The Mormon Church is "The Church"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Correction...acronym?? to synonym

They are different words that have different meanings. Yet I consider the word "reform" as in reformation of Catholicism or "the reformation" to be a worse term than recover or restore, and to me means lipstick on a pig.

[UntoHim]

Mr. E.
Witness Lee used these terms interchangeably. As a Local Church member you are not allowed to say which is better and which is worse. Even the Blended Brothers cannot do this. Watch your step.

So, what Martin Luther was doing was "putting lipstick on a pig"? Really? That's kind of far out there bro....even for you. No objective person could deny that Witness Lee considered his movement a "reformation" of "Poor, Poor, Christianity." In fact, Lee was always trying to bring about a reformation of "The Recovery". Sometimes it was called a new "flow". Sometimes it was called "the New Way". Lee was always in the business of tearing down, mostly so that he could claim to be the only one to build back up. This is why Lee is referred to as "The Master Builder".
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E.
Witness Lee used these terms interchangeably. As a Local Church member you are not allowed to say which is better and which is worse. Even the Blended Brothers cannot do this. Watch your step.

So, what Martin Luther was doing was "putting lipstick on a pig"? Really? That's kind of far out there bro....even for you. No objective person could deny that Witness Lee considered his movement a "reformation" of "Poor, Poor, Christianity." In fact, Lee was always trying to bring about a reformation of "The Recovery". Sometimes it was called a new "flow". Sometimes it was called "the New Way". Lee was always in the business of tearing down, mostly so that he could claim to be the only one to build back up. This is why Lee is referred to as "The Master Builder".
-

I don’t think so, UntoHim

I never heard the notion of reformation in the Lord’s recovery.

Reformation and recovery are two very different concepts.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Reformation and recovery are two very different concepts.

Do tell more bro Drake .... please.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Do tell more bro Drake .... please.

at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Lord raised up Martin Luther. Before him some others had been raised up. (Actually, throughout the previous fourteen centuries, there were some faithful saints raised up by the Lord to recover the lost truths.) These paved the way for the Reformation. It was at this time that the Lord started His recovery and recovered the first item, justification by faith. Since that time many things have been recovered, such as sanctification by faith, holiness by faith, the living of a life by faith, victory by faith, and many other items.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet I consider the word "reform" as in reformation of Catholicism or "the reformation" to be a worse term than recover or restore, and to me means lipstick on a pig.

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

To deride the reformation as mere "lipstick on a pig" is to reject the work of the Spirit and the faith many died for.

I would only ask, "who at LSM is willing to suffer like them?" Many, many reformers gave up their lives for the Lord and His word. LSM, on the other hand, will sue you or quarantine their own people for the slightest of correction.


It seems that those who always like to warn us of our criticisms of LSM in light of the judgment seat of Christ, ought to apply the same words to themselves regarding all the Reformers, many of whom were martyred.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

YES.

As defined in Post #18.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E.
Witness Lee used these terms interchangeably. As a Local Church member you are not allowed to say which is better and which is worse. Even the Blended Brothers cannot do this. Watch your step.

So, what Martin Luther was doing was "putting lipstick on a pig"? Really? That's kind of far out there bro....even for you. No objective person could deny that Witness Lee considered his movement a "reformation" of "Poor, Poor, Christianity." In fact, Lee was always trying to bring about a reformation of "The Recovery". Sometimes it was called a new "flow". Sometimes it was called "the New Way". Lee was always in the business of tearing down, mostly so that he could claim to be the only one to build back up. This is why Lee is referred to as "The Master Builder".
-

I think Luther was trying to reform a pig, initially. Perhaps he did not know its true nature at first. He maintained a belief that it was the true church. But eventually he realized it was not possible, or it became not possible beyond his control. The reformation became something else. It removed the icons, and recovered salvation by faith alone, however its outward form was still like the Catholic church - the church of England. The Puritans tried to reform a pig as well, but also failed, and so separated completely.

I think Lee and the recovery did what Luther and the Puritans should have done from the start, in hindsight, forget about reforming a pig, start afresh.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Lee and the recovery did what Luther and the Puritans should have done from the start, in hindsight, forget about reforming a pig, start afresh.

So how is it that Nee and Lee started afresh? As I recall, Lee never claimed that. He said he was standing on the shoulders of great men from the past, as I remember it. That's not starting afresh.

But I remember the recovery explained. The simple story is that it started with Luther, and progressed to The Recovery ; the Recovery being the final stage before Jesus comes back.

Has the idea of the recovery evolved since I was in? Has it changed since Lee died? Are the blended brothers the final stage now? When is The Recovery finally accomplished? If it even exists? It may just be a contrived illusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So how is it that Nee and Lee started afresh? As I recall, Lee never claimed that. He said he was standing on the shoulders of great men from the past, as I remember it. That's not starting afresh.

But I remember the recovery explained. The simple story is that it started with Luther, and progressed to The Recovery ; the Recovery being the final stage before Jesus comes back.

Has the idea of the recovery evolved since I was in? Has it changed since Lee died? Are the blended brothers the final stage now? When is The Recovery finally accomplished? If it even exists? It may just be a contrived illusion.

When Lee and LSM needed a little credibility, then they "stand on Luther's shoulders."

When Lee and LSM demanded exclusive authenticity, then they alone "started afresh."

It may just be a "contrived illusion" to the entire body of Christ, but they just need their own folks to believe it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Lee and LSM needed a little credibility, then they "stand on Luther's shoulders."

