of thought can there be, where there is not freedom of ideas?

concept, definition, from dictionary.com:

1. a general notion or idea; conception.
2. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

concept, definition, from merriam-webster.com:

1. something conceived in the mind: THOUGHT, NOTION
2. an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Lately I have heard a lot of the "drop your concepts" mumbo jumbo. It seems to be a frequent theme, and it bothers me a lot. I will always have opinions and thoughts, it will be that way until the day I die. LCers are only fooling themselves if they think they can "get out of their mind" or "drop their opinions".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lately I have heard a lot of the "drop your concepts" mumbo jumbo. It seems to be a frequent theme, and it bothers me a lot. I will always have opinions and thoughts, it will be that way until the day I die. LCers are only fooling themselves if they think they can "get out of their mind" or "drop their opinions".

Well! You know Freedom, one of my concepts is repentance and reconciliation. It is in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"obscure senator"??? ha ha aha ha!

Were you orbiting Mars when he made the key-note speech and introduced John Kerry at the Democratic convention of 2004?
..

Who in their right mind would watch that?

[TLFisher]

Consider these two quotes from page 384 and 386

"If you do not have the local church, you do not have the church. God is expressed in Christ, Christ is expressed in the church, and the church is expressed in the local churches."
Witness Lee

"It is not my desire here to attack denominational Christianity as wrong. I only say again that, for the Body of Christ to find effective local expression, the basis of fellowship must be a true one. And that basis is the life-relationship of the members to their Lord and their willing submission to Him as Head. Nor am I pleading for those who will make a fresh sect of something called "localism-that is, the strict demarcation of churches by localities."
Watchman Nee

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"obscure senator"??? ha ha aha ha!

Were you orbiting Mars when he made the key-note speech and introduced John Kerry at the Democratic convention of 2004?

Maybe the word 'obscure' has become the new euphemism for something else? ...for 'red' or for 'pink' or for 'yellow', perhaps?

..

He was obscure. The Democratic insiders may have had great plans for him, but the public had no idea who this man was. He was very obscure. But not for long.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Consider these two quotes from page 384 and 386

"If you do not have the local church, you do not have the church. God is expressed in Christ, Christ is expressed in the church, and the church is expressed in the local churches."
Witness Lee

"It is not my desire here to attack denominational Christianity as wrong. I only say again that, for the Body of Christ to find effective local expression, the basis of fellowship must be a true one. And that basis is the life-relationship of the members to their Lord and their willing submission to Him as Head. Nor am I pleading for those who will make a fresh sect of something called "localism-that is, the strict demarcation of churches by localities."
Watchman Nee

I have the distinct impression, Witness Lee stood alone in his over-emphasis on the ground of locality doctrine. He used the ministry of Watchman Nee to draw a following after himself.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I have the distinct impression, Witness Lee stood alone in his over-emphasis on the ground of locality doctrine. He used the ministry of Watchman Nee to draw a following after himself.

The more I have read about Lee's early days in the US, the more I have come to realize how "divisive" this ground of locality doctrine was. It seems that with virtually everyone Lee had the oppurtuinty to work with (T. Austin Sparks, Stephen Kaung, etc) he severed ties with on the basis that they didn't agree with the "ground of locality" doctrine. Was this in fact the real reason, or was it because he desired to be a one man show? Apparently it is the latter.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The more I have read about Lee's early days in the US, the more I have come to realize how "divisive" this ground of locality doctrine was. It seems that with virtually everyone Lee had the oppurtuinty to work with (T. Austin Sparks, Stephen Kaung, etc) he severed ties with on the basis that they didn't agree with the "ground of locality" doctrine. Was this in fact the real reason, or was it because he desired to be a one man show? Apparently it is the latter.

Lee is gone, but Nee's word turned out to be true. An emphasis on the ground of locality doctrine became a sect of localism.
If a God-fearing brother has an issue with this emphasis there is another doctrine called Deputy Authority to quell any sober voices.

