YouTube Channel - The Lord's Recovery Unchained

New YouTube Channel - The Lord's Recovery Unchained

Testing Witness Lee's teachings against the Bible. Like the Bible tells us to do.

Intro video here: https://youtu.be/QzzegsmM8hU

Other videos here [best sorted by "date added (oldest)"]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE7...EazzYjw/videos

[Bible-believer]

I've shared the channel with friends, and I hope it will be a wake-up call for them.
By the way, a brother who is a department chairman in college told me that his students asked him why they read "messages" instead of the Bible itself in every meeting. All of them agree the focus should be on God and His words.

[GraceAlone]

Fantastic video. Huge kudos to the producer!!! I really hope it gains some traction beyond the “choir.”

Thank you! I hope it will be helpful both for those inside as well as out.

I set it up so the next video in the series would auto-pop-up at the end of the prior video, but I've had a few people indicate it's not working for them and that they cannot see the other videos after the intro. Here is the link to the entire playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzze...ejEdDNtUs4UDn8

[UntoHim]

hope this helps,

The UserName Recovery Unchained has been reserved for your posting privileges on this forum. Even if you are a registered member we are requesting that you set up a separate UserName.

Please send an email to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com for temporary password.

Thanks!
UntoHim and Nell
Forum Admins
-

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by hope this helps

Thank you! I hope it will be helpful both for those inside as well as out.

I set it up so the next video in the series would auto-pop-up at the end of the prior video, but I've had a few people indicate it's not working for them and that they cannot see the other videos after the intro. Here is the link to the entire playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzze...ejEdDNtUs4UDn8

Dear Unchained, it's evident you've put a lot of work into these videos. Thank you so much! I've [I don't know if enjoyed is exactly the right word, maybe benefited from or resonated with or appreciated is the right expression] hearing your clearly-articulated testing of various WL teachings. It was the Two Trees that shocked me into questioning things in WL's writings almost two years ago. I started my own test of what WL said the Bible says in The Genuine Ground of Oneness versus what is actually in the Bible. That basically caused me to lose faith in "The Ministry", to realize that I was trapped by a wrong concept of "locality" as the ground of oneness and feel the freedom to leave. I hope your videos can help others experience the same thing.

On that note, you could have field day with The Genuine Ground of Oneness. What does WL say happened at Babel versus what's in Genesis? What does WL say happened when Israel and Judah split versus what's in the Bible? etc. I have study notes on the first few chapters. DM me if you would like a copy.

[Cal]

Great stuff! I love the engaging videos and the messages are on point and well-spoken. Thanks for doing this.

[Cal]

For broader outreach, I suggest joining the Facebook group "Former Members of the Local Church" and posting links to your videos there. Membership is by approval only.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/764718357071498/

[HERn]

Really well done! You didn’t make a single stumble in the presentations, and you are the right kind of person to make these because you really know the Recovery and use the Bible in an excellent way to support your arguments. Do you have a user name so I can send you a note sometime? Your material goes really well with a Cal’s. How long were you in the Recovery and what prompted you to doubt the Recovery’s legitimacy? If these questions are too personal please ignore them.

[Trapped]

hope this helps,

I'll echo the others on this thread that the content of these videos are fantastic! I love the approach - showing that the coworkers have said very confidently that they will change if they are wrong, and then hitting numerous major teachings, showing almost effortlessly that they are so very wrong. Taking them to task and holding them to their word! I've watched all of them now, and you took the right approach - breaking down Lee's doctrines and teachings by showing that they don't match up to the Bible. It's dismantling "from within" basically, showing they don't stand on their own two feet, but also pointing to the positive/encouraging flip side from the Bible. Some of them totally changed what I thought was what the Bible said.

I've read through all the comments on the videos, though, and so far it looks like it's mostly former members who have watched them (or at least commented on them). I wonder what the reaction will be when/if current members come across them. Jo and Greg's public letter a few years ago is about the only instance I can think of where a large number of saints saw "contrary information", but I think it's because they were willing to leverage their existing social media connections and put their name/face out there. The local church makes it difficult to get this kind of information out to the members.

Looking forward to more videos!

Trapped

[zeek]

Using the Bible to debunk Lee’s teaching should reach members right where they live. It was refreshing to hear Witness Lee’s denigration of the mind refuted over and over by the Apostle Paul. Like the narrator said we were indoctrinated into the denial of the normal healthy use of our mind, by hearing the false teaching over and over. Then the teaching was reinforced by members demanding that we “turn to your spirit” …an unbiblical commandment. So, if we need to hear the commandment to love the Lord with our MIND over and over to deprogram us from Lee's mistaken teaching, it's understandable.

[Nell]

This is a message to all our guests. I transcribed the Introduction to the "Unchained" channel. If you hesitate to jump in, this might help.

But first:
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Here's a message from Chris Wilde regarding the stance of the co-workers regarding testing the ministry of Witness Lee. The Bereans in Acts17:11 were told to test the ministry of the apostle Paul. This message is part of the introductory video Witness Lee's Teachings are Not Infallible > Fast forward to minute 13:46.

“and I would tell them directly because—Benson and the other brothers also told me something else, they said ‘when you’re challenged, then you can tell them with absolute assurance if you can show us whre, in the Bible, not in Christian tradition, but in the Bible, what we’re teaching or what they taught—is wrong—we will change. If you can absolutely demonstrate according to scripture, that that teaching is in error, we will change. And, that came from Benson, that came from Andrew, came from several brothers.”

(14:32/17:38)
From the video: OK. Chris Wilde says “If it can be shown that “the ministry” is in error, they will change.” He doesn’t say they will “make accusations;” he doesn’t say they will call you “divisive;” he doesn’t say they will threaten the saints that they are “touching death” if they read or hear your arguments or your testing process; he doesn’t say they will call your testing process an “attack.” He said quite simply and quite plainly that they will change. WE WILL CHANGE.

Nell

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

Using the Bible to debunk Lee’s teaching should reach members right where they live. It was refreshing to hear Witness Lee’s denigration of the mind refuted over and over by the Apostle Paul. Like the narrator said we were indoctrinated into the denial of the normal healthy use of our mind, by hearing the false teaching over and over. Then the teaching was reinforced by members demanding that we “turn to your spirit” …an unbiblical commandment. So, if we need to hear the commandment to love the Lord with our MIND over and over to deprogram us from Lee's mistaken teaching, it's understandable.

Here is a link to the video I cited above:

https://youtu.be/0B68iXU-XSc

Just one example cited in the video, I Corinthians 14:15, says "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the mind..." It doesn't say to get out of your mind or to turn from your mind to your spirit.

The number one problem with the Recovery and why it’s a fake religion, is that there is ZERO LOVE! You can fake everything including the spirit and the church, the ministry and the buildings, the fake crocodile tears and the childish tantrums to get someone to feel bad for you! But there is one thing that no one was ever able to fake, and that the LOVE OF GOD, if one has never experienced it, and it never changed your life, you will never be able to show it or practically display it for people to see! Mr Benson chanting of “just come back”, should turn to “Lord, be merciful to me”, and maybe, just maybe the results will be different!

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The number one problem with the Recovery and why it’s a fake religion, is that there is ZERO LOVE!

Well, it’s hard to know what is deep in the human heart. Further, there is some love demonstrated in the LR … I mean, this very forum and its predecessor often accused the LCers of throwing “love bombs” at newbies.

That said, I think love diminishes when one becomes ideological. Check that: I *know* love diminishes when one becomes ideological. The LR, despite efforts by Lee to not become just a “truth” church, couldn’t help but bend that way. I have the same tendency. I think it’s a man thing … ideas over people.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Well, it’s hard to know what is deep in the human heart. Further, there is some love demonstrated in the LR … I mean, this very forum and its predecessor often accused the LCers of throwing “love bombs” at newbies.

That said, I think love diminishes when one becomes ideological. Check that: I *know* love diminishes when one becomes ideological. The LR, despite efforts by Lee to not become just a “truth” church, couldn’t help but bend that way. I have the same tendency. I think it’s a man thing … ideas over people.

A "truth" church? That's the last word I would use to describe what "Lee's church" became.

I hope everyone spends some time with the LR Unchained videos. Lee's truth church is totally exposed...Biblically.


Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Well, it’s hard to know what is deep in the human heart. Further, there is some love demonstrated in the LR … I mean, this very forum and its predecessor often accused the LCers of throwing “love bombs” at newbies.

That said, I think love diminishes when one becomes ideological. Check that: I *know* love diminishes when one becomes ideological. The LR, despite efforts by Lee to not become just a “truth” church, couldn’t help but bend that way. I have the same tendency. I think it’s a man thing … ideas over people.

Just because the phrase "love-bomb" has the word "love" in it, does not mean it bears any resemblance to actual love. Love is not full of lies, double-speak, and deceptive intent, which is what the local church love-bombing is.

I also second Nell's disagreement that the local church is a "truth" church. It's insulting to the truth to associate the two in any way.

Trapped

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Nell

Lee's truth church is totally exposed...Biblically.

You misunderstood, intentionally or not, what I meant by "truth" church. I put it in air-quotes to help you but perhaps you're not familiar with how air-quotes work.

At any rate, if you think some video series showing how the LR is anti-biblical is going to convince anyone but the ones who need no convincing, you're living in a dream world.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Just because the phrase "love-bomb" has the word "love" in it, does not mean it bears any resemblance to actual love. Love is not full of lies, double-speak, and deceptive intent, which is what the local church love-bombing is. I also second Nell's disagreement that the local church is a "truth" church. It's insulting to the truth to associate the two in any way. Trapped

I seriously thought this site, as opposed to the Berean one, was for respectful discourse between those in and those out of the LC. Seems I was mistaken.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by GraceAlone

Yes, and not just the Andersons, but plenty of others’ stories are available both online and, if invited, through personal conversations if someone were willing to listen. That lack of curiosity or willingness to hear is part of the hurt.

Reading what Recovering described made me grateful that a friend had just sent me the following podcast episode on spiritual abuse and healing from it. It’s excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000521464840

GraceAlone thanks for posting that podcast. I listened, and it felt like they'd had a front row to my experience (and others I know) and helped provide some language to articulate what we've been through. It also changed my perspective on Ben's exhortation to "come back".

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I seriously thought this site, as opposed to the Berean one, was for respectful discourse between those in and those out of the LC. Seems I was mistaken.

Disagreement is not disrespect. I'm not sure how you got disrespect from what I wrote. It is true that love-bombing as a tactic is behavior that carries ulterior motive, which is not really love, and to view it as some kind of actual love legitimizes deception. It is true that the local church is not in any way a partner with the truth. It is not a disrespect to you to make those statements. Your putting air quotes around truth, but then saying the local church bent that way is not clear in any way what you mean without some explanation. Happy to hear what you meant to say.

Trapped

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

You misunderstood, intentionally or not, what I meant by "truth" church. I put it in air-quotes to help you but perhaps you're not familiar with how air-quotes work.

At any rate, if you think some video series showing how the LR is anti-biblical is going to convince anyone but the ones who need no convincing, you're living in a dream world.

SC,

Well, so much for "respectful discourse." (air quotes) Respect is a two-way street. Right?

Disagreeing with your POV is allowed. I read what you wrote and disagreed with it out loud, as did Trapped. The End.

I think you should watch the videos before making assumptions about who will and will not benefit from the hearing, since you don't speak for "anyone" but yourself (see...more air quotes!) Will you do that?

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

At any rate, if you think some video series showing how the LR is anti-biblical is going to convince anyone but the ones who need no convincing, you're living in a dream world.

I beg to differ. The biblical truth spoken everywhere - in those videos or in Cal's videos or in Jacob Howard's posts or on this forum - is indeed a powerful force against the lies and darkness in the local church. Additionally, all of these voices speaking out are not simply showing that the local church is anti-biblical, they are showing it is abusive, damaging, manipulative, and deceiving. To be sure, if your statement was true, then the countless people in other cultish groups who have found comparable help from similar videos about their groups are lying.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by GraceAlone

Yes, and not just the Andersons, but plenty of others’ stories are available both online and, if invited, through personal conversations if someone were willing to listen. That lack of curiosity or willingness to hear is part of the hurt.

Reading what Recovering described made me grateful that a friend had just sent me the following podcast episode on spiritual abuse and healing from it. It’s excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000521464840

I listened to this podcast too. The interviewee obviously knows what she is talking about, and she basically nails it in every direction. She puts words to some things that I intuitively knew but didn't have adequate words to describe. It's about 45 minutes. Highly recommended.

Trapped

[SpeakersCorner]

@Nell

Sorry for being a bit “snippety.” I got “triggered.” And you’re right, Nell, respect is a two-way street. I may actually watch the video. Definitely don’t mind hearing other points of view. I might even agree with some or much of it.

[SpeakersCorner]

@Trapped

My point is that every single teaching or doctrine can be refuted in some way by opponents. Go to Wikipedia and witness it in real time. To decide if the LR and Lee’s teaching are faulty you need both sides presented in a debate format. Anything short of that is just an argument.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

@Trapped

My point is that every single teaching or doctrine can be refuted in some way by opponents. Go to Wikipedia and witness it in real time. To decide if the LR and Lee’s teaching are faulty you need both sides presented in a debate format. Anything short of that is just an argument.

SpeakersCorner it's been said before that statistics, if tortured enough, will confess to anything. And the other day I heard someone say the same thing about Bible verses. It's true that if you cherry-pick your verses and gerrymander the context sufficiently, you can construct cases to support a wide variety of conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

But I count myself among those here who have been very impressed by the Recovery Unchained videos and don't see them as "just another opinion" but rather what they claim to be - a testing of different teachings against Scripture. In my perception, they do a good job of presenting a teaching in Lee's own (or in the Blended Brothers') words, showing it in context and in multiple publications where appropriate and in terms that anyone in TLR would recognize. What's so delightful (and embarrassing to those of us who internalized the teachings for so many years) is that a reading of the verses cited and a simple application of logic or grammar is often sufficient to unravel the whole thing. It's really not a debate about this view or that view; it's about whether the teaching makes sense in its own terms and with respect to the verses used to support it (or conveniently left out).

My "trigger moment" was a theological one related to the "Two Trees" doctrine. The Recovery Unchained videos on that topic (at least the first 2 I have watched, there are 5) are particularly good. I imagine if someone I trusted had pointed me to the videos during my struggling period, I would probably have seen my way to an exit sooner. I see the target audience as being those who have doubts and are struggling like I was.

@Nell we've gotten off the original topic, so maybe this belongs in the thread on the videos.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Recovering

My "trigger moment" was a theological one related to the "Two Trees" doctrine.

You've piqued my interest. Where is this Two Trees point made? What video?

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

You've piqued my interest. Where is this Two Trees point made? What video?

The first of the Two Trees series is [here]. A few more clicks will take you to the rest of the channel.

[SpeakersCorner]

Okay, I found the Two Trees video and I'm two minutes into it and thinking WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. Really. Sorry but he has twisted Lee's words completely. He says that Lee taught that man should only eat of the Tree of Life but that's not at all what he taught. Lee never denied the other trees were for eating. I fear you'll force me to go back to a Life-Study and prove my point but I KNOW he never thought nor taught that.

Further, the narrator says Lee taught that the Tree of Life was alone in the center of the garden. Did he teach that? I don't recall. But I am very doubtful Lee didn't know there is a verse -- spoken by Eve, btw, -- that states the tree of knowledge was in the "midst" of the garden.

This is actually a point I have long cherished. They both were there, perhaps side by side. Perhaps the tree of life, a vine-tree according to Lee's thought in Revelation, actually climbed upon the Tree of Knowledge. We can all speculate. At any rate, I'm not 100% positive we can be sure that the Tree of Knowledge was in fact in the center of the garden since it was Eve, not God, who said it. And perhaps her "center" had already been adjusted.

[SpeakersCorner]

I'm still steaming from the first two minutes of this thing. Why doesn't this person SHOW US what Lee said instead of merely say that he said it? It's as if he's hiding something.

[SpeakersCorner]

Okay, I'm not going to hog the thread with my live reactions to this video. But I have finally reached a point that is good: this guy (I don't know who is doing this video) quotes Lee saying the title of the Tree of Knowledge is subtle because Satan likes to conceal himself. I did not remember Lee saying that and the burden is now on him and his defenders to explain this. I myself could defend Lee here but I'm not here to defend him and am not sure of the context in which he said this.

So I'm giving this guy a touche here, his first.

Now I'll stop commenting and leave you all in peace.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I'm still steaming from the first two minutes of this thing. Why doesn't this person SHOW US what Lee said instead of merely say that he said it? It's as if he's hiding something.

The person literally does show and sources it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

You misunderstood, intentionally or not, what I meant by "truth" church. I put it in air-quotes to help you but perhaps you're not familiar with how air-quotes work.

At any rate, if you think some video series showing how the LR is anti-biblical is going to convince anyone but the ones who need no convincing, you're living in a dream world.

Originally Posted by Nell

SC,
Well, so much for "respectful discourse." (air quotes) Respect is a two-way street. Right?

Disagreeing with your POV is allowed. I read what you wrote and disagreed with it out loud, as did Trapped. The End.

I think you should watch the videos before making assumptions about who will and will not benefit from the hearing, since you don't speak for "anyone" but yourself (see...more air quotes!) Will you do that?

Nell

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

@Nell
Sorry for being a bit “snippety.” I got “triggered.” And you’re right, Nell, respect is a two-way street. I may actually watch the video. Definitely don’t mind hearing other points of view. I might even agree with some or much of it.

SpeakersCorner,
Snippety? Your "sorry, not sorry" post was condescending, accusatory and rude.

I refer you to our forum Mission Statement Rules:
2. Respect other users. No flaming or abusing fellow forum members. ...
3. No spam. ... You created your own personal spam in the wrong topic.
4. Post in relevant sub-forums. Messages posted in the wrong topic area may be moved to the correct sub-forum by moderators.
...
9. One simple guideline should cover all your posts: Be helpful, polite, considerate, and respectful of others, just as you would like others to be to you.

You've been moderated.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

[Trapped]

For the sake of future readers going through this thread, I went back and watched the first "The Two Trees" video, and in response to SpeakersCorner's steamy objections:

1. As Zezima said, the videos do indeed constantly "SHOW" what Lee said. Over and over again in ministry quote after ministry quote.

2. Witness Lee did indeed say the load of crap that SC thinks was presented. Lee did say that God said or implied or wanted man to only touch or only eat the tree of life. There are ministry quotes in the very video that show this. He said it flat out, (and he also said it in other ways where he futzed around with words and said it so that that's the impression you came away with...not shown in the video). Additionally, as a church kid, I can confirm that this is the common understanding in the local church. This is how the scenario is presented.

3. However, SC has a valid point that it's not as if Witness Lee never showed Genesis 2:16 in the ministry (which says "And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,"). But as mentioned in point 2, in the cases where Lee acknowledges there are other trees, the way he continues on does make it seem as if even in the presence of the other trees, God still wanted man to only eat of the tree of life. Lee was good at not saying things outright, taking the side-door.

4. Additionally, and I think the brother actually said this in the Introduction video, Witness Lee's body of work is so voluminous, you can almost find any statement anywhere. His ministry is not self-consistent and there are contradictions. If Witness Lee did teach something flat-out wrong, it is still wrong even if you can dig up the correct thing said 40 years prior.

5. SC states that we cannot be 100% sure that the second tree was in the middle of the garden, since it was Eve who stated this. Actually, we can be 100% sure because the Bible states it in chapter 2 before Eve re-states it.

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:2-3
The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden...

6. Eve's "center being adjusted" is......a made up thing.

7. There was another post of his that I recall having a 3:17 timestamp reference, but it seems to have gotten lost in the transfer to this thread. If it re-appears, his statements there will produce a similar response.

As always, do your own due diligence. Don't believe someone or be turned away by someone (including me!) without checking for yourself.

Trapped

[gr8ful]

Thanks, Trapped, for the factual response. Having watched the Unchained videos prior to reading the complaint that WL's teachings weren't shown, I knew someone was Speaking out of turn.

[SpeakersCorner]

I was quarantine by the Blended Brothers. I’m am now “Moderated” by the Anti-Blendeds.

At any rate, I’m not sure what being moderated means but my original comments on the video were from the last video. I didn’t realize it was a summary. Lee’s quotes were summarized there in the margin.

I have since watched the first video and took notes. There is much I disagree with. I plan on posting my disagreements here or, if I’m silenced, elsewhere.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I was quarantine by the Blended Brothers. I’m am now “Moderated” by the Anti-Blendeds.

At any rate, I’m not sure what being moderated means but my original comments on the video were from the last video. I didn’t realize it was a summary. Lee’s quotes were summarized there in the margin.

I have since watched the first video and took notes. There is much I disagree with. I plan on posting my disagreements here or, if I’m silenced, elsewhere.

SpeakersCorner,

There is no rule against whining, but maybe there should be.

You're a smart guy...I'm not using big words. You obviously broke the forum rules. If you continue to break forum rules, you will be silenced. That's the way it works. It's the way we maintain a "respectful discourse" which you seem to be having trouble with.

Your ability to post on Local Church Discussions is totally up to you and your ability to behave yourself...or not. This is the case with members and guests alike.

It's not necessary to give us a play-by-play each time you watch a video. Just bring up your points for discussion. Your "steamy objections" have been addressed. You might start by responding to Trapped (#31) and Zezima (#29).

Nell
Admin/Moderator

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

SpeakersCorner,

There is no rule against whining, but maybe there should be.

You're a smart guy...I'm not using big words. You obviously broke the forum rules. If you continue to break forum rules, you will be silenced. That's the way it works. It's the way we maintain a "respectful discourse" which you seem to be having trouble with.

Your ability to post on Local Church Discussions is totally up to you and your ability to behave yourself...or not. This is the case with members and guests alike.

It's not necessary to give us a play-by-play each time you watch a video. Just bring up your points for discussion. Your "steamy objections" have been addressed. You might start by responding to Trapped (#31) and Zezima (#29).

Nell
Admin/Moderator

Nell-Your style of prison-guard, micro-managing is why I seldom participate here. I suppose you like it that way. It keeps LCD small and easily manageable.

[SpeakersCorner]

Rebuttal to “The Lord’s Recovery, Unchained” video

1. In the midst of the garden
The first point the narrator makes is that Lee is deceptive when he says the Tree of Life is in the center of the garden. He quotes Lee five or six times saying the tree of life is the CENTER of the garden. Then he says, voice dripping with sarcasm: “So what’s the takeaway? There is a garden and in the center of the garden is the TREE OF LIFE. Sound good? Weeellllll … it’s not quite true. It is not really true that it is the tree of life that is the center of the garden.”

Really? You’re telling me that it isn’t true to say the tree of life is in the center of the garden? Take a look:

And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [Genesis 2:9: NKJV]

Ah, you say … but what about the rest of the verse? That’s what the narrator says as well.

Well, what about it? Does adding “[comma] and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” change the fact that the tree of life is at the center of the garden? Of course not. It is true, indisputably and undeniably, that the tree of life is in the center of the garden according to the scripture. It may also be true the tree of knowledge of good and evil is there (and this is debated throughout Jewish and Christian literature) but one cannot deny that (I’ll say it again) THE TREE OF LIFE IS IN THE CENTER OF THE GARDEN.

Yet the narrator does deny it. He says “It’s not quite true” then “It is not really true that it is the tree of life that is the center of the garden.”

The narrator builds his entire argument on this broken cornerstone. He does it within the first 3 minutes of his video. He is telling us that it’s a false teaching to say the tree of life is in the center of the garden because there is another tree possibly next to it.

If I’m a judge and this is a trial, I dismiss it at this point.

[More to come]

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nell-Your style of prison-guard, micro-managing is why I seldom participate here. I suppose you like it that way. It keeps LCD small and easily manageable.

Sorry to hear that Zeek...but...

We have a Mission Statement and Rules for a reason. We're adults here, I think. We're Christians here, I think. We believe that Local Church Discussions should be a safe place to communicate with whoever happens to stop by. We're not here to indulge disrespectful discourse. Without respect, communication does not take place.

Many who stop by are, or may be, hurting from the damage foisted upon them by others who did not respect their freedom to walk with the Lord.

Many of those who seek us out are guests who never post. They just read. These are first among the folks who I pray will benefit from an orderly forum for discussion. I pray these hurting souls will be helped when they discover they are not alone; that they are safe among Christians who want to tell the truth about their experiences; that help is available.

The desire here is to tell the truth about who our Lord is and how he came to save us from our sins. He also came to save us from ourselves...often a bigger lesson to learn.

Regardless, Zeek, you're welcome to speak your mind as the Lord leads. Hopefully you can continue to bear with my primitive moderation skills.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

[UntoHim]

Speaker,

I find it rather ironic that you watched and listened to a video where one of the main points was that Witness Lee was sloppy and inaccurate in his presentation of Genesis 2, and then you go on to be just as sloppy and just as inaccurate in your critique of the critic!

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Really? You’re telling me that it isn’t true to say the tree of life is in the center of the garden? Take a look:

Yet the narrator does deny it. He says “It’s not quite true” then “It is not really true that it is the tree of life that is the center of the garden.”

Here's what the speaker actually said:

"Well, it's not quite true. It is not really true that it's the Tree of Life that is the center of the Garden. The truth is that both trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life were in the center, or were the center. But Witness Lee conspicuously doesn't say that."

"Witness Lee keeps saying one tree is the center, and he actually truncates verses to make it look like it's the only tree there in the center. Well, that is clearly a half truth, or a misrepresented truth, or a truth containing a glaring omission."
(emphasis added)

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The narrator builds his entire argument on this broken cornerstone.

Actually the "entire argument" is made in a series of 5 videos, spanning over 2.1/2 hours - I would suggest that you listen CAREFULLY to each and every video before you make such an asinine statement.
-

[SpeakersCorner]

Sorry UntoHim but I play by the rules you guys lay down. The Narrator clearly says, as you quote, "Well, it's not quite true. It is not really true that it's the Tree of Life that is the center of the Garden."

And that is clearly untrue. You want to add on what he said? Fine. Allow Lee the same.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

Sorry to hear that Zeek...but...

We have a Mission Statement and Rules for a reason. We're adults here, I think. We're Christians here, I think. We believe that Local Church Discussions should be a safe place to communicate with whoever happens to stop by. We're not here to indulge disrespectful discourse. Without respect, communication does not take place.

Many who stop by are, or may be, hurting from the damage foisted upon them by others who did not respect their freedom to walk with the Lord.

Many of those who seek us out are guests who never post. They just read. These are first among the folks who I pray will benefit from an orderly forum for discussion. I pray these hurting souls will be helped when they discover they are not alone; that they are safe among Christians who want to tell the truth about their experiences; that help is available.

The desire here is to tell the truth about who our Lord is and how he came to save us from our sins. He also came to save us from ourselves...often a bigger lesson to learn.

