The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

UntoHim · 04-14-2008, 04:11 PM

www.TheThreadofGold.com
Home of
The Thread of Gold
By
Jane Carole Anderson

"This book, The Thread of Gold: God's Purpose, the Cross, and Me, tells the true story of Jane Carole Anderson’s twenty-year journey through the Local Church of Witness Lee. It reveals her discovery of the powerful and practical message of the cross, one that saved her from deception and revealed God’s purpose for her life.

The author writes, 'When your goal is to know God, you will find an amazing thread of gold being woven into the details of your life and circumstances. That golden thread will be your very own, unique, personal experience of Him. You will come to know Him as One who takes care of everything concerning you—from commonplace things to the deeply significant matters of the heart. I know Him as both the God who takes care of my washing machine and the God who wipes away my tears. In His way and time, He will unfold the unique purpose He has for your life. Ultimately, you and your thread of gold will remain forever, perfectly woven together with millions of others and their threads of gold into God's masterpiece, and put on display for eternity.'

We at Protus Publications are truly thankful that The Thread of Gold has already been helpful to a number of people as evidenced by those who have given us feedback. We continue to pray that God will put this book into the hands of all those whom He desires to receive it"

-----------------------------------------------------

Chapter 1
Into the Pit

The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.”
(Jer. 31:3)

IN THE SPRING OF 1977, MY HUSBAND AND I DRAGGED our bodies home
after a church meeting in Houston, Texas. During that meeting, I was publicly
humiliated; and after it, I was further shamed, censured, and ostracized. I had
sensed God’s nearness throughout everything that had transpired until that
night, and then it seemed that He had abandoned me to this horrible
experience. Those I loved had cast me into a pit of spiritual darkness and left
me there to languish alone. I went to bed still sobbing as I continued to relive
what had happened.

That Meeting

I was upset, nervous, and fearful as I sat there, waiting for Dan Williams to
speak. I had been in this condition since the time I had been told, several days
earlier, that my attendance in this meeting was mandatory. Dan was an elder
and regional leader from a church in another city who had traveled to Houston
with the purpose of holding this meeting. He was a tall, thin man who always
wore a longsleeved white shirt, a thin tie, and dark pants. He was sitting
forward in his chair on the front row jiggling one of his legs up and down
periodically. Then he rose and began to speak. He asked that the tape
recorder be turned off. This request was extremely unusual and, therefore,
foreboding.

Because of events in the preceding weeks, I knew whatever was coming wasn’t
going to be good. When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a
“sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this
rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had
committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had
encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems. According to
Dan, this was the same as encouraging people to vomit. He disapprovingly
said that when these sisters had told people to pray and wait for direction from
the Lord, they were advocating “passivity.”

As I had sat there listening to him, I had no doubt that I was the person about
whom he was speaking. Though he didn’t mention my name, many people in
the church had already heard I was in trouble and had stopped speaking to me
because of what was considered to be my “leprous condition.”

Dan declared that these rebellious sisters had opposed the Lord’s present
move in the church and had caused a serious division. He proclaimed that they
were seeking to be spiritual giants and that this was unacceptable in what he
called the age of the body, the corporate expression of Christ. Because of
their spiritual self-seeking, they had become deceived. Satan had used them
to cause serious error and trouble and, hence, to damage the church. At one
point, he stated his belief that sisters didn’t have any spiritual discernment,
and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan’s deception. He also stated
his belief that sisters could not receive revelation from the Bible. He continued
speaking for a long period of time, informing church members about the
evilness of the sisters’ rebellion and stating that any evidence of such rebellion
would not be tolerated.

A large knot of nausea and almost pain was throbbing in my stomach as I sat
there listening, feeling like time had been cruelly suspended so that the wound
I was receiving would be the deepest possible. When I ventured a glance
around the room, hoping for anyone, anything that might be able to stop this
nightmare, all I saw were faces glancing back at me with looks of pity. Dan
ﬁnally concluded his message: “One of these sisters hasn’t repented or talked
to us. You know who you are. After this meeting, come to the fellowship room.”
My husband and I knew he meant me. It apparently hadn’t been enough to put
me in a public cofﬁn; he needed to nail it shut.

The Inquisition

With many eyes on us, we crossed the meeting hall and entered the fellowship
room. I felt like I was being summoned to the Inquisition. Dan was waiting there
with a number of others who had been invited to attend as witnesses. Most of
the local elders were present. One of their wives was present. An elder from a
third locality was also there. A number of sisters were there, including some
that had become members of the church through our efforts and had lived in
our home for a long period of time. It appeared that the elders wanted them to
be clear that I was not to be trusted. I was directed to sit down on the end of a
couch. Most of the people present were sitting on folding chairs in a semicircle
across the room from me. My husband was given a seat with them. Others
were standing.

A folding chair was on my right side, about a foot away from the couch. Dan
turned it to face me and then sat down. Looking at me, he began repeating in
judgment of me his pronouncements from the public meeting. He offered no
speciﬁc facts and no clear examples of my “rebellion.” He asked me nothing. I
did not understand his vague accusations. One of these was, “…and the
shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.” I had no idea what he was
talking about, but thought that by “one of us” he might mean one of the elders.
I wondered if his comment referred to a local elder named Steve Smith, who
had broken down and wept in front of me and a few others several weeks
before this. Steve was not present in the room that night.

Dan informed me that he knew all about the “secret meeting” we had planned
for the spring. However, this was news to me because I didn’t know anything
about it. He said that all my rebellious, negative speaking had “come to their
ears,” revealing a conspiracy among the sisters that was undermining the
elders and church oneness. Maybe he used the biblical phrase “come to our
ears” to try and give scriptural support to what he was doing. He wasn’t
interested in learning whether I realized I was the leader of what he was calling
a sisters’ rebellion. He told me emphatically that I needed to repent for my
offense to the church, and from that day forward, I was to “stop all my talk and
be quiet.”

I sobbed throughout his monologue. His non-speciﬁc accusations left me
feeling that my person was being attacked. Near the end of the torment, I said,
“The only solution I can see is just to dig a hole about six feet deep and put me
in it. I think the problem is just who I am.”

I also told him, “Whatever has happened, it isn’t my husband’s fault. It’s mine.”
At this point, another of the elders present, who always seemed to be lurking in
the background, Sam Jones, chuckled and said, “I always wondered why the
Lord put you two together, and now I know.” I had no idea what he meant by
this strange statement. Why had he always wondered this? What did he now
know? I certainly didn’t understand his apparent amusement. How could
anyone ﬁnd anything funny in what was happening at that black moment in that
room? I was weeping and in extreme distress, yet he found humor in the
situation? Sam’s comment, at best, was thoughtless and cruel.

Later that night at home in bed, I tried to pray, but I couldn’t. I was experiencing
an internal, spiritual, and emotional agony. How had such darkness swallowed
us? I had belonged to Jesus since I was a child, and He had never failed me.
Where was He now? I felt like I was suffocating in a deep, dark pit ﬁlled with
blackness.

Copyright 2005 by Jane Carole Anderson

Ohio · 06-02-2011, 03:08 PM

Thankful Jane, I have a question about the book Thread of Gold ...

On page 195, you talked about the promotion of Daystar in Houston. This seemed to be after that 1977 Memorial Day weekend quarantine and after the death of your mother in law.

I was under the impression that Daystar solicitations were several years earlier in time, more like the early 70's, and that by '75 or so, Max R. was traveling around requesting the saints to "forgive" these as "donations."

Can you clarify this?

Thankful Jane · 06-02-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankful Jane, I have a question about the book Thread of Gold ...

On page 195, you talked about the promotion of Daystar in Houston. This seemed to be after that 1977 Memorial Day weekend quarantine and after the death of your mother in law.

I was under the impression that Daystar solicitations were several years earlier in time, more like the early 70's, and that by '75 or so, Max R. was traveling around requesting the saints to "forgive" these as "donations."

Can you clarify this?

Hi Ohio,

Another reader asked us this question in 2006. The following a summary of the answer we gave the inquirer:

My husband and I just finished discussing the question you asked. In our discussion we uncovered the problem with what is in chapter 13 about the inheritance money:
John remembered that he had actually asked his mother for a loan so that we could invest in Daystar. He did not tell her the reason for the loan. She answered his request by giving him the money, but with the condition that it would be deducted from his inheritance at the time of her death. So when she died in 1977, we received notification that John’s share of the inheritance was less the amount of the loan, as John had agreed.

At the time I was writing the book, what I remembered was that her death and the Daystar money were associated. I wrongly concluded from this memory that we had given it to Daystar after we had received the inheritance in 1977, when in actuality we had given it several years before. John and I probably missed the timing discrepancy when we were editing and reviewing the final version of the book, because the dates related to Daystar were not that important to us. The main point I was seeking to make by including a little about Daystar was that we were also being hurt financially.

In the disclaimer to the book we state that all dates are accurate to the best of our ability. We are very open to any information that helps us improve the accuracy of the dates in our book. This matter will be corrected in future editions of the book, if there are any. We are sorry for any confusion this error may have caused you, and we thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Hope this helps.

Thankful Jane

Ohio · 06-03-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The main point I was seeking to make by including a little about Daystar was that we were also being hurt financially

Thanks much for the clarification.

What was really troubling to me was these comments about Daystar ...

Quote:

A business venture named "Daystar" was being promoted by the brothers for Brother Lee with the stated purpose to raise money for the lord's Recovery. Church members were told that this was an opportunity that we should not pass by. There was no guarantee of return on any investments we made, but because the Lord would surely bless Brother Lee's endeavor for the sake of the Recovery, we were strongly encouraged to do whatever we could to participate...

Daystar was ultimately a miserable failure, and all investments were lost. In Houston and in other churches, those who invested were asked to release Brother Lee from all obligations ...

Looking back, it's just amazing how WL was given such a free pass for his miserable failures, including Daystar. If God was truly for this investment endeavor, do you really think rising gas prices due to the OPEC Cartel could have destroyed this fledgling enterprise? Was our God so grossly incompetent in global monetary affairs to have allowed this horrible misfortune to occur? Or was this just a coincidentally freakish business mishap? How could WL know the oil markets of the day? It could have happened to anyone!?!

Thankful Jane · 06-03-2011, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looking back, it's just amazing how WL was given such a free pass for his miserable failures, including Daystar.

In order to motivate the sheep to officially release Witness Lee from all financial obligations, they also told us that Lee was a crushed, broken man, who was grieving before the Lord, barely able to raise his head (or language similar to this) because of the pain he felt over having hurt the saints. I remember, at the time, that the words they used caused me to form a mental picture of Witness Lee on his knees weeping before the Lord. Of course, this started my emotional heart strings playing, and I joined John in gladly signing away any hope of the return of his mother's hard earned money--money she wanted her son to have.

While writing the book, I remember asking myself if had I taken money from others and hurt them as Lee did, what would I have done? Would I have paid it back later, if I became able to do so? My answer was, "Absolutely, yes." I would not want to give account to the Lord for the harm I had caused to His children. I would want to restore what I had taken from them, no matter how long it took.

After the book was published, a brother who had been an elder on the east coast during the 70s, told me that he had seen a copy of Witness Lee's income tax return in the late 70s (77 I think) and that Lee had made a million dollars that year (just a few years after we had released him). I remember saying, "What!!!???" How could that be? I asked, "If he had income like that, why didn't pay us back!?"

So, I feel like asking again today, "If the portrait they painted for us of Witness Lee's post-Daystar-gig condition was a true one, then why didn't Lee pay his brethren back before he died?" (I suspect that the "broken man" picture we heard in Texas was more likely an embellishment of Ray Graver's imagination which was designed to more easily manipulate the sheep.) But okay, let's say he was a broken man and he couldn't make any pay-back in the 70s, then why not do so before the end of his life--especially when he was so repentant, and all that, on his near death bed. How about adding to his parting words, "Oh, and you newly appointed blended ones, see that money goes to pay back every one I hurt financially in the 70s, even the 'little potato' contributors." Surely, funding by that time was not a problem. I mean, didn't "pay-back-my-debts-to-my-brothers" belong higher up the Blendeds To Do list than "spend-millions-to-sue-other-believers-and-defend-the-ministry"?

Jesus paid a huge debt for us--one he didn't owe us. So why wouldn't a man who was "becoming God" find it important to make retribution of money he did owe (not legally, of course, but certainly as a Christian leader who used his position and our regard for him in an highly questionable way)? It seems it was more important to Lee to build a god-man publishing empire and make a god-name for himself than to do what was truly godly and right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God was truly for this investment endeavor, do you really think rising gas prices due to the OPEC Cartel could have destroyed this fledgling enterprise? Was our God so grossly incompetent in global monetary affairs to have allowed this horrible misfortune to occur? Or was this just a coincidentally freakish business mishap? How could WL know the oil markets of the day? It could have happened to anyone!?!

I suppose that those of us who invested should also ask ourselves about our own motivation for putting money into Daystar. Were we just a bit too anxious to make money, a return on our investment, (ah hmm, for "the Lord's Recovery")? Was that a factor in our easily being tempted to run out and "sell our possessions" and lay their price at the feet of our very own apostle?

History seems to say pretty clearly that personal gain was a factor on all sides of the equation. It also says, "Apostle? No. Bernie, who then Made Off with the money? Yes."

Thankful Jane

Ohio · 06-03-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In order to motivate the sheep to officially release Witness Lee from all financial obligations, they also told us that Lee was a crushed, broken man, who was grieving before the Lord, barely able to raise his head (or language similar to this) because of the pain he felt over having hurt the saints. I remember, at the time, that the words they used caused me to form a mental picture of Witness Lee on his knees weeping before the Lord. Of course, this started my emotional heart strings playing, and I joined John in gladly signing away any hope of the return of his mother's hard earned money--money she wanted her son to have.

This public relations spin by Max, Graver, and others was simply a transfer of responsibility using guilt to manipulate God's children. Thankful, I thought it was you who cried yourself to sleep every night after getting tongue-whipped by BP and shunned by all the saints? Now you and your husband are supposed to feel guilty about someone who just solicited your money in church meetings and then squandered it on ill-conceived business ventures? What's wrong with this picture, folks?

Fortunately, the all-knowing Apostle had enough sense to keep a million bucks for himself, so that "all was not lost." That sinking ship had only one life preserver, and it was kept in WL's safe deposit box.

I definitely agree with you about payback on debts. Why did WL and the LSM higher-ups never once consider the righteousness of reimbursing the initial investments of the saints? Annual trainings became quite lucrative for LSM, and it quite easily could have made good on her debts. Why was this never done. They preach kingdom righteousness to everyone else, but never lived it themselves. Isn't that what the Lord Jesus called hypocrisy?

You mention Bernie Made-Off with all the money. Good example! My son is a financial research analyst for a large university endowment. He regularly examines hedge fund managers and their portfolios. One absolute criteria he uses is the personal stake each manager has vested in his own fund. In other words, when things turn sour, how will the manager fare? Does he have a golden parachute for just himself?

Not one single analyst in the entire financial world would have endorsed the Daystar fund. Why? WL had nothing to lose! He was gambling with others' money.

Suannehill · 06-05-2011, 05:15 PM

My husband often quotes to me..."You can't cheat an honest man!"

Strange saying until he explains...

An honest man will never give in to the temptation to make money in a shady fashion. An honest man will pass on any deals that don't appear on the up and up.

Thankful Jane · 06-08-2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

They preach kingdom righteousness to everyone else, but never lived it themselves. Isn't that what the Lord Jesus called hypocrisy?

In this vein, I can't help but remember Lee's book, "The Experience of Life" where he instructed us about how Christians needed to make restitution. Go figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

My son is a financial research analyst for a large university endowment. He regularly examines hedge fund managers and their portfolios. One absolute criteria he uses is the personal stake each manager has vested in his own fund. In other words, when things turn sour, how will the manager fare? Does he have a golden parachute for just himself?

Not one single analyst in the entire financial world would have endorsed the Daystar fund. Why? WL had nothing to lose! He was gambling with others' money.

W. Lee gambled and, from the publishing business perspective, one might say he won. His “golden parachute” landed him safely. However, I wonder how that parachute is workin' for him now that he's passed out of this life? Maybe he's asked for permission to come back and warn the Blendeds and their followers what is ahead of them. Since he'll probably get the same answer the rich Lazurus got when he asked for a temporary visa back to this life, it looks like the only warning the Blendeds will get will be from the voices of all those they have hurt which continue to surface on the internet. The message in all the voices should be clear to the them. It says:

"Blendeds, be warned. You have proudly followed in Lee's footsteps, boasting in his ill-gotten glory. Do you want to finish the trip he made and end up at the same destination with the same baggage? Wake up while you can. It's not too late for you, but the repentance train is moving pretty fast down the tracks. Much longer and you might not be able to catch it."

Thankful Jane

P. S. I find it to be a God thing that so many can speak directly to the LSM folks today by means of internet forums. For years they slammed the door (or worse) on any who tried to communicate honestly with them, but the internet has changed all that. Even though they don't want to hear from those of us who have found our voices, they have to.

Now that I think about it, this exposes another one of their hypocrisies. They say not to have any contact with negative speaking, yet in order to do damage control, they (at least some who are probably assigned to do so) search out and have contact with material that is anti-them, material which, no doubt, includes all our little "negative" words. Gotta luv it.

TLFisher · 06-11-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a “sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems.... At one point, he stated his belief that sisters didn’t have any spiritual discernment, and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan’s deception. He also stated his belief that sisters could not receive revelation from the Bible.
Copyright 2005 by Jane Carole Anderson

What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?

James 5:15-17
and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.

The key phrase is pray for one another. How can you know what to pray for if you don't know the problem? If you or I are to pray for one another, there will be a need to speak about problems.

So Benson believes sisters don't have any spiritual discernment?

Acts 18:24-26
Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Luke 24:9-11
and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.

Whenever Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned, it's always Priscilla first and Aquila second. Does that indicate Priscilla had more discernment than her husband Aquila? As eloquent Apollos was, Priscilla with her husband Aquila had the discernment to adjust Apollos.

