Deceptions on Campus

[clever sister]

I saw some comments on another post about "Inclusiveness" on how Christians on Campus groups claim to be inclusive, but are not at all inclusive with other Christian groups.

There was also mention of how Christian On Campus is deceptive to interested students, claiming that the saints are all from different Christian backgrounds and not letting on that it is all funded by LC in order to recruit new students, usually with the aim of them going to the FTT.

It brought to my memory some other deceptions that occured while I was a student. At my university Christians on Campus was a club registered with the student association. As part of being a club there were certain criteria we had to fulfill, like showing we had a certain number of student members.
That fact that many of the students in our number only came once and never again wasn't that unusual, as clubs would always ask students to sign up at the start of the year and had no way of making sure members kept coming, it was up to them if they wanted to charge a membership fee.

However, there was deception that brothers asked of me as a student. In my 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) year one the the full time serving brothers approached me and asked me if I was wiling to be the secretary for the club. He assured me that I wouldn't need to do anything, I just had to fill out some forms and I would be able to put it on my resume.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

I felt a bit weird about it, and never did put it on my resume, but I did agree to it. I look back on it as a situation I should never have been put into.

Other church kids at the same university were asked similar things, such as to be the president etc. Though I remember the brother who was the president did actually fulfill some of his roles at the annual meeting.
All I did at the annual meeting was be present.

I don't know if this is a widespread practice. Probably depends on the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present.

[Truthseeker]

I wonder why they just emphasize on the full-time training. This is the eternal purpose of God, isn't it ? If we can't pass the training, we would become dysfunctional Christians in the Church life ? Sometimes, some of them tries to make fear that you couldn't become overcomer and have to be in the outer darkness where there's weeping and gnashing teeth during the millennial kingdom. How spiritual abuse is it!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by clever sister

But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving one.

How terrible ! It looked like corrupted nominee enterprise systems. So, your campus Christian club could become LSM nominee or puppet.

[DistantStar]

One thing that struck me about Christians on Campus was the appearance of a lack of hierarchy. There wasn't a clear case of "this guy is in charge" or "this person manages everything". Only on this forum did I discover that there is a distinct hierarchy. After all, someone has to run this place, some one has to fund it! I just never thought it very cordial to ask these questions.

At our university they also have to have a minimum amount of members in order to register as a (religious) society. In fact, they failed to get the minimum one year, making them unable to have some of the weekly sessions on campus and yet some of them who weren't students still somehow got onto campus...

Good thing they introduced finger print verification.

May I ask in which country your university is? I know anything more than that might be too specific. It's interesting how the LC practices stay the same around the world.

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

One thing that struck me about Christians on Campus was the appearance of a lack of hierarchy. There wasn't a clear case of "this guy is in charge" or "this person manages everything". Only on this forum did I discover that there is a distinct hierarchy. After all, someone has to run this place, some one has to fund it! I just never thought it very cordial to ask these questions.

At our university they also have to have a minimum amount of members in order to register as a (religious) society. In fact, they failed to get the minimum one year, making them unable to have some of the weekly sessions on campus and yet some of them who weren't students still somehow got onto campus...

Good thing they introduced finger print verification.

May I ask in which country your university is? I know anything more than that might be too specific. It's interesting how the LC practices stay the same around the world.

I'll say Australia/New Zealand. The practises in the 2 countries are similar, and both countries campus works led to the FTTH.

I also know of full time serving ones registering for one course per semester in order to be seen as more legitimate on campus.

[aron]

Originally Posted by clever sister

I also know of full time serving ones registering for one course per semester in order to be seen as more legitimate on campus.

There is a LOT of "appearance versus reality" stuff with this group. A lot of positioning, selective presentation, re-wording of "red flags" to make them less noticeable, of "coding" phrases so that outsiders would think it was biblically-sourced where the practice was anything but biblical.

The vast majority of CoC activity is careful and deliberate packaging and marketing, combined with manipulation both subtle and overt. Pressure the mark, or "new one", and get to a subjective crisis point which causes the mark to respond emotionally, then use that opening as a leverage point, and get them to work immediately recruiting others. Lots of "warm fuzzies" for going along with the programme, which can be withdrawn if need be. Again, establish leverage points and then manipulate.