[Lisbon]

In my 40 plus years in the LC I never ever had any sense that WL had any revelation. He figured things out. I remember although many years ago that in the Hebrews training he again tried to figure how the incense altar in the OT changed positions in Hebrews. According to his wife he had already attempted to figure it out but decided his former figures were wrong. Ms Lee cautioned him about what he was about to do but he affirmed to her that this time he had it right. That little window showed to me that Ms Lee was not this sweet quiet sister in all silence. Of course it was also noted that WN's mother was not that subdued back stage actor in the Far East.

In the Exodus training WL spent such a long time figuring out how the boards of the tabernacle fit together especially making the corners. I got so bored at this kind of talk that I hoped for an end. You well know how he was in to numerology always applying his definitions of the numbers to the significance of the situation.

Mental gymnastics is certainly entertaining as with Dr Gene Scott but it is not hard to think you have heard about all of that type of knowledge you want. It certainly would have taken him a decade to figure out what John wrote in the Revelation had he been the author.

I can remember his saying I think I've got it and if he got it we had to say "amen." It had to be "whatever you say boss."

Some poster has said "how cold anything that looked so good turn out to be so bad?" A good part of the answer is just plain, 'the devil.'

Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I can remember his saying I think I've got it and if he got it we had to say "amen." It had to be "whatever you say boss."

According to our conscience we could sense that his ministry was floundering along like everyone and everything else, but according to our local church culture we had to agree, and go along with "the flow". As Paul wrote, "You gladly put up with fools because you are so wise!"

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

In my 40 plus years in the LC I never ever had any sense that WL had any revelation. He figured things out. I remember although many years ago that in the Hebrews training he again tried to figure how the incense altar in the OT changed positions in Hebrews. According to his wife he had already attempted to figure it out but decided his former figures were wrong. Ms Lee cautioned him about what he was about to do but he affirmed to her that this time he had it right. That little window showed to me that Ms Lee was not this sweet quiet sister in all silence. Of course it was also noted that WN's mother was not that subdued back stage actor in the Far East.

In the Exodus training WL spent such a long time figuring out how the boards of the tabernacle fit together especially making the corners. I got so bored at this kind of talk that I hoped for an end. You well know how he was in to numerology always applying his definitions of the numbers to the significance of the situation.

Mental gymnastics is certainly entertaining as with Dr Gene Scott but it is not hard to think you have heard about all of that type of knowledge you want. It certainly would have taken him a decade to figure out what John wrote in the Revelation had he been the author.

I can remember his saying I think I've got it and if he got it we had to say "amen." It had to be "whatever you say boss."

Some poster has said "how cold anything that looked so good turn out to be so bad?" A good part of the answer is just plain, 'the devil.'

Lisbon

I completely agree with you on this. I used to read his writings where he would start discussing different numbers, calculations, etc. I would think to myself that he had it all figured out and that I had just saw something very significant

I read the same things now and I just shake my head. Maybe there was some truth to some of what he said, but on the other hand, how much was nonsense? I know somewhere I read that WL said a lot of times he went up to the podium not knowing exactly what he was going to share on. If so, how much trust can be placed in following exactly what he said?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I know somewhere I read that WL said a lot of times he went up to the podium not knowing exactly what he was going to share on. If so, how much trust can be placed in following exactly what he said?

Remember that he relied heavily on printed outlines. So a lot of it was cut and dried. The magic, though, lay in the extemporizing, a craft which he'd honed over the years: he went up to the podium not knowing what he was going to share, but knowing that he would continue to mesmerize us. And we played along.

As I've mentioned, there is a big weakness in the Charismatic position. It is lively and entrancing, but we get trapped in the entrancement. The sensual (sensory stimulus) nature of the experience becomes the focus. As long as Uncle Witness spun his charms, he could interpret the sockets and boards in the Ark of the Covenant however he saw fit.