As in the passage from Luke 24, I do recognize it's possible for sisters to have discernement brothers are lacking in. Brothers have been generally overly spiritual in the recovery. Just as in Luke 24, for sisters to be in discernment, that is complete nonsense. Just as in Luke 24:12, not until a brother sees for himself is it accepted.

My point being Jane and others sisters in Houston at that time discerned a lack and a need among their ecclesia. Brothers being overly spiritual tended to be negligent regarding our humanity. The phrase I often heard as a young brother regarding problems was, turn to your spirit and call on the Lord. When you're overly spiritual and neglecting problems of our humanity, the problems will still exist no matter how much one strives to ignore them. I see the sisters using the problems as a catalyst for prayer. If a sister was having issues with her husband, in expressing these issues, and in praying over these issues, and as prayers are answered there becomes are more harmonious and fulfilling marriage.
I think by nature brothers would be offended by such an approach. Not only is it exposing, it debunks the thought everything is allright in their marriage even when it's not. Brothers would naturally think if there's an issue in the marriage, his wife ought to go to him and keep it in-house. Do not go outside the house and expose dirty laundry.

ZNPaaneah · 06-11-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

TLFisher · 06-11-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

What happened with Phillip Lee was unusual. In any other business environment Phillip would have been fired. Just the topic alone, there are those who insist what was said of Phillip Lee were rumors. Even if there were witnesses to contradict any rumor.
Back to the topic of sisters opening up. I know several sisters who open up to my wife because keeping it inside was too much to bear. One sister in particular tried going to her husband, but he could not take her concerns to heart.
How about another couple my wife and I know who divorced last year. While they were married, you could not have guessed anything was wrong. Because there was no willingness to open up, how could they receive counseling and prayer?

Ohio · 06-11-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

Think about how much teaching and "fellowship" that exists in the LC's just to maintain their quarantines. Prime example is their recent 28 booklet "Attack Pack" which came out a few years ago, none of which addresses the serious items of the Faith. The basis for all these teachings is the writings of WL, specifically his views and preferences about so many meany items.

Back in the 90's, related to all the high peaks stuff, I remember lamenting the necessary learning of all those doctrines. Who could I speak this stuff too? What was the point in learning it? What was the value in one's daily life? How could I share with others that I was becoming God?!? My only window of opportunity was my allotted 3 plus minutes prophecy time on Sunday morning.

Ohio · 06-11-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

What happened with Phillip Lee was unusual. In any other business environment Phillip would have been fired.

Unless he was a NYC congressman.

Thankful Jane · 06-11-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

ZNP,

This post left me with some questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious.

ZNP, would you mind explaining what you mean by the above statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

What is your source for the above information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

I don't understand this sentence. Who is "they" ?

It's probably too late for me to be posting because I'm at the end of a long day and am sleepy. I considered waiting and re-reading your post tomorrow, but then decided to go ahead now, knowing that by the time I am able to get back to it, I probably will have talked myself out of posting.

Thankful Jane

OBW · 06-12-2011, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Back in the 90's, related to all the high peaks stuff, I remember lamenting the necessary learning of all those doctrines. Who could I speak this stuff too? What was the point in learning it? What was the value in one's daily life? How could I share with others that I was becoming God?!? My only window of opportunity was my allotted 3 plus minutes prophecy time on Sunday morning.

Ohio,

I think you are onto a classic flaw in so much of our historic view of the purpose of theology. As I read your post this morning, I was reminded of a blog I read just last night that used arguments about predestination to say sort of the same thing.

Now I am not usually one to point to some others' teachings, however, I believe that this is really on topic. For anyone who cares to read the whole thing, it is here. But getting you to to read it is not my goal. It is to use a different discussion to throw a dart at the self-importance of LRC theology. Here are a few paragraphs from the beginning of the post:

Quote:

I do not say the preeminent question of Christian theology, but of the Christian life, because in the end, theology must lead to the lives that we live. Theology must be a description of REALITY. Of real life. Just as mathematical propositions must eventually let the space shuttle fly or a heart monitor give accurate readings, so our theology must prepare us for death, and for the lives we lead before death. Our theology must make us human beings, husbands, fathers, teachers, neighbors, members of a community, and so on.

For many Christians, this discussion is a discussion of “What does the Bible say?” So, Romans 9 and John 1 are really no different from one another, as both are inspired scripture, and we can discuss election from Romans 9, come to our conclusions and announce that we have the truth.

On the other hand, I believe that the purpose of Romans 9, John 1, Leviticus 18, Ecclesiastes and so on is to allow us to hear God’s Final Word: Jesus. Scripture is the recipe for the cake that God is baking: Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World. Jesus says that what he says, is and does is our window to the true God, and is our truth for life and death. Therefore, it is Jesus that I am seeking in theology. Jesus is what matters in theology.

Then at the end he says further:

Quote:

The Preeminent Question of Theology — and life — is not “What is Reformed Theology?” It is not “What does Paul teach about election and predestination?” It is not “How can I be right and the other fellow wrong?” The only question that matters is whether we hear, see, know, comprehend and ultimately BELIEVE God’s Final Word, the Mediator of the New Covenant that is ALL he is doing for us in the Gospel.

Does what I believe about election, the Bible, universalism, truth, God and so on, correspond to Jesus? Do I know Jesus? Is my truth, my worldview, my reality, JESUS?

NeitherFirstnorLast · 06-12-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The Preeminent Question of Theology — and life — is not... “How can I be right and the other fellow wrong?”

Amen! Well said, and very applicable. Sadly, this kind of error can easily become the goal for any of us - to strive to prove ourselves right, or more right, than our fellow believers.

ZNPaaneah · 06-12-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

ZNP,

This post left me with some questions.
ZNP, would you mind explaining what you mean by the above statement?

What is your source for the above information?

I don't understand this sentence. Who is "they" ?

It's probably too late for me to be posting because I'm at the end of a long day and am sleepy. I considered waiting and re-reading your post tomorrow, but then decided to go ahead now, knowing that by the time I am able to get back to it, I probably will have talked myself out of posting.

Thankful Jane

Sure, I'd be glad to explain. To me the issue with WL was this: were his actions premeditated just as a con man would figure out how to get away with the con once his mark realized he had been conned (remember the end of the movie "The Sting" where they had to shoot each other so the mark thought they were dead?) Or, were his actions just the bumbling attempt to deal with serious sins, incompetence, and ineptness?

So, take the Daystar issue. If you knew up front it was a con, what are you going to do once the con is exposed? 1. Make sure all of your investors are super spiritual (we are not in this for the money). 2. Make sure all your investors are part of your clique and can easily be manipulated by peer pressure and 3. Make sure any one that does not fall into the first two categories will be funneled directly to you and not talk to the rest of your investors.

So for a category 3 saint, someone who is a sophisticated investor yet meets with the LRC, they would be told to complain to the elders. Therefore you can funnel these complaints directly to WL who can determine how to deal with it. To do this everyone must be taught, no, "trained" that "negative" speaking is of the devil (check). They must be trained not to listen to negative speaking (check), they must be trained that all issues go to the elders (check). When I was in the LRC this "training" was extensive, even though I cannot see any basis for this in the NT (you should take your issues to a more mature saint than yourself, that doesn't mean it has to be an elder, and it doesn't mean that it has to be a brother). Also, if the elders realize that they cannot deal with this offended saint they excommunicate them and then tell the church not to have anything to do with them. This is not according to the NT. Instead, the NT says that we should "tell it to the church". It is the church that decides once they hear the case, not the elders, this is a false and erroneous teaching designed to keep the church in darkness.

Now it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL. This has to be stamped out if you can do damage control. So, prior to the MR excommunication you had the "sisters rebelliion". This was not necessarily based on anything more than the fact that MR's wife must be cut off from fellowshipping with other sisters, as well as anyone else that might be aware of unrighteousness in Anaheim. This does not mean that RG and BP were aware of what was going on, they could easily just be "good foot soldiers fighting the spiritual battle". But as a result more erroneous teachings are brought in about sisters, etc. out of an attempt to get away with the con, or prevent PL from being exposed, etc.

Third, you have to teach elders not to meddle in other church's affairs. You have to teach that some issues are "local". This is a very slippery slope. If I was in Houston for years but now moved to Dallas could brothers from Houston fellowship with me about some local issue (as they did with BP). If so, why are other saints prohibited from doing the same? But it was this teaching that RG and BP used to ignore the fellowship from JI, etal.

These erroneous teachings are proof that WL was not merely incompetent in his attempt to deal with sins, and mistakes. Instead it was premeditated and he fully understood it was a con.

Ohio · 06-12-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure, I'd be glad to explain. To me the issue with WL was this: were his actions premeditated just as a con man would figure out how to get away with the con once his mark realized he had been conned ... Or, were his actions just the bumbling attempt to deal with serious sins, incompetence, and ineptness?

These erroneous teachings are proof that WL was not merely incompetent in his attempt to deal with sins, and mistakes. Instead it was premeditated and he fully understood it was a con.

I ... and many others in the GLA I might add ... have always thought it was the former, i.e. "mistakes were surely made."

But, based on prior events in Taiwan and American, many posters and former members insist that it was the latter.

Having witnessed how skillful the BB's have become in all the wrong things, it seems you may be correct.

11of101 · 06-12-2011, 12:22 PM

be wise as serpents harmless as doves...gives serpents a predatory advantage over doves.

Was WL a con-man by choice or necessity?

Thankful Jane · 06-13-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure, I'd be glad to explain....Now it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL. This has to be stamped out if you can do damage control. So, prior to the MR excommunication you had the "sisters rebelliion". This was not necessarily based on anything more than the fact that MR's wife must be cut off from fellowshipping with other sisters, as well as anyone else that might be aware of unrighteousness in Anaheim. This does not mean that RG and BP were aware of what was going on, they could easily just be "good foot soldiers fighting the spiritual battle". But as a result more erroneous teachings are brought in about sisters, etc. out of an attempt to get away with the con, or prevent PL from being exposed, etc.

Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying

). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true.

From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.)

I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

(As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed.

Thankful Jane

TLFisher · 06-13-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

Does this support the theory what happened to these sisters was in response to Max confronting Phillip?
Jane, you mentioned incredibly horrible. Yes it was. What about the children? Not only the children of Max and Sandee, but children of other saints in Anaheim who may have stopped meeting with the Church in Anaheim during this period. Children are not equipped to handle being cut-off as adults are.

As you know I lived in Anaheim during this period. Many of the church kids went to the same public schools. All of a sudden, some of those they had considered to be friends in school, at church, and in the homes, were no longer recieved by families who continued meeting with the church in Anaheim.

Keep in mind during that time it wasn't all about Max. Some left over the meeting hall on Ball Road. Here were brothers voluntarily giving their days, their evenings, their sweat for a building they believed was for the Church in Anaheim. Suddenly it's not for the Church in Anaheim, but for Living Stream Ministry. In the present time, it's that big a deal to give time to work on LSM projects. Back then at that time I'm sure for many brothers Daystar was still fresh in their memory.

Ohio · 06-13-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

... the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis... I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibly horrible.)

Thankful, I remember reading this a few years ago, along with the accounts by Ingalls and others, and arriving at the conclusion that the so-called "sisters' rebellion" in Anaheim was all about payback to Max about confronting Phillip at some restaurant about molesting a sister at the LSM offices.

Is that the same conclusion that the Rapoport's arrived at?

Ohio · 06-13-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Keep in mind during that time it wasn't all about Max. Some left over the meeting hall on Ball Road. Here were brothers voluntarily giving their days, their evenings, their sweat for a building they believed was for the Church in Anaheim. Suddenly it's not for the Church in Anaheim, but for Living Stream Ministry. In the present time, it's that big a deal to give time to work on LSM projects. Back then at that time I'm sure for many brothers Daystar was still fresh in their memory.

This is the first time I have heard that some saints in Anaheim left the church in protest, because they discovered the new Ball Road facility was not for the church, but for LSM. Talk about the "old bait and switch!"

Terry, can you say more about this?

It's also quite informative to the forum, when you give a child's perspective of "quarantines." They are the innocent victims of leadership abuses and excesses, and the quarantines which resulted from rivalries in the Recovery between controlling factions.

I remember reading with tears, the painful accounts of Thankful's young son, who basically "shut down" due to his mother's anguish of heart in the aftermath of BP's abusive "discipline."

Thankful Jane · 06-13-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankful, I remember reading this a few years ago, along with the accounts by Ingalls and others, and arriving at the conclusion that the so-called "sisters' rebellion" in Anaheim was all about payback to Max about confronting Phillip at some restaurant about molesting a sister at the LSM offices.

Is that the same conclusion that the Rapoport's arrived at?

They didn't use the word "payback" but they said the change toward them was definitely related to Max confronting Phillip (and Lee) about Phillip's sins. Sandee said that at first she could not understand why "Witness" did not just speak privately to her and ask that she and the other sisters stop sitting together in the meetings. She was around him constantly, as she often helped the Lee's with family matters, errands, trips to the doctor, etc., so it would have been an easy thing for him to do. (They had considered Witness Lee to be a true friend. He and Max were constantly together until the Phillip matter became an issue. Sandee also had played a big role in helping with Susannah's wedding/marriage preparations, if I remember correctly.)

At first Sandee could not understand why Lee spoke to her and the other two sisters in public about his "concern" about how they sat together. Then after a little time, it became clear what was afoot. They realized that Lee was taking steps to discredit them. They said that Lee had to move carefully in doing this because they were very close to the brothers and sisters in Anaheim, many of whom they had been personally involved with, helping them with problems, etc. They said Lee was not involved with the brothers and sisters there practically other than by standing at the podium and teaching them. Because of this, he had to gradually undermine the Rapaports or such actions could have blown up in his face.

The reason I am writing that "they" told me these things is because Matt and I had two long talks in person with both Max and Sandee in January 2006, not long after I talked to her on the phone for the first time.

Thankful Jane

ZNPaaneah · 06-13-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

Blue is quoted from Jane, Black is my response.

Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

I did not move away from those questions. My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior. My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true.

Wow! You really missed my point. First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders? The NT says that it is the Church of God, it is the Church of Christ and it is the Church of the saints. Never does it say it is the Church of the Elders. So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were? The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.)

No, my point was that if you were running a Christian Publishing house with a Philanderer, and were trying to skim money off the top with a covetous man then exposing this would cause your house of cards to collapse. I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent"). Max had clearly confronted PL, therefore how do you respond. Since none of WL’s responses fit the mindset of a dove, I considered how a serpent would respond. You would have to destroy the credibility of Max, you would have to excommunicate him, but that would be difficult, even dangerous. First, you have to cut off all fellowship with Max and his wife. The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

Look, I was once working for a brokerage firm and made them probably in excess of 1 million dollars over the course of about 4 months yet I was blindsided and driven out of the company. Why? Because I learned that one of the brokers was a crook. Why was I driven out? Because it turns out the entire firm was crooked. If I exposed the crook the whole house of cards collapses so I had to go, regardless of how profitable I was. As it turns out the brokerage firm was out of business within 12 months and my exodus was instrumental in their demise. Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove. Regardless of how you look at the facts you cannot reconcile WL being a dove with his actions. However, if you take the mindset of a serpent it is very easy to reconcile his actions.

As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

(As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed.

Thankful Jane

My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings. The bogus teachings are necessary for WL to maintain control and do damage control. There is no Scriptural basis for this and all the teachings on the sisters, rebellion, negative speaking, submission, etc. that are pervasive in the LRC should be deeply suspect and reexamined based on NT teachings.

I believe that the real benefit in the fellowship on these forums is for us to become inoculated to this kind of deceit. Just like exposing the human body to a disease will make it stronger if it can defeat the disease. I think, at least in part, this is what is meant by "those that overcome". There are diseases in the Catholic church which need to be overcome, there are diseases in the Protestant churches, the non denominational churches, and the LRC.

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding? Perhaps the reason they want this to go away and for everyone to forget it is they know that what they did was just one more inexcusable sin. If they admit they were wrong would they have to admit that they were doing a coverup, that many, many of their teachings and actions were a result of this. One lie begets many many more lies.

Ohio · 06-13-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

They said that Lee had to move carefully in doing this because they were very close to the brothers and sisters in Anaheim, many of whom they had been personally involved with, helping them with problems, etc. They said Lee was not involved with the brothers and sisters there practically other than by standing at the podium and teaching them. Because of this, he had to gradually undermine the Rapaports or such actions could have blown up in his face.

Sounds to me like the church in Anaheim was blessed by the Rapoport's far more than by WL, but, of course, we constantly heard that it was WL "who raised up the church in Anaheim."

OBW · 06-14-2011, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings.

Not sure that being "in the loop" is "based on . . . teachings" (bogus or otherwise). It may be that there are bogus teachings being spread around within the loop. But being "in the loop" is a matter of being somehow connected at a level such that you know what is going on — at least on certain issues.

I don't see the teachings, bogus or otherwise, being the cause of the loop. The loop is simply the position to have some level of knowledge of what is going on.

And yet, even if the elders had been talking positively with Jane & John (J&J) prior to Benson coming along with a different take on what was happening, it doesn't make them truly "in the loop." It just means that their activities and intents were known by the elders, and even seemingly approved by them. That is far from "in the loop." It would appear that there was much going on that was not made known to J&J that you would think would be known by someone in the loop. For one, it is likely that there would have been some indication that there were concerns about where they were headed.

Instead, it looks more like a kind of oversight by the elders of what they were doing that had one appearance but instead hid a season of discussion leading a different way and ultimately resulting in evidence that J&J never had any real idea what was going on.

That is not "in the loop." And even if the blow-up had never occurred, there is nothing on the table so far that suggests that they were in the loop — just "in fellowship" concerning their particular ministry.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 06:32 AM

I first used the term "in the loop" according to its meaning, in the context that sisters fellowship, especially on the phone from one locality to another, would be "out of the loop" of the elders. The term "in the loop" was put into quotation marks because I was quoting Jane's use of the word. She argued that she and other sisters were submissive to the elders in the context of this "in the loop". My entire post pointed out that the teaching that you must be submissive to the elders is an erroneous teaching. There is a NT verse that asks saints to submit themselves to elders under the presumption that they are watching for your souls. There is no teaching whatsoever that saints must have all of their fellowship approved by the elders and under the authority of the elders. That is the bogus teaching I was referring to and was stated over and over again in my post. What is the NT basis for the control that the elders want to have over all of the saints fellowship and ministry? I find no NT basis for it and feel it is the outgrowth of an attempt to do damage control on the sins of WL's kids being exposed.