Regardless, Zeek, you're welcome to speak your mind as the Lord leads. Hopefully you can continue to bear with my primitive moderation skills.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

I do my best to abide by the rules. But, I wonder how safe the hurt ones will feel if you sarcastically label and smack them down in the name of "moderation" and delete their posts without explanation as you have done to others on this forum? This is the kind of "moderating" I would expect from Witness Lee and his minions, not from a forum that claims to provide an alternative.

Lee had to keep things tightly controlled to conform to the conception of his little ego. He wouldn't even allow members to question his teaching. "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" has demonstrated that Lee's teaching can't stand up to close scrutiny. I would hate to see LCD succumb to the same mistake.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Sorry UntoHim but I play by the rules you guys lay down. The Narrator clearly says, as you quote, "Well, it's not quite true. It is not really true that it's the Tree of Life that is the center of the Garden."

And that is clearly untrue. You want to add on what he said? Fine. Allow Lee the same.

The narrator's next sentence is "The truth is that both trees and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were in the center or were the center" thus making his meaning in the sentence you quoted perfectly clear without adding anything to what he said.

Are you perhaps not ready to accept that Witness Lee could have been wrong?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

It is true, indisputably and undeniably, that the tree of life is in the center of the garden according to the scripture.

It may also be true the tree of knowledge of good and evil is there (and this is debated throughout Jewish and Christian literature).

It is true, indisputably and undeniably, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is in the center of the garden according to the scripture.

He is telling us that it’s a false teaching to say the tree of life is in the center of the garden because there is another tree possibly next to it.

The same bible that you are using as your authority to defend the argument of the ToL's location in the Garden, says that the TOKGAE is in the same location. Yet you don't accept that authority when it comes to the location TOKGAE, you say "It May" "Possibly".

Taking select portions of the bible as the foundation to build a case is exactly what these videos are exposing. Witness lee takes a portion of a verse in Genesis and builds an entire doctrine around that portion.

The majority of doctrinal pillars in the Lord's Recovery are built upon similar foundations, yet presented as THE truth. However, when you hold them up to what the biblical text says, the doctrines are often found wanting.

Witness Lee says the ToL is the center of the universe because it is the center of the garden. However, the TOKGAE is also at the center of the garden according to the bible. Does this mean that the TOKGAE is also the center of the universe? Why isn't the TOKGAE the center of the universe?

It's not incorrect to say the ToL is the center of the garden, but it's only a half-truth, as shown in the Bible. It's disingenuous to pick and choose when you're going to apply the bible as your source of truth. If a doctrine doesn't match up to what the biblical text says in full, do you follow the biblical text or do you try to fit the text into your doctrine? I think many in the LR fit the text into the doctrine, and many who have left are deconstructing the foundation these doctrines were built upon.

The reason that WL made a tree of life the center, and the only thing that you should eat of, is to later on equate his own “ministry” (I use that word lightly), to say that since it’s the only “ministry” that contains any life, THUS YOU SHOULD ONLY EAT OF IT. Trace those two aspects throughout his writings, and you will see it as clear as day! Since the All-inclusive Jesus is only present in the Local Church and the writings of WL/WN, and cannot be found anywhere else in the world, then eat only from THIS tree and you will have “life”. Got it? Get it? Done!

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by zeek

The narrator's next sentence is "The truth is that both trees and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were in the center or were the center" thus making his meaning in the sentence you quoted perfectly clear without adding anything to what he said.

Are you perhaps not ready to accept that Witness Lee could have been wrong?

Actually, the narrator’s position is not perfectly clear. He is claiming Lee has excluded the tree of knowledge from the center of the garden but Lee never said that, at least as far as I know or the narrator pointed out. Instead, Lee says in other works that Adam stood before both trees clearly implying they were together. The narrator is being deceptive about Lees position. Lee mentions only the tree of life at the center because that supports his view that the tree of life is the center of God’s plan.

As for whether or not I’m willing to admit Lee may have been wrong I can assure you, I am not a Lee-ite. Several of my dear friends wish I were. He influenced me greatly and I feel indebted to him but I have real issues with some of what he taught.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Actually, the narrator’s position is not perfectly clear. He is claiming Lee has excluded the tree of knowledge from the center of the garden but Lee never said that, at least as far as I know or the narrator pointed out. Instead, Lee says in other works that Adam stood before both trees clearly implying they were together. The narrator is being deceptive about Lees position. Lee mentions only the tree of life at the center because that supports his view that the tree of life is the center of God’s plan.

While the majority of the time in the ministry Lee still represents man standing before one tree (and yes there is ANOTHER place where Lee actually cuts off the verse to pass that off....literally editing the Bible), there are indeed just a couple of places in other works where Lee says that Adam stood before both trees. But that doesn't help the case, because the Bible doesn't say that Adam stood before both trees. Just that he was placed in the garden. Lee got it wrong there too!

15 Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Actually, the narrator’s position is not perfectly clear. He is claiming Lee has excluded the tree of knowledge from the center of the garden but Lee never said that, at least as far as I know or the narrator pointed out. Instead, Lee says in other works that Adam stood before both trees clearly implying they were together. The narrator is being deceptive about Lees position.

Also, at the 10:15 mark the narrator explicitly speaks about Lee saying that God put man before two trees and shows a ministry quote on the screen that says just that. The video doesn't hide it at all. How is it deceptive that he literally included what you try to say that he is hiding??

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Lee mentions only the tree of life at the center because that supports his view that the tree of life is the center of God’s plan.

Yeah....that's the problem. Lee is presenting half-truths to support his view. That is the exquisite problem of Witness Lee's ministry.

Lee was wrong. As Zezima noted, "Witness Lee says the ToL is the center of the universe because it is the center of the garden. However, the TOKGAE is also at the center of the garden according to the bible."

Lee claimed God "charged man to eat the right tree". He said this explicitly. He is literally teaching that God said things God did not say.

Is the tree of life the center of God's plan? Because if it was, we should see something where God told man to eat of it, to eat of it only, and to eat of it quickly. But what we see is that it was what God took away when man sinned. The center theme in these chapters is not "eat the right tree", it's "I am serious about obeying my reasonable commands."

Trapped

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Actually, the narrator’s position is not perfectly clear. He is claiming Lee has excluded the tree of knowledge from the center of the garden but Lee never said that, at least as far as I know or the narrator pointed out. Instead, Lee says in other works that Adam stood before both trees clearly implying they were together. The narrator is being deceptive about Lees position. Lee mentions only the tree of life at the center because that supports his view that the tree of life is the center of God’s plan.

As for whether or not I’m willing to admit Lee may have been wrong I can assure you, I am not a Lee-ite. Several of my dear friends wish I were. He influenced me greatly and I feel indebted to him but I have real issues with some of what he taught.

Our viewpoints differ. I'm thankful that we are free to differ. In the Local Church that wasn't allowed. The "Unchained" videos are worthwhile if only because they establish that since Witness Lee is not infallible, he is not above question and may err. That wasn't allowed in his churches. Lee discouraged any kind of questioning of his ministry as well as the normal use of the mind i.e. reasoning. Chances are you are still under his influence. That may explain why you interpret the videos the way you do. Personally, I'm amazed that I ever accepted Lee's sloppy exegesis and authoritarian posturing.The "Local Church" was a Witness Lee cult. I feel indebted to the Lord for liberating me from it.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

mentions only the tree of life at the center because that supports his view that the tree of life is the center of God’s plan.

So he injects his view onto the Bible. He’s taking his fallen predispositions and casting them across the word of God boldly claiming it’s the high peak of all divine revelation.

No one cares if you meet in the LR or not. We are testing teachings of the Lord’s Recovery to the Bible. This thread has nothing to do with you. Either contribute in a meaningful relevant way or don’t contribute to this thread at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

As for whether or not I’m willing to admit Lee may have been wrong I can assure you, I am not a Lee-ite. Several of my dear friends wish I were. He influenced me greatly and I feel indebted to him but I have real issues with some of what he taught.

Ahhh, Speaker, and that’s the root of your problem. You have been influenced by WL. You are saying that some of his teachings are worthwhile and have been beneficial to you. That, my friend, is dangerous thinking. Recant!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Zezima

No one cares if you meet in the LR or not. We are testing teachings of the Lord’s Recovery to the Bible. This thread has nothing to do with you. Either contribute in a meaningful relevant way or don’t contribute to this thread at all.

Too mean!

I think SC just mentioned that (Lee-ite or not) because zeek was trying to understand why he comes to the conclusions he comes to.

But SpeakersCorner's contributions are valuable. If someone thinks they have a valid point about an argument, they can make it, and he has presented some of his points. The rest can read the argument, can read the valid point against it, and can decide what they think. That's the cool thing about being out of the LC, like zeek noted, we can differ and it's up to each of us to test/discern and come to our own conclusions. None of that spoon-fed, minister of the age, discard the vision and die stuff. SC feels the arguments from the video are lacking. I feel they are solid. In the LC that would be cause for finger pointing and division, but out here we can use our minds to figure stuff out, disagree if that's what happens, and yet not divide or cast aspersions.

Trapped

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Zezima

So he injects his view onto the Bible. He’s taking his fallen predispositions and casting them across the word of God boldly claiming it’s the high peak of all divine revelation.

No one cares if you meet in the LR or not. We are testing teachings of the Lord’s Recovery to the Bible. This thread has nothing to do with you. Either contribute in a meaningful relevant way or don’t contribute to this thread at all.

That's rude. If SC has ever been associated with the LR this thread has to do with him. His responses have been relevant and they have been meaningful. If they weren't meaningful you couldn't disagree with him. Where did you get the authority set conditions for this thread?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I can assure you, I am not a Lee-ite.

Whether someone is or isn’t doesn’t change what the Bible says vs what witness Lee said. What you are or where you meet does not determine if the Bible matches Lee.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by zeek

Our viewpoints differ. I'm thankful that we are free to differ. In the Local Church that wasn't allowed. The "Unchained" videos are worthwhile if only because they establish that since Witness Lee is not infallible ...

Agree and heartily. I wrote a letter once way back in 1999 or so to one of the top Blendeds and asked him why they had turned Lee into a Pope. He was not happy with that question. I have often thought it was the Asian custom of honoring the father that allowed this kind of elevation of a person to come in. Americans don't do that but, because we had been so influenced by Lee's teaching, we allowed it.

I wish, oh how I wish, the version of the "church-life" that grew in the U.S. had been American in flavor, style, and way. In the early days, there was a distinctly American feel to our meetings and it caught the zeitgeist of the late 60s/early 70s. But it succumbed to a franchise model, sadly. Lee taught that the differences in the churches in Rev. 2/3 were all negative. I don't see it that way. The core idea, imho, behind "local churches" is that they reflect the localities, the areas, the people from which they come. But that's a topic for another day.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahhh, Speaker, and that’s the root of your problem. You have been influenced by WL. You are saying that some of his teachings are worthwhile and have been beneficial to you. That, my friend, is dangerous thinking. Recant!

Finally my problem's root is identified! Thank you brother Ohio!

(I better be careful here. It's okay for people to be sarcastic towards me but I have discovered I am not offered the same privilege. BTW, I note that final exclamation point on your post warmly.)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The reason that WL made a tree of life the center, and the only thing that you should eat of, is to later on equate his own “ministry” (I use that word lightly), to say that since it’s the only “ministry” that contains any life, THUS YOU SHOULD ONLY EAT OF IT. Trace those two aspects throughout his writings, and you will see it as clear as day! Since the All-inclusive Jesus is only present in the Local Church and the writings of WL/WN, and cannot be found anywhere else in the world, then eat only from THIS tree and you will have “life”. Got it? Get it? Done!

Unregistered,

Welcome to the forum! Your point is so true. He taught the tree of life represents God Himself or God's life, and that God wants us to take Him in, and oh by the way that only Witness Lee's ministry has the correct life and light, so you must only follow his ministry if you want to be "in life". The threat is that if you don't, you are in darkness, in death.

There is a screen in the video that says something like "what God granted freedom for, and what God called good, instead Witness Lee restricted and condemned and called death". And then he says it explains many of the problems in the local church. One of the things I thought of when I saw that was exactly this - where the Bible says there are many ministers and certainly does NOT restrict believers to whatever only one guy says, Witness Lee restricts the saints to only his ministry and condemns everyone else as "having no new riches". It's ridiculous. So many of his erroneous teachings are actually completely self-serving for him, it's disgusting.

It is not a stretch to say he has cheated people of their lives with his lies.

Trapped

[SpeakersCorner]

Concerning whether or not the tree of knowledge (sorry, Narrator man but I'm shortening the phrase to that, like it or not) was in the middle of the garden along with the tree of life, my personal view is it was, that they were perhaps side-by-side or even the tree of life, as a vine, was growing up and around the tree of knowledge. Pure speculation on my part there but I have my reasons for thinking that might be the case.

Some here claimed I am wrong to allow the possibility that the tree of knowledge was not in the center. If I'm wrong so are a whole lot of others, Christian and Jew, who have discussed this portion of the Word. Google it, you'll see. The two references to the tree of knowledge being in the center can both be explained in other ways. To wit:

1. The grammar/punctuation
In Gen. 2:9 the Darby translation renders the key portion like this:

"... and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The two commas enclosing "in the midst of the garden" render it a parenthetical phrase modifying the "tree of life" and do NOT apply to the tree of knowledge. In fact, if you change the commas to parentheses it clearly excludes the tree of knowledge. That's a possible rendering.

2. The Unreliable narrator
In Gen. 3:3 it is Eve's reportage that gives us -- "but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not touch it, lest ye die."

This report is UNRELIABLE. For one thing (and Lee missed this which I think the video could've exploited but also missed) God NEVER said not to TOUCH the tree of knowledge. Eve has added to God's word. I'll cut her some slack because, 1, she got it second-hand from Adam and 2, she is trying to underscore the toxicity of this tree.

Further, and more importantly, she ONLY MENTIONS ONE TREE in the midst of the garden. Our videomaker needs to now call out Eve like he has called out Lee. According to him, there are two trees there (and I agree, btw) but Eve says "THE TREE that is in the midst of the garden." One tree. This is problematic. Does she not see the tree of life? Is it hidden behind the tree of knowledge?

My greater point in taking on the video concerning this is that, when you take on someone's exegesis, be careful. The Pharisees did it all the time to Jesus and He let them have it by starting His response with "Have you not read?" My old buddy Tom McNaughton made this point hilariously many times. Mr. Narrator of the Video has proven to me that, despite spending lots of time looking at this story in Genesis, he has not seen all the details, as I have pointed out here. Further, the same can be said of his view of Lee's teaching. Credit him for digging but ... has he not read that Lee said in “Dead to the Law”: “Adam was standing in front of the two trees—the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

IOW, it's dangerous when you're nitpicking someone's argument that you might miss a nit or two. It applies to me as well, here. I'm nervous I will misquote the Narrator in some way. I watched the video, paused it many times, and carefully typed his words so as not to do that.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

1. The grammar/punctuation
In Gen. 2:9 the Darby translation renders the key portion like this:

"... and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The two commas enclosing "in the midst of the garden" render it a parenthetical phrase modifying the "tree of life" and do NOT apply to the tree of knowledge. In fact, if you change the commas to parentheses it clearly excludes the tree of knowledge. That's a possible rendering.

Aahhh, WL very likely grew up with this translation, and thus his POV. Thanks for researching.

Also, it suggests that dwelling on this particular topic is a waste of time, unless one of us is an expert in Hebrew.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Agree and heartily. I wrote a letter once way back in 1999 or so to one of the top Blendeds and asked him why they had turned Lee into a Pope. He was not happy with that question. I have often thought it was the Asian custom of honoring the father that allowed this kind of elevation of a person to come in. Americans don't do that but, because we had been so influenced by Lee's teaching, we allowed it.

I wish, oh how I wish, the version of the "church-life" that grew in the U.S. had been American in flavor, style, and way. In the early days, there was a distinctly American feel to our meetings and it caught the zeitgeist of the late 60s/early 70s. But it succumbed to a franchise model, sadly. Lee taught that the differences in the churches in Rev. 2/3 were all negative. I don't see it that way. The core idea, imho, behind "local churches" is that they reflect the localities, the areas, the people from which they come. But that's a topic for another day.

Yes. I agree with you. For me the point is not who’s interpretation of the Eden story is right. In fact, one of the amazing things about the story is that it stimulates endless interpretations. That’s because it is so full of meaning.
According to my experience in Witness Lee’s group only Lee’s light was allowed to shine. The rest of us were just there to rubber-stamp his vision. So, it isn’t a matter of whether Lee’s interpretation (he liked to deny that his was an interpretation, by claiming it was a “quotation”) or “Unchained’s” interpretation. What is significant to me is that Unchained has opened up free dialogue about it on Youtube. Free dialogue like that was never possible in the local church movement I knew.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Aahhh, WL very likely grew up with this translation, and thus his POV. Thanks for researching.

Also, it suggests that dwelling on this particular topic is a waste of time, unless one of us is an expert in Hebrew.

That could be said of the entire Old Testament.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Aahhh, WL very likely grew up with this translation, and thus his POV. Thanks for researching.

Also, it suggests that dwelling on this particular topic is a waste of time, unless one of us is an expert in Hebrew.

Not necessarily a waste of time, but it’s certainly dangerous to build an entire branch of your theology on such a debatable interpretation.

So what I’m struggling with is the conflation of “in the midst” with “at the center”. I’m no Hebrew expert, but if you compare across many translations, you’ll find many/most use “in the midst” and some use “middle”. The Hebrew word is תָּ֫וֶךְ (tāwḵ 8432), which my interlinear Bible translates as “midst, whether of a space or place, a number of people or things, or of a line”, noting “oft. = an emph. in, in the very heart and midst of”, but “of a number of persons = among (not necess. of the actual middle”. Both Lee and Recovery Unchained assume this word means that TOL was at the center of the garden, and we have seen there is debate about whether TOKOGAE is included in the “midst” description (I think it is). But I think there’s an equally valid argument to say that the tree or trees being “in the midst” mostly means they’re not at the edges or on the periphery but doesn't imply anything about the center. That is- they're among the other trees, not too hard to find, maybe prominent, and definitely not -outside- the garden. They were specially named because they were important, but if you build a case around their geometric arrangement based on a phrase like “in the midst” and claim that means they were the center of the universe, I think you have gone too far.

If you’ll pardon the pun, I think given the ambiguity we could also judge the tree by its fruit in the spirit of Matt 7:15-20. So the fruit of Lee’s teaching on the Two Trees is statements like those given at the Crystallization Study of Job (the last such event I attended before leaving): “It’s deceptive to call it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” and “Good is somewhat worse than evil, because it’s deceptive”, and later on things like this “God doesn’t want you to be a good man, He wants you to be a God man” and “God doesn’t want you to try to be a good husband”, which I heard interpreted among the saints as “I’m so glad God doesn’t want me to be a good husband, because I just can’t.”

When you take a teaching and use it to claim that God doesn’t want you to try to be a good husband or father, or that God doesn’t care about good and evil (because they’re on the wrong tree), or that good is actually somewhat worse than evil, or that God (or Moses) is being deceptive in calling it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then I think it’s clear you have a “diseased tree producing bad fruits” that should be “thrown into the fire.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Concerning whether or not the tree of knowledge (sorry, Narrator man but I'm shortening the phrase to that, like it or not) was in the middle of the garden along with the tree of life, my personal view is it was, that they were perhaps side-by-side or even the tree of life, as a vine, was growing up and around the tree of knowledge. Pure speculation on my part there but I have my reasons for thinking that might be the case.

Some here claimed I am wrong to allow the possibility that the tree of knowledge was not in the center. If I'm wrong so are a whole lot of others, Christian and Jew, who have discussed this portion of the Word. Google it, you'll see. The two references to the tree of knowledge being in the center can both be explained in other ways. To wit:

1. The grammar/punctuation
In Gen. 2:9 the Darby translation renders the key portion like this:

"... and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The two commas enclosing "in the midst of the garden" render it a parenthetical phrase modifying the "tree of life" and do NOT apply to the tree of knowledge. In fact, if you change the commas to parentheses it clearly excludes the tree of knowledge. That's a possible rendering.

2. The Unreliable narrator
In Gen. 3:3 it is Eve's reportage that gives us -- "but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not touch it, lest ye die."

This report is UNRELIABLE. For one thing (and Lee missed this which I think the video could've exploited but also missed) God NEVER said not to TOUCH the tree of knowledge. Eve has added to God's word. I'll cut her some slack because, 1, she got it second-hand from Adam and 2, she is trying to underscore the toxicity of this tree.

Further, and more importantly, she ONLY MENTIONS ONE TREE in the midst of the garden. Our videomaker needs to now call out Eve like he has called out Lee. According to him, there are two trees there (and I agree, btw) but Eve says "THE TREE that is in the midst of the garden." One tree. This is problematic. Does she not see the tree of life? Is it hidden behind the tree of knowledge?

My greater point in taking on the video concerning this is that, when you take on someone's exegesis, be careful. The Pharisees did it all the time to Jesus and He let them have it by starting His response with "Have you not read?" My old buddy Tom McNaughton made this point hilariously many times. Mr. Narrator of the Video has proven to me that, despite spending lots of time looking at this story in Genesis, he has not seen all the details, as I have pointed out here. Further, the same can be said of his view of Lee's teaching. Credit him for digging but ... has he not read that Lee said in “Dead to the Law”: “Adam was standing in front of the two trees—the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

IOW, it's dangerous when you're nitpicking someone's argument that you might miss a nit or two. It applies to me as well, here. I'm nervous I will misquote the Narrator in some way. I watched the video, paused it many times, and carefully typed his words so as not to do that.

What's presented here doesn't make sense in light of what the Bible says.

If the comma means it's only the TOL in the center, and if Eve's statement that the TKGE was in the middle was wrong, then the tree she is referring to as "in the midst" was really the TOL and yet she turned around and ate of the tree she referred to, which means she would have eaten of the TOL. But God's response should give us assurance this isn't the case and that she really did eat of the forbidden tree and she was not mistaken in her location/identity of the tree.

If the comma means it's only the TOL in the center, and if Eve's statement was true that the TKGE is in the middle, and she did know which tree was forbidden and she ate of the correct wrong tree, then the TKGE was actually in the middle, as she said. The story supports that her description was accurate.

If the comma doesn't mean it's only the TOL in the center, but that the TKGE was also in the center, then.....both are in the center.

The scenario that would render the video narrator's viewpoint wrong is a scenario that doesn't hold up to the rest of the story.

Also, as I said - the video shows that Lee said at some point that Adam was placed before two trees and put a quote on the screen to that effect. I'm all for genuine disagreement, but don't misrepresent things in order to disagree.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The narrator builds his entire argument on this broken cornerstone. He does it within the first 3 minutes of his video. He is telling us that it’s a false teaching to say the tree of life is in the center of the garden because there is another tree possibly next to it.

No, the entire argument is not on that cornerstone. That's where he starts out, but he then moves to Lee teaching that God wanted man to only eat of the tree of life and that "God charged man to eat the right tree", and that "anything that is not life results in death". None of those require that the TKGE is in the center, and all of those stand on their own two feet as false even if the initial argument is broken.

Trapped

[SpeakersCorner]

@Trapped

The video does eventually come around to admitting Lee placed both trees in the center or at least before Adam. But rather than admit that okay, maybe Lee didn’t preclude the TOK from the center, the narrator turns it into an occasion to mock Lee for inconsistency. At least that’s how I recall it (I’m sitting in a parking lot as I type this). This is not a good faith argument if, after claiming Lee said one thing you now admit well, maybe not quite then use that as an occasion to smear.

As for your other point about the command to eat only from the TOL I will respond later when I’m at a better venue.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

@Trapped

The video does eventually come around to admitting Lee placed both trees in the center or at least before Adam. But rather than admit that okay, maybe Lee didn’t preclude the TOK from the center, the narrator turns it into an occasion to mock Lee for inconsistency. At least that’s how I recall it (I’m sitting in a parking lot as I type this). This is not a good faith argument if, after claiming Lee said one thing you now admit well, maybe not quite then use that as an occasion to smear.

As for your other point about the command to eat only from the TOL I will respond later when I’m at a better venue.

SpeakersCorner, Lee taught two different things that are inconsistent with each other, and neither are right. Lee's statement that God placed man before two trees is also wrong. He was inconsistent, and wrong in all directions in that inconsistency.

The video says that Witness Lee taught that man was placed before one tree in the center. He did teach this, and he was wrong. You want the video to acknowledge that Witness Lee also taught something different, that God placed man before two trees, both possibly being in the center. But the video does acknowledge this, and notes that it's a problem because it makes his other prevalent contradictory teaching that it was just one tree all the more problematic. So they could acknowledge that but it would just be another way Lee was wrong. That different thing Lee taught is wrong too! Neither are what the Bible says.

The Bible doesn't say man was placed before one tree or before two trees. The Bible says man was placed in a garden. Are you able to admit that Witness Lee was wrong?

Trapped

P.S. hope this helps, have you hit-and-run posted? Your input is probably better than mine!

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Bible doesn't say man was placed before one tree or before two trees. The Bible says man was placed in a garden. Are you able to admit that Witness Lee was wrong?

I'm willing to admit I disagree with Lee on a few minor points in his exegesis of the Eden story. I've already mentioned one: his failure to denote Eve's addition to God's command of "not to touch" the TOK. But in the main, I'm with him. I think the tree of life is the center -- the most meaningful item aside from Adam and Eve themselves in Eden. And I think Lee's view that it was eating wrongly, not disobeying, that is the real problem in the Fall is spot on. The video vehemently disagrees with this and I think they're wrong. The narrator really is just promoting the law, in my view. And boringly so. His takedown to me is very tedious and unenlightening. Along with that, I think Lee's illustration of the problem of a child drinking poison being what he ingested far more than his disobedience is a BRILLIANT analogy. Stunningly brlliiant even if you disagree with his use of it.

[GraceAlone]

Thanks for being clear about what you believe, SpeakersCorner. Your latest post was helpful that way. Speaking for myself, we can agree to disagree on both Lee’s theology and the merits of the video. Which is fine.

Moving on but not too far afield, I thought I’d just share how much I appreciated Two Trees Video #3. Particularly, I appreciated the articulation of how crippling the fear of death behind good can be. Once I shook loose of that teaching, I have found it so freeing and full of blessing to be able to simply practice Jesus’ command to love my neighbor without constantly second-guessing myself, wondering if I’m on the wrong tree, etc. I have noticed that many of the dear brothers and sisters in the LC seem so afraid to do obvious things like helping the poor, visiting the sick, etc. even though they are clearly commanded in Scripture. The excuse is that it’s “not God’s economy.“ I can’t help but think that I wasn’t the only one for whom that was just code for “not my comfort zone.” Now I have no excuse, so I have to discern the Holy Spirit’s leading (lest I try to be all things to all people). I’m being stretched in various ways, but it’s a joy to simply trust and obey.