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

There is a LOT of "appearance versus reality" stuff with this group. A lot of positioning, selective presentation, re-wording of "red flags" to make them less noticeable, of "coding" phrases so that outsiders would think it was biblically-sourced where the practice was anything but biblical.

The vast majority of CoC activity is careful and deliberate packaging and marketing, combined with manipulation both subtle and overt. Pressure the mark, or "new one", and get to a subjective crisis point which causes the mark to respond emotionally, then use that opening as a leverage point, and get them to work immediately recruiting others. Lots of "warm fuzzies" for going along with the programme, which can be withdrawn if need be. Again, establish leverage points and then manipulate.

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

I served as a president of the CoC group at my campus. I was asked to, and it sounded reasonable enough at tge time, so I agreed. Almost immediately, I realized the students had no say in what was going on. The elders were making the decisions, we were just pawns.

In fact, the elders were there on campus participating and leading the Bible studies we had. Yet those who came to our meetings looked to us, the students, for the guidence they were seeking. We were put in a position of having to rationalize what was really going on, and I realized I could not do that. When I came to that realization, I withdrew from participating from CoC activities and focused on my studies, and I never looked back.

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by aron

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

100% true. They don't even hide the fact that this is their motive.

In fellowship with the wider church on why there is the focus on college campuses they have said that this is the first time they have been away from home and that makes them more open to the gospel.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by clever sister

I saw some comments on another post about "Inclusiveness" on how Christians on Campus groups claim to be inclusive, but are not at all inclusive with other Christian groups.

There was also mention of how Christian On Campus is deceptive to interested students, claiming that the saints are all from different Christian backgrounds and not letting on that it is all funded by LC in order to recruit new students, usually with the aim of them going to the FTT.

It brought to my memory some other deceptions that occured while I was a student. At my university Christians on Campus was a club registered with the student association. As part of being a club there were certain criteria we had to fulfill, like showing we had a certain number of student members.
That fact that many of the students in our number only came once and never again wasn't that unusual, as clubs would always ask students to sign up at the start of the year and had no way of making sure members kept coming, it was up to them if they wanted to charge a membership fee.

However, there was deception that brothers asked of me as a student. In my 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) year one the the full time serving brothers approached me and asked me if I was wiling to be the secretary for the club. He assured me that I wouldn't need to do anything, I just had to fill out some forms and I would be able to put it on my resume.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

I felt a bit weird about it, and never did put it on my resume, but I did agree to it. I look back on it as a situation I should never have been put into.

Other church kids at the same university were asked similar things, such as to be the president etc. Though I remember the brother who was the president did actually fulfill some of his roles at the annual meeting.
All I did at the annual meeting was be present.

I don't know if this is a widespread practice. Probably depends on the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present.

Laughing at the title and your screen name- brilliant! They probably don’t think the college kids are “mature” enough for the responsibility- which takes away the entire point!

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Laughing at the title and your screen name- brilliant! They probably don’t think the college kids are “mature” enough for the responsibility- which takes away the entire point!

Thanks, my username was inspired by this post

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...75&postcount=5

XD

[theLCfurry]

Originally Posted by clever sister

I saw some comments on another post about "Inclusiveness" on how Christians on Campus groups claim to be inclusive, but are not at all inclusive with other Christian groups.

There was also mention of how Christian On Campus is deceptive to interested students, claiming that the saints are all from different Christian backgrounds and not letting on that it is all funded by LC in order to recruit new students, usually with the aim of them going to the FTT.

It brought to my memory some other deceptions that occured while I was a student. At my university Christians on Campus was a club registered with the student association. As part of being a club there were certain criteria we had to fulfill, like showing we had a certain number of student members.
That fact that many of the students in our number only came once and never again wasn't that unusual, as clubs would always ask students to sign up at the start of the year and had no way of making sure members kept coming, it was up to them if they wanted to charge a membership fee.

However, there was deception that brothers asked of me as a student. In my 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) year one the the full time serving brothers approached me and asked me if I was wiling to be the secretary for the club. He assured me that I wouldn't need to do anything, I just had to fill out some forms and I would be able to put it on my resume.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

I felt a bit weird about it, and never did put it on my resume, but I did agree to it. I look back on it as a situation I should never have been put into.