Thankful Jane · 06-14-2011, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure that being "in the loop" is "based on . . . teachings" (bogus or otherwise). It may be that there are bogus teachings being spread around within the loop. But being "in the loop" is a matter of being somehow connected at a level such that you know what is going on — at least on certain issues.

I don't see the teachings, bogus or otherwise, being the cause of the loop. The loop is simply the position to have some level of knowledge of what is going on.

And yet, even if the elders had been talking positively with Jane & John (J&J) prior to Benson coming along with a different take on what was happening, it doesn't make them truly "in the loop." It just means that their activities and intents were known by the elders, and even seemingly approved by them. That is far from "in the loop." It would appear that there was much going on that was not made known to J&J that you would think would be known by someone in the loop. For one, it is likely that there would have been some indication that there were concerns about where they were headed.

Instead, it looks more like a kind of oversight by the elders of what they were doing that had one appearance but instead hid a season of discussion leading a different way and ultimately resulting in evidence that J&J never had any real idea what was going on.

That is not "in the loop." And even if the blow-up had never occurred, there is nothing on the table so far that suggests that they were in the loop — just "in fellowship" concerning their particular ministry.

Mike, you can read my post #20 to get a better understanding of what I was saying to ZNP and the limited meaning of "in the loop" that I applied. ZNP introduced the idea that the sisters were "out of the loop" with the elders, meaning elders would not know what they were fellowshipping about. I wrote what I did in post #20 about Sandee and us to show him this was not true. I was not using the term to mean that John or I or Sandee R and the sisters with her knew everything that was going on with the elders, but to show that contrary to ZNP's assertion the elders were getting information directly from the sisters.

I plan to respond to ZNPs long post (#25) which was a response to mine (#20) as soon as I have time.

Note: the current dialogue between ZNP and me began with his post #10. The back and forth that followed is found in post #14, #17, #20, and #25.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 06-14-2011, 11:49 AM

Blue was written first, by Jane.
Black was written in response by ZNP.
Red is my current answer to ZNP’s black.

Jane post #20: Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

ZNP post #25: I did not move away from those questions.

Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another. Terry asked “what is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?” In your answer you changed “ones” to “sisters” and then proceeded to talk about sisters, Phillip Lee, elders, Daystar, etc. What’s with that?

Since this thread is about The Thread of Gold, it was my understanding that Terry’s question was related to what happened in Houston regarding people opening up about their personal problems. I understood him to be asking what was wrong with encouraging that. (If I misunderstood, then Terry can say so.) It seems you just wanted to spring board to something else you wanted to say about sisters and your big picture assessment of things.

ZNP post #25: My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior.

My post was not about figuring out anything or justifying any kind of behavior. My post contained some facts of which you seem to be unaware. It was a response to a false premise you set forth that sisters were outside of the communication loop with the elders. I offered evidence to the contrary. That was the extent of my post. By the way, what NT verses did I “mangle?”

ZNP post #25: My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

Excuse me? You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.

Jane post #20: At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

ZNP post #25: Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

Where exactly in my post was I trying to “understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings”?

Jane post #20: First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true.

ZNP post #25: Wow! You really missed my point. First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders? The NT says that it is the Church of God, it is the Church of Christ and it is the Church of the saints. Never does it say it is the Church of the Elders. So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were? The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

No need to “wow.” Just read my post again more slowly. I did not respond at all to any part of your post except for what you said about sisters. I told you this plainly when I said, “At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying). So, you have no basis to say that I missed your point. You don’t know what I missed or thought about the rest of your post because I didn’t tell you. I never said that elders should be in control. I simply said that as a matter of history, sisters were in the loop (meaning they were telling the elders what they were fellowshipping and doing) and were submitting to the elders. I gave no value judgment about the correctness of this. I presented evidence that they were in the loop because you had claimed they were not. That was it. If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

Jane post #20: From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.)

ZNP post #25: No, my point was that if you were running a Christian Publishing house with a Philanderer, and were trying to skim money off the top with a covetous man then exposing this would cause your house of cards to collapse. I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent"). Max had clearly confronted PL, therefore how do you respond. Since none of WL’s responses fit the mindset of a dove, I considered how a serpent would respond. You would have to destroy the credibility of Max, you would have to excommunicate him, but that would be difficult, even dangerous. First, you have to cut off all fellowship with Max and his wife. The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

These points have not been in dispute at all by me. In fact I have made similar points in other posts in the past. You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.

Jane post #20: I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.)

ZNP post #25: Look, I was once working for a brokerage firm and made them probably in excess of 1 million dollars over the course of about 4 months yet I was blindsided and driven out of the company. Why? Because I learned that one of the brokers was a crook. Why was I driven out? Because it turns out the entire firm was crooked. If I exposed the crook the whole house of cards collapses so I had to go, regardless of how profitable I was. As it turns out the brokerage firm was out of business within 12 months and my exodus was instrumental in their demise. Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove. Regardless of how you look at the facts you cannot reconcile WL being a dove with his actions. However, if you take the mindset of a serpent it is very easy to reconcile his actions.

It is normal for a believer to expect the best of other believers. It is normal to be “flabbergasted” when the sheep’s clothing falls off a fellow believer, one you are close to and trust, and reveals a wolf. Once the wolf behavior manifests itself, it doesn’t take a whole lot of discernment to be able to say, “wolf.” In other words, you don’t need to try and persuade me about the nature of Lee’s or the elders behavior. I saw the wolf’s tail on some elders for the first time over thirty years ago. About a decade later, I saw the lead wolf emerge with his pack, without wearing any sheep's clothing.

I don’t really appreciate that you are writing to me based on your presumption that my current thoughts are as you imagine.

Jane post #20: As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

ZNP post #25: This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say what I wrote was a preemptive accusation. As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new. This basic understanding of Lee’s behavior concerning Phillip has been made and established by others, including me, on other threads written over the last five or more years.

Jane post #20: (As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed.

Thankful Jane

ZNP post #25: My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings. The bogus teachings are necessary for WL to maintain control and do damage control. There is no Scriptural basis for this and all the teachings on the sisters, rebellion, negative speaking, submission, etc. that are pervasive in the LRC should be deeply suspect and reexamined based on NT teachings.

ZNP, first you said sisters were not in the loop with the elders. Now you say that sisters (in this case, me) were “in the loop.” So which is it? If after reading my post you changed your mind about this, why not say so? Instead you just move ahead and launch a new argument about the elders’ control being based on bogus teachings and you write as if no one else, including me, has ever noted this or re-examined what the NT says about such teachings. That simply is not the case.

ZNP post #25: I believe that the real benefit in the fellowship on these forums is for us to become inoculated to this kind of deceit. Just like exposing the human body to a disease will make it stronger if it can defeat the disease. I think, at least in part, this is what is meant by "those that overcome". There are diseases in the Catholic church which need to be overcome, there are diseases in the Protestant churches, the non denominational churches, and the LRC.

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding?

What? Please provide quotes from me that have caused you to conclude that I seem to think this somehow was all a big misunderstanding and if BP understood that he would apologize. Also, rather than pose a question to me based on your assumption about what I think after all these years, wouldn't it be better to ask me what I think first. From what you’ve written, I can assure you that you do not know what I think.

ZNP post #: Perhaps the reason they want this to go away and for everyone to forget it is they know that what they did was just one more inexcusable sin. If they admit they were wrong would they have to admit that they were doing a coverup, that many, many of their teachings and actions were a result of this. One lie begets many many more lies.

To me, this is stating the obvious.

Thankful Jane

TLFisher · 06-14-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

(As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.)

I may be getting off topic and by purpose I bolded those two words by Jane. Maybe Benson thought it was a non-Dallas matter and no need to include Don, but my thought remains what if? What if there were other matters Don was excluded from fellowship on?
With a local elder I had been witness to such an possibility being a reality. If it happened with this brother, could have happened in Dallas or anywhere else?

Thankful Jane · 06-14-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I may be getting off topic and by purpose I bolded those two words by Jane. Maybe Benson thought it was a non-Dallas matter and no need to include Don, but my thought remains what if? What if there were other matters Don was excluded from fellowship on?
With a local elder I had been witness to such an possibility being a reality. If it happened with this brother, could have happened in Dallas or anywhere else?

As we have discovered on the forums there was a good bit of politicking going on in the relationships between the various elders, localities, and regions. It appears from Don's communication that four localities were represented on the airplane. I was able to find the past communication from Don R., so for the record, here is how he was "purposefully excluded," in his own words:

Benson called me and said that WL wanted he, Don L, myself and perhaps Ray to go to Seattle and then to Chicago to support Max who was bringing important fellowship to the churches in those areas. I can assume that actually it was Max who gave this direction on behalf of WL (?). We met in the DFW airport to catch the plane for Seattle, Benson from OK City and Don from Austin and if Ray was there from Houston. Don told me that the others had some private local affairs to speak about and asked me to get a seat in another part of the plane. I walked by them once on the way to the men’s room and Don [Looper] was speaking in a very disturbed way (not common for him) and I heard him say “She said …” By that I knew he was disturbed about one or more sisters.

Later I asked him since he had been so agitated could he share anything with me. My memory is something about a clique or other but he was extremely brief and never mentioned it again. Benson I believe went back to Texas after a day with the elders in the Seattle region. Don went on to Chicago with me.

Thankful Jane

Ohio · 06-14-2011, 02:53 PM

This story confirms much to me about the fine character of Don R. The fact that BP would exclude him from the conversation is quite telling. Unfortunately, when it came to backstabbing the brothers and sisters, BP did not want the company of "decent men."

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Blue was written first, by Jane.
Black was written in response by ZNP.
Red is my current answer to ZNP’s black.

Jane post #20: Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions.

Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.)

ZNP post #25: I did not move away from those questions.

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another. Terry asked “what is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?”

I was not aware that Terry directed that question to me, sorry. Let me answer this question first before responding to the rest of your red letter.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this. 2nd, I have no context from which to work on this question so I will create one -- I will assume that the context is that people in a local church were encouraging others, through fellowship, perhaps in marriage counseling, or perhaps in shepherding new ones, or perhaps in home meetings to "talk about their problems" and that the elders or leading ones with the LRC had an issue with this. (Based on these assumptions and hypothetical context I will respond, if my assumptions or context are wrong please correct me.)

First I find it absurd to think that you could do marriage counseling without "encouraging ones to talk about their problems" (my limited experience is that couples seek counseling because they have problems), likewise with shepherding new ones, or even in a home meeting. Suppose someone in a home meeting started to share a testimony and then stopped saying "I don't know if you really want to hear about my problems" and then you responded by encouraging them to speak. So as I thought about many different scenarios where one christian might "encourage ones to talk about their problems" it just seemed more and more absurd for anyone to have an issue with this. My feeling was that this was so idiotic that either I didn't understand the question (my assumptions or context were wrong) or else this was "obviously a case of LRC leaders creating bogus teachings in an attempt to control saints".

I thought this is what I said in my first post and that this did respond to the question at hand, but apparently it was not understood that way. So in my second post I tried to make it even more clear, and this time I figured the question probably had something to do with this thread. So I thought about the story in Houston and thought maybe he is referring to that story about "the sister's rebellion" so I used that in my examples, hence my highly offensive use of the term "sisters".

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

ZNP post #25: My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior.

My post was not about figuring out anything or justifying any kind of behavior. My post contained some facts of which you seem to be unaware. It was a response to a false premise you set forth that sisters were outside of the communication loop with the elders. I offered evidence to the contrary. That was the extent of my post. By the way, what NT verses did I “mangle?”

ZNP post #25: My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent.

Excuse me? You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.

Jane post #20: At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.)

ZNP post #25: Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.

Where exactly in my post was I trying to “understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings”?

Let me answer this question: "Where in my post was I trying to "understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings?" Since both of us assumed that Terry's question was pertaining to this thread and the incident in Houston I will proceed as though that is the correct understanding, because at least in this case it is. Twice you have asked me to answer this question. The question about taking issue with encouraging others to share about their problems is truly absurd. My response was that if elders are having an issue with saints encouraging others to share about their problems then it is based on bogus teachings. By asking this question you give them way too much credit. Now what are you going to do, debate the merits of their arguments? That is where you are trying to explain, justify, understand, etc. Just dismiss it as hogwash. There is no need to debate it on its merits, it is patently false, fabricated out of a desire to justify something unrighteous.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another...
[SIZE=1]ZNP post #25: ...First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders?

...If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

You have got to be kidding me. You berate me for not responding directly to a question that Terry posed, even though the question was not posed to me and even though I have very little idea about what the basis of the question is (as you also expressed). You say that by not answering in a straightforward manner it is disrespectful. Yet when I asked you a direct question, you refuse because asking "where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders?" assumes your position. Really? I have no idea what MikeH's position is, I could easily ask this question of him. I have no idea what many people think on this question, there is no preconception here.

To berate me for doing what you alleged I did when in fact you did precisely what you berated is, to me, hypocritical. To do this in the very same post is extremely hypocritical. It comes across as being deliberately insulting.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

These points have not been in dispute at all by me. In fact I have made similar points in other posts in the past.

This is why my first post said "obviously". I felt that there was no need to explain. You were the one that specifically asked me to clarify what I wrote because you didn't understand.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please clarify with a lot of examples.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Jane post #20: As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray).

ZNP post #25: This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark.

[COLOR=red][FONT=Verdana]I have no idea what you are talking about when you say what I wrote was a preemptive accusation. As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new.

I was not referring to what you wrote. I was saying that for BP and others to accuse the sisters of "talking behind the back" or "outside of the headship" was a preemptive accusation. They figured that when Max was excommunicated people would talk. Therefore they wanted to take a shot at this preemptively, before Max was excommunicated, kind of like putting down poison.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

ZNP, first you said sisters were not in the loop with the elders. Now you say that sisters (in this case, me) were “in the loop.” So which is it? If after reading my post you changed your mind about this, why not say so?

No, what I said first is that if you put yourself in the shoes of WL and he was contemplating excommunicating Max because Max had confronted PL, then it is reasonable for him to fear Max's wife fellowshipping with other sisters, both in Anaheim and in other cities. The issue was not what had happened but what he feared might happen in the future. Therefore they took a preemptive shot to make everyone scared to talk to anyone about anything. This is clearly premeditated and unrighteous, hence my conclusion that WL acted like a serpent.

My first post was very clear, if the sisters opened up about their problems with PL the whole house of cards could come down. As a result the elders create bogus teachings to squelch fellowship. I have been consistent with this view through all of my posts.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding?

What? Please provide quotes from me that have caused you to conclude that I seem to think this somehow was all a big misunderstanding and if BP understood that he would apologize. Also, rather than pose a question to me based on your assumption about what I think after all these years, wouldn't it be better to ask me what I think first. From what you’ve written, I can assure you that you do not know what I think.

This was poorly worded, sorry. I recall a story where BP visited you in OK and that is what I was referring to, clearly that story is past tense and should not in any way imply how you currently feel. I understood that when I wrote "after all these years" but the poor wording does seem to imply that I am referring to the present tense, not the distant past. Sorry.

However, that story does match my own experience. I have had experiences, like the one I referred to at the brokerage firm, where I thought this is a big misunderstanding. Only years later when the crooks were all exposed did I realize it was not a misunderstanding.

ZNPaaneah · 06-14-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

It seems you just wanted to spring board to something else you wanted to say about sisters and your big picture assessment of things.[/FONT][/COLOR]

No need to “wow.” Just read my post again more slowly.

I did not respond at all to any part of your post except for what you said about sisters.

If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things.

I don’t really appreciate that you are writing to me based on your presumption that my current thoughts are as you imagine.

As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new. This basic understanding of Lee’s behavior concerning Phillip has been made and established by others, including me, on other threads written over the last five or more years.

Instead you just move ahead and launch a new argument about the elders’ control being based on bogus teachings and you write as if no one else, including me, has ever noted this or re-examined what the NT says about such teachings. That simply is not the case.

To me, this is stating the obvious.

Thankful Jane

Well, I consider the tone of all of these comments to be insulting and for the most part unwarranted. In general I think there was one case, which I have apologized for, which could clearly be construed to presume I knew how you thought today, that was a mistake, I have apologized for it.

Still I will respond: you asked me to clarify a short post I made which began "obviously" and then insult me repeatedly for stating the obvious. This seems to me to be despicable.

TLFisher · 06-14-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was not aware that Terry directed that question to me, sorry. Let me answer this question first before responding to the rest of your red letter.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this.

First I find it absurd to think that you could do marriage counseling without "encouraging ones to talk about their problems" (my limited experience is that couples seek counseling because they have problems), likewise with shepherding new ones, or even in a home meeting. Suppose someone in a home meeting started to share a testimony and then stopped saying "I don't know if you really want to hear about my problems" and then you responded by encouraging them to speak.

Before I delve into any other postings I planned to respond to, I'll say this much for now. When I post any questions I raise are directed to all forum members and unregistered readers to respond to. If I was to direct a question at any single individual, I'll do that via private messaging.

"What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" "Since I have never made an issue of this, nor am I aware of anyone else who has made an issue of this, I am going to assume that the LRC is making an issue of this."

As I read earlier at the beginning of this thread it was Benson who made an issue of Jane encouraging ones to talk about their problems. Most Christian fellowships I've been in, that is not the norm. In many cities you'll find healing rooms which transcend assemblies/ecclesia/churches.

In the local churches I've been in two types of home meetings:
A. Those that pray for one another's problems which only come out if it is expressed by the troubled brother or sister.
B. Those that do not change gears from the ministry in order to pray for an individuals problem or need.

TLFisher · 06-14-2011, 06:57 PM

ZNP:
First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders?