[gr8ful]

Originally Posted by GraceAlone

Moving on but not too far afield, I thought I’d just share how much I appreciated Two Trees Video #3. Particularly, I appreciated the articulation of how crippling the fear of death behind good can be. Once I shook loose of that teaching, I have found it so freeing and full of blessing to be able to simply practice Jesus’ command to love my neighbor without constantly second-guessing myself, wondering if I’m on the wrong tree, etc. I have noticed that many of the dear brothers and sisters in the LC seem so afraid to do obvious things like helping the poor, visiting the sick, etc. even though they are clearly commanded in Scripture. The excuse is that it’s “not God’s economy.“ I can’t help but think that I wasn’t the only one for whom that was just code for “not my comfort zone.” Now I have no excuse, so I have to discern the Holy Spirit’s leading (lest I try to be all things to all people). I’m being stretched in various ways, but it’s a joy to simply trust and obey.

GraceAlone, I echo this appreciation. It was Video #3 that prompted me to declare I was freed from the bondage of the fear of GOOD, and also the presumption that EVIL might be life. And, more subtly, freed from doubting that speaking up to defend others might be against LIFE. Of course, I am nothing without God on my own, but the perniciousness of the quasi-biblical teaching of the Two Trees is a non-essential teaching we can use or discard as true believers.

[zeek]

In the Christian iconography over many centuries of church history the garden of Eden was depicted to be on a mountain with the tree of life at the summit which is the center and the tree of knowledge further down the mountain. If the tree of life is taken to represent Christ who said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” that picture makes perfect sense.

Can anyone please refer me to any biblical text, references, passage, or Gods commands regarding the tree of life? I went and re-read the whole creation account last night after seeing this thread, but I didn’t see any. Maybe I’m just the uneducated high school graduate, who is not able to read between the lines correctly. Would like some help.

P.S

Speaker,

How do you get around this verse if you believe what WL said?

Romans 5:19

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Thanks all.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Christian iconography over many centuries of church history the garden of Eden was depicted to be on a mountain with the tree of life at the summit which is the center and the tree of knowledge further down the mountain. If the tree of life is taken to represent Christ who said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” that picture makes perfect sense.

The description that Eden was the source of four rivers supports this view.

Although Revelation does not state this explicitly, the river of water of life will likely exit the Paradise of God in four directions out to the surrounding Nations.

Not sure if there will be a TOK then. Prolly not needed.

[SpeakersCorner]

I appreciated your post, GraceAlone. Yes, let's agree to disagree however, I do agree with much of your post. In recent years I have really come to see just how deeply "Biblicism" (my term) is entrenched in my soul. About a decade ago I was teaching in Lithuania at a very unique Christian university (700 students, almost all from post-Soviet countries) and a young, articulate theology prof and I were having a discussion about a pretty terrible chapel speaker we had just listened to.

"It could have been worse," he said. "He could have been a dispensationalist."

"Wait a second," I said. "I'm a dispensationalist."

He gaped at me. Prior to that moment he hadn't seen me in that camp. And prior to that moment I hadn't realized how hated that camp was by many. It caused me to begin digging into this whole matter. This same professor was also the first person I heard use the term "bibliolatry," the idea that some people turn the Bible itself into an idol. I do remember Witness Lee himself saying, upon the production of the Recovery Version (which he called "The Gold Bar"), "Don't beat people with the Gold Bar." Perhaps Lee was concerned about bibliolatry back then.

Since that time I have been wrestling with this topic. When I say Lee's interpretation of the two trees was brilliant, I am fully aware that it is, after all, just an interpretation. There is a certain irony that, in teaching about the tree of life as the center of everything, one makes the teaching itself the center rather than life.

But my question to myself is, does having a good interpretation even matter? Another theology professor at the same university doubled down on the first professor's worldview saying the Bible is important but should not be the be-all, end-all of church teaching. I know the argument well ... it's basically a Catholic argument though this guy was definitely not a Catholic. So I responded, "So how does a church not simply fall into the book of Judges where everyone does what is right in his own eyes?" He grew quite defensive and told me emphatically he was not suggesting that.

My own dear mother, a fundamentalist Baptist preacher's wife, as she grew older and occasionally began to use some social services like Meals on Wheels and in-house health care (she was taking care of my Down Syndrome brother almost to the end of both their lives) said to me once, "I don't know why we never did anything as a church like this. We were always opposed to social services."

Just this week I was asked to be a guest speaker at a class of adults learning English. They were all Spanish-speakers, all from Latin America, and all there on their own volition and cost (though it was subsidized). I couldn't help but love them. My conservative side, which argues we need border control, was warring with my liberal side, which saw the God-image in the faces of my fellow man.

Sorry so long but your post touches these matters and they're important. The LC fell into the "truth" camp (sorry to use air-quotes; interpret them as you will) just like the Brethren did. I feel quite sure W. Lee saw the danger of this early on, and tried to stave it off at the pass when he came to the U.S. calling his messages "Life-Studies" and using the term "church-life" until it became meaningless dogma. And I think, for the most part, it failed.

I'm beginning to think every "way" fails, save Christ ... and what does that even mean? Maybe that we simply continue forward in whatever way we know at the moment, beating our Bible swords into plowshares somehow.

Okay, enough. I kind of vowed to myself last night to gracefully exit this thread. I've caused enough trouble. But your post did touch me so you're to blame.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

the Two Trees is a non-essential teaching we can use or discard as true believers.

While it’s not written on the statement of faith within the LR, it is very essential to their teachings. You can’t really be in the LR and throw this teaching out, so much is built around this idea of the two trees.

Just like GraceAlone stated and you stated, how freeing it is to be able to drop that teaching because it’s non essential. How liberating it is to disagree with a non essential teaching and not be chastised.

[GraceAlone]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I appreciated your post, GraceAlone. Yes, let's agree to disagree however, I do agree with much of your post. In recent years I have really come to see just how deeply "Biblicism" (my term) is entrenched in my soul. About a decade ago I was teaching in Lithuania at a very unique Christian university (700 students, almost all from post-Soviet countries) and a young, articulate theology prof and I were having a discussion about a pretty terrible chapel speaker we had just listened to.

What a gracious, heartfelt and honest post. Thank you for sharing. I’ll happily accept that kind of blame.;-)

And I understand what you’re getting at by “truth.” I think you’re describing “truth as they define it”, being held in imperfect tension with Love/grace. Most groups — and most of us, most of the time — tend to err on one side or the other.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Where is it?

Can anyone please refer me to any biblical text, references, passage, or Gods commands regarding the tree of life? I went and re-read the whole creation account last night after seeing this thread, but I didn’t see any. Maybe I’m just the uneducated high school graduate, who is not able to read between the lines correctly. Would like some help.

Thanks all.

Where is it?

Welcome to the forum!

There are only a handful of mentions in the entire Bible of the "tree of life".

These are all the passages in the creation account in Genesis 2-3 that even include the words tree of life or include references to it.

Genesis 2:8-9
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
(no command to eat the tree of life mentioned, but it is clear from what is shown in Genesis 3:22-24 below that "you will surely die" means "I will prevent you from being able to eat the tree of life")

Genesis 3:22-24
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...” Therefore the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. So He drove out the man and stationed cherubim on the east side of the Garden of Eden, along with a whirling sword of flame to guard the way to the tree of life.

As you can see, there is no direct command to eat of it. God puts man in a garden. He tells man he can eat of everything in the garden except for the TKGE. When man disobeys and eats the prohibited tree, God prevents them from eating the tree of life so they will not live forever.

Here are the ones in Revelation. Again, the tree of life is shown to be a right we have that can be taken away if we do something we shouldn't.

Revelation 2:7
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Revelation 22:1-2
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book.

And here's the rest in Proverbs, which I personally don't take as referring to the actual TOL, but are just metaphors and poetic language as much of Proverbs is.

Proverbs 3:18
She is a tree of life to those who embrace her, and those who lay hold of her are blessed. (Ironically the "tree of life" here is actually a metaphor for "wisdom", as seen in Proverbs 3:13)

Proverbs 11:30
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and the one who is wise saves lives.

Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit.

Trapped

[Cal]

Hey, SC. Did you ever consider that eating wrongly and disobeying are the same thing? I'm not saying this in terms of law, but in terms of the NT reality that the word (in its essential meaning) and the Spirit are basically the same thing.

Where we get off is separating the two, usually by getting so hung up on some interpretation that we leave the Spirit, not to mention humility. Eventually knowing God is life. Life is not separate from knowing God. The LR pushed life so much that they effectively separated it from the person and mind of God.

Each of us must get to know God ourselves. A problem I saw with the LR mindset is this need for everyone to agree on what the best interpretation of things are. I don't think that is necessary, will probably never happen and seeking it and especially pushing it can be destructive. I would say just find what makes sense to you, share it in love and let the Lord worry about what sticks and what doesn't. You might help others and they might help you. We never know for sure which will happen.

Yeah, yeah. WL was brilliant. He was also narcissistic, don't forget.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I'm willing to admit I disagree with Lee on a few minor points in his exegesis of the Eden story. I've already mentioned one: his failure to denote Eve's addition to God's command of "not to touch" the TOK. But in the main, I'm with him. I think the tree of life is the center -- the most meaningful item aside from Adam and Eve themselves in Eden. And I think Lee's view that it was eating wrongly, not disobeying, that is the real problem in the Fall is spot on. The video vehemently disagrees with this and I think they're wrong. The narrator really is just promoting the law, in my view. And boringly so. His takedown to me is very tedious and unenlightening. Along with that, I think Lee's illustration of the problem of a child drinking poison being what he ingested far more than his disobedience is a BRILLIANT analogy. Stunningly brilliant even if you disagree with his use of it.

[Cal]

Question: Why did the LR talk so much more about knowing life than they did about knowing God?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Christian iconography over many centuries of church history the garden of Eden was depicted to be on a mountain with the tree of life at the summit which is the center and the tree of knowledge further down the mountain. If the tree of life is taken to represent Christ who said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” that picture makes perfect sense.

I guess I don't understand where the concept of the tree of life being Christ comes from. For example, in Revelation 22:1-2, there is the throne of God and of the Lamb, upon which God and the Lamb are sitting (the Lamb is the actual non-metaphorical Christ), and then out of the throne flows a river, and then a tree of life on either side of the river. Why would Christ be on the throne, and then a tree that "represents Christ" be a little ways from Him?

Revelation 22:1-2
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Christ is the reason we have right to the tree of life again (Genesis shows the right to the TOL was taken away due to sin, and it's reinstated at the end because Christ's sacrifice for us was accepted and so our outstanding sins which prevent us from the right to the TOL are no longer "on the record"), but I don't see where He actually IS the tree of life itself. He claims to be the bread of life, but never the TOL.

When Jesus says "He who eats me" in John 6, it's linked to a bread of life, not to a tree.

Anyway, this was one thing of Lee's teachings (or I guess, general Christian teaching if more than just Lee taught it) I never understood.

Lee liked to make everything everything else. He equated everything with everything until nothing made sense. The Son IS the Father. The Body IS Christ. We all need to be blended so no one is different from anyone else. There is no distinction left in his worldview. So maybe I'm overcorrecting and being overly distinctive, but even so I don't see anything concrete in the Bible that would directly link Christ to being the TOL. I dunno.

Trapped

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Cal

Question: Why did the LR talk so much more about knowing life than they did about knowing God?

If Christ is both the life and God, what's the problem?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If Christ is both the life and God, what's the problem?

Because you know life by knowing God, you don't know God by knowing life. Because the ultimate point is God, not life. Because life does not sum up everything God or Christ is. Because if you focus on Christ as life, you begin to miss the other things Christ is, like righteousness, as exemplified by the fruit of "we don't care about good and evil, we just care about life."

Trying to know God by knowing life is like trying to drive to Denver in reverse gear. It's not a good way to make the trip. The best way is to know life by knowing God.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I guess I don't understand where the concept of the tree of life being Christ comes from.

In John 15 Jesus says “I am the vine.” Lee called a vine a tree. I’ve looked into that in the past and found a few arborists who agree. I’ve always thought of the tree of life in Revelation as having to be a vine. How else could it grow along a River that winds through the city?

[Trapped]

Just some thoughts on the "law" issue brought up earlier. (SC this is not intended to pull you back into the thread since it sounds like you wanted to focus on other things. This is just my response directed to no one in particular).

-this account is in the Old Testament, and the law is a prominent feature of the OT, so it playing a definite role in Genesis 2-3 is not out of character

-God says in Genesis 3:11 "...Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" This is indeed a matter of disobeying a commandment. Romans 5 also shows it was an issue of transgression, trespass, offense, etc. In reference to Adam it says "the judgement that followed one sin". Law and commandments are definitely in the mix.

-Christ didn't abolish the law but fulfilled it, so we shouldn't think the law is a non-factor or something to wave away

-Even the New Testament contains Jesus telling us to follow His commandments. This, in my opinion, was heavily lost in the local church. As if all we needed to do was sit in a room on gold chairs reading rainbow colored books, and missing that the NT commands us to do good, commands us to love our neighbor, to love one another, shows the apostles were eager to help the poor, etc...

-Christ came to fulfill God's righteous requirements because we could not ourselves. All these are a matter of law. It doesn't mean that it's ONLY a matter of law, but the Bible doesn't present it that way anyway. It's also a matter of God's great love and Christ's love and sacrifice.

Trapped

[Cal]

Question: Why do LR people talk about "growing in life" but almost never talk about getting to know God? Why do they say "that brother really knows life," but don't say "that brother really knows the Lord?"

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

In John 15 Jesus says “I am the vine.” Lee called a vine a tree. I’ve looked into that in the past and found a few arborists who agree. I’ve always thought of the tree of life in Revelation as having to be a vine. How else could it grow along a River that winds through the city?

Context would indicate, at least to me, these are not related to each other.

Jesus says He is the vine (Gk: ampelos). Revelation says there is a tree (Gk: xylon). A vine is one thing; a tree is another, and the Bible used distinct words for them.

Jesus calls Himself a vine in John 15 in the context of our bearing fruit and being a branch that remains in Him, remaining in His love, keeping His commandments. This is a different context than the tree of life is ever shown. We are never shown to be a branch of the tree of life. We eat of what grows off of the branches of the tree of life.

Revelation 22 says the tree of life is "on either side of the river". My understanding is that Ezekiel 47:1-12 is supposed to be a picture of the city in Revelation, with water flowing from the temple and trees growing along the river, and it essentially describes what Revelation calls the tree of life as numerous trees growing along the river (Ezekiel 47:7 and 47:12).

I do think it's a tree and not a vine, but I also agree with you that it seems to be (a tree or trees) abounding by or along the river, not just in one location.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cal

Question: Why do LR people talk about "growing in life" but almost never talk about getting to know God? Why do they say "that brother really knows life," but don't say "that brother really knows the Lord?"

Let me answer my own question: Because "life" is a vague, mushy abstraction of God that can be manipulated to include a lot of things that aren't of God, like teachings of men, false institutions like "the Lord's Recovery" and anything else seemingly, including hiding sexual predators. Also, because if they encourage their members to get to know God, that leaves the door open for a person to get speaking from God that contradicts them, and they can't have that. They get God's speaking, you just get "life."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Cal

Question: Why do LR people talk about "growing in life" but almost never talk about getting to know God? Why do they say "that brother really knows life," but don't say "that brother really knows the Lord?"

This doesn't answer your question, but I have heard anecdotally that when Lee passed, there was a meeting of the co-workers (you know, "Brother We") where they were trying to decide what direction to take "the Lord's recovery", or what to emphasize or focus on.

One brother wanted to focus on love. Ron Kangas wanted to emphasize life.

Ron won out.

Love lost and life won.

And it shows.

"Life" or "knowing life" or "the sense of life" in the local church is just group code-speak for "submitting to the unspoken legalistic rules in the church life". It doesn't usually mean the Lord at all.

Having gone back and re-watched one of the other two trees videos yesterday, I was struck with the point that noted that Watchman Nee taught we need to pay attention to whether "the life in us increases or decreases" as a determiner of right or wrong, and the narrator made the point that the Bible doesn't talk about life increasing or decreasing in us, but instead says "if you the Son, YOU HAVE THE LIFE". You have it. It doesn't come and go. If you have Him, you have it!

It's almost as if their salvation is subtly not secure, even though they overtly teach it is.

[SpeakersCorner]

@Trapped

You make valid points about tree vs. vine. But Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 15 so I'm not ready to give up that as a possible extension of the tree of life.

I have another question (I probably shouldn't do this as I am drawn into these type of discussions and it usually gets me into trouble but here goes):

WHY did God create/plant a tree (the TOK) in the garden which bore beautiful, tasty fruit but then BAN the eating of that fruit? You who think the fruit itself wasn't toxic but that it was disobedience that mattered ... why? Is God tempting man?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

@Trapped

You make valid points about tree vs. vine. But Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 15 so I'm not ready to give up that as a possible extension of the tree of life.

I have another question (I probably shouldn't do this as I am drawn into these type of discussions and it usually gets me into trouble but here goes):

WHY did God create/plant a tree (the TOK) in the garden which bore beautiful, tasty fruit but then BAN the eating of that fruit? You who think the fruit itself wasn't toxic but that it was disobedience that mattered ... why? Is God tempting man?

Because things that are bad often look good to us. Who would be tempted to eat a pile of manure, especially if God told them not to? Remember evil is always a distortion of good. Evil is good perverted. Every evil claims in some way to be actually good. There is no essence of evil. It's always about its relation to good. Few do bad simply because it's bad. They do it because they think in some way it's good. That's why Eve ate, because she wanted to be like God. She just didn't take His way.

[LeftLR]

Originally Posted by Cal

Question: Why do LR people talk about "growing in life" but almost never talk about getting to know God? Why do they say "that brother really knows life," but don't say "that brother really knows the Lord?"

For LSM / LC, "growing in life" is only focus on the "Church Life" which is based on WL's teaching. CAl, you are right, LC / LSM never talk about getting to know "God", but talking about getting to know god though the teaching of WL.
I had conversation with few leading brothers where i was in Anaheim. Their thought process were totally based on WL's writing.

[Cal]

The tree of life means dependence on God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil means attempting to navigate your existence morally or otherwise outside of dependence on God. After all, why do you need God? You know good and evil. The first instance of knowing good and evil was to surmise that God was mistaken in prohibiting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve surmised that "good" was actually eating of that tree. Thus she actually ate of it before she ate of it. Or said another way, her eating of it was deciding independent of God that she should eat of it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Cal

The tree of life means dependence on God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil means attempting to navigate your existence morally or otherwise outside of dependence on God. After all, why do you need God? You know good and evil. The first instance of knowing good and evil was to surmise that God was mistaken in prohibiting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve surmised that "good" was actually eating of that tree. Thus she actually ate of it before she ate of it. Or said another way, her eating of it was deciding independent of God that she should eat of it.

Well put!!

[SpeakersCorner]

Okay, now I’ll answer my own question: Why God placed a forbidden tree in the pristine garden … a beautiful, tasty fruit that they were told DO NOT EAT?

Those of you who ascribe to the videomaker’s view that it wasn't a matter of life and death, that the fruit itself was fine and the eating of it didn't directly bring in death but the banned access to the tree of life did, you are forced to take the position that this fruit was a temptation, a test. What else could it be?

I reject that. I believe eating the fruit was toxic. I agree with Witness Lee that the disobedience of eating was not the real issue, it was the ingesting of the fruit itself that brought in death.

So the question you should have for me is, Why would God create a toxic but beautiful and tempting fruit? My answer: The fruit itself isn’t poison but it is toxic to Adam and Eve in their primal, innocent state. It's the same as introducing to a very young child things about human sexual behavior. This can be toxic, ruinous to the child for life. It isn’t that the information isn’t true: it’s that the child cannot process it at this point. I'm guessing many of you would agree that society is doing exactly this same serpentine deception to our children and that it is terrible.

That’s my take and I’m sticking with it … at least until someone comes up with a better one.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I have another question (I probably shouldn't do this as I am drawn into these type of discussions and it usually gets me into trouble but here goes):

WHY did God create/plant a tree (the TOK) in the garden which bore beautiful, tasty fruit but then BAN the eating of that fruit? You who think the fruit itself wasn't toxic but that it was disobedience that mattered ... why? Is God tempting man?

Here are my thoughts:

Picture a loving father and his child.

The father puts a beautiful-looking, tasty-sweet box of poison right on the kitchen table and tells the child not to eat it.

Or the father puts a beautiful-looking, tasty-sweet box of cupcakes right on the kitchen table and tells the child not to eat it.

Which of these is a loving father? Does a loving father put a tempting box of poison right where his child can eat it? No. Yet that's the God people hold to in these chapters. I've encountered many an angry atheist or discourage Christian stumbled precisely by this one thing (among others).

I personally arrived at many of the same conclusions found in the videos and so I would, if you are interested, refer you to the rest of them for a full explanation. The tediousness can be slightly ameliorated by listening on 1.5 or 1.75 speed; that's what I had to do. Some areas covered things I had not thought to look into, and so I dug into some of the things he said, and I found I agreed.

In short, biblically though, I would summarize like this:

-The TKGE is described as good for food. Good for food. Not poisonous, but actually, explicitly good for food. How can something "good for food" be poisonous? This is not something just "pleasant to the sight" only that's really actually poisonous. But something that is also called, by the Bible, not by any fallible Eve, "good for food" that is somehow supposed to be poisonous or toxic. It doesn't hold.

-Hebrews 5:11 describes believers who are mature who "have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil". This, to use a phrase from one of the videos, shows that it's "an aspect of moral maturity". Discernment of good from evil is a characteristic the Bible ascribes to mature believers. Again, in no way do I see how we can say this is a poison, evil, toxic or death characteristic.

-One other example in the videos, which I did not know about, but looked into and agreed with, is in 1 Kings 3 where Solomon asks God:

1 Kings 3:9-10
9 Therefore give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people and to discern between good and evil. For who is able to govern this great people of Yours?”
10 Now it pleased the Lord that Solomon had made this request.

If knowing or discerning good and evil was some kind of poisonous thing, or if the knowledge of good and evil is some kind of independence from God why would God be pleased that Solomon asked for it as a gift? Again, it's shown to be something more along the lines of maturity, judgment, responsibility, morality. God wants mature sons, not hapless dummies.

-Lastly, and I had wondered this myself in the past but am not sure that I hold to it as hard and fast, but just more of an interesting thing to think about - but, for example, Paul lets on to the Corinthians somewhere that they will "judge the world" and "judge angels" and gets on their case that they cannot judge a simple dispute among believers in the church.

If believers are supposed to judge now, and if we are expected to judge big things later on, it seems like that would require a mature sober-minded discernment of good from evil, not believers who think that knowing good and evil is "of death".

The tree is more of a good thing that God has told them not to partake of until they have shown they are up to the responsibility of it. Like why would He grant them a tree the characteristics of which are shown to be for mature followers of God if they cannot follow one simple command? It's like driving for a teenager - a parent doesn't (or at least, shouldn't!) allow a kid behind the wheel until the kid has shown they can handle the responsibility of it, so they tell their kids not to touch the car keys. Driving isn't evil, but doing it before you are mature enough to handle it is bad and a kid would suffer consequences for it, just like Adam and Eve suffered consequences for their act of disobedience.

Trapped

[Trapped]

I mean, at a fundamental level I am convinced that the knowledge of or the discernment of good and evil is a GOOD thing, because I have seen the damage, some of which has lead to suicide, in the local church caused by the leading ones who, as a matter of course, refuse to discern between good and evil when evil is committed.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I agree with Witness Lee that the disobedience of eating was not the real issue, it was the ingesting of the fruit itself that brought in death.

If disobedience isn't a real issue, what comes to your mind as an explanation of why God cursed Adam and banned A&E from the garden?

Romans 5 says death came through sin, not death came through a fruit.

Romans 5 repeatedly speaks of "the trespass", "the sin", "the disobedience", "the transgression", etc. in reference to Adam's actions.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Okay, now I’ll answer my own question: Why God placed a forbidden tree in the pristine garden … a beautiful, tasty fruit that they were told DO NOT EAT?

Those of you who ascribe to the videomaker’s view that it wasn't a matter of life and death, that the fruit itself was fine and the eating of it didn't directly bring in death but the banned access to the tree of life did, you are forced to take the position that this fruit was a temptation, a test. What else could it be?

I reject that. I believe eating the fruit was toxic. I agree with Witness Lee that the disobedience of eating was not the real issue, it was the ingesting of the fruit itself that brought in death.

So the question you should have for me is, Why would God create a toxic but beautiful and tempting fruit? My answer: The fruit itself isn’t poison but it is toxic to Adam and Eve in their primal, innocent state. It's the same as introducing to a very young child things about human sexual behavior. This can be toxic, ruinous to the child for life. It isn’t that the information isn’t true: it’s that the child cannot process it at this point. I'm guessing many of you would agree that society is doing exactly this same serpentine deception to our children and that it is terrible.

That’s my take and I’m sticking with it … at least until someone comes up with a better one.

There is something to be said for this argument, that the first humans got premature knowledge. But it wasn't the premature knowledge that made them fallen. It was their disobedience that made them fallen. They sinned. Sin brings death the Bible says. The result was people who knew good and evil, but could do little about it in their fallen state. This was crushing.

God himself said, they are like us, knowing good and evil. He didn't say knowing good and evil was itself evil. It's just that we weren't ready for knowing it. It wasn't his intent that we have this knowledge at that time, but now we have it, and God is working with us in this state. We can't go back.

Witness Lee was trying to get us back to the garden state, where somehow we make it back to not knowing good and evil. This is what his whole good and evil vs. life argument adds up to. But it's not possible. It's interesting that the Bible really doesn't address the point of us not knowing good and evil anymore as a part of salvation. So what happens? Using the premature sexual knowledge metaphor, God works us through it until we arrive at a place where we are equipped to handle it. We are supposed to be like God, so surely eventually knowing good and evil was part of the plan.

So I can buy the idea that part of the problem was knowing good and evil in the sense that we weren't ready for it. But is knowing good and evil in itself bad? If that were true the Bible would not tell us to do good and reject evil, it would tell us never to think about either, and as TLRU says, the Bible over and over tells us the opposite.

Rejecting both good and evil is synonymous with thinking that walking around naked will make you innocent again. But you know you are naked. You can't go back.

[Cal]

There are really two issues of the fall. The first is becoming fallen due to sin. The second is premature knowledge of good and evil. It's like the don't eat pork commandment. Disobeying it is one problem. That was a sin. The second problem is getting trichinosis. They are separate things. A crude analogy I know, but I hope you get the point.

[Sons to Glory!]