Other church kids at the same university were asked similar things, such as to be the president etc. Though I remember the brother who was the president did actually fulfill some of his roles at the annual meeting.
All I did at the annual meeting was be present.

I don't know if this is a widespread practice. Probably depends on the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present.

Whelp.... i noticed during one meeting last year at a university nearby that the signs said that it was a Christians on Campus meeting or something that had to do with the CoC organization when it was just a blending for the regional localities.....

Speaking about deception, I also wonder why the US and Taiwanese governments still havent found out about Daystar yet either by now

[ACuriousFellow]

Stumbled across this little gem of a thread. Just thought to add my $2 here.

I encountered the denomination known as the Local Churches (a.k.a. The Lord’s Recovery) through one of their affiliated campus groups known as Christians on Campus. Their campus groups, from what I’ve learned, also sometimes go by the name “Christian Students on Campus” and “Christians at [University Name].”

When I first joined their group, I found them to be very warm and welcoming to me and other newcomers. There was often much food available, which is always an effective way to attract college students, and they seemed very attractive with their presentation and how they were not affiliated with any denomination. As has been mentioned here, they would present themselves as a non-affiliated group that just consisted of students from multiple backgrounds and whatnot. I became very attached to the group. As I’ve mentioned in my personal introduction, I was very active and attended just about every meeting I could along with small-group meetings and many one-on-one meetings with the “full-timers” who were from one of the Local Churches. During my time at a university in the UT system (Texas), I began to notice some disturbing trends that, in hindsight, were significant red flags that I brushed off as inconsequential at the time.

Despite university rules dictating that students should be leading the campus groups, organizing events, and leading the meetings, it was actually the “full-timers” that did all such things. These “full-timers” are members of the Local Churches who are, in every case I’ve seen, always paid by their church to dedicate themselves full-time to their ministries on campus. Officially, they were “guest speakers,” but in reality they were the de facto leaders of the campus clubs. Any official decisions regarding club activities and events had to be screened through them, and most bible studies were planned and led by them. As a former vice-president and later president of their clubs, I can confirm that club officers were not, in effect, officers of the club. Rather, they were more like a public relations team. They were the face of the club, and this was made clear by statements from the full-timers. Young students wanted to meet with other young students, and our job as older members and officers was to give as much attention as we could to the younger ones so that they could feel more welcome. Now, this is perfectly fine and surely within the duties of club officers, but we had often had no significant say in what the club actually did or the lessons that were taught. This was all taken care of by the full-timers. Apart from what I’ve mentioned, our duties as club officers was also to deal with “official” matters required by our university, namely attending special meetings where we were trained on club ethics regarding alcohol, hazing, and harassment. I recall having a conversation with one of them, stating that I saw them as the club leader. They got upset at the notion, which actually confused me. Ironically, I actually did not mind being just the face while they took care of things. I rather looked up to the full-timers and did not see why it was so wrong to acknowledge that they were the ones leading this club. Still, it was clear that they did not want me declaring such things to the other students. A red flag for sure.

As for their deceptive practice of declaring that they are not affiliated with any denomination, I can testify to this being blatantly false. During my sophomore year or so, I was invited to a particular regional gathering of the Local Churches where they discussed the “business” side of things. All of the campus groups affiliated with the Local Churches would come together to discuss things such as club membership numbers, effective tactics and strategies used by other campus groups, and particularly how many of the college students that they were able to bring into their affiliated churches. They had lists of “college-aged saints” that were passed around so that the full-timers from each locality could confirm the numbers and report to the higher ups. Interestingly enough, I discovered that these specific numbers were less than what I saw on campus, and this was because they only counted college students as “college-aged saints” in their city if they were attending the Sunday morning service at their affiliated church. I myself, despite going to all the college-related events and bible studies and serving faithfully, was not counted as a “college-aged saint.” This concerned me deeply, and when I expressed my concern, a sister who had grown up in the Local Churches, whose name was on the list, turned to me and said “what’s the big deal?” When I turned to my mentor to ask why I was not on the list despite my service to the club, I was told that it was because I was attending another church that was not affiliated with the Local Churches. This pained me deeply, and I subsequently decided to stop going to that other church so that I could be fully accepted by my locality. This was one of the red flags I regrettably ignored.