Closest you'll find is Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Key words and phrases in this verse are, obey, submit, watch over your souls.
I'll get back to this verse momentarily.

Thankful Jane:
As we have discovered on the forums there was a good bit of politicking going on in the relationships between the various elders, localities, and regions. It appears from Don's communication that four localities were represented on the airplane. I was able to find the past communication from Don R., so for the record, here is how he was "purposefully excluded,"

Whether I feel lc elders are functioning as elders or elders functioning as administrators, I have the utmost respect for elders. When a brother is an elder I give him benefit of the doubt. Me submitting to an elder is voluntary. Whether or not they watch over my soul, as the author of Hebrews says; those who will give an account. It's out of my control. I would have wanted elders in localities I have lived, to have watched over my soul. That has not been the case.

Responding to Jane's post, as I read it's not clear who suggested Don go to another area. Was it Don Looper's suggestion to Don Rutledge? The suggestion being a subtle hint to go take a walk to another area. If the suggestion came at Benson's request to Don Rutledge via Don Looper, is it possible in Dallas there were local matters Don Rutledge was excluded from? My question should be based on being "purposefully excluded" being asked of Don to excuse himself rather than Don taking the initiative to remove himself from conversation Don did not want to be party to.

TLFisher · 06-14-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the first time I have heard that some saints in Anaheim left the church in protest, because they discovered the new Ball Road facility was not for the church, but for LSM. Talk about the "old bait and switch!"

Terry, can you say more about this?

LSM was referred to as Phillip Lee's company. For the meeting hall on Ball Road being LSM's property instead of the Church in Anaheim, that tipped the scales. It's still not clear when the property was deeded over to Living Stream.

Having been acquainted with many brothers who have worked on LSM's La Palma buildings, they joyfully serve in whatever capacity needed.
I suggest the issue 35 years ago was not Living Stream so much rather than the individual running Living Stream. Had it been a brother who was running Living Stream, would brothers be stumbled the facility was not The Church in Anaheim's?

ZNPaaneah · 06-15-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP:
First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders?

Closest you'll find is Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Key words and phrases in this verse are, obey, submit, watch over your souls.
I'll get back to this verse momentarily.

ZNP: Thankyou, I also consider this the best verse. ”Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
This verse could refer to anyone that has rule over you – a policeman, a teacher, an elder. However, the authority of the police is limited to very clear rules (a policeman can pull your car over based on any concern he has, but he cannot enter your house without a judge first agreeing that it is warranted), likewise the authority of the teacher is limited to very specific rules (the teachers authority is pretty much limited to everything within the walls of the school, outside of those walls the kids are not under their authority). There is no justification to say that elders have unlimited authority, so the question is what is the limit of their authority?
In the LRC they think that elders and leaders can excommunicate members. I disagree. I think this authority is given specifically to the church and must be based on the NT. I think BP as a leader has a right to express concern over anything the members of the church are doing that he feels is spiritually unhealthy. But I feel that is the limit of his authority. He has no right to dictate who you fellowship with, to do so is cultic and oversteps the NT. Nor does he have the right to dictate the what you fellowship or How you fellowship (your question). He can teach, exhort, encourage, but the elders are not supreme dictators.

TLFisher · 06-15-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

ZNP: Thankyou, I also consider this the best verse. ”Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
This verse could refer to anyone that has rule over you – a policeman, a teacher, an elder.

Cross references for Hebrews 13:17 are

1 Corinthians 16:16
that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:24
Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

I see from your examples your speaking on jurisdiction and limitations of the jurisidiction.
For example a policeman only has jurisdiction over the area he's designated to serve and cannot exceed that area. For example an uncle of mine once served law enforcement in Washington County, Oregon. His jurisdiction was limited to the county.

Same principal is in effect to elders of assemblies. Specifically the incident you refer to is a illustration of an elder overstepping his jurisdiction as an elder. Once Benson moved to Dallas to serve, he was no longer an elder for the Church in Houston.
Another example is the assembly I currently meet with. Elders from ERCC would not be recognized as being elders in the nearest local church.

ZNPaaneah · 06-15-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Cross references for Hebrews 13:17 are

1 Corinthians 16:16
that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:24
Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

I see from your examples your speaking on jurisdiction and limitations of the jurisidiction.
For example a policeman only has jurisdiction over the area he's designated to serve and cannot exceed that area. For example an uncle of mine once served law enforcement in Washington County, Oregon. His jurisdiction was limited to the county.

Same principal is in effect to elders of assemblies. Specifically the incident you refer to is a illustration of an elder overstepping his jurisdiction as an elder. Once Benson moved to Dallas to serve, he was no longer an elder for the Church in Houston.
Another example is the assembly I currently meet with. Elders from ERCC would not be recognized as being elders in the nearest local church.

Yes, but that doesn't offer much of a safeguard. RG could have easily been the hit man at the urging of BP and who is to say who RG can fellowship with.

I think the biggest case of the error in the LRC is that Elders excommunicate saints, and then announce to the church that someone has been excommunicated without much if any explanation. Instead, if they had to "tell it to the church" as a kind of hearing and the person being excommunicated also got to share their side before the church decided I think that would have eliminated the abuses we saw by WL because he could never have made it fly.

TLFisher · 06-15-2011, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the biggest case of the error in the LRC is that Elders excommunicate saints, and then announce to the church that someone has been excommunicated without much if any explanation. Instead, if they had to "tell it to the church" as a kind of hearing and the person being excommunicated also got to share their side before the church decided I think that would have eliminated the abuses we saw by WL because he could never have made it fly.

What I've heard and seen from current and former elders is a need to be a buffer between saints and problems. That is a key error.
Concept I have problems are discussed and decided upon in elders meetings. Some cases there may not be any room for discussion, but a token approval.
The general brother and sister may not even know or have a say in resolving the problem.
Think of it like this the elders absorb all the turbulence and for the most part the saints are kept peaceful and positive.

rayliotta · 06-15-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

What I've heard and seen from current and former elders is a need to be a buffer between saints and problems. That is a key error.
Concept I have problems are discussed and decided upon in elders meetings. Some cases there may not be any room for discussion, but a token approval.
The general brother and sister may not even know or have a say in resolving the problem.
Think of it like this the elders absorb all the turbulence and for the most part the saints are kept peaceful and positive.

By which you mean, comfortably numb?

Ohio · 06-15-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but that doesn't offer much of a safeguard. RG could have easily been the hit man at the urging of BP and who is to say who RG can fellowship with.

I think the biggest case of the error in the LRC is that Elders excommunicate saints, and then announce to the church that someone has been excommunicated without much if any explanation. Instead, if they had to "tell it to the church" as a kind of hearing and the person being excommunicated also got to share their side before the church decided I think that would have eliminated the abuses we saw by WL because he could never have made it fly.

ZNP, "technically ..." it was not "elders excommunicating saints," at least with Ingalls et. al. of old, and TC et. al. recently. WL, BP and the BB's consider themselves as both "senior workers" and "deputy authorities." For WL as the most "senior worker" to quarantine John Ingalls, another worker under his direction, is a matter of the "work," which is "technically" not a church matter. Thus, many viewed the quarantine of TC as illegitimate because he was a more senior worker than any of the BB's.

Hence BP, RK and the other BB's considered themselves as WL's successors, the so-called "deputy authority" of the body of Christ. In that capacity they quarantined TC, NigelT, and DYL. Then they made the announcement, not to the "church" which TC belonged to, but to the "body," which to them meant all the loyal LC's subscribing to LSM's directives.

Instead of "telling it to the church," they called representatives of all the churches, and announced the decision to them. This was done by WL in SoCal for Ingalls, So, Mellon, and Fung, and is recorded in the "Fermentation ..." For TC, the BB's gathered all the representative leaders in Whistler. The result was the 28 booklet "attack pack," and the various websites.

Ohio · 06-15-2011, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

By which you mean, comfortably numb?

It's kind of like how the government continually lies to us so that we don't "panic."

rayliotta · 06-15-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's kind of like how the government continually lies to us so that we don't "panic."

Well in that case they better hurry up and bail out the NFL...

TLFisher · 06-15-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, "technically ..." it was not "elders excommunicating saints," at least with Ingalls et. al. of old, and TC et. al. recently. WL, BP and the BB's consider themselves as both "senior workers" and "deputy authorities." For WL as the most "senior worker" to quarantine John Ingalls, another worker under his direction, is a matter of the "work," which is "technically" not a church matter. Thus, many viewed the quarantine of TC as illegitimate because he was a more senior worker than any of the BB's.

Hence BP, RK and the other BB's considered themselves as WL's successors, the so-called "deputy authority" of the body of Christ. In that capacity they quarantined TC, NigelT, and DYL. Then they made the announcement, not to the "church" which TC belonged to, but to the "body," which to them meant all the loyal LC's subscribing to LSM's directives.

It's not how I read the Bible. We are all part of the church. Whether you choose to meet, choose not to meet, or where you choose to meet, you and I are still part of the church. A church matter is also a Body matter.

1 Corinthians 12: 12-26
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Bringing up John Ingalls name. I had an opportunity to meet him last summer. Appreciation of Witness Lee's ministry was expressed. The quarantine which occurred took place after John left. The quarantines serve as damage control. As for Titus and his co-workers, from what I've read Titus is a difficult brother to work with and he may have personality traits that rub people the wrong way. We all have peculiar traits and defects, but that by no means warrants quarantines.
An trend ZNP may have referred to is control. Brothers leading Living Stream want the churches thinking as they do. Which in turn requires brothers thinking as they do leading the churches. There is too much risk to invest decision making to the church. Any given local church may not have the same feeling LSM leading brothers have.
What would it do if a local church put on the brakes with the ministry because there's a need to care for the families, to care for the marriages, to care for the single brothers, and sisters. It's good if brothers and sisters want to get into the ministry, but if there's a problem in our soul, the ministry is not going to shepherd the soul. That requires one another. Back to this thread,

When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a “sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems. According to Dan, this was the same as encouraging people to vomit.

In case you don't know Dan Williams from the Thread of Gold is Benson Phillips. As I said earlier in this thread Benson considered it an offense to encourage and talk about problems. Souls of the saints cannot be shepherded unless problems are openly talked about.

Ohio · 06-15-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, "technically ..." it was not "elders excommunicating saints," at least with Ingalls et. al. of old, and TC et. al. recently. WL, BP and the BB's consider themselves as both "senior workers" and "deputy authorities." For WL as the most "senior worker" to quarantine John Ingalls, another worker under his direction, is a matter of the "work," which is "technically" not a church matter. Thus, many viewed the quarantine of TC as illegitimate because he was a more senior worker than any of the BB's.

Hence BP, RK and the other BB's considered themselves as WL's successors, the so-called "deputy authority" of the body of Christ. In that capacity they quarantined TC, NigelT, and DYL. Then they made the announcement, not to the "church" which TC belonged to, but to the "body," which to them meant all the loyal LC's subscribing to LSM's directives.

Instead of "telling it to the church," they called representatives of all the churches, and announced the decision to them. This was done by WL in SoCal for Ingalls, So, Mellon, and Fung, and is recorded in the "Fermentation ..." For TC, the BB's gathered all the representative leaders in Whistler. The result was the 28 booklet "attack pack," and the various websites.

Please note that I do not agree with what I posted above. I was only providing an explanation for the way things happen in the LC's. I was there so I understand how they think, but I have long departed, so I also understand how they have erred. LC concepts about "the work" are seriously flawed, and have led to much damage.

ZNPaaneah · 06-16-2011, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

An trend ZNP may have referred to is control. Brothers leading Living Stream want the churches thinking as they do. Which in turn requires brothers thinking as they do leading the churches. There is too much risk to invest decision making to the church. Any given local church may not have the same feeling LSM leading brothers have.
What would it do if a local church put on the brakes with the ministry because there's a need to care for the families, to care for the marriages, to care for the single brothers, and sisters. It's good if brothers and sisters want to get into the ministry, but if there's a problem in our soul, the ministry is not going to shepherd the soul. That requires one another.

This shorts out the feedback loop. A genuine ministry meets the needs of the saints and the church. By requiring the church to cede to the wishes of the ministry you stifle any feedback. A healthy response would be for a church to put on the brakes of the ministry because they need to care for the families. In response, the ministry would see if they could help meet this need. Success or failure would be determined by the church, rather than a dictate by the ministry that "here, this book solves your problem".

TLFisher · 06-16-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the first time I have heard that some saints in Anaheim left the church in protest, because they discovered the new Ball Road facility was not for the church, but for LSM. Talk about the "old bait and switch!"

Terry, can you say more about this?

There were other factors, but the building was the final straw. For the most part I don't care who owned the meeting hall, CIA (Church in Anaheim) or LSM. It made sense with Living Stream's headquarters being in Anaheim. You could say the Church in Anaheim is the flagship for all the local churches. Why did the meeting hall being Living Stream's rather than the Church in Anaheim make such a big deal? Put it into historical perspective. Phillip Lee was the personality running LSM and because it was him with his poor reputation, need I say more?

Thankful Jane · 06-16-2011, 10:11 PM

Dear ZNP,

Sorry for my lack of response to your last posts to me. My availability to post is very limited right now. First, let me say that I am sorry for offending you in my previous post. I was purposely short and somewhat blunt, hoping my meaning would be clear and not get lost in wordiness. I knew that in doing so, I was risking offending you, and I’m sorry that I did.

A professional communicator once told me that real communication takes place when one person says something and the other person understands the actual meaning the first person intended to convey. In my opinion that hasn’t been happening in our communications. This person also told me that the primary responsibility for clear communication rests with the one giving the communication. So, if there is failure to communicate, the giver needs to reassess the communication to discover why it failed and adjust it accordingly.

I have read one time through all your most recent responses to me. I see that on one hand we have made a little progress. (Thank you for your apology on one point.) On the other hand, I see you’ve introduced more statements that are troubling. Right now I am deciding whether I am going to bow out or pursue trying to communicate clearly with you by responding to your most recent posts to me. My schedule will be a factor in what I decide. If I am not able to find some time tomorrow, I won’t be available at all for a week or two.

The bottom line for me at this point is that I have found parts of your writing to me to be confusing and unclear. My train derails frequently as I try to follow your logic and understand your reason for, and your support for, your statements. I read something, then I say, “what?” and then I re-read it and re-read it and keep ending up back on confused street. I typically don’t have this problem with reading comprehension, so I find this to be frustrating--especially when I write one specific thing to you and explain that I am not responding to other things you wrote, and you come back with statements like “Wow, you really missed my point.” A nicer, and possibly more accurate response, would have been something like, “Wow, I see that I really didn’t communicate that well” or "I understand that you chose not to respond to my main point, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about it."

I found that some of what you wrote to me lacked foundation and seemed to be based on assumptions as if they were fact. (That’s the reason for the whole “in the loop” matter I presented to you.) Some of what you wrote came across as patronizing, and thereby offensive. (That’s probably the reason I was willing to risk offending you with my blunt response.) I am not saying you intended this, just telling you its effect on me. I also find that you may even respond to something I have written without keeping it in context. If I proceed, I will try to give you examples of things I’ve mentioned in this paragraph.

I do not enjoy difficult interactions with others and am having some regret about having engaged you at all. It would be nice if we could get through this to a good place, but that will take some work and possibly require more time than I have available. I'll have to wait and see.

Thankful Jane

bookworm · 06-17-2011, 06:21 AM

I have been attempting to follow the postings on this thread recently and feel there has been quite a bit of confusion. The title of this thread is The Thread of Gold, regarding the book written by Jane Anderson.

Post #9 by Terry quotes from this book and asks a general question, "What is the problem with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" As one who has read The Thread of Gold, I see where Terry is coming from. His question is in light of Jane Anderson getting into trouble because (as is described on pages 161-162 of the book) she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses. However, Ray Graver got upset when the discussion of opening up and getting help exposed that another elder (of all people---an all-knowing elder who is supposed always to have it altogether and have all the answers) was in need of help.

This is part of what triggered Benson Phillips' accusing Jane of being part of a "sisters' rebellion" in the Texas churches. This is what is described in The Thread of Gold.

ZNPaaneah then states in post #10, "I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down. But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.”

Such a statement is completely out of context of the prior conversations regarding "sisters' rebellion in the Texas churches." Therefore –even though ZNPaaneah uses the word "obvious" he is making an assumption regarding the LSM Ministry in Anaheim and stating because of that the elders "create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices" when in reality these teachings and practices were already in play from the inception of the so-called local churches as is clearly illustrated in The Thread of Gold.

It appears this has caused a series of misunderstandings in the discourse on this thread. It pains me to see such words as "despicable" and "insulting" as seen in post #42.

UntoHim · 06-17-2011, 07:31 AM

Thanks much to bookworm for the last post, I think that cut to the heart of the matter.

How ironic that some "problems" have taken place between some posters here, and it partially springs from discussions regarding "Jane Anderson getting into trouble because...she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses." Does anybody else see a problem with this?

I think our brother ZNP has gotten himself into a bit of a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Much of what Jane experienced should be taken into the context of what was taking place in her Local Church and region (I think this is clear in the book TOG) I think it's a mistake to try and transfer these events to what was happening in other churches, regions or the whole LC movement for that matter. This is not to say that some of the same abuses where also happening in other places (for we know they were) it's just that the book is recounting Jane's personal experience and everything should be kept in that context.

Ohio · 06-17-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Much of what Jane experienced should be taken into the context of what was taking place in her Local Church and region (I think this is clear in the book TOG) I think it's a mistake to try and transfer these events to what was happening in other churches, regions or the whole LC movement for that matter. This is not to say that some of the same abuses where also happening in other places (for we know they were) it's just that the book is recounting Jane's personal experience and everything should be kept in that context.

Yes and no.

And I should add, as an outside reader, I just don't understand the current conflict on this thread because it didn't seem to me that ZNP intentionally tried to incite trouble. But that's just me. I am one of those brothers called "foolish and slow of heart" on the long and winding road to Emmaus.