Good point that ALL the trees were good for food. So how does sin get in the flesh? (as per Romans 7:17-20) We certainly appear to be born with it even before we sin . . .

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good point that ALL the trees were good for food. So how does sin get in the flesh? (as per Romans 7:17-20) We certainly appear to be born with it even before we sin . . .

Paul says plainly, "Through one man's sin, sin entered the world." Sin corrupts.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I believe eating the fruit was toxic. I agree with Witness Lee that the disobedience of eating was not the real issue, it was the ingesting of the fruit itself that brought in death..

Here’s my take:

God commanded man not to eat of The TOKGE. I don’t think there was anything special about this tree, apart from it being the one God commanded man not to eat.

The serpent then convinces Eve that if she eats it, she will be like God. The thing is, man was made in the image of God. They are already like God. In fact god commanded them to exercise authority over all the beasts of the field, which includes the very serpent speaking to her. Side note in the Hebrew, the serpent doesn’t even refer to God as Yahweh, which should have caused Eve’s authority to kick in.

By obeying the serpent, they betray all God had commanded and gave them (image and dominion). This event isn’t just some act of disobedience, it’s an act of treachery.

Man committed treason, they betrayed God. I personally don’t think it was the content of the fruit they ate, but the content of their heart that drove their actions.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good point that ALL the trees were good for food. So how does sin get in the flesh? (as per Romans 7:17-20) We certainly appear to be born with it even before we sin . . .

Originally Posted by Cal

Paul says plainly, "Through one man's sin, sin entered the world." Sin corrupts.

This is my take I'll just throw into the mix but won't argue for:

I think the verse saying "sin entered the world" means "the world" as in the world in general, like, "sin came on the scene" or like "sin showed up among men". As in, before Adam's sin, sin was not present in mankind, and after Adam's sin, it was present in mankind, in Adam. I do not think that this means something like Adam's sin entered into all of humankind's flesh. To be sure, the end of that verse is "because all sinned". So death spread to all men 'because all sinned', not because Adam's sin spread to us all and we somehow have someone else's sin causing us to....sin.

Man fell, but I see no evidence that "Adam's nature changed", that somehow Adam started out with a different "nature" than we do. I think we all, Jesus included, were born with a free will human nature, with desires to and free ability to do good/right things or bad/wrong things. I mean, Jesus freely WANTED to do something opposite of what God wanted, but aligned Himself with His Father's will. For us to be born with some kind of sin-bent would mean God is judging us for a serious predisposition out of our control, AND would mean we are born with a fundamentally different nature than Jesus who was supposed to be "made like us in every way" (yet without sin, which I hold to be not a nature, but, as in "yet He did not commit a sin"). Or maybe I'm wrong, but then God just takes the sin-predisposition takes it into account when judging?). However, I think as I've argued elsewhere on the forum, then God's repeated exhortation to His people in the Old Testament to obey Him, and His punishment when they don't, makes no sense if they have some kind of built-in or inherited sin nature by which doing the right thing is inherently out of their control.

I would agree, though, that sin corrupts. So my take would be that as each of us sinned, and as we then chose to sin again, sin corrupts us each individually. Sin has a corrupting effect in us leading to more sin. But that's the effect of our own choice to sin, not that someone else's sin corrupted us. Just my 0.02.

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I would agree, though, that sin corrupts. So my take would be that as each of us sinned, and as we then chose to sin again, sin corrupts us each individually. Sin has a corrupting effect in us leading to more sin. But that's the effect of our own choice to sin, not that someone else's sin corrupted us. Just my 0.02.

Trapped

If sin is in the flesh when we're born, then we're predisposed to sin. Children don't have to be taught to lie, it's just something in them.

If we're not born with sin in the flesh, then if a person never sined, would they still die?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Cal

Because you know life by knowing God, you don't know God by knowing life. Because the ultimate point is God, not life. Because life does not sum up everything God or Christ is. Because if you focus on Christ as life, you begin to miss the other things Christ is, like righteousness, as exemplified by the fruit of "we don't care about good and evil, we just care about life."

Trying to know God by knowing life is like trying to drive to Denver in reverse gear. It's not a good way to make the trip. The best way is to know life by knowing God.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." He is the life. There is no conflict between Jesus, God, divine life, righteousness or the good. If one knows the divine life one knows God. There is no "ultimate point" that is God without divine life. There is no way to know God without knowing His divine life. To divide God from His divine life is to make a meaningless distinction. God is inseparable from His life. They are one and the same. You can't have one without the other.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If sin is in the flesh when we're born, then we're predisposed to sin. Children don't have to be taught to lie, it's just something in them.

I've heard that comment a lot "children don't have to be taught to lie", but I think it's an unintentional misdirect.

Children's brains don't have the capacity for things. Like impulse control, emotional regulation, etc. They are not developed, but are developing. It's my personal view that God doesn't condemn a 2-year old for getting tantrum-level angry or throwing a toy when that child doesn't have the brain with the capability of regulating the anger in the first place. That's not sin. God is not petty like that.

I would also argue that children don't have to be taught to do good things either. (I don't mean in general; I just mean it is in a child to do both). I have a personal example in my own life of one of my friend's children, the kid is 4 or 5 I think, who found out that someone his dad knew had a favorite toy stolen decades ago when he (the child's dad's friend) was a kid. Much to the dad's complete shock, his kid heard it and said, "I want to give him [the dad's friend] one of my toys [the kind that was stolen] to him so he doesn't feel so bad about his getting stolen." The dad was speechless and had no idea where that selfless compassion came from as it wasn't something they had taught him in particular.

Children have the capability for lying and for compassion, for hitting and for love. The "I love you mommy"s with a deep satisfied sigh are not behaviors that the other parent sat down and walked the kid through. Kids have the capacity and the desire for both good and bad things, just like us.

I am of the school of thought that there is an age of accountability. Not a blanket one, but one unique to each individual. That's why God is the judge. He knows at which point we each could have chosen not to sin but first chose to.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If we're not born with sin in the flesh, then if a person never sinned, would they still die?

The Bible says all have sinned, and because of that, death spread to all men.

On one hand, I would say "no, they would not still die", but then the next logical question is "so what about babies or young children who die of cancer or in a car accident?" And my answer is, I don't know. This is a point I said I wouldn't argue on because I'm not sure of it.

A possible answer is that all are appointed to die in the flesh, regardless of sin, and the "death" WE are referring to that is a result of sin is really the second death, the death of the soul. So in other words, 100 year olds who sinned their whole lives and a 2 month old who never sinned once are both going to die bodily regardless, since Hebrews 9:27 says we are quite literally "appointed to die" but then face judgment, which means it's just our bodies and not our souls that are appointed to die, then the young child who never sinned would have nothing on his/her record to be judged by and would pass through into eternal life.

That's conjecture of course. This is a debated question "how can God condemn babies who die" and I haven't solved every last nuance of it

But given the choice of a God who condemns us for sins we committed because of an inherited sin-tendency someone ELSE gave us (that's too unrighteous of a God for me, and not one I see in the Bible) versus a God who condemns us for sins we knowingly chose to commit and yet I don't know exactly what happens with the outlier situations but trust that righteous God to handle it righteously....I'll take the latter one where I don't know everything, but where God is righteous in all directions.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

If Christ is both the life and God, what's the problem?

I would say the problem is that the Bible doesn't anthropomorphize life or treat it as something that can be known or interacted with or sensed. It talks about knowing God, but it doesn't talk about "knowing life" (I think). Instead, it talks about "having life".

Related to Christ and life, I think of these verses:

John 1:4
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

1 John 5:11-12
And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

So God "has life in himself". God granted to the Son "also to have life in himself".

And we have this life, apparently not in ourselves, but because we have the Son, who himself has this life in himself.

It's a non-biblical thought, as far as I can tell, to "know life". We don't "know life"; we know the One who HAS the life.

Trapped

P.S. So what does that mean when Jesus says "I am the life"? Why didn't He say "I HAVE the life"? Ya got me. I'm just throwing thoughts out there.

Maybe He meant it like a parent who tells their teenager "I am your ride home." Obviously the teen isn't going to jump on his dad's back and get a piggyback ride, but the parent is the way the kid will get the ride home, and in that way "is" the ride.

Like, you want life? I'm how you get that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I would say the problem is that the Bible doesn't anthropomorphize life or treat it as something that can be known or interacted with or sensed. It talks about knowing God, but it doesn't talk about "knowing life" (I think). Instead, it talks about "having life".

Related to Christ and life, I think of these verses:

John 1:4
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

1 John 5:11-12
And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

So God "has life in himself". God granted to the Son "also to have life in himself".

And we have this life, apparently not in ourselves, but because we have the Son, who himself has this life in himself.

It's a non-biblical thought, as far as I can tell, to "know life". We don't "know life"; we know the One who HAS the life.

Trapped

P.S. So what does that mean when Jesus says "I am the life"? Why didn't He say "I HAVE the life"? Ya got me. I'm just throwing thoughts out there.

Maybe He meant it like a parent who tells their teenager "I am your ride home." Obviously the teen isn't going to jump on his dad's back and get a piggyback ride, but the parent is the way the kid will get the ride home, and in that way "is" the ride.

Like, you want life? I'm how you get that.

Jesus answered, "I am...the life" not "I have life." John 14:6 See my response to Cal.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus answered, "I am...the life" not "I have life." John 14:6

Yeah that’s what I said in my P.S. Sometimes the best I can do is to ask myself, in this case, things like “in what sense is Jesus the life?” And then look at what other verses say about the same thing and then try to make them all make sense. Sometimes that’s the best any of us can do.

For example Jesus said to eat His flesh. So we say, okay, in what sense does He mean this? We look at more than just one verse sometimes to understand what’s being said.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." He is the life. There is no conflict between Jesus, God, divine life, righteousness or the good. If one knows the divine life one knows God. There is no "ultimate point" that is God without divine life. There is no way to know God without knowing His divine life. To divide God from His divine life is to make a meaningless distinction. God is inseparable from His life. They are one and the same. You can't have one without the other.

True. But because you think you are experiencing life doesn't mean you are experiencing God, because the life is also a person, and we all know that the experience of "life" in the LR depersonalizes God. You can talk about God as "life" so much that you lose sight that getting to know life is getting to know a Person. This is the error of many false religions. They reduce God to a force, because dealing with God as a person means dealing with another mind, attitude and preference. It's much more convenient to deal with God as just a force that makes you feel good.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yeah that’s what I said in my P.S. Sometimes the best I can do is to ask myself, in this case, things like “in what sense is Jesus the life?” And then look at what other verses say about the same thing and then try to make them all make sense. Sometimes that’s the best any of us can do.

For example Jesus said to eat His flesh. So we say, okay, in what sense does He mean this? We look at more than just one verse sometimes to understand what’s being said.

I added: "See my response to Cal." You're looking for mental answers or explanations. Christ is not an intellectual exercise.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

I added: "See my response to Cal." You're looking for mental answers or explanations. Christ is not an intellectual exercise.

Christ is not an intellectual exercise? That sounds too much like “get out of your mind”, as well as just as meaningless.

This is a discussions forum. I’m not going to divorce intellect or my mental faculties from my posts here, even if the topic is Christ. I’ll take your “shoo fly” and leave you be.

Trapped

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Cal

True. But because you think you are experiencing life doesn't mean you are experiencing God, because the life is also a person, and we all know that the experience of "life" in the LR depersonalizes God. You can talk about God as "life" so much that you lose sight that getting to know life is getting to know a Person. This is the error of many false religions. They reduce God to a force, because dealing with God as a person means dealing with another mind, attitude and preference. It's much more convenient to deal with God as just a force that makes you feel good.

Jesus doesn't say he is "life", he says he is "the life." That isn't vague or impersonal. Those problems you speak of are real in the LR and elsewhere, but lets not let that rob us from the simple joy of the presence the omnipresent One who is "the life." That's our birth right. It's what we were born for.

By the way I watched one of your videos about the oneness. Jesus said we should be one as He is one with the Father. Now, that's not something we can achieve. And we don't have to. Because it's already true in Christ. Peace to you, bro.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Christ is not an intellectual exercise? That sounds too much like “get out of your mind”, as well as just as meaningless.

This is a discussions forum. I’m not going to divorce intellect or my mental faculties from my posts here, even if the topic is Christ. I’ll take your “shoo fly” and leave you be.

Trapped

Excuse me. I didn't mean to offend you. I've read your posts. I appreciate your thoughts and logic. Anyway don't worry. I was just passing through after being away from this forum for years. Carry on. Peace to you in Christ. Farewell.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cal

Question: Why do LR people talk about "growing in life" but almost never talk about getting to know God? Why do they say "that brother really knows life," but don't say "that brother really knows the Lord?"

One deceptive example of “knowing life” and “growing in life” in the Recovery is zeal for the ministry. Knowing the Lord, however, restricts us to righteousness and love; being zealous for the ministry, while supposedly “knowing life,” gives license to an array of sins.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus doesn't say he is "life", he says he is "the life." That isn't vague or impersonal. Those problems you speak of are real in the LR and elsewhere, but lets not let that rob us from the simple joy of the presence the omnipresent One who is "the life." That's our birth right. It's what we were born for.

By the way I watched one of your videos about the oneness. Jesus said we should be one as He is one with the Father. Now, that's not something we can achieve. And we don't have to. Because it's already true in Christ. Peace to you, bro.

There is nothing wrong with the idea Christ is the life. The Bible teaches this. The question is what does that really mean, how should we view it and what it says about how we should believe and live.

When I analyze the LR, I look for clues of how they went wrong, and one conclusion I have come to is they value knowing life more than knowing God. You can't just say one equals the other and that's that, because if that were true then why not just talk about knowing God? That's what the Bible teaches to know. The Bible never tells us to "know life."

The Greek word for "life" is zoe, which in Greek means the highest form of life. This can imply life as an essence or life as something lived out. But it doesn't imply, to most people, personality. The word "God" is definite. It implies everything about God including his personality. "Life" can be taken as something impersonal, especially when emphasized in the way the LR does.

Yes, God is life and his life includes his personality. But that's not the mindset of the LR. Their mindset is that life is a force that is somewhat impersonal, as if God is mindless and everything about him comes "spontaneously, automatically" from his life without even Him having to think. It tends to make us view him as less than a person. And that's what I observe in the LR. Ideas like the "processed God" and the "all-inclusive dose" do the same thing.

I'm talking about tendencies here. It's not black and white.

[Cal]

My question is, if "knowing life" is the best way to maximize our Christian experience, then how does it facilitate getting leading from God which might contradict the LR leaders? In fact, it does just the opposite. Because "life" is vague. God's speaking is definite. Thus the members get to enjoy God as life, but not God as a person who might contradict Witness Lee. This is part of the error. Thus they say "you don't know life, brother." Why don't they say "you don't know God, brother?" Is knowing life more important than knowing God? Or is it that it's easier to hoodwink someone into thinking they don't know life than into thinking they don't know God?

Simply put, if you don't get to know God yourself then you are leaving the door open to being manipulated by someone who claims to "know life" better than you.

[SpeakersCorner]

A leading brother from outside our locality a while ago asked me concerning another brother -- let's call him Brother L -- who was meeting with us, "Yeah, Brother L's okay but does he know life?" Brother L was very weak in Bible knowledge and completely ignorant of LR theology. The question really annoyed me but I chewed on it for weeks.

During my ruminations I recalled this: One Lord's Day before a meeting Brother L came up to me and said, "Could we avoid talking about being a preterist today? Because I'm worried about Brother S getting offended." Context: we were going through Daniel and the topic of Preterism (believing the events described in Revelation already happened in the first century) had come up. Brother S, who had a Phd. in theology, had said in a previous meeting, "I just discovered Preterism. Why was I not taught this in seminary?" He was going through some thorough re-thinking of his past positions. Brother L didn't really understand Preterism, he just wanted to avoid controversy and wanted to keep Brother S among us.

Is that not knowing life? I say yes. I think the LR turned this honestly important topic of knowing life into a dead metric. It isn't that we shouldn't think about knowing life, having life, receiving life, eating from the tree of life, it's that we would actually do those things instead of catchecizing tem into a dead corpse of dogma.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Is that not knowing life? I say yes. I think the LR turned this honestly important topic of knowing life into a dead metric. It isn't that we shouldn't think about knowing life, having life, receiving life, eating from the tree of life, it's that we would actually do those things instead of catchecizing tem into a dead corpse of dogma.

Where does the Bible tells us to know life? How is speaking of knowing life better than speaking of knowing God? Why say "know life" when you can say "know God?" After all, the Bible does say eternal life is knowing God.

I just don't understand this need to talking in terms of knowing life. It just seems a bait and switch. Life = LR culture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cal

Where does the Bible tells us to know life? How is speaking of knowing life better than speaking of knowing God? Why say "know life" when you can say "know God?" After all, the Bible does say eternal life is knowing God.

I just don't understand this need to talking in terms of knowing life. It just seems a bait and switch. Life = LR culture.

Watch. Someone will tell me "You don't know life, brother."

Thanks Trapped for your replies and points. I started doing some more digging, even on this site and I found a few helpful threads. I don’t feel like getting involved with the way these conversations are happening, so if someone is looking for more resources, looks like a lot of this has already been discussed here on this site.

Thanks all.

Good vs Lee’s Thee’s

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3271

Jesus Christ = The tree of Life

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=7232

Lee's "Economy" and the Fall

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5595


Also found this post by UntoHim to be totally on point, and made me laugh at all the LC people who say lies like this.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As posted on ContendingForTheFaith.Org.
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en...ocal-churches/

This was originally published around 1977 as a pamphlet for Local Church members to give to inquiring Christians and the general public. Some the questions and answers were no doubt meant to be a rebuttal of sorts to the questions and concerns raised by the original Bible Answer Man, Dr. Walter Martin.

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

Who is your leader?
Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. On the contrary, we follow only those whose teaching and practice is in accordance with the truth of God’s Word. Those who take the lead do not lord it over the saints, but rather shepherd them in love. Likewise, those who serve the Lord do not control the churches, but rather serve them as bondslaves of Christ in the ministry of the living Word.

Where is your headquarters?
Each local church is autonomous in its administration. Therefore, there is no central headquarters. No particular local church should be regarded as the head church or leading church. On the contrary, all the local churches share the same standing before the Lord.

We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership.
If this wasn't so sad and tragic, it would be Nee slapping funny! Anyone who was in the Local Church for more than a few weeks found out that Witness Lee was just about as official and permanent of a leader as one could get. In fact, accepting Witness Lee's authority and ministry became "indispensable" to any elder and/or co-worker, and by extension, all the rank-and-file members as well. God have mercy

No central headquarters? Really guys? If the LSM training/conference/printing/communications digs there at 2431 W. La Palma Ave in Anaheim is not the headquarters of the Local Church of Witness Lee, then there is no such thing as headquarters! Check out the LSM 990 form from 2018. NET ASSETS OF $100,000,000.
https://www.causeiq.com/organization...ada5ae8aa65d65

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cal

True. But because you think you are experiencing life doesn't mean you are experiencing God, because the life is also a person, and we all know that the experience of "life" in the LR depersonalizes God. You can talk about God as "life" so much that you lose sight that getting to know life is getting to know a Person. This is the error of many false religions. They reduce God to a force, because dealing with God as a person means dealing with another mind, attitude and preference. It's much more convenient to deal with God as just a force that makes you feel good.

Excellent observations here.

The more I think back about this matter of "knowing life," the more upset I get remembering the stories. For years in the LC "brother's meetings" we would hear reports of interactions with brothers from other regions, including HQ's in Anaheim. Brothers would mention rivalries, backbitings, deceptions, false witnesses, man-pleasings, pretenses, prejudices, partialities, playing favorites, etc. I'm not talking about the gentiles here, but so-called leaders in the Recovery.

Eventually some "wise" brother in the meeting would make the conclusion, "well, they just don't know life." And I would silently and proudly conclude, "so glad I know life." Yet here we were with brothers who spent more time talking about "life" than any Christians in history, yet they don't know life.

Don't know life!?! They don't know the scripture either. Neither do they know God the Father nor the Son. What do they really know? They know the ways and words of Witness Lee. Period. His ways supersede everything, including the life of God, knowing God, and knowing His word.

[Sons to Glory!]

I still wonder why God used the fruit of trees . . . Fruit is something eaten and therefore becomes part of us. If it's only about obeying Him, why didn't He use some other object? Like, as an example, perhaps ponds of water. So therefore it would have been, "Of every pond you may bath and swim in, except that one." That would fit the need of seeing if we would obey, would it not? But, instead God used the fruit of trees as something that would be eaten, and I find that interesting. What was the point of doing that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Cal

There is nothing wrong with the idea Christ is the life. The Bible teaches this. The question is what does that really mean, how should we view it and what it says about how we should believe and live.

When I analyze the LR, I look for clues of how they went wrong, and one conclusion I have come to is they value knowing life more than knowing God. You can't just say one equals the other and that's that, because if that were true then why not just talk about knowing God? That's what the Bible teaches to know. The Bible never tells us to "know life."

The Greek word for "life" is zoe, which in Greek means the highest form of life. This can imply life as an essence or life as something lived out. But it doesn't imply, to most people, personality. The word "God" is definite. It implies everything about God including his personality. "Life" can be taken as something impersonal, especially when emphasized in the way the LR does.

Yes, God is life and his life includes his personality. But that's not the mindset of the LR. Their mindset is that life is a force that is somewhat impersonal, as if God is mindless and everything about him comes "spontaneously, automatically" from his life without even Him having to think. It tends to make us view him as less than a person. And that's what I observe in the LR. Ideas like the "processed God" and the "all-inclusive dose" do the same thing.

I'm talking about tendencies here. It's not black and white.

If what you are describing by making this distinction between God and divine life is a situation in which the term "life" in this context was abused, I heard Witness Lee do that and wondered about it when I was there. The "Unchained" videos deal with that problem in various ways. Witness Lee stripped the Christian life of its ethical content and that content is based on God's personhood. I see that.

What I am insisting is that what happened there was an abuse of what Jesus means by the word in John 14:6, 11:25 and elsewhere. "The Life" is the life of Christ which is a life that perfectly integrates righteousness and compassion. It's not the life of a MOTA and his zombie followers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If what you are describing by making this distinction between God and divine life is a situation in which the term "life" in this context was abused, I heard Witness Lee do that and wondered about it when I was there. The "Unchained" videos deal with that problem in various ways. Witness Lee stripped the Christian life of its ethical content and that content is based on God's personhood. I see that.

What I am insisting is that what happened there was an abuse of what Jesus means by the word in John 14:6, 11:25 and elsewhere. "The Life" is the life of Christ which is a life that perfectly integrates righteousness and compassion. It's not the life of a MOTA and his zombie followers.

I agree completely.

[Nell]

This video was transcribed by Nell.It's as accurate as possible, but there may be some errors or variations, especially between the timestamp and the text. Click the Table of Time References to follow the link.

If you find errors, please let me know and I will correct.

If this transcript is helpful, let me know. I might transcribe another video! :-)

Thanks,
Nell

[UtahGiant]

These videos are very interesting and provide a great perspective. In a healthy Christian community, examining teachings like these videos do is encouraged often. In The Local Church Movement such examination is discouraged and spoken against. The ability to question teachings is very important, the ability to not question teachings is a major major red flag. It’s something you don’t realize is a red flag until you’re out of that environment.

Keep making these videos. I pray they impact and cause believers in the Local Church Movement to seek truth. We must continue to bring the truth to light. I believe that God rescued us out of this toxic system, so that we could rescue others. We need to bring these truths to people in the Local Church Movement, because someone needed to bring it to us before we saw it. Fight the good fight

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UtahGiant

These videos are very interesting and provide a great perspective. In a healthy Christian community, examining teachings like these videos do is encouraged often. In The Local Church Movement such examination is discouraged and spoken against. The ability to question teachings is very important, the ability to not question teachings is a major major red flag. It’s something you don’t realize is a red flag until you’re out of that environment.

Keep making these videos. I pray they impact and cause believers in the Local Church Movement to seek truth. We must continue to bring the truth to light. I believe that God rescued us out of this toxic system, so that we could rescue others. We need to bring these truths to people in the Local Church Movement, because someone needed to bring it to us before we saw it. Fight the good fight

I agree completely.

[gr8ful]

The dissection of the true significance of 1 Tim 1:3-4 in "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" YouTube series helped set aside the peculiar-to-Lee teaching of "God's Economy," which has no basis in truth. Seeing "God's Economy" as Lee does is simply a grammatical mistake.

After 30+ years of being invested in studying the details of Lee's private interpretation of oikonomia, I'm fully freed from this odd teaching that not even Nee had.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

The dissection of the true significance of 1 Tim 1:3-4 in "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" YouTube series helped set aside the peculiar-to-Lee teaching of "God's Economy," which has no basis in truth. Seeing "God's Economy" as Lee does is simply a grammatical mistake.

After 30+ years of being invested in studying the details of Lee's private interpretation of oikonomia, I'm fully freed from this odd teaching that not even Nee had.

What released me from the bondage of “God’s Economy” was the following verse:

“But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart.”

There is only one way to be free from this hegemony of the local church, or to better put it “a delusional hegemony”. That is to totally renounce and repent of EVERYTHING that you received from it. All teachings, all associations, all connections!

I don’t mean that we do what locals do to us when we leave, by abandoning and cutting off people, BUT to actually show them the true living God, his love and care if, and when the opportunity is there to do so. I will gladly meet and fellowship with people from recovery about true living God, but this time around it will be on my terms, and not by the way of WL/WN and their disciples.

P.S
I would recommend reading this book, for anyone who wants to see the difference between the “I’m god” theology of the local church, and “He is God, and I’m just His creation”, in a simple language, and add just another perspective and understanding of our great God.
When I first saw this book, it was kind off putting, by the way it’s titled, but the concept that was used to expose the very nature of the person is BRILLIANT, in the true meaning of that word!

Cat and Dog Theology: Rethinking Our Relationship with Our Master. Living Passionately for the Glory of God

https://www.amazon.com/Cat-Dog-Theol...s%2C435&sr=8-1

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What released me from the bondage of “God’s Economy” was the following verse:

“But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart.”

Hoot there it is!!!!

As I've shared often, seeing that love was God's main motivation and foundation for all He does towards us, is when scripture began opening to me a way it never had before. It is then that many of the old LC teachings began to really "grow strangely dim."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There is only one way to be free from this hegemony of the local church, or to better put it “a delusional hegemony”. That is to totally renounce and repent of EVERYTHING that you received from it. All teachings, all associations, all connections!

Sorry I don't agree with this at all. Let me cite my reasons.