In my later years I became a club officer. One particular year we began to initiate an “internship” during the summer where our goal was to reach out to the incoming freshmen who were attending orientation. The university had made it clear that they did not want clubs to be active on campus during these times. They did not want any sort of solicitation with these vulnerable young people. Despite this, the full-timer in charge of our club was determined to find loopholes and reach out to these freshman in the hopes of bolstering our club membership before the other Christian groups could contact them. We had discovered that the incoming freshmen were allowed to wander about during their lunchtime, and it was during these times that we would wait in the common areas where all the food courts were and seek them out for conversation in the hopes of eventually inviting them to our club. I expressed my discomfort with this on multiple occasions, but I was told that we weren’t there to bring them into our club, but rather just preach the gospel to them which isn’t against the law. Despite this obvious lie, I went along with deep reservations. We were not simply trying to preach the gospel to them, which would technically be allowed by the university, but rather we were trying to gain them for our club, which is not allowed by the university. In subsequent years, we discovered that University officials were distressed by our efforts of solicitation, and there were apparently one or two other Christian groups doing the same. As such, they no longer allowed the incoming freshmen to eat on their own and instead required them to have group lunches with their orientation leaders. The full-timer in charge of our group was not deterred by this, and in response he simply tasked us with joining the incoming freshmen. Since it was a public space, he said, they could not technically stop us from simply conversing with others. Once again I expressed discomfort at his attempts to dance on the line between proper and improper conduct, but my objections did little to change the situation. Once more I was told that this was not against the law, and I am disappointed in myself for having ignored these red flags.

My reservations were further compounded by our efforts to gather as many phone numbers as we could from the incoming freshmen. The full-timers said that they were too old to do such things and that it would appear less suspicious if this task was undertaken by us, the older club members who were much closer to the orientees in age. We would gather hundreds of numbers during our “just preaching the gospel” time in the summer throughout multiple orientation sessions (they usually had six or seven each summer), keeping records of first and last names and, if we could, what cities the orientees were from. Seeing how we were explicitly trying to keep such records on paper, I once again expressed my concern. I was told by the full-timer in charge of the group that people exchange numbers with each other all the time and that it wasn’t technically against campus rules or the law since you can’t just ban adults from exchanging numbers. At the end of the summer right before the fall semester would begin, we would contact each of these numbers in the hopes of inviting them to our table and our club events. Because of the purpose of our number-gathering (which was to usher them into our campus club), I once again expressed my concerns, but I was met with an indignant response form the full-timer in charge of our group. He expressed concern over my objections and said we’re just Christians reaching out to people to bring them into fellowship and that we shouldn’t let the university scare us from doing God’s work since they were just “of the world.” Allusions were often made to how Satan is always trying to frustrate God’s work on earth and that we shouldn’t give into him and press on even if it means we might get in trouble. Once again, I must say that I am not proud to declare that I disregarded these red flags.

Another aspect of serving on the Christians on Campus group was attending “internship trainings” which were organized by the Local Churches. Club leaders from all of the campus groups affiliated with the Local Churches, along with their respective full-timers, would attend this annual training in order to prepare for the incoming orientation season that happened every summer. Here we would hear from other groups and full-timers about the most effective tactics for recruiting students to our clubs. One particular aspect of this training was strange to me. One of the most important things we should do, according to the trainers, was to avoid talking about Witness Lee and the unique doctrines and lingo found in the Local Churches. The reason for this is because they believed many would become uncomfortable with what was said and taught in the Local Churches. As such, despite the fact that most, if not all, of the officers in all the clubs from Texas were members of the Local Churches, we were discouraged from sharing from Witness Lee’s teachings and using his vocabulary. This discouragement extended to common Local Church practices such as “calling on the Lord” and “pray-reading” which we were told would be too much for incoming students because they were not ready for such things. Rather than such things, we were told to focus on the “common faith,” which included things like “Jesus is the Son of God,” “the bible is the word of God,” “we are saved by faith in Christ alone,” “Jesus died and was raised,” and other more orthodox statements of faith. Such things, they declared, were much less likely to make new students uncomfortable than their teachings of “overcomers” and “not caring for right and wrong” and “get out of your mind and into your spirit.” These teachings were not wrong, they said, but it would be better to not make them uneasy by throwing it all at them too soon, especially if they already came from a Christian background. Once more, I am ashamed to say that I disregarded these red flags.