Since much has been said about so-called "sisters' rebellions" being squelched, in both Houston and Anaheim back in 1977, by leaders who were in communication with each other, it's legitimate to compare the two places. Thankful herself has connected the two events, partly due to public comments made by BP in the annual training to discredit Thankful and her book.

I do believe the "connection" has helped to explain some of the behind-the-scenes activity that appeared so confusing to us regular "common" folk back in spring of '77. Part of my education on this forum has been to have the motives and inner workings of LSM exposed for all to see. LSM has a long history of dissembling "rebellions" to cover up their abusive ways.

The events surrounding Thankful's so-called "discipline" by BP is one important piece of a larger puzzle, which was surreptitiously hidden from the saints in the Recovery, especially in Texas. The events surrounding Sandee Rapoport and her public shaming were another interconnecting piece of the puzzle. I believe after the book ToG was written, Thankful contacted SR and learned of the connection. So, if we "strictly" post according to the letter of the law on this thread, we should limit all discussion to the book; but if we expand discussion to related events, especially those which Thankful has herself connected, then ZNP's queries are legitimate, and even welcome and helpful.

Either side can feel free to correct me if they feel what I have posted it not exactly right.

bookworm · 06-17-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes and no....

I agree and believe such an expanded discussion involving such strong opinions (not just queries) would be best placed on a new thread.

Thankful Jane · 06-18-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes and no.

And I should add, as an outside reader, I just don't understand the current conflict on this thread because it didn't seem to me that ZNP intentionally tried to incite trouble. But that's just me. I am one of those brothers called "foolish and slow of heart" on the long and winding road to Emmaus.

Since much has been said about so-called "sisters' rebellions" being squelched, in both Houston and Anaheim back in 1977, by leaders who were in communication with each other, it's legitimate to compare the two places. Thankful herself has connected the two events, partly due to public comments made by BP in the annual training to discredit Thankful and her book.

I do believe the "connection" has helped to explain some of the behind-the-scenes activity that appeared so confusing to us regular "common" folk back in spring of '77. Part of my education on this forum has been to have the motives and inner workings of LSM exposed for all to see. LSM has a long history of dissembling "rebellions" to cover up their abusive ways.

The events surrounding Thankful's so-called "discipline" by BP is one important piece of a larger puzzle, which was surreptitiously hidden from the saints in the Recovery, especially in Texas. The events surrounding Sandee Rapoport and her public shaming were another interconnecting piece of the puzzle. I believe after the book ToG was written, Thankful contacted SR and learned of the connection. So, if we "strictly" post according to the letter of the law on this thread, we should limit all discussion to the book; but if we expand discussion to related events, especially those which Thankful has herself connected, then ZNP's queries are legitimate, and even welcome and helpful.

Either side can feel free to correct me if they feel what I have posted it not exactly right.

I just have a few minutes so this will be quick. I agree with what you wrote, Ohio. There is no problem discussing both Anaheim and Texas sisters' events on this thread because they are interrelated. The problem on the thread started when I tried to correct a statement by ZNP that I found to be inaccurate (you'll have to do some re-reading to see what I'm referring to.) Things went south from there mostly due to communication/writing/understanding difficulties. Overall, I am in agreement with many of the things ZNP has written; I just didn't comment on those and only took time to address what I found to be inaccurate. That's what caused the baby tarbaby.

I believe we will be able to get things cleared up later when I have some time. So everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!

Jane

NeitherFirstnorLast · 06-18-2011, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

"...everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!"

Now that, sister, is worth quoting.

I post less frequently than I used to because that's exactly what I've been doing - "forgetting the things which are behind and reaching forth to those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Phillipians 3:13.

Brothers and Sisters, praise the Lord that He saw us out of a religous system which didn't differ in reality from any other controlling pseudo-Christian guru-lead movement in the past or present. Praise Him that our chains are gone and we've been set free! Please brethren, now that you've been freed, press forward toward the mark, and forget the things which are behind.

I believe I need to say that if you feel called to witness here about what you went through, in the hopes of helping others - well, that's between you and God, and I have no right to tell you to do otherwise... But please hear me because I only want to sound a cautionary note:

If there are, and I suppose that there are, real and current members of LSM churches here, then is this really the best way to open their eyes? I have found, in speaking myself to many, that when events of the past are raised then immediately their hands go up, and they refuse to hear you. I have heard them rebut me with things like:

"We shouldn't go there. The Lord has moved on, and so should we."

or

"You've been drinking from a poisoned well. You should be very careful about where you draw your water from."

or my favorite, the emphatic:

"God could speak through an ass if He wanted to!" (apparently comparing Lee's speaking to the speaking of Balaam's donkey - as if that lends Lee any more credibility!).

My feeling, my conviction, is that if you want to help people find a real and living relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, digging into a past of which they may or may not be aware is not the way to gain them. They're on a dark path, following a blind man or a corrupt man, depending upon your point of view - and yelling to them that the path is dark and treacherous won't really help them - they're on it and they can't see a way off... they'll just keep following the leader because that's the easiest thing to do. What you need to do, what we all need to do together, is shine some light. What we need to do is call them into that light. Show them the straight and narrow way; and seeing it, they will really see.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

Ohio · 06-18-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

If there are, and I suppose that there are, real and current members of LSM churches here, then is this really the best way to open their eyes? I have found, in speaking myself to many, that when events of the past are raised then immediately their hands go up, and they refuse to hear you. I have heard them rebut me with things like:

"We shouldn't go there. The Lord has moved on, and so should we."

My feeling, my conviction, is that if you want to help people find a real and living relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, digging into a past of which they may or may not be aware is not the way to gain them.

NFNL, you are right that many loyalists are armed with trite sayings to shield their heart from the truth. They are gripped with mental strongholds which may be impenetrable. That's fine with me. There's a host of reasons for staying there, and I understand them all.

The other day watching the news I was reminded why this forum has value. Liberal CNN was informing us how few students even know Abraham Lincoln. I thought to myself, ask these high school students about alternative lifestyles, black history month, or lady gaga, and see how much they know!? Public education has all sorts of hidden agendas which do not include the history of our country. (or your country, up north)

There are some, however, who do want to know history. Some of those in the LC's want to know what really happened in the past. LSM and local leaders provide none of this information. The forum is the only source we have. Some people study early American history, some study church history, some study recent Recovery history, and some study no history at all. Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Back on topic. JCA's book ToG was especially valuable to me because it dispelled myths which brothers had instilled in me years ago. Her account of history helped to deliver me from a stronghold.

TLFisher · 06-18-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm

Post #9 by Terry quotes from this book and asks a general question, "What is the problem with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" As one who has read The Thread of Gold, I see where Terry is coming from. His question is in light of Jane Anderson getting into trouble because (as is described on pages 161-162 of the book) she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses. However, Ray Graver got upset when the discussion of opening up and getting help exposed that another elder (of all people---an all-knowing elder who is supposed always to have it altogether and have all the answers) was in need of help.

This is part of what triggered Benson Phillips' accusing Jane of being part of a "sisters' rebellion" in the Texas churches. This is what is described in The Thread of Gold.

What upset Ray? Was it because a sister helped an elder? Would he had been as upset if it had come from John? Was it because an elder didn't have it together?

This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
James 1:19-20

As for what happened to Jane, was it the result of this event or was it the result of multiple events like it?
I have more to say, but I must postpone until later.

TLFisher · 06-18-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

If there are, and I suppose that there are, real and current members of LSM churches here, then is this really the best way to open their eyes? I have found, in speaking myself to many, that when events of the past are raised then immediately their hands go up, and they refuse to hear you. I have heard them rebut me with things like:
"We shouldn't go there. The Lord has moved on, and so should we."

I see both sides; what you're saying and what Ohio is saying. My point is saints cannot have it both ways.
What about current members who have not been objected when speaking about the past by respected co-workers have taken place in trainings or in conferences?

NeitherFirstnorLast · 06-19-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are some, however, who do want to know history. Some of those in the LC's want to know what really happened in the past. LSM and local leaders provide none of this information. The forum is the only source we have. Some people study early American history, some study church history, some study recent Recovery history, and some study no history at all. Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

I know what you are saying, Ohio... and as I said, if you feel lead to this kind of exposition, then I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. I only caution that it may not be as profitable to the saints as you might hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I see both sides; what you're saying and what Ohio is saying. My point is saints cannot have it both ways.
What about current members who have not been objected when speaking about the past by respected co-workers have taken place in trainings or in conferences?

Of course you are right brother; saints can't have it both ways. Logically, if these misguided saints can come to understand that hiding history is of Satan and not of God, then they must surely see for themselves how grave is the error and how purposely they have been misled... But again, while it is not at all wrong to expose the truth; such an exposition may not accomplish the end you desire. Always remember "the truth in love".

Let me make a very rude comparison between marketing strategy and reaching the lost, if I may (and I mean no disrespect, Lord).

In the 1980's, Pepsico had an ad campaign wherein they targeted their competition directly. Rather than sing the praises of Pepsi, they 'demonized' Coca-Cola. Rather than tell people that their product was the best and demonstrate it, they used a kind of 'mud-slinging' technique to insinuate that Coca-Cola was for the uncool and the aged ('Pepsi: the Choice of a New Generation'.) Pepsi only advertized their product alongside their competitors, and always showed theirs as the right choice to make (remember the 'Pepsi Challenge', or even the recent commercial with the two truck drivers?).

Coca-Cola, in this same time period, invested heavily in marketing through sing-song lyrics ("I'd like to buy the World a Coke", etc.). Coca-cola focused their marketing efforts on brand-name recognition and having people associate their product with good times and world peace. Coca-Cola never once mentioned Pepsi's name or showed their colors.

You can certainly argue that both strategies are successful. Both Pepsi and Coca-Cola are still here today, battling it out for market dominance. On a personal level, when I watched Pepsi ad campaigns as a child, I was honestly disgusted with their tactics. It turned me off their product completely, and I refused to even consider drinking a Pepsi.

Reaching the lost, and that's really what those stuck under Anaheim's thumb really are, shouldn't be about pointing out the gross violations and the dirty schemes. What does that serve to do? You might get those people to see the truth, and you might get them off that dark path - but what alternative have you shown them? Those of us who 'meet' here don't 'meet' physically. We are collection of Saints, but we don't have anything more than a 'virtual' place to meet - we can't give them the support that they need or the guidance that they will require if we do convince them to leave. How have people like 11 of 101 been helped? How many people are there like that out there; people who have now seen that everything that they held dear, everything they believed, was a lie... and now fear that Christ was the liar too.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

TLFisher · 06-19-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

As for what happened to Jane, was it the result of this event or was it the result of multiple events like it?
I have more to say, but I must postpone until later.

May not be the case, but take it into consideration. Marriage is difficult enough. In marriage two individuals becoming a couple. It's difficult enough adapting from being an individual to one half of a couple. Probably happened on a larger scale in the local churches during the 1970's compared to the last 20 years, that is third party involvment of match-making or match-breaking. Before I proceed further, it would help if more seasoned brothers and sisters (Ohio, UntoHim, Bookworm, etc) could confirm or deny my assertion.

During the 1970's there were couples paired up not according to their preferences, but according to preferences of leading brothers and leading sisters. How strong were these marriages going to be? They could very well be soulmates or they could be two individuals in a marriage who had very little in common. When you have very little in your soul bonding the marriage, for some couples it could had been just the local church enviornment keeping the marriage intact. For some couples the sister could very well be 100% committed to the marriage, but for the brother the marriage took a backseat to the ministry. This could be some of the issues married couples endured. For example the wife could get into an argument with her husband basically saying she wants the humanity of her husband and not an overly spiritual brother. Her husband doesn't take her words to heart and they leave for the meeting with the problem unresolved. When they arrive at the meeting, it's as the on/off switch is turned on. Everything is grand and he doesn't have a problem, praising and giving God the glory. However the wife sits quietly, doesn't make an issue, but inside she isn't fooled by his charade. I'm not saying this did happen, only asserting it could have happened.

This could be problems referenced in The Thread of Gold pages 161-162. Sisters speaking about expecting more from their husband, offended brothers such as Benson and Ray. This in addition to Ray witnessing a co-elder breakdown in front of him. I believe most of us would have been moved with compassion had we witnessed such an event. Certainly not a matter to be offended about.
Ironically what happened in that couples apartment on that night in 1977 (?) would not be condemned in anything I have experienced. It is an example of an elder being shepherded by non-elders. It is needed for a home meeting to become vital.
My point is if this is what Jane was condemned for and Benson bringing it back up during the 2005 Winter training, had the local church saints really known what Jane was disciplined for, their reaction might be exasperation.

bookworm · 06-22-2011, 08:54 AM

When Jane and the elder's wife in Houston in the late 1970s started to speak about helping one another through difficult times evidently this was perceived as a threat to the "real purpose" of the LC—especially when it brought to light a needy elder.

A result of the Local Church becoming so very exclusive (special, THE building of THE Church), was the refusal of the leaders being open to anything of "poor Christianity" including Biblical marriage counseling.

My own experience was that after many years of marriage when I went to an elder and his wife for help at a very difficult time in my marriage the advice I was given was to forgive my husband (who was not attending the meetings at the time) and do what I could to get him back into the meetings. When I specifically asked about counseling for us, I was told that the answer was "getting back into the meetings." This was in the early 1980s in Texas. So by that time the mindset for sure was the only answer is the LC and the meetings. Obviously the Local Church had no "marriage counseling service group" or such. There was no provision for giving guidance (even scripturally based) to couples through difficult times.

Clearly the Local Church had only one focus: God's eternal purpose for building the Church. The mindset was very strong that we were to "get out of our minds and turn to our spirits" and be in the meetings and all would be taken care of; the army had to set the mind on the spirit and carry on. There was no consideration of God's purpose and design for marriage despite all the talk in the LC about Christ and the Church as His bridegroom.

This form of "brainwashing" does nothing to promote love for one another in the body of Christ and it does nothing to encourage a married man and woman to love and value each other and love and value the children they are blessed with.

Ohio · 06-22-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm

This form of "brainwashing" does nothing to promote love for one another in the body of Christ and it does nothing to encourage a married man and woman to love and value each other and love and value the children they are blessed with.

There have been times over the years when well-meaning brothers in the elders trainings have publicly asked for help with certain struggling saints. The answer always defaulted to the meetings and the ministry. I also believe that LC leaders would rather have their "problem-cases" disappear from the scenes, since they expose to all just how failed their programs really have become. Nothing worse than having your audience haunted by those "broken promises" staring them in the face every meeting.

Didn't Thankful witness a sister, whom she loved, crying in the back of the meeting hall, knowing that she could not embrace Thankful, who was being "disciplined?" That's not the kind of situation you want to continue. "Houston, we have a problem!" I'm sure more than a few brothers were happy to see that family move to OK, OK.

TLFisher · 06-22-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

There have been times over the years when well-meaning brothers in the elders trainings have publicly asked for help with certain struggling saints. The answer always defaulted to the meetings and the ministry. I also believe that LC leaders would rather have their "problem-cases" disappear from the scenes, since they expose to all just how failed their programs really have become. Nothing worse than having your audience haunted by those "broken promises" staring them in the face every meeting.

If he would, PriestlyScribe might have something to share, some light to share based on experiences in his locality.

TLFisher · 06-22-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm

When Jane and the elder's wife in Houston in the late 1970s started to speak about helping one another through difficult times evidently this was perceived as a threat to the "real purpose" of the LC—especially when it brought to light a needy elder.

My own experience was that after many years of marriage when I went to an elder and his wife for help at a very difficult time in my marriage the advice I was given was to forgive my husband (who was not attending the meetings at the time) and do what I could to get him back into the meetings. When I specifically asked about counseling for us, I was told that the answer was "getting back into the meetings." This was in the early 1980s in Texas. So by that time the mindset for sure was the only answer is the LC and the meetings. Obviously the Local Church had no "marriage counseling service group" or such. There was no provision for giving guidance (even scripturally based) to couples through difficult times.

The threat to the real purpose is putting the individual before the collective (brother Lee's ministry). To do so is to shift gears from focusing on the ministry and the work, to praying for and shepherding a fellows member of the Body.

Ironically after all that's been said about marriages and dealing with marital conflict, verbally the brothers point to going to the meetings. How about these same brothers? When their marriages are in conflict or even experienced divorce, will they heed the same mantra of going to the meetings and the meetings will take care of their marriage? They know just as you've pointed out, the ministry doesn't touch the marriage. Which is why brothers with troubled marriages may need to reach out to other publications or even consider professional marriage counseling.

PriestlyScribe · 06-22-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

...Ironically after all that's been said about marriages and dealing with marital conflict, verbally the brothers point to going to the meetings.

Terry, on top of the natural fallen tendency in men [a man, I am one, so I know] to be clueless about the condition of his own marriage, there is that self centered male knee-jerk reaction to flee confrontation from the wife. What better environment for a clueless husband to find himself in than a church culture which places way more emphasis on corporate meeting performance/attendance than on the creation of truly radiant wives? 13A. Godly Men Have Radiant Wives Much easier to duck and cover, then run off to a church meeting in which to further God's Economy - than face the music and through consistent loving servant leadership, let God show us how to solve problems at the foundation level of the church - the home life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

How about these same brothers? When their marriages are in conflict or even experienced divorce, will they heed the same mantra of going to the meetings and the meetings will take care of their marriage? They know just as you've pointed out, the ministry doesn't touch the marriage. Which is why brothers with troubled marriages may need to reach out to other publications or even consider professional marriage counseling.

Actually Terry, the ministry of Witness Lee did touch the importance of marriage life - here is but one example:

MARRIED LIFE, FAMILY LIFE, AND THE CHURCH LIFE
"First we need to build up the proper married life and family life, and then we shall be able to build up the church life. If a brother does not know how to build up a pleasant married life at home and an excellent family life with his children, it will be very difficult for him to share in building up the church. When he comes together with others for the church service, he may exercise politeness. However, he may not be polite to his wife or children. We may be polite to the brothers and sisters in the church, but be very impolite to our husband or wife or to our children."
"Our home life is where we are exposed the most. Do not think that simply because a certain brother is nice, kind, and polite with the saints in the church he is necessarily that way at home. If you want to know him, you need to see how he lives with his wife and children. Oh, how much we need forbearance in our married life and family life that we may build up the proper church life!"
Witness Lee - Life-study of Philippians, Chapter 59, Section 3, LSM

But Terry, sorry to say, few men had an ear to hear that, neither was it easy to find good examples of how to be married according to the teaching of the Bible - and especially so, as you pointed out, among the LC's leadership ranks.

