Double Standards

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

We receive all redeemed blood-washed brothers and sisters and in the next sentence receiving is only possible through LSM publications.

How about, "We receive in fellowship all redeemed, blood-washed brothers and sisters, provided they do exactly as we say, no questions asked." With that minor stipulation, LSM churches are wide open.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

How about, "We receive in fellowship all redeemed, blood-washed brothers and sisters, provided they do exactly as we say, no questions asked." With that minor stipulation, LSM churches are wide open.

I have seen very few examples in the LC of receiving anyone from the outside, unless it's like you say, the person is willing to assimilate to the LC environment, no questions asked.

In recent years, they have had people like Hank Hanegraaff speak in LC meetings. I have seen at least two videos on youtube of him speaking. One was to a Christians on Campus group and one was in a church meeting.

LCers might point to this as evidence that they receive others outside the LC. Hank is probably the one person that I could think of that they 'receive'. And we all know why they like him so much. If they receive all redeemed, blood-washed brothers and sisters then maybe they could also invite Norm Geisler to speak in a meeting. Oh wait, I don't think Ron would like that suggestion.

[TLFisher]

Daystar is also a double standard how it was approached. Soliciting for investments as if you invest, it will bring God's blessing to the churches....Later on when Daystar was failing and Witness Lee was approached his attitude towards the brothers and sisters who invested had lost their virginity.

[TLFisher]

Another double standard I'm not sure that's been mentioned on this thread is the matter of taking a name.

When the local churches take a name it's for legal purposes. When everyone else does it's to make a distinction, to denominate.

That way ones meeting in the local churches can claim everyone else is meeting in division. Only we are not meeting in division.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Another double standard I'm not sure that's been mentioned on this thread is the matter of taking a name.

When the local churches take a name it's for legal purposes. When everyone else does it's to make a distinction, to denominate.

That way ones meeting in the local churches can claim everyone else is meeting in division. Only we are not meeting in division.

Even Jesus told the disciples, "do as the hypocrites say, but not as they do."

Originally Posted by Terry

When the local churches take a name it's for legal purposes. When everyone else does it's to make a distinction, to denominate.

The thing that the LCer's overlook, and which is never made clear to them (although it is as clear as the nose on Benson's face) is that the churches in the denominations are ALSO legally obliged to incorporate their entities with the local authorities, and to, thus, register a name. It is not to purposefully denominate! This is a misrepresentation and even an intentional slur!

If anything, the churches in the denominations are to be COMMENDED for their HONESTY and TRANSPARENCY in not trying to hide or de-emphasize this fact from its members (as did, or does, the LC); they instead openly declare it by hanging up a sign announcing who they are and the name by which they were registered. I'm not sure (and those of you who are experts can correct me) but isn't it legally mandated and enshrined in the by-laws of most, if not all, municipal localities that organizations registered and incorporated in those jurisdictions must have some sort of public signage stating the name and the nature of the business? If this is the case (and even if it were not so) how can any one lay a charge against a "denomination" for simply following the New Testament injunction to submit themselves "to all governing authorities" (Romans 13:1) and "to every authority instituted among men" (1 Peter 2:13)?

Granted, the LC's do obey this injunction, but my bone of contention with the leadership's practices is that they then turn around and go right ahead to try to obscure the truth of what they've legally done 'behind the scenes' and lay almost zero stress upon it, probably knowing, I hazard to guess, that if they did otherwise they would have a truly difficult time of it upholding and defending the doctrine on why the denominations are so evil and so bad. Politicians engage in this kind of misdirection all the time!

So I ask, is not all the fuss and bother about names, and names causing divisions, and denominations being evil, doesn't it all amount to little more than political smoke and mirrors? a conjuring trick, I shudder to say, intended to simply mislead the flock?

'Jack'

[UntoHim]

Speaking of taking a name....I have reserved the following names for our friend "Jack". How about "Jack"? Maybe Cap'n Jack or Cap'n Sparrow? Or maybe just Sparrow? The choices are almost endless!

**PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE AND SHOOT ME AN EMAIL TO LOCALCHURCHDISCUSSIONS@GMAIL.COM WITH YOUR CHOICE THIS MORNING (Or afternoon/evening as it were) Don't you want to protect your brand? After all, anybody can come along and post under Cap'n_Sparrow as a Guest.

Thanks for your consideration.
Your brother who is trying to be unto Him.

-

[TLFisher]

In visits to the Seattle area in recent years by RK and JL, RK spoken something to the effect nobody's perfect. Even WL made mistakes. Who knows what RK was referring to; overlooking his son's behavior, financial etc...
The double standards in such a statement is RK wouldn't say the same thing of quarantined brothers..."nobody's perfect. we all make mistakes". Leading brothers in the Puget sound area certainly wouldn't say the same thing about Steve Isitt; "it's okay brother Steve. Nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes."

The difference is when you are pro-recovery, pro-LSM leadership it's okay to utilize "nobody's perfect". When it's someone who's deemed anti-recovery, anti-LSM leadership, the smallest of issues is considered worthy to keep one expelled from fellowship.