When Lee and LSM demanded exclusive authenticity, then they alone "started afresh."

It may just be a "contrived illusion" to the entire body of Christ, but they just need their own folks to believe it.

There's no doubt that The Recovery is a contrivance. There's no such term in the New Testament.

So to draw the picture of the Recovery from scripture, Lee had to hijack the 7 churches in the Apocalypse, on which he drew to contrive his imaginary Recovery. He wasn't the first to interpret them as prophetic progression of the church down thru, or up thru, history. The Recovery, of course, as I understood it back then, is Philadelphia ; the end of the progression.

But if the 7 churches represent models of the development of the church, up thru history, all the way up to until Jesus returns, there's a principle in the modeling they like to overlook. And that is : The Laodicea principle.

The Laodicea principle is that the church reaches Philadelphia and falls back. As the Recoveryite's tell it, Luther broke the church free from Rome, but created a church that is pretty much a cookie-cutter image of the RCC, but based on faith and not works.

And Laodicea has happened over and over again, ever since, to each and every step of the 'recovery,' as the Recoveryite's like to see it.

And now, they like to think, in the final stages of the historical churches, we have Lee's Recovery.

I tried and failed to keep the local church from becoming Laodicea way back in the 70's. It fell much deeper into Laodicea after I left. I'd hate to see it today. Again, why do people join and stay in cults? I'm in awe of the mysterious power that holds them. I broke free long ago ... and my head is still spinning.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Lee and LSM needed a little credibility, then they "stand on Luther's shoulders." When Lee and LSM demanded exclusive authenticity, then they alone "started afresh." It may just be a "contrived illusion" to the entire body of Christ, but they just need their own folks to believe it.

The narrative is so self-serving as to astound - talk about "signs and wonders" - one wonders how anyone over 12 years of age can accept it on face value?

The Church Age was filled with Spiritual Giants, one after the other, until Lee died. Then, poof! The Age of Spiritual Giants was over; now it was the Age of Small Potatoes.

Or, each stage of the Recovery Narrative claims that it's the Final Stage, with no more modifications necessary. Somehow the Recovered Truth isn't quite right until The Final Apostle came along (Darby/Nee/Lee), with the Final Modification. Then it somehow became perfect, complete and entire. Mustn't change anything, or you'll be ambitious, divisive, and rebellious.

(Aka, Just because I did it, doesn't mean you can!)

In that vein, Watchman Nee could use some 3,000 "Christian classics" but don't dare violate the One Publication Bull today! Just because he was free to pick and choose his sources doesn't mean you can.

And Nee learned much of his theology and spirituality from Margaret Barber, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madame Guyon et al, but no uppity sister better try to teach today, or be a Blended Co-Worker, because we all know women can't teach in the church! Doesn't matter that Ruth Lee and Elizabeth Fischbacher edited all his original books. That was then, this is now.

Ohio noted a doozy - the LC trumpets it's "goodly heritage" from the Protestants; that is, until the LC wants to move on, and then Protestants are "daughters of the whore".

Or the idea of "locality" of the "local churches" being promoted until HQ suddenly decides it's time to take control, then they "recover" the Jerusalem Principle. Suddenly we don't want to do anything "outside the fellowship" of the Big Boss in Central HQ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The narrative is so self-serving as to astound - talk about "signs and wonders" - one wonders how anyone over 12 years of age can accept it on face value?

I might add : "Welcome to the Recovery. Check your brain at the door."

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

The narrative is so self-serving as to astound - talk about "signs and wonders" - one wonders how anyone over 12 years of age can accept it on face value?

Like frogs in a boiling pot - the only way to “accept at face value”. This is why the prescribed evangelism strategy in the CSOC is to slowly introduce Lee and his church. Too much too fast - students run...fast.

The validity of Witness Lee’s ministry crumbles under its own weight and pales in comparison to the Spirit’s move today. This is why Lee’s movement and his churches are quickly dying out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Or the idea of "locality" of the "local churches" being promoted until HQ suddenly decides it's time to take control, then they "recover" the Jerusalem Principle. Suddenly we don't want to do anything "outside the fellowship" of the Big Boss in Central HQ.

Both John Darby, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee all started their ministries emphasizing "local" assemblies as a way to extricate seeking Christians from the established denominations of their day, using the so-called Antioch principle. After their movements became established, due to the labors of numerous gifted ministers, then Darby, Nee, and Lee each deemed it necessary for the Lord's work to have just one leader. Each then used various theological or practical issues to subjugate all of their perceived "rivals" into subordinate positions in the movement.

This never seemed to go very well for the movements, and quarantines or excommunications were then necessary to influence their adherents into believing that God had raised up only one oracle / brother / MOTA per age. Since the Bible never really justified their actions, in each case it really was the shear weight of personal character which elevated them to the top, while banishing "rivals." Many new teachings were thus employed to expedite this transition period including the change to the "Jerusalem" principle of "the work."

Each movement suffered as a result, losing the freshness and the blessing of the Holy Spirit, the oneness of the body of Christ, and the notable characteristic of brotherly love. Each of the three leaders also left the fresh anointing of the Spirit for the deep, exclusive, and somewhat esoteric teachings they later became known for.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are different words that have different meanings. Yet I consider the word "reform" as in reformation of Catholicism or "the reformation" to be a worse term than recover or restore, and to me means lipstick on a pig.

I'm not impressed though.