To show by contrast how muddied the waters became under the Blended's Administration, here is Chuck Debelak's crystal clear teaching on proper family priorities in the church life - there are four audio links there:
The Truth about Parenting 02 03 04

P.S.

TLFisher · 06-23-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Terry, on top of the natural fallen tendency in men [a man, I am one, so I know] to be clueless about the condition of his own marriage, there is that self centered male knee-jerk reaction to flee confrontation from the wife. What better environment for a clueless husband to find himself in than a church culture which places way more emphasis on corporate meeting performance/attendance than on the creation of truly radiant wives?

PriestlyScribe, just as we discussed on the phone yesterday, brothers are caught in a tug of war where no one will be completely satisfied.
If a brother goes to the bi-annual training an leaves his wife and children at home, his wife will think and maybe say to her husband he loves the ministry more than the family.
If a brother chooses to stay home and take care of his family instead of attending bi-annual trainings, the brother may be viewed as not absolute for the ministry and maybe his own standing in the local assembly being examined.
This is how I perceived John from reading the Thread of Gold and through his posts on this thread. Here's a brother who could have been brought into fellowship as a responsible brother, but family was John's priority.

bookworm · 06-24-2011, 07:35 AM

I listened to parts of these four audio tapes PriestlyScribe posted on his post # 74 and note these statements (in blue):

Your children are to have a unique, personal relationship with God. A voice they have to recognize. Help them know the voice of the Lord at the Lord's time.

When it comes to the Lord's perfecting in my life, there are little things but that is the focus of the entire Christian life, God perfecting us by the Holy Spirit inside of us. When we live that way we are very broad to let other people live that way. This is not according to some high peak, but Christ living inside of us. You can live a passive church life but you cannot live a passive Christian life because every day the Lord is speaking inside of you. We need to raise our children this way.

Someone asked him (Chuck D.) for direction as to what to do, and he pointed that person to the Lord, to seek the Lord. Go back to the Lord again and again. He said that when you shepherd your children do the same. Give them the same latitude. If the Lord is leading you not to go to the meeting, ask Him again. The same God who led you to know life and to hear His voice is the same God who can lead them. Now you can be gentle and shepherd your children. You have to be gentle and kind and patient. This is a big job and the Lord has to train us for such. We should allow ourselves to be perfected.

Pray that your children would be drawn to the Lord powerfully. Whether they are in the church or not in the church, I really don't care, but they must give their whole life to you. You are the meaning of life. Without you our life means nothing. We are not here to be in the church, for some cause; if we are here we are here because the living God told us to be here. I am not here to be in the church; I am here because the living God told me to be here. We want them to have a deep conviction to follow the Lord.

I wonder when it was Chuck D. spoke these words and whether he would be heard if he were to appeal to the Local Church leadership in this way regarding their shepherding the sheep…

What gentleness and kindness and patience was shown to the weeping elder who was touched (p. 162 of The Thread of Gold) and showed a moment of need and weakness? What gentleness and kindness and patience was shown to Jane and other sisters as they were seeking the Lord and desiring to hear His voice?

TLFisher · 06-24-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm

I listened to parts of these four audio tapes PriestlyScribe posted on his post # 74 and note these statements (in blue):

Your children are to have a unique, personal relationship with God. A voice they have to recognize. Help them know the voice of the Lord at the Lord's time.

Pray that your children would be drawn to the Lord powerfully. Whether they are in the church or not in the church, I really don't care, but they must give their whole life to you. You are the meaning of life. Without you our life means nothing. We are not here to be in the church, for some cause; if we are here we are here because the living God told us to be here. I am not here to be in the church; I am here because the living God told me to be here. We want them to have a deep conviction to follow the Lord.

If I'm not mistaken, Chuck is saying seeking and following the Lord should the focus in our Christian life. For parents who raised their children in the local church and for children who were raised in the local church, what if seeking and following the Lord isn't going to happen in the local church? If they don't have the leading within, they don't. The key is continuing an organic relationship through the Holy Spirit. Not just a vertical relationship with God, but a horizontal relationship with brothers and sisters with whom you meet.

Suannehill · 06-25-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

If I'm not mistaken, Chuck is saying seeking and following the Lord should the focus in our Christian life. For parents who raised their children in the local church and for children who were raised in the local church, what if seeking and following the Lord isn't going to happen in the local church? If they don't have the leading within, they don't. The key is continuing an organic relationship through the Holy Spirit. Not just a vertical relationship with God, but a horizontal relationship with brothers and sisters with whom you meet.

Not only is this a good speaking...but this brother actually lived it!

Thankful Jane · 07-01-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear ZNP,

Sorry for my lack of response to your last posts to me. My availability to post is very limited right now. First, let me say that I am sorry for offending you in my previous post. I was purposely short and somewhat blunt, hoping my meaning would be clear and not get lost in wordiness. I knew that in doing so, I was risking offending you, and I’m sorry that I did.

A professional communicator once told me that real communication takes place when one person says something and the other person understands the actual meaning the first person intended to convey. In my opinion that hasn’t been happening in our communications. This person also told me that the primary responsibility for clear communication rests with the one giving the communication. So, if there is failure to communicate, the giver needs to reassess the communication to discover why it failed and adjust it accordingly.

I have read one time through all your most recent responses to me. I see that on one hand we have made a little progress. (Thank you for your apology on one point.) On the other hand, I see you’ve introduced more statements that are troubling. Right now I am deciding whether I am going to bow out or pursue trying to communicate clearly with you by responding to your most recent posts to me. My schedule will be a factor in what I decide. If I am not able to find some time tomorrow, I won’t be available at all for a week or two.

The bottom line for me at this point is that I have found parts of your writing to me to be confusing and unclear. My train derails frequently as I try to follow your logic and understand your reason for, and your support for, your statements. I read something, then I say, “what?” and then I re-read it and re-read it and keep ending up back on confused street. I typically don’t have this problem with reading comprehension, so I find this to be frustrating--especially when I write one specific thing to you and explain that I am not responding to other things you wrote, and you come back with statements like “Wow, you really missed my point.” A nicer, and possibly more accurate response, would have been something like, “Wow, I see that I really didn’t communicate that well” or "I understand that you chose not to respond to my main point, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about it."

I found that some of what you wrote to me lacked foundation and seemed to be based on assumptions as if they were fact. (That’s the reason for the whole “in the loop” matter I presented to you.) Some of what you wrote came across as patronizing, and thereby offensive. (That’s probably the reason I was willing to risk offending you with my blunt response.) I am not saying you intended this, just telling you its effect on me. I also find that you may even respond to something I have written without keeping it in context. If I proceed, I will try to give you examples of things I’ve mentioned in this paragraph.

I do not enjoy difficult interactions with others and am having some regret about having engaged you at all. It would be nice if we could get through this to a good place, but that will take some work and possibly require more time than I have available. I'll have to wait and see.

Thankful Jane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I believe we will be able to get things cleared up later when I have some time. So everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!

Jane

Dear ZNP,

I am back from my trip and have re-read all of your last posts to me and decided I should try to wrap up our recent communication difficulty. I think I will make a go at this by responding to one or maybe two of your posts and then moving to others if we make headway with those. If I see that we are getting more entangled, I plan to stop.

Before I do so, let me be clear that I have no controversy with you concerning many of the things you wrote about the unrighteousness in the LC leadership and about the unbiblical hyper control exercised by the elders and submitted to by the members. I find that we are pretty much in agreement on these matters.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-01-2011, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was poorly worded, sorry. I recall a story where BP visited you in OK and that is what I was referring to, clearly that story is past tense and should not in any way imply how you currently feel. I understood that when I wrote "after all these years" but the poor wording does seem to imply that I am referring to the present tense, not the distant past. Sorry.

However, that story does match my own experience. I have had experiences, like the one I referred to at the brokerage firm, where I thought this is a big misunderstanding. Only years later when the crooks were all exposed did I realize it was not a misunderstanding.

Apology accepted. Thanks for it and the explanation.

Thankful Jane · 07-01-2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please clarify with a lot of examples.

The way you write often sounds like you are responding things that have not been said or established, as if they had been (assumptions). Here are some examples, some of which I think I have already written about, but since you asked me to give a lot of examples, they follow:

1. ZNP in post #25: “…you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior. My point was if that does not work, try something new…”

Here you assumed I was trying to figure something out. You assumed I had what you called the “mindset of a ‘dove.’” You assumed that I was trying to justify this behavior (behavior you had assumed that I had).

2. ZNP (#25): “My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand.”

Here you assumed that I was trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings, when I had not done this.

3. ZNP (#25): Wow you really missed my point!

You assumed I had missed your point and proceeded to write as if I had. The fact was that I had told you, “At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ).” I further explained this to you in the next post I wrote when I said, “You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained.”

4. ZNP (#25): So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were?

You assumed that I was going to tell you (or that I had already told you?) how I was a submissive sister. Based on your assumption you asked me to explain why I was. I had not said anything about my being a submissive sister. I told you some facts of what happened in Anaheim and Houston, but I did not make any claim about what kind of a sister I was. You assumed I would claim that I was rightly submissive based on the facts I described, but you don’t know what I would claim about this.

The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers.

Your question about how the elders short circuited my submission to my husband contains an assumption that I did not submit to my husband.

5. ZNP (#25) : I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent").

You assumed I was “thinking like a dove” and told me to stop. You don’t know how I was thinking.

6. ZNP (#25): The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent.

You assume this is the only reasonable explanation. This may be a reasonable explanation, but it is not the only one.

7. ZNP (#25): Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove.

You assume that Sandee was flabbergasted because she was thinking with “the mindset of a dove.” What is your source of information for knowing how she was thinking (other than what I told you, which by the way, was very limited).

8. ZNP (#25): This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate.

9. ZNP (#29) I was saying that for BP and others to accuse the sisters of "talking behind the back" or "outside of the headship" was a preemptive accusation. They figured that when Max was excommunicated people would talk. Therefore they wanted to take a shot at this preemptively, before Max was excommunicated, kind of like putting down poison.

Your statement that the brothers made a "preemptive accusation" against me is based on an assumption that the brothers knew Max was going to be “excommunicated” a year into the future. You have presented no evidence that the Houston brothers knew over a year ahead of time what was going to happen with Max and Sandee. (The accusation about me was made in '77. Sandee and Max left in late 1978.)

10. ZNP (#28): She argued that she and other sisters were submissive to the elders in the context of this "in the loop".

You assume that I was arguing that the sisters were submissive to the elders. If you read carefully again, you will see that my argument was not that they were submissive, but that sisters were communicating with the elders (in a communication loop). I stated at the end of my post that Sandee and the sisters would have done whatever Lee told them to do, but I added this in order to emphasize how horrible Lee's action against them was, not to support some kind of argument that the sisters were "submissive" to the elders.

I will cut you slack on this one, because I can see how you could deduce from what I wrote that the sisters were submissive; however, in your statement, "she argued that she and the other sisters were submissive to the elders ..." you misrepresented what I wrote and used that misrepresentation in your argument in post #28.

Please know that I am not trying to make a new issue over all the above things; rather, I am responding to your request for me to give you a lot of examples of your assumptions.

Of course, we all make assumptions, and often do so without realizing it. In our quest to learn to communicate well, my husband and I have been tackling each others' assumptions for 44 years. That's how we've become such good friends . So, please take my calling out the fact that you were making a lot of assumptions as something necessary in order to effect good communication.

Thankful Jane

TLFisher · 07-04-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

To show by contrast how muddied the waters became under the Blended's Administration, here is Chuck Debelak's crystal clear teaching on proper family priorities in the church life - there are four audio links there:
The Truth about Parenting 02 03 04

P.S.

PriestlyScribe, these links have proven to be useful. In our home meeting on Saturday night, the topic of what the Bible has to say about families was brought up. The "man of death" brought up these messages by Chuck Debelak. May these messages provide help to the inquiring sister and her family in our home meeting.

TLFisher · 12-04-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

They didn't use the word "payback" but they said the change toward them was definitely related to Max confronting Phillip (and Lee) about Phillip's sins. Sandee said that at first she could not understand why "Witness" did not just speak privately to her and ask that she and the other sisters stop sitting together in the meetings. She was around him constantly, as she often helped the Lee's with family matters, errands, trips to the doctor, etc., so it would have been an easy thing for him to do. (They had considered Witness Lee to be a true friend. He and Max were constantly together until the Phillip matter became an issue. Sandee also had played a big role in helping with Susannah's wedding/marriage preparations, if I remember correctly.)

At first Sandee could not understand why Lee spoke to her and the other two sisters in public about his "concern" about how they sat together. Then after a little time, it became clear what was afoot. They realized that Lee was taking steps to discredit them. They said that Lee had to move carefully in doing this because they were very close to the brothers and sisters in Anaheim, many of whom they had been personally involved with, helping them with problems, etc. They said Lee was not involved with the brothers and sisters there practically other than by standing at the podium and teaching them. Because of this, he had to gradually undermine the Rapaports or such actions could have blown up in his face.

The reason I am writing that "they" told me these things is because Matt and I had two long talks in person with both Max and Sandee in January 2006, not long after I talked to her on the phone for the first time.

Thankful Jane

Should you know, what was the timeline of Max confronting Phillip vs Witness Lee calling out "The holy sisters"? As I have believed, Max was not present that weekend.
I agree with Ohio, it does seem like payback. Something more I think it is far easier for brothers to humiliate sisters as they did that weekend. Sisters by nature are submissive. Brother's by nature aren't going to take the abuse you were subjected to.

Thankful Jane · 12-05-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Should you know, what was the timeline of Max confronting Phillip vs Witness Lee calling out "The holy sisters"? As I have believed, Max was not present that weekend.

Sorry for being slow to answer, Terry.

Here are some facts I need to give you before I can answer your question:

1. Witness Lee never called out the “holy sisters.” In fact, Sandee R. and Ann Malir (another one of the three sisters) told me independently of each other that Lee never called them “holy sisters,” not even once. Sandee said that the person who always referred to them mockingly as “the three holy sisters” was Phillip Lee. So, when you hear this term, understand that it’s source was Phillip Lee, not Witness Lee.

2. I first heard this term in Houston in 1978 when either Benson Phillips or Ray Graver told us about Max and Sandee leaving the church. We were told that Witness Lee called out the “three holy sisters” in a meeting and had stopped the “sisters’ rebellion.” In retrospect, it is easy to determine the source of their information by the fact that they used the term “three holy sisters.” I suspect that Phillip was happy that his father had said something to these sisters in a meeting and passed this information on to the Texas brothers by saying something like Witness Lee had called out the three holy sisters in a meeting. From then to now that is how the Texas brothers have repeated this account.

3. Benson used this term and repeated the same story in December 2005, after my book came out, and if I remember correctly, he said Lee had called out the three holy sisters asking them to stand up in a meeting.

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.

5. In 2006, when I asked Sandee about “the three holy sisters” event, she was surprised. She had no idea what I was talking about. All she could come up with was what I described in point 4. She found it interesting to learn that this "holy sister" story had been circulated and had come up again in a meeting as late as 2005.

Thankful Jane

Ohio · 12-05-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe.

I can confirm that.

TLFisher · 12-05-2011, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sorry for being slow to answer, Terry.

Here are some facts I need to give you before I can answer your question:

1. Witness Lee never called out the “holy sisters.” In fact, Sandee R. and Ann Malir (another one of the three sisters) told me independently of each other that Lee never called them “holy sisters,” not even once. Sandee said that the person who always referred to them mockingly as “the three holy sisters” was Phillip Lee. So, when you hear this term, understand that it’s source was Phillip Lee, not Witness Lee.

2. I first heard this term in Houston in 1978 when either Benson Phillips or Ray Graver told us about Max and Sandee leaving the church. We were told that Witness Lee called out the “three holy sisters” in a meeting and had stopped the “sisters’ rebellion.” In retrospect, it is easy to determine the source of their information by the fact that they used the term “three holy sisters.” I suspect that Phillip was happy that his father had said something to these sisters in a meeting and passed this information on to the Texas brothers by saying something like Witness Lee had called out the three holy sisters in a meeting. From then to now that is how the Texas brothers have repeated this account.

3. Benson used this term and repeated the same story in December 2005, after my book came out, and if I remember correctly, he said Lee had called out the three holy sisters asking them to stand up in a meeting.

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.

5. In 2006, when I asked Sandee about “the three holy sisters” event, she was surprised. She had no idea what I was talking about. All she could come up with was what I described in point 4. She found it interesting to learn that this "holy sister" story had been circulated and had come up again in a meeting as late as 2005.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

OBW · 12-06-2011, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

I would agree. But I also would agree with Sandee that it seems a little much to make the first comment on the subject in a public meeting.

Unless the thrust of the meeting was about the tendency of people to flock to their regular subgroup, or clique, in contrast to a message concerning shepherding, or mutual respect, or some such thing. But in that case, you generally wouldn't call out three among many, even in a small way. You would be pointing to the tendency of the people as a whole. Sort of like Paul did in the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians.

If it were truly individual, then even if it was not something that Lee had against them in a Matt 18 kind of way, he should first speak to them alone. So for such a "man of God" to act in this kind of manner suggests a problem with the claim to be such a "man of God."

OBW · 12-06-2011, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can confirm that.

Ohio,

This may not be the thread to do it, but over the years there has been some mention of the Chicago conference that weekend. I know Hope talked a little about being there, but not much details, more impressions. You have probably mentioned some too.

I have gotten a general sense that something was not right. That it was too chaotic. Maybe sort of overrun by dissing of older brothers (maybe thinking more of the Berkley conference — not sure).

Is it something that can be sort of spelled out, or is it somewhat intangible? What actually happened?

