An Outsider's Story

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

My thoughts are brothers in the local churches beginning with the late Witness Lee had/have been careless and irresponsible when speaking on the trinity. Mystical and mysterious as the trinity is, best not to use analogies when speaking on the trinity.

I'm thinking that any teaching or doctrine in LSM materials that is healthy and useful is not new or invented by LSM and has been taught by someone in the history of the orthodox (lower case "o" so as not to exclude anyone) church, but any teaching or doctrine created by or unique to LSM is suspect and probably not healthy or orthodox.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm thinking that any teaching or doctrine in LSM materials that is healthy and useful is not new or invented by LSM and has been taught by someone in the history of the orthodox (lower case "o" so as not to exclude anyone) church, but any teaching or doctrine created by or unique to LSM is suspect and probably not healthy or orthodox.

By LSM I mean WL, I don't think the BBs have the capacity to invent or create anything new.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

By LSM I mean WL, I don't think the BBs have the capacity to invent or create anything new.

I think that if a list were compiled of Lee's teachings that LCers believe to be "unique" to the LC, they would find that many teachings were not quite as unique to Lee as they thought. For example, there is a book titled Prophetic Ministry by TAS where the phrase "economy of God" is used. That book was published in 1954.

LCers just believe the information they're told, so they probably couldn't even image that Lee's "uniqueness" was just limited to his more questionable teachings. They are told things like "you can't find these riches anywhere else", and they believe it without thinking twice.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They are told things like "you can't find these riches anywhere else", and they believe it without thinking twice.

I know. They should rephrase it: "We assume these riches aren't found anywhere else. But we haven't bothered to look." I myself have looked, briefly, and have found discussions of the economies of God, traced back to Irenaeus (Against Heresies, I, 10, 1 & 3, pp. 42-44) Clement, Hippolytus, etc. You don't think that these people were reading Paul, too? Was the world really locked down in ignorance and darkness until "God raised up the seer of the age(s), His bondslave Witness Lee"? One would think so, the way they present his teachings.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I know. They should rephrase it: "We assume these riches aren't found anywhere else. But we haven't bothered to look." I myself have looked, briefly, and have found discussions of the economies of God, traced back to Irenaeus (Against Heresies, I, 10, 1 & 3, pp. 42-44) Clement, Hippolytus, etc. You don't think that these people were reading Paul, too? Was the world really locked down in ignorance and darkness until "God raised up the seer of the age(s), His bondslave Witness Lee"? One would think so, the way they present his teachings.

Lee's teachings on deification also come to mind. It has been purported that this was the "high peak" that he reached, however, he wasn't even close to being the first one to talk about deification.

What I find interesting is that despite there being knowledge of these teachings outside the LC, only in the LC do such teachings get any emphasis. It indicates to me that the general consensus outside the LC is that such teachings provide little benefit. I think Lee gained a lot of respect through emphasizing things that seemed "unique", when the reality was, he really just talking about stuff that sounded "high" but had little substance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee's teachings on deification also come to mind. It has been purported that this was the "high peak" that he reached, however, he wasn't even close to being the first one to talk about deification.

What I find interesting is that despite there being knowledge of these teachings outside the LC, only in the LC do such teachings get any emphasis. It indicates to me that the general consensus outside the LC is that such teachings provide little benefit. I think Lee gained a lot of respect through emphasizing things that seemed "unique", when the reality was, he really just talking about stuff that sounded "high" but had little substance.

Good observations!

Back in the early 90's, the "high peak" teachings were all the rage among Lee's remaining loyalists. The GLA was slow getting on board, but at one point I personally made the decision to struggle to get into it. Robichaux's pamphlet was helpful, and after some study, I was all in! Not me, didn't want to be left behind!

After some time, I began to consider what benefit there was in knowing this stuff. Except for possibly ten minutes on the Lord's day, who could I tell this stuff to? Talk about exclusive teachings! Eventually my pragmatic engineering nature got the best of me -- what good is this stuff? What has it done for my life or the lives of those around me? If it were really good for us, then it would be written in the Bible as such.

And such was life in the LC's in my final days there. Constantly looking to find things which everybody else had missed. Constantly looking to find things in the Bible to make us different. To make us "better."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee's teachings on deification also come to mind. It has been purported that this was the "high peak" that he reached, however, he wasn't even close to being the first one to talk about deification.

What I find interesting is that despite there being knowledge of these teachings outside the LC, only in the LC do such teachings get any emphasis. It indicates to me that the general consensus outside the LC is that such teachings provide little benefit. I think Lee gained a lot of respect through emphasizing things that seemed "unique", when the reality was, he really just talking about stuff that sounded "high" but had little substance.

Yes, I would agree with you Freedom. Why the "high peak" teachings have little traction in non-LSM Christianity is because brothers and sisters in Christianity want a practical church life and not head knowledge.
From a LSM viewpoint, the high peak teachings serve to create an illusion that local churches are unique and distinct from non-LSM Christianity.
In my experiences most non-LSM Christians I know are just as zealous in pursuing the Lord as those I knew in the local churches. In respect to the general local church brother and sister, there is nothing unique or distinct; just another member of the Body.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

From a LSM viewpoint, the high peak teachings serve to create an illusion that local churches are unique and distinct from non-LSM Christianity.

Part of Lee's high peak sales pitch was that our Christian walk was based on our theology, and the higher our theology, the better our walk, or so he said. Initially i was open to the idea, but soon realized that there was little evidence to support his claims about "beoming God." Remember ... we had just passed thru some "rebellious storms" in the recovery, and nobody's walk seemed to be improving, unless you consider their "walk" out the door of the LC. Many were dicouraged and leaving.

That whole process back in the early 90's occurred in the vacuum of any facts surrounding John Ingalls and the other so-called "leprous conspirators." We now know that entire Lee's sales pitch was really just a diversionary con job. He pushed the high peak junk on us, not to improve our walk, but to cover up his own unrighteous walk, and that of his profligate son Phillip, the abusive LSM Office Manager.

Today the whole Recovery still believes that those high peak teachings were from the Lord, from the Bible, and for our benefit. None of which was further from the truth.