• The Bible tells us to "Test all things, hold on to the good." (I Thess 5.21) Discarding all things forces us to also discard the good.
• The Bible continually cites the need for discernment and wisdom, even the wisdom found in a multitude of counselors. (Proverbs 11.14; 15.22)
• Evaluating what is good and what is worthless helps us grow in Christ. (Heb 5.14)
• A wise Christian counselor suggested the practice of "treasure hunting" to his clients. Since God has allowed all the arrangements in our life, (Romans 8.28) even in bad situations, we should hunt for the "treasures" that God has provided for our good.
• Even though the Jewish leaders had Jesus killed, He never condemned the religion they received from Moses. Instead He told the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." (Luke 12.1-2) Jesus continually taught them to discern what was from God, and what was the hypocrisy of men.
• Many sincere believers have discarded "faith and a good conscience" (I Timothy 1.19) when they left the LC. I think this is the greatest tragedy of all.
• Perhaps what you have learned from your time in the LC, you could now help others in the same situation.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I noticed my 7 point rebuttal to @unregistered just became the “featured post.”

Actually your rebuttal didn't become the featured post. Maybe you could restate?

• Discarding all things forces us to also discard the good.
  Not necessarily. Besides it is a fact that "anything good" in the Local Church of Witness Lee can be found elsewhere without having to swallow the garbage wholesale, which is what one MUST do in the LC.
  -
• The Bible continually cites the need for discernment and wisdom, even the wisdom found in a multitude of counselors. (Proverbs 11.14; 15.22)
  How does this relate to Unregistered's post?
  -
• Evaluating what is good and what is worthless helps us grow in Christ. (Heb 5.14)
  How does evaluating "what is worthless" help us grow in Christ?
  -
• A wise Christian counselor suggested the practice of "treasure hunting" to his clients. Since God has allowed all the arrangements in our life, (Romans 8.28) even in bad situations, we should hunt for the "treasures" that God has provided for our good.
  Many of us spent the better part of our adult lives hunting for the treasures that Witness Lee told us were there. He lied. There are no treasures in the ministry of Nee or Lee. Nuff said bout that for now.
  -
• Even though the Jewish leaders had Jesus killed, He never condemned the religion they received from Moses. Instead He told the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." (Luke 12.1-2) Jesus continually taught them to discern what was from God, and what was the hypocrisy of men.
  Not sure what you mean by "the religion they received from Moses", but the religion we received from Witness Lee was not from God, and is chock full of the hypocrisy of men.
  -
• Many sincere believers have discarded "faith and a good conscience" (I Timothy 1.19) when they left the LC. I think this is the greatest tragedy of all.
  The greatest tragedy might be that if they had been taught and displayed the genuine, biblical Gospel they probably would not have discarded the faith. In the Local Church we were taught "another gospel" and "another Jesus". For some, especially those who were weak in the faith to begin with, or who were raised in the LC, were greatly disadvantaged and vulnerable to being "shipwrecked as to the faith"
  -
• Perhaps what you have learned from your time in the LC, you could now help others in the same situation.

Asked and answered!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don’t mean that we do what locals do to us when we leave, by abandoning and cutting off people, BUT to actually show them the true living God, his love and care if, and when the opportunity is there to do so. I will gladly meet and fellowship with people from recovery about true living God, but this time around it will be on my terms, and not by the way of WL/WN and their disciples.

-

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry I don't agree with this at all. Let me cite my reasons.

• The Bible tells us to "Test all things, hold on to the good." (I Thess 5.21) Discarding all things forces us to also discard the good.
• The Bible continually cites the need for discernment and wisdom, even the wisdom found in a multitude of counselors. (Proverbs 11.14; 15.22)
• Evaluating what is good and what is worthless helps us grow in Christ. (Heb 5.14)
• A wise Christian counselor suggested the practice of "treasure hunting" to his clients. Since God has allowed all the arrangements in our life, (Romans 8.28) even in bad situations, we should hunt for the "treasures" that God has provided for our good.
• Even though the Jewish leaders had Jesus killed, He never condemned the religion they received from Moses. Instead He told the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." (Luke 12.1-2) Jesus continually taught them to discern what was from God, and what was the hypocrisy of men.
• Many sincere believers have discarded "faith and a good conscience" (I Timothy 1.19) when they left the LC. I think this is the greatest tragedy of all.
• Perhaps what you have learned from your time in the LC, you could now help others in the same situation.

Hello Ohio,

I apologize for a delayed response to your “rebuttal”, although I did see it earlier in the week. To be totally honest, I didn’t write those comments for it to make it to the front page. I just shared something that was on my heart that day, with hope that maybe God can use it however He wants. Maybe somebody finds it useful and helpful. So I’ll say that I’m not in control of this forum to make it a featured post, but whoever made that call, I pray it’s for His glory!

Regarding your points of contention:

I didn’t want to pull a quick trigger there, and just write something without doing a bit of research on what you have posted here before. I needed some background of your work, so that I would kind of get an idea of where you coming from. To my surprise, I didn’t realize that there are 13500+ posts to review or almost 15% of (94400+) posts ever published on this site. 😳 So after some basic review, I figured I should just probably ask you the questions I had, since I wasn’t able to locate those answers.

1. Since it looks like you have had plenty of time and testing to “make sense of the Recovery”, have you actually made a clear decision about it? Or you have one foot in and one foot out, playing a good cop / bad cop depending on the topic?

2. You have stated things like discernment, wisdom, treasure hunting, and that “Jesus gave warning about leaven”. Serious question: have you ever tried to separate leaven from the lump of dough? Do you know that it’s impossible to do as soon as it becomes part of the mixture, which includes perfectly clean and great ingredients? I guess if you have become a spiritual scientist that’s capable of doing something that’s impossible to do, then more power to you. I guess all I can tell you is “happy hunting”, hope you have enough wisdom NOT to take a bite of something that’s “leavened” by both man of the local church, which I don’t believe exist. I for one, took a different route, which I stated in my previous post. It has been the biggest blessing in my life since! There is a huge difference between having the maturity to discern the difference between good and evil vs eating worthless, useless nonsense full of inventions with hope to “finding a treasure”.

3. I could not find on this site in the posts that I read, any kind of bullet point presentation of your final findings and conclusions regarding all of the “GOOD” that you have taken with you from your days in the glorious church life. Is that something that you can write up? I would truly appreciate your input, since maybe it’s just me who has blindly thrown away everything that I had received from it. Maybe you could provide some light to my darkness.

4. I appreciate UntoHim for pointing this out in his reply, that I actually did say to love the people and show them True Living God. Most people in the local church never had a chance to get to know Him, let alone experience what true unconditional love and grace are. Also as pointed out by UntoHim, I believe that the Local church preaches different jesus, different gospel, and it’s a total kingdom of men. So maybe it’s sounds harsh and provocative, but I will never be moved from this belief, after years and years of miserable existence, under this hegemony of men! Obviously a lot of those people that only knew the jesus of the local church, sure suffered a great shipwreck, because if you keep hitting your head on a concrete wall that’s lifeless, has no compassion, no love and care, there is only one thing that will experience damage in that exchange, and it’s not the wall! After all of the time I spent there, I can freely state, that the processed jesus of the local church, DOES NOT EXIST!

Thanks

[Ohio]

Thanks for your reply. If you read my post carefully you will see that I never defended the Recovery or any part of it. My long-term prayers for its members, simply stated, is for them to love the Lord, His word, and His people. My hope is they would cling to Him and never leave the precious faith which God has given to us all.

Far too many have left that system and never again cracked the pages of scripture, opened their hearts in love to the Savior, or enjoyed fellowship with other Christians. That’s the real tragedy. Perhaps you could join me in praying for others who have left.

[HERn]

Amen Ohio! I’ll join you in that prayer!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for your reply. If you read my post carefully you will see that I never defended the Recovery or any part of it. My long-term prayers for its members, simply stated, is for them to love the Lord, His word, and His people. My hope is they would cling to Him and never leave the precious faith which God has given to us all.

Far too many have left that system and never again cracked the pages of scripture, opened their hearts in love to the Savior, or enjoyed fellowship with other Christians. That’s the real tragedy. Perhaps you could join me in praying for others who have left.

I guess I should have expected this non-answer “answer”, if I can put it in those terms. I have seen this methods for years, you take a shot at someone and when they ask you to explain yourself, you just say “let’s pray about it, it’s all about the members, or the body” as we all have heard many times. The blended are the pros at this systematic practice. I won’t persist, I’ll just know this for future references.

I will say this though, I’m all about praying for people. However, as I have stated in both of my previous posts, I pray that the members of the local church actually seek real living God FIRST AND FOREMOST. That they actually get to know real Jesus, and all those things that you mentioned will manifest themselves after that. I believe it’s the lives of people that need changes, not behavior modification, and or “intrinsic metabolic changes” that we have been lied about and told to believe for years! It’s the hearts that need to be changed not metabolism! It’s spiritual, and not physical or biological!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I guess I should have expected this non-answer “answer”, if I can put it in those terms. I have seen this methods for years, you take a shot at someone and when they ask you to explain yourself, you just say “let’s pray about it, it’s all about the members, or the body” as we all have heard many times. The blended are the pros at this systematic practice. I won’t persist, I’ll just know this for future references.

I will say this though, I’m all about praying for people. However, as I have stated in both of my previous posts, I pray that the members of the local church actually seek real living God FIRST AND FOREMOST. That they actually get to know real Jesus, and all those things that you mentioned will manifest themselves after that. I believe it’s the lives of people that need changes, not behavior modification, and or “intrinsic metabolic changes” that we have been lied about and told to believe for years! It’s the hearts that need to be changed not metabolism! It’s spiritual, and not physical or biological!

Unregistered guest,

In order to continue posting on this forum, please register for an account, and include your preferred user name, as follows:

Please Send Email To: Reg4LCD@Gmail.Com

Thank you for your cooperation,
Nell & UntoHim
Moderators/Administrators

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I guess I should have expected this non-answer “answer”, if I can put it in those terms. I have seen this methods for years, you take a shot at someone and when they ask you to explain yourself, you just say “let’s pray about it, it’s all about the members, or the body” as we all have heard many times. The blended are the pros at this systematic practice. I won’t persist, I’ll just know this for future references.

I call BS on this post. I took a “shot” at no one, least of all some poster(s) too cowardly even to register anonymously on this forum.

First you complain that I post too much, then you level a host of complaints about me, playing games calling me a “spiritual scientist” that must separate leaven from flour.

I supported all my points with scripture, you however merely troll.

Register and behave yourself, or go elsewhere.

[UntoHim]

Calling a new poster "cowardly". Wow, that should help bolster our membership

Ohio, he/she didn't complain about you posting too much, he was merely making an observation, and was also wondering why after all those posts it was kind of hard to understand where you're coming from. Maybe given a little more time he'll catch on.

Yes, you posted some scriptures in your "rebuttal", but for the most part it was difficult to link the scriptures you posted to the points you were making. I tried to point this out to you in my rebuttal to your rebuttal in post #135

As far as your quip "behave yourself or go elsewhere"....sorry, but we already have two moderators on this forum.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio, he/she didn't complain about you posting too much, he was merely making an observation, and was also wondering why after all those posts it was kind of hard to understand where you're coming from. Maybe given a little more time he'll catch on.

Yes, you posted some scriptures in your "rebuttal", but for the most part it was difficult to link the scriptures you posted to the points you were making. I tried to point this out to you in my rebuttal to your rebuttal in post #135
-

Ok, without more info, I don’t know whether “unregistered” was a single he, single she, or multiple posters. So I do think it’s kind of cowardly to post that way, kind of like yelling from a crowd of masked protesters.

I don’t think any of my comments were “hard to understand where I’m coming from.” I have repeatedly voiced my concerns about past members who have left the faith when they departed from the LC. Hence all my comments about testing, discerning, and clinging to the faith and the word of God. Isn’t that our common mission here on the forum, brother, to have a healthy Christian walk post-LC?

Jesus warned His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.” Did they lecture Jesus about how difficult it was to separate leaven from flour? Why do you think Jesus would say this to the apostles? I admit Jesus’ comments here are not simplistic, but I personally think His instruction is important for all of us leaving abusive, legalistic systems. This line of reasoning and testing has helped me and others in the past.

I have said a lot more along these lines in my past posts. Perhaps my posts were too brief to properly be understood. Perhaps my “short, quick, living, to the point,” posts need more explanation at times. What do you think? I admit that I prefer many short posts to fewer lengthy posts, but both have drawbacks.

[Trapped]

The video on handling abuse and covering gross sins (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ILgfyRzuU) is still making me shake my head in wonder.

Basically:

1. King David committed murder and adultery, and Witness Lee actually teaches that David's son was killed because the son dared rebel against a deputy authority who committed these gross sins (as if God protects and supports leaders who kill and cheat? and never mind that's not what the Bible says about why his son was killed)

2. People read this in the ministry and say "whoa, this ministry teaches that leaders' gross sins should be covered! That's not okay!"

3. The co-workers respond, "Witness Lee never taught that in the Life Study! YOU are abusing his ministry!"

4. Even though it is there for all to see in the Life Study that Witness Lee really did teach this and Witness Lee is the one misrepresenting the Bible!

5. And now we've got more than one layer of lies. But their own sick system means that anyone who stands up and shows the co-workers are liars will THEMSELVES be considered to be "exposing sins of deputy authority" and so the truth tellers are put in the position of standing against God's threats on their life (as taught by the ministry) or not doing anything and letting what has become MULTIPLE LAYERS of lies go unchallenged! Not to mention the victims from the initial lie are still going unsupported and uncared for!

When the Bible says things like "systems of error", boy, it sure know what it's talking about doesn't it?!

The co-workers are not some space cadets who are just blissfully ignorant. They are totally constituted with Witness Lee's ministry and yet publicly lie about what THEY KNOW IT SAYS to the very people who also know what his ministry says!

It's mind spinning.

(Oh, but don't worry, they have another lie for that -- just get out of your mind! Then everything, including all their lies, will be okay!) Unbelievable!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hello Ohio, I could not find on this site in the posts that I read, any kind of bullet point presentation of your final findings and conclusions regarding all of the “GOOD” that you have taken with you from your days in the glorious church life.

This inquiry makes me laugh. There are literally millions of positive things I took from my time in the church life, some of which was indeed "glorious." But UntoHim would respond that each of these could be obtained outside the Recovery, and he is right. No argument here. But let's look at one specific topic recently mentioned by Trapped.

Originally Posted by Trapped

The video on handling abuse and covering gross sins is still making me shake my head in wonder.

1. King David committed murder and adultery, and Witness Lee actually teaches that David's son was killed because the son dared rebel against a deputy authority who committed these gross sins (as if God protects and supports leaders who kill and cheat?

2. People read this in the ministry and say "whoa, this ministry teaches that leaders' gross sins should be covered! That's not okay!"

This abusive and heretical LC teaching has been called Deputy Authority. I once subscribed to this, thinking the Bible taught it. (At the time I had no idea what actual abuses were being covered up by this teaching.) Then I left the LC and researched this matter. Growing up in Catholicism, this teaching was called the Infallibility of the Pope. The Exclusive Brethren also had their own version of this. It's just an ancient evil repackaged for consumption by LSM.

This evil teaching opens the door for all sorts of evil and corruption to enter. Untold numbers of books have been written about leadership abuses of just these 3 denominational systems. Using mainly Noah and Moses for justification, this teaching gives nearly unlimited license to leaders, basically elevating them above the law. The Bible, however, exposes all, including David and Peter, two prominent figures of the Old and New Testaments. I unequivocally reject this teaching, as does scripture.

Does this example help?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

The dissection of the true significance of 1 Tim 1:3-4 in "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" YouTube series helped set aside the peculiar-to-Lee teaching of "God's Economy," which has no basis in truth. Seeing "God's Economy" as Lee does is simply a grammatical mistake.

After 30+ years of being invested in studying the details of Lee's private interpretation of oikonomia, I'm fully freed from this odd teaching that not even Nee had.

That's amazing. It's wonderful to be freed again and again after being in a place that put so many unbiblical demands on us and so many unscriptural teachings in our heads! Just like when Christ came He freed so many sick, suffering, and oppressed people from what they were bound by, and just as He targeted the Pharisees for laying ubiblical burdens on people's shoulders, so He still wants us to continue to be freed from these kinds of things.

I agree it was a good video, and it changed what I had loosely cobbled together about what I thought God's economy was. Going to the Greek grammar to show that Lee was totally wrong to use God's economy as a "teach only this or else you are divisive" thing, and then going to all the instances of "oikonomia" in Greek to see what the Bible means by it in context basically blows the entirety of Lee's version of it apart. The Bible said one thing and Witness Lee said it meant this completely different thing. And yet so many saints in the local church have total allegiance to the teaching without even having the basic latitude to verify if it's true or not.

I pray all these voices speaking out publicly online these past few years would have a cumulative impact on those in the local church.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UtahGiant

These videos are very interesting and provide a great perspective. In a healthy Christian community, examining teachings like these videos do is encouraged often. In The Local Church Movement such examination is discouraged and spoken against. The ability to question teachings is very important, the ability to not question teachings is a major major red flag. It’s something you don’t realize is a red flag until you’re out of that environment.

Keep making these videos. I pray they impact and cause believers in the Local Church Movement to seek truth. We must continue to bring the truth to light. I believe that God rescued us out of this toxic system, so that we could rescue others. We need to bring these truths to people in the Local Church Movement, because someone needed to bring it to us before we saw it. Fight the good fight

Totally agreed, and I pray the same as well. As I think it was zeek who said, at a minimum, even if listeners still disagree with what is said in the videos, they still have value in that they discuss problems with Lee's ministry, which is not allowed in the LC. Maybe they can at least be another step in normalizing uncondemned discussion about his errors, and hopefully they can go further into "unchaining" people who hear them!

Trapped

[Trapped]

For anyone interested, here's an article on the Hebrew of the phrase "you shall surely die" (or, idiomatically, "dying you shall die"). Their conclusion, in looking at numerous other cases in the OT where similar variations of the phrase are used, is that the phrase points to a matter of judicial punishment, rather than natural consequence.

In other words, the phrase itself supports the thought that in the garden of Eden, death is not shown to be the natural consequence of eating a poisoned tree, but is shown to be God's punishment for sin, for law-breaking, by losing access to the TOL.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/arc...-you-shall-die

Trapped

P.S. Ironically, no, this is not the "ministry magazine" of LSM.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In other words, the phrase itself supports the thought that in the garden of Eden, death is not shown to be the natural consequence of eating a poisoned tree, but is shown to be God's punishment for sin, for law-breaking, by losing access to the TOL.

Something came to me today while in my morning time with the Lord that I think pertains to this discussion regarding the poison of sin being passed along. It has to do with The Incarnation. The Father, through the Holy Spirit, inseminated Mary to conceive Jesus. But Mary certainly had sin in the flesh, so why wasn't that sin transferred to Jesus? It seems to me that sin must then be passed through the father. This makes sense, since the father was made as head, to rule over the earth, be head of the family, etc. (e.g., I've heard it speculated that the fall wouldn't have occurred if Adam had said "no" to Eve.)

Does this then have bearing on the sin as poison topic?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Something came to me today while in my morning time with the Lord that I think pertains to this discussion regarding the poison of sin being passed along. It has to do with The Incarnation. The Father, through the Holy Spirit, inseminated Mary to conceive Jesus. But Mary certainly had sin in the flesh, so why wasn't that sin transferred to Jesus? It seems to me that sin must then be passed through the father. This makes sense, since the father was made as head, to rule over the earth, be head of the family, etc. (e.g., I've heard it speculated that the fall wouldn't have occurred if Adam had said "no" to Eve.)

Does this then have bearing on the sin as poison topic?

I think the issue is a definition of sin here. If one believes that sin is a biological issue as in poison that entered mankind, then you will side with the local church, Scientology, Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and I can name few more. That’s were you get a theology of Holy Mary, man becoming gods, and god disposing Himself into man.

If you believe that sin is the exercise of free will of man, by disobedience, just like Adam and Eve did, then Jesus being the Son of God, never did sinned but submitted to the Father in everything, therefore He is a sinless Men, the one and the Only. Nothing to do with genes, father or mother.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think the issue is a definition of sin here. If one believes that sin is a biological issue as in poison that entered mankind, then you will side with the local church, Scientology, Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and I can name few more. That’s were you get a theology of Holy Mary, man becoming gods, and god disposing Himself into man.

If you believe that sin is the exercise of free will of man, by disobedience, just like Adam and Eve did, then Jesus being the Son of God, never did sinned but submitted to the Father in everything, therefore He is a sinless Men, the one and the Only. Nothing to do with genes, father or mother.

Good summarization! Seems this is one of those things where specific verses can be lined-up to support either. Wonder if it's another thing where the answer is "yes." (in other words, both)

And related to the incarnation, I think most Christians would say Christ was/is God becoming a man. If that is the case, can it be much of a stretch to say Christ, the God-Man, became a Spirit? And since God in Christ gets into man via the Spirit . . . see where this could lead?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good summarization! Seems this is one of those things where specific verses can be lined-up to support either. Wonder if it's another thing where the answer is "yes." (in other words, both)

And related to the incarnation, I think most Christians would say Christ was/is God becoming a man. If that is the case, can it be much of a stretch to say Christ, the God-Man, became a Spirit? And since God in Christ gets into man via the Spirit . . . see where this could lead?

I think the source of sin is ignorance which the Bible calls darkness.
For example, John 1:5 says "and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think the source of sin is ignorance which the Bible calls darkness.
For example, John 1:5 says "and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Might also say the source of sin is our independence - thinking we can do it on our own.

[Trapped]

1 John 3:4b
...sin is lawlessness. (NIV) ...sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV)

1 John 5:17a
All unrighteousness is sin...

James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.

[Sons to Glory!]

And add to those verses Romans 7:17-20 (NASB)

17 But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Cal

You can talk about God as "life" so much that you lose sight that getting to know life is getting to know a Person. This is the error of many false religions. They reduce God to a force, because dealing with God as a person means dealing with another mind, attitude and preference. It's much more convenient to deal with God as just a force that makes you feel good.

Cal I think it's possible that Witness Lee wrongly reduced God to some kind of impersonal force which he labeled THE FLOW. Lee then went further to claim that God as this so-called FLOW will always come through or issue out of one particular ministry. Hmm let me see, FLOW always comes through MOTA? How convenient is that? If you want this FLOW then there is only one place to get it - MOTA! Sounds like a contrived monopoly to me.

Thinking back over the decades I spent in the LR movement, I do recall how this FLOW had several characteristics, unfortunately none of them had anything to do with Love. To me Witness Lee's FLOW always came across as militaristic, like a commander in chief or some kind of a war lord or a Pharaoh.

Would you please do me a favor and listen to what WL taught about this FLOW thing in my "Chicken Dung Video" @ 34 min 40 sec?



It was part of this same message that was examined in the first Unchained Introductory Video.

I would value your impression.

P.S.

Originally Posted by Trapped

1 John 3:4b
...sin is lawlessness. (NIV) ...sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV)

1 John 5:17a
All unrighteousness is sin...

James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.

I was reading Hebrews 4 this morning, and remembered this thread. There is a verse here that I believe also speaks to the issue of what sin is, (I emphasized the last part of the verse).

Hebrews 4:14-15
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So for those people that fall into the category that believes that sin is some biological disorder or genetic mutation, here is another proof that it’s an exercise of free will, falling to temptations that are offered to us daily. Jesus Christ himself demonstrated this for anyone who is willing to see it, He was tempted just as we are, yet without once falling for the bait, unlike everyone else did, starting with Adam and Eve.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I was reading Hebrews 4 this morning, and remembered this thread. There is a verse here that I believe also speaks to the issue of what sin is, (I emphasized the last part of the verse).

Hebrews 4:14-15
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So for those people that fall into the category that believes that sin is some biological disorder or genetic mutation, here is another proof that it’s an exercise of free will, falling to temptations that are offered to us daily. Jesus Christ himself demonstrated this for anyone who is willing to see it, He was tempted just as we are, yet without once falling for the bait, unlike everyone else did, starting with Adam and Eve.

Hi unregistered,

Thanks for adding this verse to the mix. I totally agree that sin is an exercise of free will. All the commandments are things we can choose to act upon, not "inherent states of being".

I have intended to return to the topic, posting all the verses in the NT that talk about what sin is, but haven't found a block of time to do so. However, in my initial search, I came across this verse:

John 8:34
"Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin."

So to me, this all but undoes the concept that sin is some kind of genetically passed-along, inherent thing and shows very clearly that it's a free-will choice. This illuminates the other verse or two that say "sin dwells in us". In other words, if we practice sin, then we are a slave to it. It doesn't say, "we are a slave to sin (some inherent thing), therefore we practice it (or cannot help but do it)". It's the opposite - if you do it, then you are considered a slave to it.

Just like this verse:

1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

If you do what is right, you are righteous. Not "you are inherently righteous, therefore you do what is right".

It's always the doing that's talked about.

This is the only view that retains God's righteousness and makes any of His expectations and frustrations that no one keeps His commandments make sense......the fact that we actually have the ability to and are not born inherently sinful, and yet no one chooses to do the right thing -- except Jesus!

As has been said before, Jesus has to have the same "nature" we do. If our natures were different from birth - one fundamentally sinful, the other fundamentally not - then the Bible is lying that He was "made like us, fully human in every way".

So either He was born with an inherently sinful nature "like us", which is a non-starter obviously, or we were NOT born with an inherently sinful nature. The latter still makes sense in light of Scripture and doesn't make the Bible, God, or Jesus a liar.

Trapped

[Ohio]

From BibleHub, I liked this concise statement on I John 3.7:

“Apostle John cuts away vain pretenses by a sharp principle:
a righteous character expresses itself in righteous conduct.”

Originally Posted by Trapped

1 John 3:4b
...sin is lawlessness. (NIV) ...sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV)

1 John 5:17a
All unrighteousness is sin...

James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.

I think Jesus himself said the following:

Mat 15:11

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I guess some chose to believe what Jesus said, and some chose to follow man’s wisdom or worse. Maybe it’s just to simple of a concept to grasp, and just like many religions in the world, local church wanted to fit in and fill the void of Christianese version, for those who love other gods and want to be one!🤔


P.S
I see comments on YouTube that state: “the author of the content is taking things out of context quoting Lee in these videos”, but when pressed to show where, they flee back into the darkness. It must be peaceful in there, you can’t see anything or anyone.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Lovenottheworld

I think Jesus himself said the following:

Mat 15:11

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I guess some chose to believe what Jesus said, and some chose to follow man’s wisdom or worse. Maybe it’s just to simple of a concept to grasp, and just like many religions in the world, local church wanted to fit in and fill the void of Christianese version, for those who love other gods and want to be one!🤔


P.S
I see comments on YouTube that state: “the author of the content is taking things out of context quoting Lee in these videos”, but when pressed to show where, they flee back into the darkness. It must be peaceful in there, you can’t see anything or anyone.