Ohio · 12-06-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Is it something that can be sort of spelled out, or is it somewhat intangible? What actually happened?

From a young man's point of view, it was great fun. Like a high school pep rally before the big game. Max had somehow unleashed a kind of euphoria, building upon months of anti-religious fervor, so that there were nearly no boundaries remaining. At one point, brothers used the table, which held the bread and wine, and jumped off into the arms of catchers. After a few jumpers, that table splintered into pieces. TC himself was carried on one brother's shoulders around the front. We sang songs about being rip, roaring drunk in the Spirit. Personally I was a "reserved" observer (but still standing on my chair yelling and clapping) several rows back, but if someone had started streaking around the room, they would not have been out of place.

This happened all weekend long. Then we were all told to come back the following weekend to receive our instructions. Things were a little different by then. Max never made it the second weekend.

Several years ago the forum discussed the events surrounding those weekends. Being so young at the time, I was quite naive to the behind-the-scene dynamics of the leaders. WL used Max to travel around stirring up the pot. Max brought with him a cadre of supporters into Chicago. Max fueled fleshly zeal by using anti-religious sentiments in order to capture the control of young people, undermining their respect to local leaders. Local elders and workers were all blamed for the churches being "stinking religious." The ministry plan was to have all the young people relocate to ministry centers, or to campuses. This had happened in other places around the country.

TC really did preserve the condition of LC's in the GLA. Only he was "man enough" to stand up to Max and company. The elders close to TC refused to resign their position in shameful disgrace, as many had done already. In the aftermath, there was some heated dissension in greater Cleveland by some who felt the church was not faithful to "WL's burden."

After witnessing how WL thru Max had actively tried to destroy LC's, discredited elders, unleashed fleshly zeal, and damaged the faith of so many precious saints, it's hard for me to understand why GLA leaders, mainly TC, did not cut all ties with WL and LSM back then. Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

Thankful Jane · 12-06-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

In this case, I do not believe Lee's action was innocent. In 2006, Sandee told me that there was a background situation simmering in the church in Anaheim at that time with a few older sisters. Lee's comment threw fuel on that situaton and turned it into a fire.

According to Sandee, over a period of a few years the three sisters (Sandee, Ann, Harriet), under Lee's supervision, had been getting with Anaheim sisters one at a time to talk with them and help them personally with any problems they might be having. (Sandee said the brothers and sisters in Anaheim had come to Anaheim from all over the place and many had problems.) The three sisters were working their way through all the sisters, with the goal of spending time with all of them personally. There was no particular order at play. Midstream in this process, a few other older sisters complained about these three sisters saying they were exclusive or something like that. Sandee said she felt there was some jealousy at play. She said Lee knew about this situation.

When Lee made his comment, the simmering sisters became bolder in their complaint. They were joined by some others with whom the three had not met yet. This began an out-in-the-open split among the sisters in the church, one which grew from that time forward. I can't say more than that because it is a general memory. I've done the best I can to capture it. It might not be exactly what Sandee told me, but it is close.

As for the timeline and more details about that period, for anyone who is interested, I suggest looking at this thread on the Bereans:

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?p=152101#post152101

As for the actual meeting where Lee made his comment, the following post contains more detailed information about what Sandee told me about that meeting. The information in this post was written shortly after I talked to Sandee.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=152101&postcount=3

Thankful Jane

TLFisher · 12-06-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In this case, I do not believe Lee's action was innocent. In 2006, Sandee told me that there was a background situation simmering in the church in Anaheim at that time with a few older sisters. Lee's comment threw fuel on that situaton and turned it into a fire.

I believe that is likely. Based on reports Witness Lee did not want anything made an issue. Is it at possible the sisters in question had gone to Witness Lee previously and at the time he choose to disregard their concerns? Comes back to the Max/Phillip confrontation. It wasn't until after Max confronted Phillip, were the sisters concerns considered?
Ironically I lived in Anaheim during this time period until mid-79. I am curious whether my mom and the sisters she were close to had any fellowship with Sandee, Ann, or Harriet?

Paul Cox · 12-06-2011, 04:52 PM

The real problem in all these incidents isn't what happened on this side, or that side. It always seems to boil down to that because of the way things are handled. The real question is whether or not Witness Lee had the heart of a shepherd, and whether or not he passed on that caring heart attitude to those in leadership under him. Or, did he just have the heart to protect his ministry and the organization that sprang out of it, and is maintained by it.

If WL and company had a real heart of shepherding and caring, most of these things would never have even been heard about. What he termed "rebellions" would have come and gone, without even any need to bring it up to the saints. This would have happened, had he applied the same thing that he always tried to pound into us - endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.

Rather, because of his paranoia about losing control, he blew everything up into a massive "rebellion," forcing people to take sides. This was his way of weeding out those who couldn't just be his yes men; those he considered to be troublemakers.

The Local Church is fast becoming "pure." Very soon there will be no one left willing to ask questions, and think hard about what they are being told to do. They are on the verge of becoming a full blown Laodicea.

P.C.

12-09-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

Witness Lee understood the benefit of delegating the "dirty work" to others. He could sit back and watch and if things didn't turn out as planned he would have a fall guy.

If you set aside the highfalutin spiritual terminology of Lee's work and go beneath the surface to see how it actually operated you will discover how fleshly and base it really was: petty jealousies among workers, territorial disputes, immoral behavior, financial shenanigans, shabby mistreatment, Machiavellian political machinations, etc.

OBW · 12-09-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

I note that someone else commented on this portion and it reminded me of a thought on the subject that came to me while I was on a business trip to that land of Toronto.

I saw something in a comment back to or concerning Jane and a name that I did not really know reminded me of that little back and forth a couple of years ago concerning her report about some political squabbling that went on between the TX/OK region and the GLA over some other place sort of in between (IA or MO, maybe??). Anyway, I realized that in that particular case, no matter how strongly the guy Jane had reported from denied everything (once the LSM got hold of him), it appears that BP was basically trying to extend his realm of control at the same time that TC was doing the same thing.

So, it may not be as simple as "the underlings are going crazy and I'm not to blame," there is evidence that they were going crazy.

And it could be that this was one of those things that Lee was never going to get directly involved in anyway because he seemed to be less likely to say or do anything negative concerning another Chinese person. He left that to the arrogant Americans.

But those pesky Americans were always good scapegoats.

Nell · 09-22-2016, 05:50 PM

There is a condensed version of The Thread of Gold available on Amazon, 39 pages. The name of it is:

Deceived: A Warning to Campus Christians

https://www.amazon.com/registry/wish...bmit.promote=1
http://www.thethreadofgold.com

Nell

06-05-2011, 05:15 PM	#7
Suannehill Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North of Mansfield Ohio Posts: 165	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson My husband often quotes to me..."You can't cheat an honest man!" Strange saying until he explains... An honest man will never give in to the temptation to make money in a shady fashion. An honest man will pass on any deals that don't appear on the up and up. __________________ http://godswordtowomen.org/Lesson%201.htm

06-12-2011, 12:22 PM	#19
11of101 Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: marooned Posts: 55	Re: serpents and doves be wise as serpents harmless as doves...gives serpents a predatory advantage over doves. Was WL a con-man by choice or necessity?

06-14-2011, 11:49 AM	#30
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Trying to straighten out a mess Blue was written first, by Jane. Black was written in response by ZNP. Red is my current answer to ZNP’s black. Jane post #20: Okay, ZNP. I've read your response several times and though it is very interesting, it doesn't answer my specific questions. Your explanation seems to have moved away from what Terry asked ("What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?") and even away from your response to Terry's question ("I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious..."). You then switched horses from sisters talking about their own problems to sisters talking about their problems with PL. (I also asked for your source of information about sisters having problems with PL that they might talk about.) ZNP post #25: I did not move away from those questions. Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions or Terry’s in a straightforward manner as one should do out of respect for another. Terry asked “what is the issue with encouraging *ones* to talk about their problems?” In your answer you changed “ones” to “sisters” and then proceeded to talk about sisters, Phillip Lee, elders, Daystar, etc. What’s with that? Since this thread is about The Thread of Gold, it was my understanding that Terry’s question was related to what happened in Houston regarding people opening up about their personal problems. I understood him to be asking what was wrong with encouraging that. (If I misunderstood, then Terry can say so.) It seems you just wanted to spring board to something else you wanted to say about sisters and your big picture assessment of things. ZNP post #25: My point was simple, you are trying to figure this out thinking with the mindset of a “dove” (a born again Christian), as a result you are mangling NT verses to attempt to justify this behavior. My post was not about figuring out anything or justifying any kind of behavior. My post contained some facts of which you seem to be unaware. It was a response to a false premise you set forth that sisters were outside of the communication loop with the elders. I offered evidence to the contrary. That was the extent of my post. By the way, what NT verses did I “mangle?” ZNP post #25: My point was if that does not work, try something new, instead think like a serpent, consider the mindset of a serpent. The Lord told us to do this (be wise as serpents). The NT tells us we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices. If you do this there is a simple explanation for the LRC pushing eroneous teachings. It was merely a case of damage control by those with the mindset of a serpent. Excuse me? You write as if I am trying to figure out the behavior of elders and Lee in my post. I did nothing of the kind. You were the one that talked about them, and I did not respond to that part of your post. My response was restricted to one thing-sisters being in communication with the elders--as I explained. Jane post #20: At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying ). Just so we're clear, I am now riding along side your horse, and this response does not concern Terry's question (about sisters talking about their own problems.) ZNP post #25: Then you are not riding alongside my horse, because my response did concern his question. My point was you are trying to understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings. Take a step back, look where they originated from and you can dismiss them altogether out of hand. Where exactly in my post was I trying to “understand, explain, justify, etc. these false teachings”? Jane post #20: First of all, I don't agree with your portrait of sisters in general as being in some kind of situation outside of the loop of control of the elders. You said, "it is very common for sisters to fellowship with one another. This cuts the elders out of the loop and prevents problems from being funneled through the elders to WL...." For one thing, this implies that brothers don't ever fellowship with one another without the elders being in the loop, something which clearly isn't so. For another, your premise is just too broad for me and I don't find it to be true. ZNP post #25: Wow! You really missed my point. First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? What is the scriptural basis to say that a church should be under the control of the elders? The NT says that it is the Church of God, it is the Church of Christ and it is the Church of the saints. Never does it say it is the Church of the Elders. So, before you tell me how you were a submissive sister, explain to me why you were? The order of submission is to your husband under the condition that he in turn is submitting to the Lord Jesus. How did the “elders” short circuit that? This reminds me of the Book of Galatians where Paul marvels that the Galatians are so willing to submit themselves to the judaizers. No need to “wow.” Just read my post again more slowly. I did not respond at all to any part of your post except for what you said about sisters. I told you this plainly when I said, “At this point, I think the simplest thing for me to do is just respond to what you wrote about sisters (at least what I think I understood you to be saying). So, you have no basis to say that I missed your point. You don’t know what I missed or thought about the rest of your post because I didn’t tell you. I never said that elders should be in control. I simply said that as a matter of history, sisters were in the loop (meaning they were telling the elders what they were fellowshipping and doing) and were submitting to the elders. I gave no value judgment about the correctness of this. I presented evidence that they were in the loop because you had claimed they were not. That was it. If you want answers from me to the rest of the questions you asked in the above paragraph, then please ask them in a way that does not assume that you know my position on these things. Jane post #20: From your out-of-the-loop premise about sisters, you move to the conclusion that sisters like Sandee R. had to be dealt with because they were outside the loop and couldn't be stopped any other wayfrom causing damage. To the contrary, the fact is that Sandee was very much in the loop in Anaheim and that not only was she (and two other sisters) in fellowship (in the loop) with the local elders on a weekly basis for several years prior to Lee's action against them, she was also directly in fellowship with Lee himself on a regular basis. She was very close to W. Lee and even called him Witness. (This is something I never heard anyone else ever do.) ZNP post #25: No, my point was that if you were running a Christian Publishing house with a Philanderer, and were trying to skim money off the top with a covetous man then exposing this would cause your house of cards to collapse. I was asking you to stop thinking like a dove (a born again Christian) and think like a serpent (to “be wise as a serpent"). Max had clearly confronted PL, therefore how do you respond. Since none of WL’s responses fit the mindset of a dove, I considered how a serpent would respond. You would have to destroy the credibility of Max, you would have to excommunicate him, but that would be difficult, even dangerous. First, you have to cut off all fellowship with Max and his wife. The only reasonable explanation for what happened to you and Max’s wife is that WL was going into damage control to protect his kingdom from being exposed in the light. WL had the mindset of a serpent. These points have not been in dispute at all by me. In fact I have made similar points in other posts in the past. You are addressing me with a lot of assumptions. Jane post #20: I learned these facts in January 2006 in a personal conversation with her. She and the sisters with her were flabbergasted by all that happened. She said that every thing that they did with the sisters in Anaheim over a period of three years prior to 1977-78, was done in fellowship with and under the direction of the elders and Lee. These sisters were very supportive of Lee and his ministry and would have done whatever he told them to do. (This made what ultimately happened to them incredibily horrible.) ZNP post #25: Look, I was once working for a brokerage firm and made them probably in excess of 1 million dollars over the course of about 4 months yet I was blindsided and driven out of the company. Why? Because I learned that one of the brokers was a crook. Why was I driven out? Because it turns out the entire firm was crooked. If I exposed the crook the whole house of cards collapses so I had to go, regardless of how profitable I was. As it turns out the brokerage firm was out of business within 12 months and my exodus was instrumental in their demise. Max’s wife was flabbergasted because she was thinking of the mindset of a dove and considered WL to also be a dove. Regardless of how you look at the facts you cannot reconcile WL being a dove with his actions. However, if you take the mindset of a serpent it is very easy to reconcile his actions. It is normal for a believer to expect the best of other believers. It is normal to be “flabbergasted” when the sheep’s clothing falls off a fellow believer, one you are close to and trust, and reveals a wolf. Once the wolf behavior manifests itself, it doesn’t take a whole lot of discernment to be able to say, “wolf.” In other words, you don’t need to try and persuade me about the nature of Lee’s or the elders behavior. I saw the wolf’s tail on some elders for the first time over thirty years ago. About a decade later, I saw the lead wolf emerge with his pack, without wearing any sheep's clothing. I don’t really appreciate that you are writing to me based on your presumption that my current thoughts are as you imagine. Jane post #20: As sisters in Texas being out-of-the-loop, Don Looper told another sister (he and she were in Austin at the time) that I got in trouble because the things I had said had come to the ears of the elders. I always found this statement to be very interesting because it implied I was talking behind their back. The fact is that the things I had said were said directly into the ears of the elders in Houston by me and my husband and another couple and another sister (TOG, 161). We were in the loop, funneling directly to their ears what we had to say. It was clear to me by what the Austin sister was told, that Don Looper had received his inaccurate information from another source (no doubt Benson and/or Ray). ZNP post #25: This accusation is preemptive. Once this goes around, then when Max is excommunicated his wife can’t say anything because it looks like she is merely talking behind the backs of the elders or trying to retaliate. You were merely collateral damage. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that WL had the mindset of a serpent and was protecting his kingdom by keeping the deeds of his evil sons in the dark. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say what I wrote was a preemptive accusation. As for your last sentence, you keep pressing your idea as if it is something new. This basic understanding of Lee’s behavior concerning Phillip has been made and established by others, including me, on other threads written over the last five or more years. Jane post #20: (As some evidence of my last statement: Don Rutledge wrote me in an email a few years ago about a conversation between Don Looper and Benson that took place on an airplane the week before the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. Don R. was purposefully excluded from this conversation, but he overheard enough to know that it was something about sisters. I might be able to quote what Don R. wrote if I can find it, and if anyone is interested. In other words, Benson was talking to Don Looper about sisters in a very serious and private way just a few days before the sisters were squashed in Houston by Benson and Austin by Don Looper.) So that I don't digress further, I'll stop. My point is that sisters were "in the loop" and that the reason they were squashed was something other than what you have proposed. Thankful Jane ZNP post #25: My point is that you were “in the loop” created by the elders based on bogus teachings. The bogus teachings are necessary for WL to maintain control and do damage control. There is no Scriptural basis for this and all the teachings on the sisters, rebellion, negative speaking, submission, etc. that are pervasive in the LRC should be deeply suspect and reexamined based on NT teachings. ZNP, first you said sisters were not in the loop with the elders. Now you say that sisters (in this case, me) were “in the loop.” So which is it? If after reading my post you changed your mind about this, why not say so? Instead you just move ahead and launch a new argument about the elders’ control being based on bogus teachings and you write as if no one else, including me, has ever noted this or re-examined what the NT says about such teachings. That simply is not the case. ZNP post #25: I believe that the real benefit in the fellowship on these forums is for us to become inoculated to this kind of deceit. Just like exposing the human body to a disease will make it stronger if it can defeat the disease. I think, at least in part, this is what is meant by "those that overcome". There are diseases in the Catholic church which need to be overcome, there are diseases in the Protestant churches, the non denominational churches, and the LRC. You seem to think that somehow this was all a big misunderstanding and if BP etal understood that they would apologize. But after all these years don't you think it is reasonable to think that this was not a misunderstanding? What? Please provide quotes from me that have caused you to conclude that I seem to think this somehow was all a big misunderstanding and if BP understood that he would apologize. Also, rather than pose a question to me based on your assumption about what I think after all these years, wouldn't it be better to ask me what I think first. From what you’ve written, I can assure you that you do not know what I think. ZNP post #: Perhaps the reason they want this to go away and for everyone to forget it is they know that what they did was just one more inexcusable sin. If they admit they were wrong would they have to admit that they were doing a coverup, that many, many of their teachings and actions were a result of this. One lie begets many many more lies. To me, this is stating the obvious. Thankful Jane

06-14-2011, 02:53 PM	#33
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: In the Loop/Out of the Loop This story confirms much to me about the fine character of Don R. The fact that BP would exclude him from the conversation is quite telling. Unfortunately, when it came to backstabbing the brothers and sisters, BP did not want the company of "decent men." __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

06-14-2011, 06:57 PM	#44
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson ZNP: First, let me ask you a question, where in the NT does it say that anyone should be under the control of the elders? Closest you'll find is Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. Key words and phrases in this verse are, obey, submit, watch over your souls. I'll get back to this verse momentarily. Thankful Jane: As we have discovered on the forums there was a good bit of politicking going on in the relationships between the various elders, localities, and regions. It appears from Don's communication that four localities were represented on the airplane. I was able to find the past communication from Don R., so for the record, here is how he was "purposefully excluded," Whether I feel lc elders are functioning as elders or elders functioning as administrators, I have the utmost respect for elders. When a brother is an elder I give him benefit of the doubt. Me submitting to an elder is voluntary. Whether or not they watch over my soul, as the author of Hebrews says; those who will give an account. It's out of my control. I would have wanted elders in localities I have lived, to have watched over my soul. That has not been the case. Responding to Jane's post, as I read it's not clear who suggested Don go to another area. Was it Don Looper's suggestion to Don Rutledge? The suggestion being a subtle hint to go take a walk to another area. If the suggestion came at Benson's request to Don Rutledge via Don Looper, is it possible in Dallas there were local matters Don Rutledge was excluded from? My question should be based on being "purposefully excluded" being asked of Don to excuse himself rather than Don taking the initiative to remove himself from conversation Don did not want to be party to.