The lure of the meeting was to get mesmerized, hypnotized, to get hyper-stimulated and put "into the Spirit".At the trainings in Anaheim an elder JJ from Berkeley would run up and down the aisles screaming at the top of his lungs and waving his arms, frantically windmilling his points at us. We in the audience would roar with laughter, and why - because it was funny? No, but because he made us nervous, and laughter was our natural nervous response. We laughed, and then told ourselves we were "in Spirit". It's the same reason people go to movies to watch the Hulk and Batman punch each other, or get on a Roller Coaster at Six Flags: it's stimulating. And we were addicted to the rush. The rest of it, what the silver sockets of the ark signified, whether "Christ" or "The Spirit" or "transformation" or "the Church" or whatever, was incidental. As long as we got the rush, we kept coming back.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that he relied heavily on printed outlines. So a lot of it was cut and dried. The magic, though, lay in the extemporizing, a craft which he'd honed over the years: he went up to the podium not knowing what he was going to share, but knowing that he would continue to mesmerize us. And we played along.

As I've mentioned, there is a big weakness in the Charismatic position. It is lively and entrancing, but we get trapped in the entrancement. The sensual (sensory stimulus) nature of the experience becomes the focus. As long as Uncle Witness spun his charms, he could interpret the sockets and boards in the Ark of the Covenant however he saw fit.

The lure of the meeting was to get mesmerized, hypnotized, to get hyper-stimulated and put "into the Spirit".At the trainings in Anaheim an elder JJ from Berkeley would run up and down the aisles screaming at the top of his lungs and waving his arms, frantically windmilling his points at us. We in the audience would roar with laughter, and why - because it was funny? No, but because he made us nervous, and laughter was our natural nervous response. We laughed, and then told ourselves we were "in Spirit". It's the same reason people go to movies to watch the Hulk and Batman punch each other, or get on a Roller Coaster at Six Flags: it's stimulating. And we were addicted to the rush. The rest of it, what the silver sockets of the ark signified, whether "Christ" or "The Spirit" or "transformation" or "the Church" or whatever, was incidental. As long as we got the rush, we kept coming back.

I have just recently become aware of a book by Nee titled "The Latent Power of the Soul". This is not an LSM endorsed Nee book. I believe that Stephen Kaung possible translated it into English. I have skimmed through it, and it speaks out against charismatic practices. It leads me to ask the question, would Nee have endorsed Lee's charisma? Apparently not, as this book is not published by LSM. I don't have a particular view on charisma, however, I do think that the LC really only has themselves to blame for the things that were written about them by outsiders. With such peculiar practices, how could they not attract negative attention?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I know somewhere I read that WL said a lot of times he went up to the podium not knowing exactly what he was going to share on.

I don't know where you read it. Maybe someone trying to add to Lee's image.

Several years ago I had watching Lee's speaking from the Vital Groups messages (Oct/Nov-96) and he had prophesied if the brothers don't start practicing his ministry he would stop speaking. He had prepared outlines for the Winter Training and the Chinese New Year Conference, but beyond that no more.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't know where you read it. Maybe someone trying to add to Lee's image.

Several years ago I had watching Lee's speaking from the Vital Groups messages (Oct/Nov-96) and he had prophesied if the brothers don't start practicing his ministry he would stop speaking. He had prepared outlines for the Winter Training and the Chinese New Year Conference, but beyond that no more.

He is a quote regarding WL that is similar to what I remember reading:

"Witness Lee said later that seventy-five percent of the revelation he ministered came to him while he was speaking." http://www.lordsrecovery.org/history/iv.html (End of section 7)

If his "revelation" came to him while he was speaking, then what exactly did his preparation involve? He gave so many messages day after day, did he really time to prepare that much?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If his "revelation" came to him while he was speaking, then what exactly did his preparation involve? He gave so many messages day after day, did he really time to prepare that much?