Lovenottheworld,

Welcome to the forum (unless.....have you posted before?)!

As far as I'm concerned, this verse renders the thought that the fruit was the cause of the defilement of man impossible. The fruit, that which went in, would not defile man; it is what came out of man - the choice to disobey, the sinful action - that defiled him.

I scroll through the comments on that channel and other channels sometimes, and all I've seen on TLRU are things like "you don't know anything" or "you are taking out of context" or another which gave me a chuckle was the implication that a "negative" video actually would be evidence that Lee was a faithful minister. But they are all one-and-done comments - none of them provide any information to support their comment or consider that maybe they have it backwards. On another channel there actually was lots of back-and-forth discussion about what "life matters but truth matters more" means, but again, none of the LC people would face the implication of what they were espousing.

I have brought several LC-ers to the edge of darkness, where it turns to light, but they all get agitated and close up the conversation and run away, rather than step into the light. It's really something to witness. I know the Lord is arranging things and working in everyone, but it's hard for me to trust the Lord when His ways always feel like they are slower than I'd like for so many people!

Trapped

Originally Posted by Trapped

Lovenottheworld,

Welcome to the forum (unless.....have you posted before?)!

As far as I'm concerned, this verse renders the thought that the fruit was the cause of the defilement of man impossible. The fruit, that which went in, would not defile man; it is what came out of man - the choice to disobey, the sinful action - that defiled him.

I scroll through the comments on that channel and other channels sometimes, and all I've seen on TLRU are things like "you don't know anything" or "you are taking out of context" or another which gave me a chuckle was the implication that a "negative" video actually would be evidence that Lee was a faithful minister. But they are all one-and-done comments - none of them provide any information to support their comment or consider that maybe they have it backwards. On another channel there actually was lots of back-and-forth discussion about what "life matters but truth matters more" means, but again, none of the LC people would face the implication of what they were espousing.

I have brought several LC-ers to the edge of darkness, where it turns to light, but they all get agitated and close up the conversation and run away, rather than step into the light. It's really something to witness. I know the Lord is arranging things and working in everyone, but it's hard for me to trust the Lord when His ways always feel like they are slower than I'd like for so many people!

Trapped

Hi Trapped,
I have posted here before, although I’m not sure if the posts were made public, I don’t have an account to confirm, but it’s all good. I figured to check out the videos on the channel and just made some comments here about it. I just hope more people would be willing to seek the truth. One thing I’m sure of, is that it’s impossible to brake these chains, unless the person has a drive to examine and seek to grow up at some point. That comes from inside and when it does, then people are no longer willing to compromise, settle, and be ok with whatever they are fed. Before then, the pull that controls them in this movement, is pretty strong. We tend to think that God is taking his time or slow, but in reality, it’s not God who is slow, but it’s man who aren’t willing to give up and admit that what they got is nothing but a façade, empty cisterns and walking around the mountain for another year will not change the outcome.

Thank you.

[zeek]

As we ponder where the “Lord’s Recovery” may have gone wrong, may we do so with humility, and not forget that Witness Lee also pointed us to some of the highest spiritual truths in the Bible, such as Galatians 2:20.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by zeek

As we ponder, where the “Lord’s Recovery” may have gone wrong, may we do so with humility, and not forget that Witness Lee also pointed us to some of the highest spiritual truths in the Bible, such as Galatians 2:20.

"I have been crucified with Christ: and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."

Originally Posted by zeek

As we ponder, where the “Lord’s Recovery” may have gone wrong, may we do so with humility, and not forget that Witness Lee also pointed us to some of the highest spiritual truths in the Bible, such as Galatians 2:20.

Zeek,

I hate to give you breaking news, but that truth has been known to anyone and everyone who was willing to read the Bible for 100’s of years. Since the church came to existence in the book of Acts. So there is no need to be humble about anything regarding the local church. Repeating one of the main Christian teaching, doesn’t justify or override 99 errors to be frank!

If you want to make a case that Lee misinterpreted that verse to fit his faulty, made up theology of “God dispensing himself into man”, or “man are becoming god’s”, then you can make a case that he truly did invented that “spiritual truth”.You may call it the highest truth, but I will call it the big lie, and many have fallen for it!

Actually zeek and SonsToGlory, the last poster was rather generous to you guys, this wonderful truth of "it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me," has been available to us believers since the middle of the first century when the apostle Paul penned it! I'm a rather old dude (like zeek and SonsToGlory!) and have been around the block or two. Witness Lee was not the first person to even "point out" this "truth", much less emphasize it to any degree. But those of us who actually keep up with such things know this. Sorry to be rude.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Zeek,

I hate to give you breaking news, but that truth has been known to anyone and everyone who was willing to read the Bible for 100’s of years. Since the church came to existence in the book of Acts. So there is no need to be humble about anything regarding the local church. Repeating one of the main Christian teaching, doesn’t justify or override 99 errors to be frank!

If you want to make a case that Lee misinterpreted that verse to fit his faulty, made up theology of “God dispensing himself into man”, or “man are becoming god’s”, then you can make a case that he truly did invented that “spiritual truth”.You may call it the highest truth, but I will call it the big lie, and many have fallen for it!

Well, Unregistered, you may think me a fool, and perhaps you’re right . You can look at my signature line and see that I spent 13 years in the meetings of the local churches. It’s true anyone reading the Christian Bible can come across Galatians, 2:20. However, isn’t it also true that unless the Lord reveals himself to that person, that person’s knowledge of the verse will be merely intellectual, that is the “dead letter”?

Admittedly, you and I don’t know each other and I have only two short paragraphs with which to judge your understanding of the situation, but it seems to me that you wish to entirely dismiss the teachings of Witness Lee as untrue. I think that’s a mistake. It oversimplifies the problem.

For example, Witness Lee taught the existence of God. If someone rejects everything Witness Lee taught, they would become an unbeliever--an atheist. Is that what you’re advocating?

Now let’s look at the WL teachings you rejected above as examples. If Christ lives in Paul, how did he get there unless God dispensed himself into Paul? Further, the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches deification that is that man can become God. Do you dismiss Eastern Orthodoxy too? The total rejection of Witness Lee’s teaching. It seems to me, illustrates the problem of all or nothing thinking that may be the easy way to go.The way of discerning what was true and what was false is much more difficult.

If everything Witness Lee taught was a lie, smart people and sincere Christians would not have spent years participating in the movement that he led. I think the problem is more difficult than that and requires spiritual discernment lest we perpetuate the way of error and division.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

As we ponder where the “Lord’s Recovery” may have gone wrong, may we do so with humility, and not forget that Witness Lee also pointed us to some of the highest spiritual truths in the Bible, such as Galatians 2:20.

I think the issue is that when someone is a false teacher, with an entire ministry that is characterized by unbiblical teachings that almost cannot go a chapter, if not a page, without twisting the Bible in some way, I am not compelled in the slightest to show humility towards that false teacher or to give him credit for the occasions when he wasn't lying through his teeth in order to control people.

As far as I'm concerned, everything Witness Lee taught should be thrown out. Just disregard it. It's insignificant and hopelessly leavened. No redeeming value. I feel no need at all to give him credit for anything.

If he happened to get Galatians 2:20 completely and totally right in the midst of the countless lives he wrecked, he gets no points for it. Thousands of others have gotten Galatians 2:20 right and didn't drive people to suicide as a side effect like Lee's stuff has.

Lee wasn't a good Christian man who fumbled around trying his best to exegete Scripture. He was an egomaniacal RV salesman who thought God chose him to be the ONLY ONE ON THE PLANET He would give revelations to. He lambasted anyone who disagreed and drove to ruins anyone who called him out. He doubled down on his lies and has irreversibly destroyed lives.

Lee gets no credit for the times he happened not to lie.

That's my issue at least.

Trapped

[Trapped]

And to keep this thread on topic, it looks like the TLRU channel has put out another video (shorter than the others -- I definitely wish it was longer), on opinions. This one is a little close to my heart as it talks about church kids and the effect the LC "opinions" teaching has on young people. He describes the detrimental impact right, as far as my experienced is concerned at least.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Lovenottheworld

Hi Trapped,
I have posted here before, although I’m not sure if the posts were made public, I don’t have an account to confirm, but it’s all good. I figured to check out the videos on the channel and just made some comments here about it. I just hope more people would be willing to seek the truth. One thing I’m sure of, is that it’s impossible to brake these chains, unless the person has a drive to examine and seek to grow up at some point. That comes from inside and when it does, then people are no longer willing to compromise, settle, and be ok with whatever they are fed. Before then, the pull that controls them in this movement, is pretty strong. We tend to think that God is taking his time or slow, but in reality, it’s not God who is slow, but it’s man who aren’t willing to give up and admit that what they got is nothing but a façade, empty cisterns and walking around the mountain for another year will not change the outcome.

Thank you.

Hi Lovenottheworld,

Thanks for this comment. You are right. Too many times I go immediately to frustration with God rather than placing the responsibility where it really belongs!

Trapped

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Actually zeek and SonsToGlory, the last poster was rather generous to you guys, this wonderful truth of "it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me," has been available to us believers since the middle of the first century when the apostle Paul penned it! I'm a rather old dude (like zeek and SonsToGlory!) and have been around the block or two. Witness Lee was not the first person to even "point out" this "truth", much less emphasize it to any degree. But those of us who actually keep up with such things know this. Sorry to be rude.

Dear Unregistered,

It seems like most Christians, if they are even aware of Galatians 2:20, are content with the understanding that Paul believed that Christ lived in him. Whereas, in the local church we were encouraged to experience Christ ourselves.Was it a mistake to teach that? If not, then shouldn't we give credit where credit is due?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dear Unregistered,

It seems like most Christians, if they are even aware of Galatians 2:20, are content with the understanding that Paul believed that Christ lived in him. Whereas, in the local church we were encouraged to experience Christ ourselves.Was it a mistake to teach that? If not, then shouldn't we give credit where credit is due?

Why? Why do men need or seek credit for the revelation and work of the Holy Spirit? What do we have that we didn’t receive? “Experience Christ” according to the dictates of Nee, Lee, and a family owned publishing house and its franchise outlets called churches.

Jesus paid it all.
All to Him we owe.
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

Yes. Give credit where credit is due…to the One who deserves it, earned it.

Nell

Note: Let’s get back on topic. Start a new one if you want to continue with this discussion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think the issue is that when someone is a false teacher, with an entire ministry that is characterized by unbiblical teachings that almost cannot go a chapter, if not a page, without twisting the Bible in some way, I am not compelled in the slightest to show humility towards that false teacher or to give him credit for the occasions when he wasn't lying through his teeth in order to control people.

As far as I'm concerned, everything Witness Lee taught should be thrown out. Just disregard it. It's insignificant and hopelessly leavened. No redeeming value. I feel no need at all to give him credit for anything.

If he happened to get Galatians 2:20 completely and totally right in the midst of the countless lives he wrecked, he gets no points for it. Thousands of others have gotten Galatians 2:20 right and didn't drive people to suicide as a side effect like Lee's stuff has.

Lee wasn't a good Christian man who fumbled around trying his best to exegete Scripture. He was an egomaniacal RV salesman who thought God chose him to be the ONLY ONE ON THE PLANET He would give revelations to. He lambasted anyone who disagreed and drove to ruins anyone who called him out. He doubled down on his lies and has irreversibly destroyed lives.

Lee gets no credit for the times he happened not to lie.

That's my issue at least.

Trapped

Good evening. Okay--so, you advocate throwing out everything Witness Lee taught. Following your logic, Witness Lee taught that God existed, therefore, it should be thrown out. "Just disregard it." If one does that, one becomes an an atheist.

Bro.Ohio has often lamented that people after they leave the LC become atheists. Maybe it's because they didn't do the hard work of parsing truth from untruth in what they received in the local church. They threw out the baby (whatever kernals of truth they received in the local church) with the bathwater of "leaven" as you put it.

It seems to me, what must be done is to discern spiritual reality from unreality and that takes the grace of God. Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit". That's why I evoked a spirit of humility in proposing to undertake the task, which is, as I understand it, the mission of this forum.

As far as relevance to the topic of this thread, I think that is what the creator of the The Lord's Recovery Unchained videos is endeavoring to do. His basic assumption that members of the local churches ought to question the products of the Living Stream Ministry because the leading brothers admit that Lee was not infallible is a good one. If the "saints" in the LCs had been allowed to question Lee's ministry, perhaps the abuses could have been avoided. Maybe they still can for those who are participating in the LC now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, Unregistered, you may think me a fool, and perhaps you’re right . You can look at my signature line and see that I spent 13 years in the meetings of the local churches. It’s true anyone reading the Christian Bible can come across Galatians, 2:20. However, isn’t it also true that unless the Lord reveals himself to that person, that person’s knowledge of the verse will be merely intellectual, that is the “dead letter”?

Admittedly, you and I don’t know each other and I have only two short paragraphs with which to judge your understanding of the situation, but it seems to me that you wish to entirely dismiss the teachings of Witness Lee as untrue. I think that’s a mistake. It oversimplifies the problem.

For example, Witness Lee taught the existence of God. If someone rejects everything Witness Lee taught, they would become an unbeliever--an atheist. Is that what you’re advocating?

Now let’s look at the WL teachings you rejected above as examples. If Christ lives in Paul, how did he get there unless God dispensed himself into Paul? Further, the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches deification that is that man can become God. Do you dismiss Eastern Orthodoxy too? The total rejection of Witness Lee’s teaching. It seems to me, illustrates the problem of all or nothing thinking that may be the easy way to go.The way of discerning what was true and what was false is much more difficult.

If everything Witness Lee taught was a lie, smart people and sincere Christians would not have spent years participating in the movement that he led. I think the problem is more difficult than that and requires spiritual discernment lest we perpetuate the way of error and division.

What? Huh? I'm not recognizing this "zeek." Has his account been hacked?

Just kidding! I could not agree more, zeek. Like the Bible says, "keep the good and trash the bad."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good evening. Okay--so, you advocate throwing out everything Witness Lee taught. Following your logic, Witness Lee taught that God existed, therefore, it should be thrown out. "Just disregard it." If one does that, one becomes an an atheist.

Bro.Ohio has often lamented that people after they leave the LC become atheists. Maybe it's because they didn't do the hard work of parsing truth from untruth in what they received in the local church. They threw out the baby (whatever kernals of truth they received in the local church) with the bathwater of "leaven" as you put it.

It seems to me, what must be done is to discern spiritual reality from unreality and that takes the grace of God. Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit". That's why I evoked a spirit of humility in proposing to undertake the task, which is, as I understand it, the mission of this forum.

As far as relevance to the topic of this thread, I think that is what the creator of the The Lord's Recovery Unchained videos is endeavoring to do. His basic assumption that members of the local churches ought to question the products of the Living Stream Ministry because the leading brothers admit that Lee was not infallible is a good one. If the "saints" in the LCs had been allowed to question Lee's ministry, perhaps the abuses could have been avoided. Maybe they still can for those who are participating in the LC now.

Ah, I see now how you are reading the "disregard" thing.

I don't mean "if Witness Lee taught it, then disregard it because it is automatically false." What I mean is, and this is my approach, "it's irrelevant if there is anything Witness Lee happened to get right". Whatever Witness Lee taught, I don't care anymore. I have seen more than enough leaven in his ministry to not give two brain cells of my time towards giving him credit. I'm not saying "disregard the good". I'm saying "Witness Lee's relationship to the good is insignificant".

I care what the Bible teaches. Whether Witness Lee happened to get it right is irrelevant to my life. He is an insignificant force as far as the sum total of Christian truth out there.

Since Witness Lee is responsible for, at a minimum, hundreds of lies that are in my brain, it is important to me to discern what he got wrong so I don't believe lies anymore. But what he got right is disconnected from the fact that he taught it. It's kind of like the "a broken clock is right twice a day". Who cares? It's broken. It should be thrown out, and bring in a new clock that is right all day long instead. Witness Lee's ministry is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken system of error masquerading as an angel of light, to mix some New Testament metaphors, and it is not to Witness Lee's credit if he happened to miss the chance at twisting something and actually got it right now and then.

Maybe this distinction isn't a big enough one for some people, and that's okay. It's enough for me.

Regarding Galatians 2:20, are you saying that Christians attribute Christ living in a person to Paul's experience only, and that they don't take the step of realizing that "Christ lives in me" applies to them also?

Topic related - I agree that the premise of the TLRU channel is an excellent one -- The co-workers have said Witness Lee's ministry isn't immune from error. And they have even said they will change if it can be shown he's wrong. So there shouldn't be a problem if people make the effort to figure out where he was wrong so they can change. He connected several things and made testing the ministry the most reasonable response to all those things, rather than what the coworkers would try to call it as an attack or a "reckless casting aside of the ministry", etc. How can anyone argue against that reasonable response without revealing they don't care about the truth of the Bible? It's essentially a "put up or shut up" to the local church, and it basically gives the co-workers' stamp of approval to do so. It's like, the only way a saint in the local church could ever be given the freedom to examine the ministry -- "look, the coworkers said it is okay, so it's okay!" It's kind of like what Paul did in Acts 17 - he spoke to people using their own frame of reference. And yes, if more saints in the local church could do this, simply be free to discuss and disagree, many abuses would be prevented. I hope it reaches more of those in somehow, and I hope more and more are released to speak out in all kinds of ways.

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I care what the Bible teaches. Whether Witness Lee happened to get it right is irrelevant to my life. He is an insignificant force as far as the sum total of Christian truth out there.

Since Witness Lee is responsible for, at a minimum, hundreds of lies that are in my brain, it is important to me to discern what he got wrong so I don't believe lies anymore. But what he got right is disconnected from the fact that he taught it. It's kind of like the "a broken clock is right twice a day". Who cares? It's broken. It should be thrown out, and bring in a new clock that is right all day long instead. Witness Lee's ministry is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken system of error masquerading as an angel of light, to mix some New Testament metaphors, and it is not to Witness Lee's credit if he happened to miss the chance at twisting something and actually got it right now and then.

Maybe this distinction isn't a big enough one for some people, and that's okay. It's enough for me.

Trapped

I think we all would agree with this. If a friend asked me a question about some topic in The Bible, I would never point them to the teachings of WL, even if his teaching on the topic was helpful. It’s just too risky.

Originally Posted by zeek

For example, Witness Lee taught the existence of God. If someone rejects everything Witness Lee taught, they would become an unbeliever--an atheist. Is that what you’re advocating?

I actually do advocate to leave everything, all of it, associated with Witness, because I don’t believe that the God he represented was the God we find we in the Bible. Every religion claims that their god exist, but it is for everyone to test and find out if what they are saying matches what’s written. I do not find processed god on the pages of the Bible, nether do you find all inclusive jesus written anywhere. I also don’t find giving credit to some men who claimed to have received some private interpretation, that all should adhere to. I find it contrary to that. As a matter of fact, the sooner a person leaves everything associated with LC, and gets into the Word of God, the sooner the Holy Spirit can work on them to show all of the nonsense that was ingrained in them for years.

I know that there are people who say otherwise, and obviously you are one of those. So I say that dragging that albatross around your neck, is kind of like cleaning out your house and moving a pile of junk from one room to another, because you just can’t separate from it due to nostalgia, and some good memories, even though it’s worth nothing. Hate to say that way, but I believe that if someone is seeking true living God, then you will not find it in the Local church.

As a matter of fact, I just listened to the message by Ron K. which is on YouTube, called: “The Difference between the Lord’s Recovery and Christianity”. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_eh64c7oWCA). I can safely state, that not only the local church is a sect, but a counterfeit. I don’t know if you can pack anymore lies into one message that was done there, especially about how they treat all other Christians. I have been there, seen it for a lot of years. I have heard it in messages and in training. There is nothing there that will ever be useful for anyone! If there is a credit that I will give them, it will be this: I was in my early 20’s, young and dumb. Not equipped to know what is true and what is a total deception. They are masters of deception, real good, excellent wolfs in sheep’s clothing! I give them that credit, all they want! I learned my lesson, cost me a lot of things. But to give them credit for any spiritual help or actually leading people to God, is a big, fat NO! If anything, it set me back 15 years of my life! Thanks, but no thanks! Go find other fools like I was at that time, college and university students, but I will call spade a spade, I have nothing to lose!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think we all would agree with this. If a friend asked me a question about some topic in The Bible, I would never point them to the teachings of WL, even if his teaching on the topic was helpful. It’s just too risky.

I agree I wouldn't point a someone unfamilar with Lee to him. But, that isn't the case with us, and someone who was in the LR may have learned valuable truth there. Let's say for example that they accepted Christ as savior or received the teaching of the indwelling Spirit or other spiritual truths there. Should they then reject those teachings because they came from Lee? I say no, because as you have pointed out elsewhere some do exactly that when they leave the LR and fall into complete unbelief. I think we should be helping them to see that truth is truth regardless of the instrument through which it comes.And that's especially hard to do when you've been wounded by that instrument. You have to be able to get past the pain and the disillusion and resentment. It really can't be done without the grace of God. As far as human intervention is concerned it may be a Matthew 17:21 kind of situation.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by zeek

Should they then reject those teachings because they came from Lee?

I think you mean “because they learned them from Lee”. None of those teachings “came” from Lee. Instruments of truth aren’t the creators of Truth, truth doesn’t come from the instruments. Anything that is truth that Witness Lee taught did not come from him.

Everyone should examine why they believe certain things, is it because Witness Lee said it or is it because it’s Truth? In the Recovery we were conditioned to believe something because Witness Lee said it. That rationale should 100% be thrown out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree I wouldn't point a someone unfamilar with Lee to him. But, that isn't the case with us, and someone who was in the LR may have learned valuable truth there. Let's say for example that they accepted Christ as savior or received the teaching of the indwelling Spirit or other spiritual truths there. Should they then reject those teachings because they came from Lee? I say no, because as you have pointed out elsewhere some do exactly that when they leave the LR and fall into complete unbelief. I think we should be helping them to see that truth is truth regardless of the instrument through which it comes.And that's especially hard to do when you've been wounded by that instrument. You have to be able to get past the pain and the disillusion and resentment. It really can't be done without the grace of God. As far as human intervention is concerned it may be a Matthew 17:21 kind of situation.

And this forces us to recognize the extreme nature of much of WL. Many just vomit out everything even remotely related to religion and the Bible, leading a totally secular life. Without the will or the means, that’s all they can do. But real healing takes work, doesn’t it? And God has promised us sufficient grace.

As I departed, I faced the haunting question, “how did something so good become so bad?” Over time I discerned that the “so good” was really Jesus and my LC back then, and the “so bad” was how WL and his successors had “leavened the whole lump.”

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And this forces us to recognize the extreme nature of much of WL. Many just vomit out everything even remotely related to religion and the Bible, leading a totally secular life. Without the will or the means, that’s all they can do. But real healing takes work, doesn’t it? And God has promised us sufficient grace.

As I departed, I faced the haunting question, “how did something so good become so bad?” Over time I discerned that the “so good” was really Jesus and my LC back then, and the “so bad” was how WL and his successors had “leavened the whole lump.”

I can understand why people reach a summary judgment about the local church because they want psychological closure. But I haven’t reached that point. Perhaps that’s because it involves people who I understand as souls who I may only know them as surfaces whereas God knows their hearts.

I haven’t yet watched the latest unchained video but I intend to because I read that it’s about church kids and while I wasn’t a church kid myself, all three of my daughters were born into the local church so perhaps they would get something out of it. If I think so after watching it, I’ll send them a link. Have you seen it?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered 1.0

I actually do advocate to leave everything, all of it, associated with Witness, because I don’t believe that the God he represented was the God we find we in the Bible. Every religion claims that their god exist, but it is for everyone to test and find out if what they are saying matches what’s written. I do not find processed god on the pages of the Bible, nether do you find all inclusive jesus written anywhere. I also don’t find giving credit to some men who claimed to have received some private interpretation, that all should adhere to. I find it contrary to that. As a matter of fact, the sooner a person leaves everything associated with LC, and gets into the Word of God, the sooner the Holy Spirit can work on them to show all of the nonsense that was ingrained in them for years.

I know that there are people who say otherwise, and obviously you are one of those. So I say that dragging that albatross around your neck, is kind of like cleaning out your house and moving a pile of junk from one room to another, because you just can’t separate from it due to nostalgia, and some good memories, even though it’s worth nothing. Hate to say that way, but I believe that if someone is seeking true living God, then you will not find it in the Local church.

As a matter of fact, I just listened to the message by Ron K. which is on YouTube, called: “The Difference between the Lord’s Recovery and Christianity”. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_eh64c7oWCA). I can safely state, that not only the local church is a sect, but a counterfeit. I don’t know if you can pack anymore lies into one message that was done there, especially about how they treat all other Christians. I have been there, seen it for a lot of years. I have heard it in messages and in training. There is nothing there that will ever be useful for anyone! If there is a credit that I will give them, it will be this: I was in my early 20’s, young and dumb. Not equipped to know what is true and what is a total deception. They are masters of deception, real good, excellent wolfs in sheep’s clothing! I give them that credit, all they want! I learned my lesson, cost me a lot of things. But to give them credit for any spiritual help or actually leading people to God, is a big, fat NO! If anything, it set me back 15 years of my life! Thanks, but no thanks! Go find other fools like I was at that time, college and university students, but I will call spade a spade, I have nothing to lose!

I totally agree with this, unregistered 1.0.

What I've found is that even when you think you are talking about the same thing with an LC person, they mean something different. You can be using the same words, but they mean those words differently. They may say "God exists", but let them talk about their "God" for a little bit, and it's not the God found in the Bible, that's for sure. For me, hearing about God from sources outside the local church was like "this is a different God than I heard about growing up".

Now when I talk to LC people, what comes out of their mouth about the most basic things, like the gospel, sin, the Savior, God, is a jumbled mush.

On several different unrelated occasions, I have realized they have no concept of our own responsibility or accountability about sin. None. They proof-text verses. They call things that aren't sins sins and they won't call a sin a sin. They can't explain why Jesus is the Savior. And I'm not talking about 12 year old church kids. I'm talking about saints who have been "in the ministry" for the majority of their life. This has stunned me to encounter.

I just listened to a few minutes of the YT video you linked, and even on 2x speed, Ron's speaking is so slow. I know he's older, but even years ago I read a few people who said that his speech cadence is intended to be hypnotic, trance-inducing. It's miserable to listen to.

Trapped

Originally Posted by Trapped

I totally agree with this, unregistered 1.0.

Now when I talk to LC people, what comes out of their mouth about the most basic things, like the gospel, sin, the Savior, God, is a jumbled mush.

On several different unrelated occasions, I have realized they have no concept of our own responsibility or accountability about sin. None. They proof-text verses. They call things that aren't sins sins and they won't call a sin a sin. They can't explain why Jesus is the Savior. And I'm not talking about 12 year old church kids. I'm talking about saints who have been "in the ministry" for the majority of their life. This has stunned me to encounter.