This is all I can think of for now. Thank you all for your contribution to this thread. This particular topic hits me deeper than most. I gave much of my life to this group, and I bottled up many concerns and doubts throughout the years which led to much pain later in life when I realized the truth and it all came back out. Most of these students are not evil. I daresay perhaps even most of the full-timers genuinely think they are doing the Lord’s work. Still, I know many of them are betraying their conscious by acting with such guile. Why should they be ashamed if they are doing the Lord’s work? Why should they be ashamed if Witness Lee’s ministry is so good? Why should they hide these “high truths”? I say it somewhat mockingly now, but back then when I was for the group, I asked the same questions with a pure heart. “Why are we acting in such a way? We are better than this! We shouldn’t be afraid to show them who we are, and we shouldn't be so sneaky with how we conduct ourselves on campuses!”

May the Lord be merciful to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light. My heart aches to recount these things and testify of them. There were many simple solutions to these things, but it seems that the issues have compounded over the years and has led to great corruption and deception. I do not know the full scale of it, but I fear it may come down with a great crash someday because they are not standing on solid ground. May the Lord be merciful to preserve the hearts of these young college students and even the “young people” who are in middle/high school. If and when this great crash occurs, I am absolutely certain many will be stumbled, and it pains me so.

May the Lord have mercy on us all.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

There were red flags I regrettably ignored as well. Mid-1990's I was a "college-age saint". I did not participate with the campus work, but I did attend the Friday night college age meetings.
I think there's wordsmithing going on when they say there is no affiliation with any denomination when they believe the Local Churches are not a denomination. A severe lack of transparency which church/churches the club fully aligns with. When you declare yourselves to be God's Move On the Earth, why would you not want to be anything but transparent about it?
A key red flag I did not heed is the talk over who is ready and who is not ready to be invited to a Local Church Lord's table meeting.
Why wouldn't you want to invite them? Isn't that what Lord's Day meeting is for. I thought the Lord's Day meeting was anyone and everyone?
There are churches all over the cities Sunday morning coming together in worship and fellowship.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

There were red flags I regrettably ignored as well. Mid-1990's I was a "college-age saint". I did not participate with the campus work, but I did attend the Friday night college age meetings.
I think there's wordsmithing going on when they say there is no affiliation with any denomination when they believe the Local Churches are not a denomination. A severe lack of transparency which church/churches the club fully aligns with. When you declare yourselves to be God's Move On the Earth, why would you not want to be anything but transparent about it?
A key red flag I did not heed is the talk over who is ready and who is not ready to be invited to a Local Church Lord's table meeting.
Why wouldn't you want to invite them? Isn't that what Lord's Day meeting is for. I thought the Lord's Day meeting was anyone and everyone?
There are churches all over the cities Sunday morning coming together in worship and fellowship.

Yes, the Lord's Day meetings are very important to them. I recall this concept they had called "porch meetings." It was much like how they taught the college students within their church not to talk about Witness Lee with new people, but applied to the entire congregation.

At the start of each college semester, they would expect many new, young freshmen to join as well as a few older college students who were nonetheless new to The Lord's Recovery. As such, they would transition to having "porch meetings" for a while in which they instructed the saints not to talk about Witness Lee, tone down the "calling" and "pray-reading" and loud "amens" if possible, and focus on just making the new ones feel comfortable and loved. The reason for this was to not scare the new ones away. Since many people have criticized Lee in the past, they said, it would be good to not yet mention him or his teachings so much and make people suspicious or uncomfortable.