The so-called revelation I see is for posterity in presenting a certain image and legacy.
I do believe Witness had to prepare in advance. Much as many Christian pastors and ministers do. Nothing unique or extra-ordinary about it.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't have a particular view on charisma, however, I do think that the LC really only has themselves to blame for the things that were written about them by outsiders. With such peculiar practices, how could they not attract negative attention?

Some people come to enjoy being misunderstood. It can even become a kind of addiction, methinks.

[Lisbon]

Today in dallas, KR, who has been meeting here for three or four years, spoke and I was told it was tremendous. Actually I think him to be a pretty good speaker. I would expect him to be a BB next.

anyway, the church became degraded so soon and so all the nt was written to repair the situation. The gospels even were written because of the degradation. The whole teaching of the NT is based on incarnation, inclusion, and intensification. I lived thru this long speaking it seemed for years and never got the meaning. Well I did understand this, The Lord misread the situation and it was much worse than He first thought. so He got Himself intensified to take care of the situation. seven Spirits. So now we have Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Seven Spirits, and there are more.

By the way, in my church 1Cor 15:45 is usually quoted,"the last Adam became the life giving Spirit." We shouldn't quibble over "a" and "the". Huh?

Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Well I did understand this, The Lord misread the situation and it was much worse than He first thought. so He got Himself intensified to take care of the situation. seven Spirits.

Thankfully Moses built a lampstand with seven lamps of fire back in Exodus 25, so the Lord had a way to intensify. Otherwise it could have been a difficult situation.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Today in dallas, KR, who has been meeting here for three or four years, spoke and I was told it was tremendous. Actually I think him to be a pretty good speaker. I would expect him to be a BB next.

anyway, the church became degraded so soon and so all the nt was written to repair the situation. The gospels even were written because of the degradation. The whole teaching of the NT is based on incarnation, inclusion, and intensification. I lived thru this long speaking it seemed for years and never got the meaning. Well I did understand this, The Lord misread the situation and it was much worse than He first thought. so He got Himself intensified to take care of the situation. seven Spirits. So now we have Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Seven Spirits, and there are more.

By the way, in my church 1Cor 15:45 is usually quoted,"the last Adam became the life giving Spirit." We shouldn't quibble over "a" and "the". Huh?

Lisbon

If this is the KR I'm thinking of, is he not already a BB?

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lately I have heard a lot of the "drop your concepts" mumbo jumbo. It seems to be a frequent theme, and it bothers me a lot. I will always have opinions and thoughts, it will be that way until the day I die. LCers are only fooling themselves if they think they can "get out of their mind" or "drop their opinions".

I once heard Lee say that only a piece of wood had no concepts. I also somewhat believe that some 75 years ago you would have been foolish to too strongly disagree with Einsteins conclusions about a lot of math and physics. Maybe that has changed. But WL had a bad track record even over the last fifty years of his life.
What happened in Taiwan and Phillipines is pure hearsay to me although I don't doubt it that much. I personally know of Lees coming to the U.S to sell men's clothes. To my knowledge that has never been said by the 'biographers'. Then Daystar, tennis rackets, restaurant business, church chairs. I believe many haven't heard of some of these but I invested in all but the chairs. The chairs were the most rewarding for many saints sat in them for quite a few years. They were cheap but you could sit in them.
But the no concepts thing of course is just for control. Maybe this is too mean, but I believe you kept your concepts to yourself in the days of Al Capone or you were found in a dark place dead. I remember asking two elders a question once and they just looked at each other, smiled, and said nothing. I was close to 70. Sort of a creepy feeling
Control is an animal foreign to the assembly Christ founded. He told His apostles they were to be servants.
Lisbon

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

But the no concepts thing of course is just for control.

If everyone was to drop their concepts, then what? Totally illogical. Of course it's just for control. Those in the lead want to impose their concepts as being "feeling of the Body" and everyone else to drop theirs.