04-14-2008, 04:11 PM	#1
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,794	The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson www.TheThreadofGold.com Home of The Thread of Gold By Jane Carole Anderson "This book, The Thread of Gold: God's Purpose, the Cross, and Me, tells the true story of Jane Carole Anderson’s twenty-year journey through the Local Church of Witness Lee. It reveals her discovery of the powerful and practical message of the cross, one that saved her from deception and revealed God’s purpose for her life. The author writes, 'When your goal is to know God, you will find an amazing thread of gold being woven into the details of your life and circumstances. That golden thread will be your very own, unique, personal experience of Him. You will come to know Him as One who takes care of everything concerning you—from commonplace things to the deeply significant matters of the heart. I know Him as both the God who takes care of my washing machine and the God who wipes away my tears. In His way and time, He will unfold the unique purpose He has for your life. Ultimately, you and your thread of gold will remain forever, perfectly woven together with millions of others and their threads of gold into God's masterpiece, and put on display for eternity.' We at Protus Publications are truly thankful that The Thread of Gold has already been helpful to a number of people as evidenced by those who have given us feedback. We continue to pray that God will put this book into the hands of all those whom He desires to receive it" ----------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1 Into the Pit The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.” (Jer. 31:3) IN THE SPRING OF 1977, MY HUSBAND AND I DRAGGED our bodies home after a church meeting in Houston, Texas. During that meeting, I was publicly humiliated; and after it, I was further shamed, censured, and ostracized. I had sensed God’s nearness throughout everything that had transpired until that night, and then it seemed that He had abandoned me to this horrible experience. Those I loved had cast me into a pit of spiritual darkness and left me there to languish alone. I went to bed still sobbing as I continued to relive what had happened. That Meeting I was upset, nervous, and fearful as I sat there, waiting for Dan Williams to speak. I had been in this condition since the time I had been told, several days earlier, that my attendance in this meeting was mandatory. Dan was an elder and regional leader from a church in another city who had traveled to Houston with the purpose of holding this meeting. He was a tall, thin man who always wore a longsleeved white shirt, a thin tie, and dark pants. He was sitting forward in his chair on the front row jiggling one of his legs up and down periodically. Then he rose and began to speak. He asked that the tape recorder be turned off. This request was extremely unusual and, therefore, foreboding. Because of events in the preceding weeks, I knew whatever was coming wasn’t going to be good. When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a “sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems. According to Dan, this was the same as encouraging people to vomit. He disapprovingly said that when these sisters had told people to pray and wait for direction from the Lord, they were advocating “passivity.” As I had sat there listening to him, I had no doubt that I was the person about whom he was speaking. Though he didn’t mention my name, many people in the church had already heard I was in trouble and had stopped speaking to me because of what was considered to be my “leprous condition.” Dan declared that these rebellious sisters had opposed the Lord’s present move in the church and had caused a serious division. He proclaimed that they were seeking to be spiritual giants and that this was unacceptable in what he called the age of the body, the corporate expression of Christ. Because of their spiritual self-seeking, they had become deceived. Satan had used them to cause serious error and trouble and, hence, to damage the church. At one point, he stated his belief that sisters didn’t have any spiritual discernment, and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan’s deception. He also stated his belief that sisters could not receive revelation from the Bible. He continued speaking for a long period of time, informing church members about the evilness of the sisters’ rebellion and stating that any evidence of such rebellion would not be tolerated. A large knot of nausea and almost pain was throbbing in my stomach as I sat there listening, feeling like time had been cruelly suspended so that the wound I was receiving would be the deepest possible. When I ventured a glance around the room, hoping for anyone, anything that might be able to stop this nightmare, all I saw were faces glancing back at me with looks of pity. Dan ﬁnally concluded his message: “One of these sisters hasn’t repented or talked to us. You know who you are. After this meeting, come to the fellowship room.” My husband and I knew he meant me. It apparently hadn’t been enough to put me in a public cofﬁn; he needed to nail it shut. The Inquisition With many eyes on us, we crossed the meeting hall and entered the fellowship room. I felt like I was being summoned to the Inquisition. Dan was waiting there with a number of others who had been invited to attend as witnesses. Most of the local elders were present. One of their wives was present. An elder from a third locality was also there. A number of sisters were there, including some that had become members of the church through our efforts and had lived in our home for a long period of time. It appeared that the elders wanted them to be clear that I was not to be trusted. I was directed to sit down on the end of a couch. Most of the people present were sitting on folding chairs in a semicircle across the room from me. My husband was given a seat with them. Others were standing. A folding chair was on my right side, about a foot away from the couch. Dan turned it to face me and then sat down. Looking at me, he began repeating in judgment of me his pronouncements from the public meeting. He offered no speciﬁc facts and no clear examples of my “rebellion.” He asked me nothing. I did not understand his vague accusations. One of these was, “…and the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.” I had no idea what he was talking about, but thought that by “one of us” he might mean one of the elders. I wondered if his comment referred to a local elder named Steve Smith, who had broken down and wept in front of me and a few others several weeks before this. Steve was not present in the room that night. Dan informed me that he knew all about the “secret meeting” we had planned for the spring. However, this was news to me because I didn’t know anything about it. He said that all my rebellious, negative speaking had “come to their ears,” revealing a conspiracy among the sisters that was undermining the elders and church oneness. Maybe he used the biblical phrase “come to our ears” to try and give scriptural support to what he was doing. He wasn’t interested in learning whether I realized I was the leader of what he was calling a sisters’ rebellion. He told me emphatically that I needed to repent for my offense to the church, and from that day forward, I was to “stop all my talk and be quiet.” I sobbed throughout his monologue. His non-speciﬁc accusations left me feeling that my person was being attacked. Near the end of the torment, I said, “The only solution I can see is just to dig a hole about six feet deep and put me in it. I think the problem is just who I am.” I also told him, “Whatever has happened, it isn’t my husband’s fault. It’s mine.” At this point, another of the elders present, who always seemed to be lurking in the background, Sam Jones, chuckled and said, “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.” I had no idea what he meant by this strange statement. Why had he always wondered this? What did he now know? I certainly didn’t understand his apparent amusement. How could anyone ﬁnd anything funny in what was happening at that black moment in that room? I was weeping and in extreme distress, yet he found humor in the situation? Sam’s comment, at best, was thoughtless and cruel. Later that night at home in bed, I tried to pray, but I couldn’t. I was experiencing an internal, spiritual, and emotional agony. How had such darkness swallowed us? I had belonged to Jesus since I was a child, and He had never failed me. Where was He now? I felt like I was suffocating in a deep, dark pit ﬁlled with blackness. Copyright 2005 by Jane Carole Anderson

06-02-2011, 03:08 PM	#2
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson Thankful Jane, I have a question about the book Thread of Gold ... On page 195, you talked about the promotion of Daystar in Houston. This seemed to be after that 1977 Memorial Day weekend quarantine and after the death of your mother in law. I was under the impression that Daystar solicitations were several years earlier in time, more like the early 70's, and that by '75 or so, Max R. was traveling around requesting the saints to "forgive" these as "donations." Can you clarify this? __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

06-14-2011, 06:32 AM	#28
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Be wise as serpents harmless as doves I first used the term "in the loop" according to its meaning, in the context that sisters fellowship, especially on the phone from one locality to another, would be "out of the loop" of the elders. The term "in the loop" was put into quotation marks because I was quoting Jane's use of the word. She argued that she and other sisters were submissive to the elders in the context of this "in the loop". My entire post pointed out that the teaching that you must be submissive to the elders is an erroneous teaching. There is a NT verse that asks saints to submit themselves to elders under the presumption that they are watching for your souls. There is no teaching whatsoever that saints must have all of their fellowship approved by the elders and under the authority of the elders. That is the bogus teaching I was referring to and was stated over and over again in my post. What is the NT basis for the control that the elders want to have over all of the saints fellowship and ministry? I find no NT basis for it and feel it is the outgrowth of an attempt to do damage control on the sins of WL's kids being exposed.

06-16-2011, 10:11 PM	#58
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Re: Trying to straighten out a mess Dear ZNP, Sorry for my lack of response to your last posts to me. My availability to post is very limited right now. First, let me say that I am sorry for offending you in my previous post. I was purposely short and somewhat blunt, hoping my meaning would be clear and not get lost in wordiness. I knew that in doing so, I was risking offending you, and I’m sorry that I did. A professional communicator once told me that real communication takes place when one person says something and the other person understands the actual meaning the first person intended to convey. In my opinion that hasn’t been happening in our communications. This person also told me that the primary responsibility for clear communication rests with the one giving the communication. So, if there is failure to communicate, the giver needs to reassess the communication to discover why it failed and adjust it accordingly. I have read one time through all your most recent responses to me. I see that on one hand we have made a little progress. (Thank you for your apology on one point.) On the other hand, I see you’ve introduced more statements that are troubling. Right now I am deciding whether I am going to bow out or pursue trying to communicate clearly with you by responding to your most recent posts to me. My schedule will be a factor in what I decide. If I am not able to find some time tomorrow, I won’t be available at all for a week or two. The bottom line for me at this point is that I have found parts of your writing to me to be confusing and unclear. My train derails frequently as I try to follow your logic and understand your reason for, and your support for, your statements. I read something, then I say, “what?” and then I re-read it and re-read it and keep ending up back on confused street. I typically don’t have this problem with reading comprehension, so I find this to be frustrating--especially when I write one specific thing to you and explain that I am not responding to other things you wrote, and you come back with statements like “Wow, you really missed my point.” A nicer, and possibly more accurate response, would have been something like, “Wow, I see that I really didn’t communicate that well” or "I understand that you chose not to respond to my main point, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about it." I found that some of what you wrote to me lacked foundation and seemed to be based on assumptions as if they were fact. (That’s the reason for the whole “in the loop” matter I presented to you.) Some of what you wrote came across as patronizing, and thereby offensive. (That’s probably the reason I was willing to risk offending you with my blunt response.) I am not saying you intended this, just telling you its effect on me. I also find that you may even respond to something I have written without keeping it in context. If I proceed, I will try to give you examples of things I’ve mentioned in this paragraph. I do not enjoy difficult interactions with others and am having some regret about having engaged you at all. It would be nice if we could get through this to a good place, but that will take some work and possibly require more time than I have available. I'll have to wait and see. Thankful Jane

06-17-2011, 06:21 AM	#59
bookworm Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson I have been attempting to follow the postings on this thread recently and feel there has been quite a bit of confusion. The title of this thread is The Thread of Gold, regarding the book written by Jane Anderson. Post #9 by Terry quotes from this book and asks a general question, "What is the problem with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" As one who has read The Thread of Gold, I see where Terry is coming from. His question is in light of Jane Anderson getting into trouble because (as is described on pages 161-162 of the book) she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses. However, Ray Graver got upset when the discussion of opening up and getting help exposed that another elder (of all people---an all-knowing elder who is supposed always to have it altogether and have all the answers) was in need of help. This is part of what triggered Benson Phillips' accusing Jane of being part of a "sisters' rebellion" in the Texas churches. This is what is described in The Thread of Gold. ZNPaaneah then states in post #10, "I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down. But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.” Such a statement is completely out of context of the prior conversations regarding "sisters' rebellion in the Texas churches." Therefore –even though ZNPaaneah uses the word "obvious" he is making an assumption regarding the LSM Ministry in Anaheim and stating because of that the elders "create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices" when in reality these teachings and practices were already in play from the inception of the so-called local churches as is clearly illustrated in The Thread of Gold. It appears this has caused a series of misunderstandings in the discourse on this thread. It pains me to see such words as "despicable" and "insulting" as seen in post #42.

06-17-2011, 07:31 AM	#60
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,794	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson Thanks much to bookworm for the last post, I think that cut to the heart of the matter. How ironic that some "problems" have taken place between some posters here, and it partially springs from discussions regarding "Jane Anderson getting into trouble because...she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses." Does anybody else see a problem with this? I think our brother ZNP has gotten himself into a bit of a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Much of what Jane experienced should be taken into the context of what was taking place in her Local Church and region (I think this is clear in the book TOG) I think it's a mistake to try and transfer these events to what was happening in other churches, regions or the whole LC movement for that matter. This is not to say that some of the same abuses where also happening in other places (for we know they were) it's just that the book is recounting Jane's personal experience and everything should be kept in that context. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

06-22-2011, 08:54 AM	#70
bookworm Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson When Jane and the elder's wife in Houston in the late 1970s started to speak about helping one another through difficult times evidently this was perceived as a threat to the "real purpose" of the LC—especially when it brought to light a needy elder. A result of the Local Church becoming so very exclusive (special, THE building of THE Church), was the refusal of the leaders being open to anything of "poor Christianity" including Biblical marriage counseling. My own experience was that after many years of marriage when I went to an elder and his wife for help at a very difficult time in my marriage the advice I was given was to forgive my husband (who was not attending the meetings at the time) and do what I could to get him back into the meetings. When I specifically asked about counseling for us, I was told that the answer was "getting back into the meetings." This was in the early 1980s in Texas. So by that time the mindset for sure was the only answer is the LC and the meetings. Obviously the Local Church had no "marriage counseling service group" or such. There was no provision for giving guidance (even scripturally based) to couples through difficult times. Clearly the Local Church had only one focus: God's eternal purpose for building the Church. The mindset was very strong that we were to "get out of our minds and turn to our spirits" and be in the meetings and all would be taken care of; the army had to set the mind on the spirit and carry on. There was no consideration of God's purpose and design for marriage despite all the talk in the LC about Christ and the Church as His bridegroom. This form of "brainwashing" does nothing to promote love for one another in the body of Christ and it does nothing to encourage a married man and woman to love and value each other and love and value the children they are blessed with. Last edited by bookworm; 06-22-2011 at 08:56 AM. Reason: grammar

06-24-2011, 07:35 AM	#76
bookworm Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson I listened to parts of these four audio tapes PriestlyScribe posted on his post # 74 and note these statements (in blue): Your children are to have a unique, personal relationship with God. A voice they have to recognize. Help them know the voice of the Lord at the Lord's time. When it comes to the Lord's perfecting in my life, there are little things but that is the focus of the entire Christian life, God perfecting us by the Holy Spirit inside of us. When we live that way we are very broad to let other people live that way. This is not according to some high peak, but Christ living inside of us. You can live a passive church life but you cannot live a passive Christian life because every day the Lord is speaking inside of you. We need to raise our children this way. Someone asked him (Chuck D.) for direction as to what to do, and he pointed that person to the Lord, to seek the Lord. Go back to the Lord again and again. He said that when you shepherd your children do the same. Give them the same latitude. If the Lord is leading you not to go to the meeting, ask Him again. The same God who led you to know life and to hear His voice is the same God who can lead them. Now you can be gentle and shepherd your children. You have to be gentle and kind and patient. This is a big job and the Lord has to train us for such. We should allow ourselves to be perfected. Pray that your children would be drawn to the Lord powerfully. Whether they are in the church or not in the church, I really don't care, but they must give their whole life to you. You are the meaning of life. Without you our life means nothing. We are not here to be in the church, for some cause; if we are here we are here because the living God told us to be here. I am not here to be in the church; I am here because the living God told me to be here. We want them to have a deep conviction to follow the Lord. I wonder when it was Chuck D. spoke these words and whether he would be heard if he were to appeal to the Local Church leadership in this way regarding their shepherding the sheep… What gentleness and kindness and patience was shown to the weeping elder who was touched (p. 162 of The Thread of Gold) and showed a moment of need and weakness? What gentleness and kindness and patience was shown to Jane and other sisters as they were seeking the Lord and desiring to hear His voice?

12-06-2011, 04:52 PM	#92
Paul Cox Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 181	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson The real problem in all these incidents isn't what happened on this side, or that side. It always seems to boil down to that because of the way things are handled. The real question is whether or not Witness Lee had the heart of a shepherd, and whether or not he passed on that caring heart attitude to those in leadership under him. Or, did he just have the heart to protect his ministry and the organization that sprang out of it, and is maintained by it. If WL and company had a real heart of shepherding and caring, most of these things would never have even been heard about. What he termed "rebellions" would have come and gone, without even any need to bring it up to the saints. This would have happened, had he applied the same thing that he always tried to pound into us - endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. Rather, because of his paranoia about losing control, he blew everything up into a massive "rebellion," forcing people to take sides. This was his way of weeding out those who couldn't just be his yes men; those he considered to be troublemakers. The Local Church is fast becoming "pure." Very soon there will be no one left willing to ask questions, and think hard about what they are being told to do. They are on the verge of becoming a full blown Laodicea. P.C.

09-22-2016, 05:50 PM	#95
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,055	Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson There is a condensed version of The Thread of Gold available on Amazon, 39 pages. The name of it is: Deceived: A Warning to Campus Christians https://www.amazon.com/registry/wish...bmit.promote=1 http://www.thethreadofgold.com Nell