Trapped,

I know probably everyone has seen this video here, (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjG-pLQiJc), but this is the typical 85%+ of the local church members. They followed the awful, godless, powerless gospel of the Lee and Nee, which does nothing but produce self righteous people. It does nothing to change peoples lives, nothing to expose their sinful nature and main reason why God became a man! It sabotages the true completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross for salvation and reconciliation, to make it about Lee and his inventions for god’s economy and becoming little gods. To summarize her statements, she said:
- my family was in the church life.
- I called on the lord because he loves me.
- I entered church life.

How sad, and how empty! Can’t even recognize that she needs a Savior because of her sin.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I just listened to a few minutes of the YT video you linked, and even on 2x speed, Ron's speaking is so slow. I know he's older, but even years ago I read a few people who said that his speech cadence is intended to be hypnotic, trance-inducing. It's miserable to listen to.

Trapped

As a favorite of his statements that he often says, “if you take a holy nap during his presentation, he won’t be offended”.😚

[zeek]

Here's a link to the latest thought provoking "Unchained" video : https://youtu.be/PtQZljO2C2w

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I can understand why people reach a summary judgment about the local church because they want psychological closure. But I haven’t reached that point. Perhaps that’s because it involves people who I understand as souls who I may only know them as surfaces whereas God knows their hearts.

I haven’t yet watched the latest unchained video but I intend to because I read that it’s about church kids and while I wasn’t a church kid myself, all three of my daughters were born into the local church so perhaps they would get something out of it. If I think so after watching it, I’ll send them a link. Have you seen it?

I looked at the channel. About a dozen videos. Started to watch one, but stopped.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I looked at the channel. About a dozen videos. Started to watch one, but stopped.

Why did you stop?

[gr8ful]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a link to the latest thought provoking "Unchained" video : https://youtu.be/PtQZljO2C2w

Just watched / listened to the video on opinions. I recall being a young person and, at a high school or college conference, being told "opinions are like onions..." and it definitely stuck with me.

While I agree that the Church in the New Testament isn't a democracy (although, some might make a counter argument based on the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, but I digress), the utter destruction of any independent thought as taught informally in the Church Life and officially as recorded in WL's Collected Works, is completely uncalled for. Only a cult would seek to silence independent thought.

This matches well with the cultic teaching against reading the Bible without W Lee's ministry to "understand" and avoid "poison."

But in the case of the "opinion = onion" matter, the people most impacted are the innocent children brought under the influence of The Lord's Recovery without their consent.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

Just watched / listened to the video on opinions. I recall being a young person and, at a high school or college conference, being told "opinions are like onions..." and it definitely stuck with me.

While I agree that the Church in the New Testament isn't a democracy (although, some might make a counter argument based on the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, but I digress), the utter destruction of any independent thought as taught informally in the Church Life and officially as recorded in WL's Collected Works, is completely uncalled for. Only a cult would seek to silence independent thought.

This matches well with the cultic teaching against reading the Bible without W Lee's ministry to "understand" and avoid "poison."

But in the case of the "opinion = onion" matter, the people most impacted are the innocent children brought under the influence of The Lord's Recovery without their consent.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The suppression of freedom of thought and expression preached and practiced in the so-called Lord’s Recovery was the primary reason I chose to leave.

New video from The Lord's Recovery Unchained: A look at Laodicea | The Lord's Recovery | Witness Lee


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzU4...4UDn8&index=15

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why did you stop?

Didn't interest me, didn't learn anything new.

I do find it interesting how the Recovery has followed the Left concerning free of thought and speech. At first it was promoted because it exposed / attacked the establishment in power. Slowly, however, freedom of speech / opinions became dangerous and demonized by these same leaders when their power is at stake.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The suppression of freedom of thought and expression preached and practiced in the so-called Lord’s Recovery was the primary reason I chose to leave.

As a corollary to your point above zeek, seeing how we advertised ourselves as "local churches," one of the reasons why I left was because the local eldership had little freedom of thought and expression to influence the church under their care. Headquarters grew in size, power, and scope far beyond the boundaries of scripture.

Over time, the real shepherds, evangelists, and teachers in the LC were expelled or marginalized, and their replacements were mere franchise lackeys. A fake authoritarian "oneness of the body" was deemed far more paramount to their survival than the actual liberty of the Spirit.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do find it interesting how the Recovery has followed the Left concerning free of thought and speech. At first it was promoted because it exposed / attacked the establishment in power. Slowly, however, freedom of speech / opinions became dangerous and demonized by these same leaders when their power is at stake.

That’s an interesting take on freedom of speech. The first amendment only states that congress won’t pass laws “abridging the freedom of speech”. Nowhere does it state you won’t face social consequences for your speech.

It’s probably more accurate to say the Recovery has followed the “Right” concerning infringement free speech (if you’re defining it how the constitution does). Like the “Right” who ban hundreds of books each year, the Lord’s Recovery has banned via the article called “One Publication” any other printed material apart from Living Stream Ministry.

Elders in Local churches across the country have signed a document restricting their churches to only Living Stream Ministry publication.

In any church there are social consequences to speech, the disciples of Jesus faced social consequences from Jesus himself in their “free thought” and “free speech”. However, in the Local Church there are literally laws that prevent people from speaking freely or exploring other publications.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

It’s probably more accurate to say the Recovery has followed the “Right” concerning infringement free speech (if you’re defining it how the constitution does). Like the “Right” who ban hundreds of books each year, the Lord’s Recovery has banned via the article called “One Publication” any other printed material apart from Living Stream Ministry.

Care to name one?

[zeek]

Here’s a link to another new video in the series that I heartily agree with. https://youtu.be/BzU4ssVstYc I could not accept Witness Lee was the only minister of light in his age. I think that teaching was detrimental to the local churches. It undermined the ground of locality as an expression of oneness. Worse, it turned people away from the divine light shining in themselves ( John 1: 4, 9). The narrator goes on to make a strong case that Lee and Nee misunderstood Lord’s word to Laodicea in Revelation. That error would not be so significant if Lee had recognized other ministers of light.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't interest me, didn't learn anything new.

I do find it interesting how the Recovery has followed the Left concerning free of thought and speech. At first it was promoted because it exposed / attacked the establishment in power. Slowly, however, freedom of speech / opinions became dangerous and demonized by these same leaders when their power is at stake.

Thanks for answering. I find the videos interesting. When he says something I know already I’m happy to hear it confirmed. When I disagree, I’m glad that he’s free to express his opinion. Had such freedom existed in the LCs I might be meeting with them today.

To divide persons into Right and Left is divisive by definition. Witness how it leads us to quarrel among ourselves. That led to rancor on Alternative Views which grieved my spirit. Of course, you’re free to do it. I applaud that freedom. But, I’m going to try to avoid it this time around.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks for answering. I find the videos interesting. When he says something I know already I’m happy to hear it confirmed. When I disagree, I’m glad that he’s free to express his opinion. Had such freedom existed in the LCs I might be meeting with them today.

To divide persons into Right and Left is divisive by definition. Witness how it leads us to quarrel among ourselves. That led to rancor on Alternative Views which grieved my spirit. Of course, you’re free to do it. I applaud that freedom. But, I’m going to try to avoid it this time around.

Ok, but I find it helpful, almost mandatory, to understand what our leaders are doing to us. Not what they say or promise to us, but what they are actually doing behind the scenes. Jesus apparently felt the same way, since he exposed the intentions of those who resisted the truth. Yes, that did divide the Jews, perhaps not left and right, but up and down, the saved and the unsaved, the believers and the hypocrites. It is these same evil stratagems, whether then or now, which are dividing us. To say nothing, to have no opinion, and to just follow along silently and obediently, is what all evil leaders want. Whether it was our time in the LC, Jesus’ time on earth, or just today’s situation, at the core of the matter is truth covered up by lies to deceive us. Agree?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here’s a link to another new video in the series that I heartily agree with. https://youtu.be/BzU4ssVstYc I could not accept Witness Lee was the only minister of light in his age. I think that teaching was detrimental to the local churches. It undermined the ground of locality as an expression of oneness. Worse, it turned people away from the divine light shining in themselves ( John 1: 4, 9). The narrator goes on to make a strong case that Lee and Nee misunderstood Lord’s word to Laodicea in Revelation. That error would not be so significant if Lee had recognized other ministers of light.

I agree. I don't think anyone expects any one teacher or pastor to get every single nuance of the Bible 100% right every time or to squeeze every golden truth from every word in the Bible. The pastor at my church skips things I think are very important for a certain passage, or says things now and then that I don't necessarily agree with - and yet, it doesn't bother me because he is not simultaneously standing there saying he is the only one who has it right and the only one God reveals things to, and that everyone else is wrong (or their opinions are trash!). He'll admit when he's wrong, he's willing to hear to what others say, and he's not proclaiming he has all the light! It's that combo of the lacks/errors of Witness Lee's teaching PLUS his silencing all others (and not recognizing any other legitimate ministers is a part of that) and blindness about his own errors that's the problem.

Oh yeah, and his going on character assassination rampages against those who try to share their light, as if he thinks, "how dare they have the gall to think they see something I don't see" isn't very cotton candy friendly either....

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ok, but I find itit helpful, almost mandatory, to understand what our leaders are doing to us. Not what they say or promise to us, but what they are actually doing behind the scenes. Jesus apparently felt the same way, since he exposed the intentions of those who resisted the truth. Yes, that did divide the Jews, perhaps not left and right, but up and down, the saved and the unsaved, the believers and the hypocrites. It is these same evil stratagems, whether then or now, which are dividing us. To say nothing, to have no opinion, and to just follow along silently and obediently, is what all evil leaders want. Whether it was our time in the LC, Jesus’ time on earth, or just today’s situation, at the core of the matter is truth covered up by lies to deceive us. Agree?

Jesus aligned himself with no party or faction. He said God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it. John 3:17 If there are differences among men, men make them not God. There is neither Jew, nor gentile neither slave nor free, nor is there a male and female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 Yet for 2000 years mankind has been busy dividing itself into many more “neither” categories. Please forgive me if I don’t participate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus aligned himself with no party or faction. He said God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it. John 3:17 If there are differences among men, men make them not God. There is neither Jew, nor gentile neither slave nor free, nor is there a male and female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 Yet for 2000 years mankind has been busy dividing itself into many more “neither” categories. Please forgive me if I don’t participate.

I agree in part, but wouldn’t you agree that Jesus did align Himself with truth vs lies, honesty vs hypocrisy, righteousness vs unrighteousness, etc? And does not this forum somewhat force posters to take sides? If you may remember, at times I have taken a beating from both sides for trying to straddle a middle position, which I am convinced aligns with the truths of the Bible.

When you say there is “no Jew or Gentile,” that is INSIDE the church. But consider when both Jesus and the Apostles faced the deceit of Jewish leaders, did they not rebuke them, exposing their deceptions to the other disciples for their safety. Is not this also the mission of this forum to expose the lies of leaders at LSM?

When I left the LC, close friends of mine on both sides were exhorting me to “take a stand for the truth,” which was really their version of the truth, basically aligning with either the Anaheim or Cleveland factions. In that instance I did not take sides, or pick a party, like nearly all others did, but examined both platforms against the truth of scripture.

So this matter of “aligning in parties” needs context. Today we have parties and denominations based on leaders and doctrines, but the time is soon coming during the great tribulation, when as the scriptures indicate, we will only be divided as worshippers of Jesus Christ or worshippers of the Beast. My initial comments in this little discussion of ours only reflected certain policies (e.g. censorship) used today which will one day be also used by the Beast. The practice of censorship at LSM fits in with this.

[Bible-believer]

Sometimes, it's not us choosing sides but being categorized to the opposite side. Days ago, I shared "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" channel with a church member, and she replied, "I can't open the link. Even if I can, I will not open the door for Satan."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Sometimes, it's not us choosing sides but being categorized to the opposite side. Days ago, I shared "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" channel with a church member, and she replied, "I can't open the link. Even if I can, I will not open the door for Satan."

There are many in the LC who refuse to consider any information which is contrary to the deceptions promulgated by LSM. Sadly it’s probably wise not to discuss the topic with her anymore. Unless the Spirit of truth has already worked in LC members’ hearts to question that system, anything said to the contrary only hardens their resolve. That’s how I was for many years.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree in part, but wouldn’t you agree that Jesus did align Himself with truth vs lies, honesty vs hypocrisy, righteousness vs unrighteousness, etc? And does not this forum somewhat force posters to take sides? If you may remember, at times I have taken a beating from both sides for trying to straddle a middle position, which I am convinced aligns with the truths of the Bible.

When you say there is “no Jew or Gentile,” that is INSIDE the church. But consider when both Jesus and the Apostles faced the deceit of Jewish leaders, did they not rebuke them, exposing their deceptions to the other disciples for their safety. Is not this also the mission of this forum to expose the lies of leaders at LSM?

When I left the LC, close friends of mine on both sides were exhorting me to “take a stand for the truth,” which was really their version of the truth, basically aligning with either the Anaheim or Cleveland factions. In that instance I did not take sides, or pick a party, like nearly all others did, but examined both platforms against the truth of scripture.

So this matter of “aligning in parties” needs context. Today we have parties and denominations based on leaders and doctrines, but the time is soon coming during the great tribulation, when as the scriptures indicate, we will only be divided as worshippers of Jesus Christ or worshippers of the Beast. My initial comments in this little discussion of ours only reflected certain policies (e.g. censorship) used today which will one day be also used by the Beast. The practice of censorship at LSM fits in with this.

Political opinions differ and bring strife between people who ought to love each other as children of God. Jesus was aligned with the Father(John 10:30) and prayed "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (John 17:21)

As far as censorship goes, again, it's a matter of opinion. Censorship is practiced by the moderators of this forum. Their judgment may differ from yours and mine. Those that can't abide with it are encouraged to leave or are “cancelled”. I seem to recall that it was the desire of UntoHim that we avoid political discussion on this forum. One reason he said started Alternative Views was so that we could discuss politics there. Apparently, he concluded that that was a failure. So, again, I don't want to repeat that mistake.

The mission statement of this forum is "Our mission is to, in the words of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:15) “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect”. That's excellent! The mission of this forum is not ultimately on the past, but on the sanctification of Christ in our hearts now!

So, yes this is a place where people can discuss the local church movement critically. Since such discussion isn't allowed in the local churches, there is a need for it here. But, in keeping with the mission of the forum, there is also a need to forgive others and ourselves for what happened there and let it go.

The Lord taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Forgiveness is essential if we are to have a pure heart not occupied by resentment and hate. As the Lord said "Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God." That's the blessing I seek. That's "the hope that is in" me said with "gentleness and respect."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Sometimes, it's not us choosing sides but being categorized to the opposite side. Days ago, I shared "The Lord's Recovery Unchained" channel with a church member, and she replied, "I can't open the link. Even if I can, I will not open the door for Satan."

See, I'm at the point where I would push back on people when they say these kinds of things. Although, you know your relationship to her and of course, this may backfire.

I understand the mindset. "I am in the ark, I am safe in the church life, I just read the ministry, follow the vision, never lose sight of God's economy, anything else outside of this safe sphere is Satan trying to drag me out of the Lord's hands". I get it. We've all been there.

So what "works" on people who have this mindset? Many of the automatic responses I thought of don't work. Things like:

--wait a minute, you are fine walking around with Satan dwelling in your flesh, but you are scared of external videos....apparently by Satan?
--wait a minute, brother Lee and the co-workers have both said that they want the ministry tested. The various channels that are popping up are just doing what brother Lee himself said he wanted!
--wait a minute, the Bible gives us the example of the "Bereans who were more noble...". Are you saying the Bible is encouraging Satanic activity?

I would almost guarantee though that none of these would break through. The only thing I can possibly think of that would make someone brainwashed reconsider is to frame it from their perspective. Something like:

"Just view them as an education. As you preach the gospel, you know you will encounter people who have disagreements with the ministry. Why not use these videos as an opportunity to learn about how people disagree so you are more prepared to defend it when you encounter people?"

That allows them to take a more objective approach to the videos and feel less like they are opening themselves up to Satan, and more like they are taking a defensive position against Satan from the outset. I would still see it as a positive for any saint to hear ANYTHING said on this channel or other channels and blogs that are out there.

In saying this I'm not knocking the need to defer to the working of the Holy Spirit. But sometimes the Holy Spirit can use what we say to keep bothering them over time. I don't know. What a situation these saints are in!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Lord taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Forgiveness is essential if we are to have a pure heart not occupied by resentment and hate. As the Lord said "Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God." That's the blessing I seek. That's "the hope that is in" me said with "gentleness and respect."

Amen to that. Thanks.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Lord taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Forgiveness is essential if we are to have a pure heart not occupied by resentment and hate. As the Lord said "Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God." That's the blessing I seek. That's "the hope that is in" me said with "gentleness and respect."

This is true, but I would like to add a word of caution. While we are taught to forgive, this doesn’t mean we ignore our emotions. It’s important to work through your resentment and hate. Producing spiritual fruit requires effort and hard work, like cultivating soil in order to grow plants. When people offer simplistic Christian phrases as a way to address suffering, it can feel insincere and inadequate, like offering a fake apple to someone who is starving.

Videos like these unchained ones help do just that, it exposes things and allows for you work through them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is true, but I would like to add a word of caution. While we are taught to forgive, this doesn’t mean we ignore our emotions. It’s important to work through your resentment and hate. Producing spiritual fruit requires effort and hard work, like cultivating soil in order to grow plants. When people offer simplistic Christian phrases as a way to address suffering, it can feel insincere and inadequate, like offering a fake apple to someone who is starving.

Videos like these unchained ones help do just that, it exposes things and allows for you work through them.

Greetings Zezima! I think this is the first time we have interacted. I dare say you’re right. Forgiveness, whatever it is, surely doesn't happen by ignoring our emotions if it comes at all.

People talk about hell. To be reliving a physical or emotional trauma is hell. Whatever else forgiveness is, it seems to involve letting go. People say that time heals. Does it? Maybe. Maybe not. How much time have we got?

This body is time-limited. And what about the mind? And the soul?

What if we carry our emotional wounds to the grave? Would we continue to suffer? Can the effort and hard work of working through resentment and hatred continue beyond the grave?

Jesus taught us to pray “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” Is that even possible without the grace of God? Based on my experience, I don’t think so. What do you think?

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Trapped

For anyone interested, here's an article on the Hebrew of the phrase "you shall surely die" (or, idiomatically, "dying you shall die"). Their conclusion, in looking at numerous other cases in the OT where similar variations of the phrase are used, is that the phrase points to a matter of judicial punishment, rather than natural consequence.

In other words, the phrase itself supports the thought that in the garden of Eden, death is not shown to be the natural consequence of eating a poisoned tree, but is shown to be God's punishment for sin, for law-breaking, by losing access to the TOL.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/arc...-you-shall-die

Trapped

P.S. Ironically, no, this is not the "ministry magazine" of LSM.

Thanks, Trapped. It's interesting to me. I'm wondering, similarly, if we can find any Hebrew usage for life without natural consequences. I think the difficulties surrounding interpretation of Gen 2, 3 is that comparison is not between life and death but life and knowledge.

This morning, I read The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2-3 by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger. The author academically traced back the story and instructive anyway.

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...20same&f=false

But, one of most well searched academic articles on Gen. 2,3 sounds to me far from being sufficient to fully expose Gen 2, 3, still leaving a lot of derivative questions. So, it is "easy" to debunk Witness Lee's interpretation on Gen. 2, 3, like the youtube channel did, but I'm not sure who can formulate almost perfect interpretation of Gen 2, 3. Even new testament authors, except Revelation, had not mentioned tree of life.



Gubei

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Thanks, Trapped. It's interesting to me. I'm wondering, similarly, if we can find any Hebrew usage for life without natural consequences. I think the difficulties surrounding interpretation of Gen 2, 3 is that comparison is not between life and death but life and knowledge.

This morning, I read The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2-3 by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger. The author academically traced back the story and instructive anyway.

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...20same&f=false

But, one of most well searched academic articles on Gen. 2,3 sounds to me far from being sufficient to fully expose Gen 2, 3, still leaving a lot of derivative questions. So, it is "easy" to debunk Witness Lee's interpretation on Gen. 2, 3, like the youtube channel did, but I'm not sure who can formulate almost perfect interpretation of Gen 2, 3. Even new testament authors, except Revelation, had not mentioned tree of life.

Gubei

Hi Gubei,

Can you explain a little bit more?

Trapped

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi Gubei,

Can you explain a little bit more?

Trapped

Trapped,

Okay. I will do my best. Please forgive me if my explanation is not sufficient. It is difficult to clarify my position in English.(I'm Korean living in Seoul.)

Compared to the NT stories surrounding Jesus, the Eden story is unclear on whether it was physical or just figurative. When I read the names of rivers like Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates from Gen2:10, obviously Eden sounds to be physically located in the land of the Middle East, but, reading the God’s punishment of Gen3:21 where cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life are mentioned gives me a different angle because currently no one can find the physical location of Eden under the guard of cherubim and the sword. As an natural extension, is the city of New Jerusalem physical or just figurative? The Tree of life in Rev 22:19 is also physical or figurative? (in this conjecture, “physical with figurative meanings” should be regarded as physical anyway) I guess, most of us stick to the literal interpretation of the Bible(me too), as dispensationalists do, and Witness Lee was one of them, then consciously or unconsciously, we tend to interpret Eden or New Jerusalem are physical. This is the point where problems arise. I have wrestled with any possible way to interpret Gen 2, 3 almost scores of years, but I confess I still cannot fully understand the story. Your earlier post mentioning “You shall surely die” may not mean natural consequence seemed to echo once again to my long-held conundrum. If death of Gen 2,3 could mean judicial punishment rather than natural death of dictionary meaning, then the whole story of Eden can also be a figurative one?

I believe only after we define the Eden story either physical or figurative then we can discuss further, otherwise all the debates will be useless. The first video of the youtube channel says not only the three of life but the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the middle of the garden. Witness Lee said in his writings that only the tree of life is center. If we define middle and center are identical in their meaning, Witness Lee seems to have omitted the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but if he had used the word “center” as meaning “most important” (as often seen in Chinese language usage. Center = 中心 zhongxin) rather than physically middle, it also gives us a different angle. As far as I noticed, most of the cases, Witness Lee seemed to think in Chinese.

If all the words in Gen 2, 3 like life, death, good, evil, knowledge, even Adam and Eve etc could be just figurative/symbolic then there will be myriads of way to interpret the story.

I hope this clarified my earlier post.

ps. To avoid any doubt, I left the LC about 15 years ago.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Trapped,

Okay. I will do my best. Please forgive me if my explanation is not sufficient. It is difficult to clarify my position in English.(I'm Korean living in Seoul.)

Compared to the NT stories surrounding Jesus, the Eden story is unclear on whether it was physical or just figurative. When I read the names of rivers like Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates from Gen2:10, obviously Eden sounds to be physically located in the land of the Middle East, but, reading the God’s punishment of Gen3:21 where cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life are mentioned gives me a different angle because currently no one can find the physical location of Eden under the guard of cherubim and the sword. As an natural extension, is the city of New Jerusalem physical or just figurative? The Tree of life in Rev 22:19 is also physical or figurative? (in this conjecture, “physical with figurative meanings” should be regarded as physical anyway) I guess, most of us stick to the literal interpretation of the Bible(me too), as dispensationalists do, and Witness Lee was one of them, then consciously or unconsciously, we tend to interpret Eden or New Jerusalem are physical. This is the point where problems arise. I have wrestled with any possible way to interpret Gen 2, 3 almost scores of years, but I confess I still cannot fully understand the story. Your earlier post mentioning “You shall surely die” may not mean natural consequence seemed to echo once again to my long-held conundrum. If death of Gen 2,3 could mean judicial punishment rather than natural death of dictionary meaning, then the whole story of Eden can also be a figurative one?

I believe only after we define the Eden story either physical or figurative then we can discuss further, otherwise all the debates will be useless. The first video of the youtube channel says not only the three of life but the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the middle of the garden. Witness Lee said in his writings that only the tree of life is center. If we define middle and center are identical in their meaning, Witness Lee seems to have omitted the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but if he had used the word “center” as meaning “most important” (as often seen in Chinese language usage. Center = 中心 zhongxin) rather than physically middle, it also gives us a different angle. As far as I noticed, most of the cases, Witness Lee seemed to think in Chinese.

If all the words in Gen 2, 3 like life, death, good, evil, knowledge, even Adam and Eve etc could be just figurative/symbolic then there will be myriads of way to interpret the story.

I hope this clarified my earlier post.

ps. To avoid any doubt, I left the LC about 15 years ago.

Gubei,

Okay, your explanation helps, thanks.

These are my thoughts in response:

1. Romans 5 refers to what happened in the garden of Eden. "Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin", "the many died by the trespass of the one man".

And then it clearly balances it out with what Jesus did: "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

It seems to me that if we are to take the garden of Eden, Adam's transgression, death as punishment, etc figuratively, then we would also have to take Jesus' death and our resultant justification figuratively too. I'm personally not prepared to do that.

2. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul says, "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ." Sure, we could imagine that as a figurative analogy, but Paul is comparing it to the real situation the Corinthians were in, so it feels like a weak warning if Genesis 2-3 is only a figurative story.

3. When the article I posted says death is judicial punishment, not natural consequence, that distinction is not related to whether it's a figurative or literal story. What it means is, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were some kind of poisonous tree like many claim, then when Adam and Eve ate of it, the "natural consequence" of ingesting something poisonous is death. Poison kills us as a natural consequence of eating it. But the tree is called "good for food", and so it is all but impossible to call something that is "good for food" poisonous.

And that's what the article is saying. "You shall surely die" does not carry with it a sense of natural consequence from poison. It carries with it a sense of "judicial punishment" for disobedience, which is what we actually see in Genesis - God punished them by cutting off access to the tree of life and driving them from the garden. And so they were not able to eat the tree which would have made them live forever, and so they died. This was God's punishment.

4. The Bible, as far as I know, never really addresses the fate of the garden of Eden after Genesis 3. It never says "and God preserved the garden and so it has stood until the present day", and it also never says, "and so God took the garden up into the heavens until the appointed time", or anything in between. It's just silent. So I don't think we can assume that the garden would necessarily still be around......we just don't know.