The sermon they would give was structured much more like a traditional sermon with less time for "prophesying," and the topic was something more generic like how "Christ died for our sins" sprinkled with "enjoying the Lord" and "building the church." There was not as much talk about "eating Christ" or "getting out of your mind into the spirit" or "1000 years of summer school." As the semester went on, they would transition back to their normal meetings when they saw that the newer ones were more open to the ministry and their relatively unique practices like the repetitive "calling" and "pray-reading". Those who were not open simply stopped coming and were not as much of a concern.

If at all possible throughout the year, they would prefer to bring students first to the home meetings and try to introduce them to the "Ministry" and see if they enjoyed that before then inviting them to the big Lord's Day/Table meetings. Their denomination along with these "high truths" they teach have been historically controversial in the United States, so they thought it best to hold to them in relative secrecy (i.e. don't ask, don't tell) and only present them to those who were open. It is these "open ones" who, according to the "Ministry," would make for the best "overcomers" who were "good material" for building up the church. They were often referred to as "remaining fruit" which they said would give us the greatest rewards in heaven.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Yes, the Lord's Day meetings are very important to them. I recall this concept they had called "porch meetings." It was much like how they taught the college students within their church not to talk about Witness Lee with new people, but applied to the entire congregation.

At the start of each college semester, they would expect many new, young freshmen to join as well as a few older college students who were nonetheless new to The Lord's Recovery. As such, they would transition to having "porch meetings" for a while in which they instructed the saints not to talk about Witness Lee, tone down the "calling" and "pray-reading" and loud "amens" if possible, and focus on just making the new ones feel comfortable and loved. The reason for this was to not scare the new ones away. Since many people have criticized Lee in the past, they said, it would be good to not yet mention him or his teachings so much and make people suspicious or uncomfortable.

The sermon they would give was structured much more like a traditional sermon with less time for "prophesying," and the topic was something more generic like how "Christ died for our sins" sprinkled with "enjoying the Lord" and "building the church." There was not as much talk about "eating Christ" or "getting out of your mind into the spirit" or "1000 years of summer school." As the semester went on, they would transition back to their normal meetings when they saw that the newer ones were more open to the ministry and their relatively unique practices like the repetitive "calling" and "pray-reading". Those who were not open simply stopped coming and were not as much of a concern.

If at all possible throughout the year, they would prefer to bring students first to the home meetings and try to introduce them to the "Ministry" and see if they enjoyed that before then inviting them to the big Lord's Day/Table meetings. Their denomination along with these "high truths" they teach have been historically controversial in the United States, so they thought it best to hold to them in relative secrecy (i.e. don't ask, don't tell) and only present them to those who were open. It is these "open ones" who, according to the "Ministry," would make for the best "overcomers" who were "good material" for building up the church. They were often referred to as "remaining fruit" which they said would give us the greatest rewards in heaven.

Sounds like deceitful hypocrisy…openly admitting they’re hiding something.

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

At the start of each college semester, they would expect many new, young freshmen to join as well as a few older college students who were nonetheless new to The Lord's Recovery. As such, they would transition to having "porch meetings" for a while in which they instructed the saints not to talk about Witness Lee, tone down the "calling" and "pray-reading" and loud "amens" if possible, and focus on just making the new ones feel comfortable and loved. The reason for this was to not scare the new ones away. Since many people have criticized Lee in the past, they said, it would be good to not yet mention him or his teachings so much and make people suspicious or uncomfortable.

Deceptive and far from transparency. Goes back to my earlier comment, if one truly believes "The Recovery" is God's Move on the Earth, why would not want to be anything but transparent?
Your quote ACuriousFellow applies as much to Memorial meetings as much as college age gatherings. It's been over 8 years since my uncle passed away, but I distinctly remember different brothers desperately trying not to utter the words "Brother Lee" at my uncle's memorial meeting. I knew they wanted to but refrained. I'm sure in part due to non-LC visitors being in attendance.

[ACuriousFellow]

I've been browsing Reddit lately, and quite a few people on there have testified The Lord's Recovery and The Local Churches.

One particular student from Austin even testified a few months ago about their campus ministry there.

Looks like it got quite a bit of traction with over 1K upvotes, 200+ comments, and over 700 shares. I've seen posts on Reddit threads from a few other campus across the nation as well. I won't hold my breath for anything grand happening, but it's good to see more people speaking up about their experiences, particularly the young adults.