5. The middle/center thing is interesting. It's been a month or two since I listened to any of the two trees videos, but I don't recall them considering this as an option. However, in thinking about it, it doesn't really save Witness Lee from his errors because the next thing he taught was "God charged man to eat the right tree". This simply isn't true and is the major basis of his error, regardless of where the trees fell in relation to the center or middle. No one will ever find a record in the Bible of God telling Adam to eat the tree of life. It's just not there. So if we consider Witness Lee to have really been saying "the tree of life is the most important"....he literally put words in God's mouth in order to claim that. The truth is the narrative in Genesis 2-3 heavily centers around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the most, and yet I don't even consider that to mean "the TKGE is the most important". One thing I do remember specifically from the videos is the statement of something like "the tree of life wasn't the tree they were charged to eat, instead it was the tree they lost when they disobeyed". That's the same realization I came to myself when looking into these chapters. It's like the tree of life was a privilege, the access to which was dependent on their obedience. But it's not presented as the center, whether "center" means alone in the middle of the garden, or whether it means the most important part of the chapters. The whole thing contains important concepts!

I'm sure some will disagree with me. These are just my thoughts. Not sure if any of that helped or made it worse....

Trapped

[Ohio]

I think you make some good points, Trapped, if I could add some …

I believe the Genesis record describes literal physical events, and as a principle, the N.T., especially Revelations, describes a symbolic spiritual “figurative” reality. In other words the Tree of Life in Genesis was physical, visible, and it’s fruit could be eaten. The Tree of Life in Revelation, however, is not a physical tree, but a spiritual reality signifying God as the real source of life. Remember that the physical things that are seen are merely temporary, but that which is spiritual is unseen, real, and eternal.

A real good example of this is manna. Manna was actual food, visible, edible, providing for the survival of God’s chosen people, but real manna in John 6 was Jesus, the Son of God, as our heavenly spiritual food, coming down from heaven, giving us who believe eternal life as “food.”

The interpretation of the events in Genesis can be found in the NT. WL’s Tree of Knowledge “poison” interpretation should be rejected because it undermines Paul’s actual teachings in Romans 5. Adam transgressed God’s direct command, via his disobedience, hence “dying, you shall surely die.” If we consider Peter’s word, “a day to the Lord is a thousand years,” then Adam died on the same day he transgressed.

Concerning the New Jerusalem, I don’t believe any of these signs are physical. There are no physical streets of gold, etc. These are all descriptions of the coming spiritual reality. The city of NJ is not a physical place, but transformed people. She is our mother, and God is our Father.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you make some good points, Trapped, if I could add some …

I believe the Genesis record describes literal physical events, and as a principle, the N.T., especially Revelations, describes a symbolic spiritual “figurative” reality. In other words the Tree of Life in Genesis was physical, visible, and it’s fruit could be eaten. The Tree of Life in Revelation, however, is not a physical tree, but a spiritual reality signifying God as the real source of life. Remember that the physical things that are seen are merely temporary, but that which is spiritual is unseen, real, and eternal.

A real good example of this is manna. Manna was actual food, visible, edible, providing for the survival of God’s chosen people, but real manna in John 6 was Jesus, the Son of God, as our heavenly spiritual food, coming down from heaven, giving us who believe eternal life as “food.”

The interpretation of the events in Genesis can be found in the NT. WL’s Tree of Knowledge “poison” interpretation should be rejected because it undermines Paul’s actual teachings in Romans 5. Adam transgressed God’s direct command, via his disobedience, hence “dying, you shall surely die.” If we consider Peter’s word, “a day to the Lord is a thousand years,” then Adam died on the same day he transgressed.

Concerning the New Jerusalem, I don’t believe any of these signs are physical. There are no physical streets of gold, etc. These are all descriptions of the coming spiritual reality. The city of NJ is not a physical place, but transformed people. She is our mother, and God is our Father.

I've been wondering about this "spiritual" stuff recently. What got me thinking was that after Jesus' resurrection, He had what 1 Corinthians 15 calls a "spiritual body". But according to John 20 it was a body that could eat and drink and could be seen and could be touched, and yet also appear in a room with a locked door. I wonder if sometimes there is a more physical aspect to the spiritual things than we are used to thinking about.

Rather than try to organize my own thoughts, I googled the topic and this gotquestions article summarizes it well enough: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html

Trapped

P.S. I've heard the "day is a thousand years" explanation to make the "in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die" make sense since they didn't actually die in the same day. I think that's one good way to interpret it, given that Adam lived 900-something years (less than 1000).

I have just considered "dying, you shall die" to indicate that the dying process would begin, in the same way that someone who has a terminal illness is "dying" of that illness. The process of dying began that day because that was the day they lost the way to prevent their death. So "dying, they will die".

I think either are legitimate readings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Recovering

. . . It's true that if you cherry-pick your verses and gerrymander the context sufficiently, you can construct cases to support a wide variety of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. . . .

My years of "careful study" of so many of the LRC teachings is that context was seldom on the mind of Nee or Lee (or the minions that have followed). Words — without context — seem to be fertile ground for creating one golden calf after another. It is better to remove the context. Study only one little fortune cookie at a time. Then throw those words in the fire and out comes another golden calf. Reveal it to your listeners in the midst of well-known phrases that always get lots of "amens" and they won't even notice that initial nagging question when you finally make your next ridiculous claim. At that point, the tsunami of "amens" will wash away any chance for the question to resurface later.

At least that's the way I recall it working in Lee's favor.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

My years of "careful study" of so many of the LRC teachings is that context was seldom on the mind of Nee or Lee (or the minions that have followed). Words — without context — seem to be fertile ground for creating one golden calf after another. It is better to remove the context. Study only one little fortune cookie at a time. Then throw those words in the fire and out comes another golden calf. Reveal it to your listeners in the midst of well-we known phrases that always get lots of "amens" and they won't even notice that initial nagging question when you finally make your next ridiculous claim. At that point, the tsunami of "amens" will wash away any chance for the question to resurface later.

At least that's the way I recall it working in Lee's favor.

———————————————————————
“out comes another golden calf”

And the purpose of a golden calf is too admire its beauty, how perfect it is, and to worship it by praises. This is my greatest fear of the recovery, that it lifts up the works, intellect, wisdom and character of men. These things at times receive as much praise and attention as the person and work of Jesus Christ. At times the works and character of Lee and Nee are lauded and praised as much as that of Christ. Brothers, this shouldn’t be.

Breaking: co-workers use Bible to put you in fear of the Bible | The Lord's Recovery | Witness Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MLBRwdnSPM

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Breaking: co-workers use Bible to put you in fear of the Bible | The Lord's Recovery | Witness Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MLBRwdnSPM

I saw this video headline a little earlier at work today and chuckled on and off for about an hour or so. It sounds a lot like one of those "The Onion" news satire headlines and it just hit me so funny, as well as doing a good job encapsulating the absurdity of the co-workers' attempts at damage control.

The video makes a good point that they really are essentially saying that Witness Lee is what saves you from the dangerous Word of God. It's, to use alwayscurious's phrase, mind-blowing.

The more I listen to Cal's videos and to these videos which both shine light on the problems in the LC, and the more I read healthy Christian exposition, the more the "masquerading as an angel of light" becomes more of a fitting metaphor to me in thinking about the local church.

Trapped

New Video: Is Witness Lee's ministry THE ONE UNIQUE New Testament ministry?

[Ohio]

Does anyone really believe that?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does anyone really believe that?

The creator of Unchained has given us the answer in two words:


More than one Christian apologist/critic of Witness Lee warned of the dangers of cognitive dissonance in aberrational/cultic groups like the Local Church way back in the 1970s. What was Lee and Company's response - - SUE THEM! When challenged about the prohibitions against such interfaith lawsuits in 1 Corinthians 6, Local Church minions exercised what could only be described as blatant cognitive dissonance through all sorts of mealy-mouthed, nonsensical excuses such as "we are merely following the apostle Paul in his appealing to Caesar".

Unfortunately cognitive dissonance also plays a major role in the theological teachings in the Local Church of Witness Lee. How else can a young person and/or a new believer reconcile the abject contradictions in Lee's teachings about the Triune God? In one sentence Lee will give a rather orthodox exposition of the Trinity (God exists as Three Persons but is One Being, having a single divine nature.) and in the next sentence bloviate that "The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?" and "THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS ALSO THE SPIRIT.... and "the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father. Hallelujah!" (as quoted in http://www.open-letter.org/)

Cognitive dissonance in the Local Church also extends into other areas of the basic tenents of the Christian faith, such as the nature of man before and after salvation, sanctification and the nature and purpose of the Body of Christ as the universal church and local churches. Thankfully the Lord is exposing these things through venues like The Lord's Recovery Unchained, Cal's videos, The Former Members of the LC Facebook page and even this little forum.
-

Cognitive Dissonance is a concept of psychology, developed by Leon Festinger.
Although it may on one hand give us an insight into the secular view of humans, through the lenses of Science, on the other hand it also completely devalues all aspects of spiritual life, or the truth that we find about who we are as a human beings. It’s interesting that I have heard of this theory before from counseling and other sources, but what is fascinating about it, is that the solutions offered to people through the secular systems are almost laughable and really do very little to resolve the issue at hand.

It’s abundantly clear for those of us who have been there at one point or another, strolling the beaten paths of single file line that goes from Nee to Lee to the current collection of blenders. Some of us didn’t know any better, but some went to great hardcore extent to make sure that you stayed within the “oneness file”, while fighting internally and externally to make sure everyone knows that you are striving for greatness. The mental, internal issues of the soul, and constant quenching of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives, was daily ritual and routine. That’s because these so blunt and poisonous “recovered truths”, were the daily heartbeat of the true follower of these men.
- You can’t think they said, just call!
- You can’t understand they said, just trust!
- You can’t read the clear Word they said, just let us give you what it means!
- You can’t feel things they said, it’s from your natural self, kill it they warned!
- You can’t identify what’s of the spirit or of the soul, let us do it for you, they said!

I can’t see how those daily sessions around those concepts, would not lead one to some serious issues. I must say, that I have been around people who through these constant daily exercises, became like literally children in their minds. People who where 100% normal just few years ago, became totally unapproachable, unable to hear, listen, reason, have compassion, able to understand basic things. It’s kind of like they went backwards in they growth. Just a mere touch of that well put together rhetoric, known as the language of the local church, will have you at best be showered with shouting of the name of Jesus, or at worst be attached to the satans special forces. Is that cognitive dissonance, or is there something that we are missing? Is it solvable by the secular self help solutions, or the roots are way deeper that the science can penetrate?

Couple of weeks ago I tried, (against my better judgment), to talk to some current members about some things. Didn’t go well at all, and was told that the issue of all of the things that are happening in the recovery is the people who are failing to follow simply steps offered by the ministry. When I asked if the steps and solutions that are given to these people could be the causes for the many problems that people have, I was quickly reminded of how the original inventor of recovery suffered to get it to me, and how ungrateful I am. Conversation ended, and I didn’t want to press any further, knowing that the basic human ability to ask questions, examine things and test them, has been completely removed and that mind has been rewired to short circuit as soon as there is uncomfortable situation arises. What a delusional lifestyle, and it’s called “live”. I remember lying this to myself for so many years, as if it was the true reality! Where would we be without Gods grace and mercy, probably still chained in the single file, singing mindlessly “o what a wonderful church life”.������

****************
Guest "Just Sayin"
Please register for forum membership! We appreciate your contributions!
Thanks-
Moderator/Administrator

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Just Saying

Cognitive Dissonance is a concept of psychology, developed by Leon Festinger.
Although it may on one hand give us an insight into the secular view of humans, through the lenses of Science, on the other hand it also completely devalues all aspects of spiritual life, or the truth that we find about who we are as a human beings. It’s interesting that I have heard of this theory before from counseling and other sources, but what is fascinating about it, is that the solutions offered to people through the secular systems are almost laughable and really do very little to resolve the issue at hand.

It’s abundantly clear for those of us who have been there at one point or another, strolling the beaten paths of single file line that goes from Nee to Lee to the current collection of blenders. Some of us didn’t know any better, but some went to great hardcore extent to make sure that you stayed within the “oneness file”, while fighting internally and externally to make sure everyone knows that you are striving for greatness. The mental, internal issues of the soul, and constant quenching of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives, was daily ritual and routine. That’s because these so blunt and poisonous “recovered truths”, were the daily heartbeat of the true follower of these men.
- You can’t think they said, just call!
- You can’t understand they said, just trust!
- You can’t read the clear Word they said, just let us give you what it means!
- You can’t feel things they said, it’s from your natural self, kill it they warned!
- You can’t identify what’s of the spirit or of the soul, let us do it for you, they said!

I can’t see how those daily sessions around those concepts, would not lead one to some serious issues. I must say, that I have been around people who through these constant daily exercises, became like literally children in their minds. People who where 100% normal just few years ago, became totally unapproachable, unable to hear, listen, reason, have compassion, able to understand basic things. It’s kind of like they went backwards in they growth. Just a mere touch of that well put together rhetoric, known as the language of the local church, will have you at best be showered with shouting of the name of Jesus, or at worst be attached to the satans special forces. Is that cognitive dissonance, or is there something that we are missing? Is it solvable by the secular self help solutions, or the roots are way deeper that the science can penetrate?

Couple of weeks ago I tried, (against my better judgment), to talk to some current members about some things. Didn’t go well at all, and was told that the issue of all of the things that are happening in the recovery is the people who are failing to follow simply steps offered by the ministry. When I asked if the steps and solutions that are given to these people could be the causes for the many problems that people have, I was quickly reminded of how the original inventor of recovery suffered to get it to me, and how ungrateful I am. Conversation ended, and I didn’t want to press any further, knowing that the basic human ability to ask questions, examine things and test them, has been completely removed and that mind has been rewired to short circuit as soon as there is uncomfortable situation arises. What a delusional lifestyle, and it’s called “live”. I remember lying this to myself for so many years, as if it was the true reality! Where would we be without Gods grace and mercy, probably still chained in the single file, singing mindlessly “o what a wonderful church life”.������

Just saying,

Wow, they really spun it around to put the blame game on you! I have also encountered this kind of basic inability to use their mind and actually grapple with the places their beliefs lead.

I'm definitely not an expert, but I think the things you mentioned would be best described as "thought-stopping cliches".

Just had the chance to listen to the video this morning. The "cognitive dissonance" mentioned in the video was concerning the conflicting beliefs/teachings in the local church that cannot all be true at the same time, i.e. believing both that the co-workers are telling the truth when they say Witness Lee's ministry is only a part of the NT ministry (meaning there are other ministries out there that qualify as legitimate ministries saints shouldn't be scared of), AND also going along with being "restricted in one publication" (only Lee/Nee's ministries), that is, being restricted to just a small portion of God's whole NT ministry. These two things both can't hold at the same time without being forced to acknowledge that you are missing out on ALL of the NT ministry this way. That inability to reconcile all those things without having to admit something is wrong somewhere in the equation is the "cognitive dissonance" the video spoke of....and so the saints exist in this unreconcilable mental situation, all the while thinking they are in the best place! I know I definitely experienced this myself when I was there.

That "mind short circuiting in uncomfortable situations" is a part of cognitive dissonance I think, although I agree with you that there are actually unseen things going on when it happens. Maybe this cognitive dissonance phrase is a way of identifying the physical symptoms of a behind the scenes spiritual battle; however, cognitive dissonance can also occur in any number of non-spiritual, non-Christian situations, so it's not always necessarily spiritual. I'm no psychologist - correct me if I'm wrong!

Trapped

New upload video: Is the Lord's Recovery right about the ground of the church? | The Lord's Recovery | Witness Lee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF7YDc8gmhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzze...sBK9p3VmQPLYjT

**********MODERATED COMMENT*****
*Name calling* comment deleted.

*Important Message*
To everyone reading this comment section, the above conversation just demonstrated a complete arbitrary nature of a typical accuser who criticizes the local church as if their words have higher authority over us, while having no ways to justify that. Basically, “Don’t listen to Witness Lee, listen to ME instead”

I’ve pointed out that this channel is doing just the same thing as the ministry, both giving biblically interpreted teachings. Why is he hypocritically telling our church to stop certain ministries? Wouldn’t that mean we get to also tell him to stop his YouTube videos? In the conversation above, he only repeatedly denied the fact that he’s told us to stop ministry teachings, no answers.

This channel closed the conversation when asked to address why he thinks his Bible interpretations have any higher authority to judge Witness Lee’s ministry. Both of them are fallible interpretations made by men. Fundamentally, they should have the same authority level, but this channel has repeatedly crossed that level and presented himself to be more correct than Witness Lee’s ministries.

Very ironic, the ministry that is being intensely refuted by this channel “Get out of your mind and TURN TO YOUR SPIRIT” is actually being strengthened by how this channel reveals his arrogance and self-contradictions. He can’t justify why his position is any higher authority than another’s. This was why Witness Lee encouraged the saints to just turn to their spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to touch them.

The above is my response to fight against this accuser’s judgement. Much grace.

[OBW]

Balderdash!

Originally Posted by Swed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzze...sBK9p3VmQPLYjT



*Important Message*
To everyone reading this comment section, the above conversation just demonstrated a complete arbitrary nature of a typical accuser who criticizes the local church as if their words have higher authority over us, while having no ways to justify that. Basically, “Don’t listen to Witness Lee, listen to ME instead”

I’ve pointed out that this channel is doing just the same thing as the ministry, both giving biblically interpreted teachings. Why is he hypocritically telling our church to stop certain ministries? Wouldn’t that mean we get to also tell him to stop his YouTube videos? In the conversation above, he only repeatedly denied the fact that he’s told us to stop ministry teachings, no answers.

This channel closed the conversation when asked to address why he thinks his Bible interpretations have any higher authority to judge Witness Lee’s ministry. Both of them are fallible interpretations made by men. Fundamentally, they should have the same authority level, but this channel has repeatedly crossed that level and presented himself to be more correct than Witness Lee’s ministries.

Very ironic, the ministry that is being intensely refuted by this channel “Get out of your mind and TURN TO YOUR SPIRIT” is actually being strengthened by how this channel reveals his arrogance and self-contradictions. He can’t justify why his position is any higher authority than another’s. This was why Witness Lee encouraged the saints to just turn to their spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to touch them.

The above is my response to fight against this accuser’s judgement. Much grace.

Well,
This is a typical way a conversation with the local church members goes, if you can call this a conversation.

Just a few takeaways:

1). According to Lee/Nee in their own words, They are “RECOVERING” something that once was. That’s what the “Lord’s Recovery” is all about. What’s very unfortunate however, is that in almost 1900+ history, most of the teachings of both men did not exist, were never taught by anyone else, or if they find some sort of connection it’s extremely bent to fit their ideology. Are there any historical references that one can see where they’re “recovering” these things from? Is there a bunker in China or Anahiem that those who want to see proofs can access, in order to verify that the first church in Acts just buried and lost all of these great teachings and all of a sudden Lee was the chosen one to “recover” it? I would say it’s not some “Lord’s Recovery”, it’s an invention of both men, who could never get along with other believers, and just went of the deep end to build their own “church”, and claim things in order to look as if they have some special spiritual maturity and revelation that has not existed for 1900 years.

2). The responsibility for seeking the truth falls on each believer, and EACH will answer to God about it, and Lee will not be holding your hand and whispering the answers into your ear! This idea of this mob approach of the local church, when it comes to Biblical interpretations, church history, and questioning those who claim things as Lee and Nee said without ANY EVIDENCE, scriptural or otherwise is repugnant. I will say that 90% of the people in this movement, have never ever read anything outside of the LSM publications regarding the items I mentioned above. Contrary, they’ve been brainwashed to only accept those things that have been approved by the minions of Lee. So to have a discussion or a debate with people about spiritual beliefs and teachings when they only are capable of stonewalling you because they have nothing to offer due to purposeful actions of those men that they are following, is totally useless and brings absolutely nothing but empty buzz.

3). To finish here, anytime you read a post by the members of local church, and these words or combinations will be in their writings:

accusations / natural / typical accuser / higher authority / not turning to your “spirit” / arrogance / please reconsider / self inflating / rebellion / breaking the oneness / eating of the wrong tree / not taking the head / not caring for the body / causing ruckus among the saints / persecuting the church / dishonoring those before you / ungrateful for the sacrifice of Nee & Lee / speaking for satan / full of death / one with no discernment / taking things out of context / showing only one side / lacks understanding / untrained in the ministry / lack vision / not part of the vision / not good building material / not opening up enough / not calling on the Lord / you are in your mind / I’m “feeling __X__” / please stop, or I’ll cut off all contact / I can’t be around you, because you are not on the ground / we are not of the same / your questions are very religious / I pray you get recovered

these are ALL JUST A REPETITIONS of those that lead and control them. Thats all these people hear and read every day and every Sunday, so you just can’t get mad and lose your ability to communicate when you know that’s all that they can do, and it’s their fault that they have given them their full consent of their whole being. It’s like the alarms should be going off anytime that these buzz words are used for everyone. All that it means is that you touched something that they CANNOT give answers to, show where it’s written, history and where they recovered it from. As we all know in our most recent history, that “Trusting the experts”, or in this case the MOTAs and the Blended, is a very bad idea, regardless of their science and ways they have the ability to convolute the truth.

Members of the local churches have allowed themselves to be a group of hopeless victims, who are on the crusade to archive the ultimate goal, the utopia of which supposedly there was none since the real Apostles walked this earth. Under this illusion, maltreating everyone outside their bubble, destroying peoples good conscience, behaving badly while claiming that we don’t care about good or bad because it’s about intuitive expression of the “spirit” - is a highest peak of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.

The only thing that’s normal about this group, is that what is normal is eradicated from their beings from childhood. They adjust to this mode of existence, because their human voices have been silenced from the very beginning of their lives or from the moment of entering into this movement. Their only normal abilities which are left, is their relation to this profoundly abnormal society they associate themselves with. They love their oppression, love the spiritual methodology that’s used to produce this blinded servitude. It’s sort of concentration camp without tears, having your liberty taken away without a fight, but instead of standing up, they rather enjoy it!

The purpose of this movement is an old ancient method: to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are also believers, but not on the same level of “life”, or in this case “Gods Economy”. It’s been used in every walk of life, every revolution and every new religious group. If one can convince a following of people to do just that, he obtained total control, and with it made them adore his techniques, and ways that undo their capacity to think. When you assemble this into group setting, which is one of the highest goals of this movement, people lose their power of reasoning and ability to make moral choices, but rather focus on the motives of the group, which is in a lot of cases becomes a moving goalposts.


P.S

Much grace.

Great sign off Roy Chan, it’s kind of like wrapping a pile of manure with a Christmas paper and gift bow 💝, with hope that no one passes out from the exuberantly pungent stench that it yields!🤧😷🤢

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by Swed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzze...sBK9p3VmQPLYjT

*Important Message*
To everyone reading this comment section, the above conversation just demonstrated a complete arbitrary nature of a typical accuser who criticizes the local church as if their words have higher authority over us, while having no ways to justify that. Basically, “Don’t listen to Witness Lee, listen to ME instead”

I’ve pointed out that this channel is doing just the same thing as the ministry, both giving biblically interpreted teachings. Why is he hypocritically telling our church to stop certain ministries? Wouldn’t that mean we get to also tell him to stop his YouTube videos? In the conversation above, he only repeatedly denied the fact that he’s told us to stop ministry teachings, no answers.

This channel closed the conversation when asked to address why he thinks his Bible interpretations have any higher authority to judge Witness Lee’s ministry. Both of them are fallible interpretations made by men. Fundamentally, they should have the same authority level, but this channel has repeatedly crossed that level and presented himself to be more correct than Witness Lee’s ministries.

Very ironic, the ministry that is being intensely refuted by this channel “Get out of your mind and TURN TO YOUR SPIRIT” is actually being strengthened by how this channel reveals his arrogance and self-contradictions. He can’t justify why his position is any higher authority than another’s. This was why Witness Lee encouraged the saints to just turn to their spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to touch them.

The above is my response to fight against this accuser’s judgement. Much grace.

Welcome, and thank you for coming here to continue the discussion!

I followed the comment thread with interest since I long for frank and earnest discussion with saints who are still meeting in churches in The Lord's Recovery (TLR) about its teaching. Very few have been willing to engage, since this kind of activity seems to be seen as "too much in the mind", so thank you for coming here.

Please tell me if I followed your arguments on the YouTube video correctly. You believe that the author of The Lord's Recovery Unchained (TLRU) videos is being hypocritical because he is claiming the same authority that he would deny to Witness Lee. Why would @TLRU discredit Witness Lee only to place a different set of chains on the saints with a different ministry? At the heart of your argument is the question of spiritual authority: whose is greater, @TLRU's, whose qualifications you don't know, or Witness Lee, who studied the Bible and read so many authors for so many years? If @TLRU admits to being fallible, how could he claim greater authority than Lee, even if Lee also admitted fallibility? In that case, @TLRU is only putting a different set of chains on the saints. Implicit in your arguments are the idea that we should submit to a ministry based on the level of spiritual authority and the idea that submitting to a ministry is a "chain". Did I make your case accurately?

If that is the case, then I understand your frustration with the way the discussion went in the comments. But if that is the case, I invite you to consider the idea that maybe you entirely missed the point of the video. As I understand it (@TLRU please correct me if you're reading this and I have it wrong), the point of that video, and the whole video series, is that it is not about who has the greater spiritual authority, it's about the teachings themselves. The Bible is the authority! The saints should feel free (and even obligated) to test the specific teachings of any ministry against the Word of God, using logic, reason, and discernment. The Bereans tested Paul's teaching this way. Paul and James and various other brothers had vigorous debates in the early councils and "sharpened" each other by exposing and correcting false teachings. @TLRU is not putting chains on the saints by setting up a separate ministry or claiming authority of any kind. Rather, he is testing the ministry of Witness Lee to remove "chains" by exposing what he believes are wrong teachings.

Let me give an example of how a teaching can become a chain. In my own experience, the teaching on the ground of oneness "chained" me to the local church where I was meeting for a long time after my wife and I became aware of problematic teachings and serious problems in the leadership and culture of TLR. For years, I did my best to put a good face on it, raise my concerns, "spit out the feathers and bones". But I, and especially my wife, suffered for years before we eventually realized that the teaching on locality as the ground of oneness was a false teaching that had "chained" us there. Leaving was never an option because of this constraining vision, yet attempts to serve with other believers or meet with them and (gasp) take communion were always viewed with suspicion or outright condemnation. I was chastised by a brother for supporting a Bible study that "was not the Bride-producing ministry", by which he meant "didn't use Local Church materials". This idea of the ground of oneness is a real chain that binds the saints. After I was released from this "chain", my wife and I finally felt freedom to follow the Lord to another congregation, where the oneness of the Body of Christ is in actual practice. We declare our oneness weekly during communion and in reciting the words of the Creed, and we practice the oneness of the Body by receiving believers and receiving from believers regardless of their affiliation and by joining with them in service to the community. And all this happens at a place that "takes a name".

I have other examples, but I don't want to belabor the point.

[ACuriousFellow]

Man, this thread is bringing up some intense memories. I saw Roy Chan's comments on YouTube and his arguments with a few people on TLRU channel. It was pretty fiery, haha!