Open - Interactive Letter to The Co-Workers in The Lord's Recovery

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

"The Recovery" does seem like an offshoot of the Exclusive Brethren or perhaps Nee and Lee borrowed what they got from it.
After my family and I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, we began meeting with East Renton Community Church. In my time there and in my conversations with the pastor, I learned prior to becoming a pastor he was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren. He conveyed to me some of the practices of the Exclusive Brethren which are identical to the Local Churches except with different terminology. "The one meeting place" versus "The ground of the church".

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

The reason why I don't think it's just simply descriptive is because of Deuteronomy chapter 12 where God clearly says we can't just choose to meet at any old place we decide to or feel comfortable at, but rather only at the place of the Lord's choosing

I genuinely see no basis to call that sectarian. In fact sects already exist. It seems to me that OCOC is a 'calling back' from the sects to the proper ground

I also think to whatever extent you're conflating the concept of a unique meeting place with the concept of being one with all believers. I think both of those things can be true at the same time. We are one with all the believers, however most of them are not in oneness with us. Now it could be that by claiming "we are what God wants" is a kind of exclusivity, but think about it for a minute and break it down- are you suggesting we go and blend with the denominations? what would that accomplish exactly? it probably would just cause a lot of problems and there would be confusion and a lack of enjoyment for both parties. those from the LC would want to call on the Lord, exercise their spirit, and sing praises. those in the denominations would likely just feel odd about that and what do they have to offer exactly? I'd certainly appreciate fellowship with other believers. which in that sense, it would be nice. but eventually their lack of exercising their spirit would be troublesome to LC veterans. it's a strange thing to think about and it's for sure multifaceted, because probably there is some elitist and exclusive behavior from the local churches, who take pride in their Biblical correctness. which could be an overall reason why they don't have much fruit as far as increase, and probably why you view them as sectarian. it comes down to behavior I suppose

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all the term church just means congregation. In the original Greek it means 'gathering of the called out ones.' So in a sense wherever believers meet there is the church. Ok.....but, we have Deuteronomy chapter 12 where the Lord clearly says we can't just meet at any old place we want to, but at the place of his choosing. So where is that then? That's a golden question in this equation

As far as who is welcome in the LC, I've never ever seen anyone who met at a denomination turned away. I've never felt that type of pressure or heard that type of concept being spoken. Rather the opposite, I've only heard that we accept all believers in our meetings. And from time to time some would come and they weren't treated weirdly or ostracized. So I'm not quite sure why you're alluding to that type of thing happening. Have you seen it happen?


Also I'm not sure why you view the concept of the local ground as like a legality. I don't think that's what it is per se. I think it's more of a doctrine, and as far as I can tell is completely correct. I think the brothers are right to stand strong on that doctrine because it safeguards against divisions, which is one of satan's biggest tactics against the building of the church. one thing I haven't heard anyone on this website say or mention is how satan is involved in the denominations and his plan to divide the body through them. I absolutely see that that's what he has done throughout the centuries starting with Catholicism. and he's brought in a lot of weird and damaging practices into these divided centers of gathering. so what I see from that is his goal is to disconnect and distort. to fight against that you need a proper vision (Proverbs 29:18)

As far as your experience with that elder in Seattle I don't really understand why he would request for you to meet somewhere else. that is confusing and seems odd and wrong for him to say given the context you presented, unless there's more to the story

And to touch again on your line "the church in Bellevue is like a legal wife." I think your thought here is really similar to women who say things like "my husband is so controlling because he won't let me talk to other men." think about that for a minute......However with that said I don't believe at all that anyone in the LC would tell another member that they COULDN'T go and meet somewhere else. I think they have advised and admonished against that type of thing in ways. Which I understand the warnings behind that. So again I can't really co-sign on your experience here as the LC "controlling" the members with "legalities" over meeting only at the LC. because I have never heard of that type of thing or experienced it. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but certainly nothing I've ever heard about. As far as I know the door in and out of the church is always open

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all the term church just means congregation. In the original Greek it means 'gathering of the called out ones.' So in a sense wherever believers meet there is the church. Ok.....but, we have Deuteronomy chapter 12 where the Lord clearly says we can't just meet at any old place we want to, but at the place of his choosing. So where is that then? That's a golden question in this equation.

The New Testament already tells us where to worship while explicitly referencing the temple of the Old Testament. You have already been given scriptural examples that you are unfortunately disregarding.

We will no longer worship on the mountain or the temple, but in spirit.

We are God's temple, God's dwelling place.

God has already explicitly outlined his house of worship: his people.

The fulfillment of the temple is not churches named according to arbitrary city boundaries made by men. The fulfillment of the temple is God's people. A house that is not built by the hands of men. Cities are made by the hands of men. City boundaries are established by men. Stop trying to use such arbitrary things to place unscriptural limits on the assemblies of God.

You have provided no scriptures that make any such overt and explicit connections between the temple and how we name our assemblies, and you have provided no scriptures that in any way implies such a level of importance for the naming of churches according to the cities they are found in. If it was that important, it would be that explicit. Do not compare the naming of the churches to something as crucial and grand as the holy temple of the old testament when it clearly does not have that level of importance.

As others have mentioned, you are taking something descriptive in the New Testament and presenting it as something prescriptive.

Tell me, Jay, what do you know of the church in Cenchreae and the church in Phoebe's house?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

The New Testament already tells us where to worship while explicitly referencing the temple of the Old Testament. You have already been given scriptural examples that you are unfortunately disregarding. We will no longer worship on the mountain or the temple, but in spirit.....

I love this post. Truth wise, it encapsulates the clearest rebuttal to the errant “ground of oneness” teachings. After reading Jay’s post, I was putting thoughts together to write, and then I read ACF’s post. He said it much better than I.

Such a simple summary should have readily liberated me years ago from the fetters of Recovery teachings. Should have. Unfortunately I needed to watch in real time my own church being divided in half by the same ministry that indoctrinated me for 30 years with these oneness teachings. How could this happen? Slowly, too slowly in fact, I came to the realization that the purpose of these “ground of oneness” teachings was never to keep the genuine oneness of the Spirit, but to place walls around one man’s kingdom, and that man was not Jesus.

Having also read much church history during this time frame, I have studied how JND, WN, and WL all used the same exclusive teachings to build their own “empires.”

[Nell]

Jay,

Your last post, in violation of the forum Mission Statement, has been administratively deleted. Your sarcasm and disrespect of other forum members will not be tolerated.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

[Jay]

So you all can bash the LC to no end, but if I say something mildly condescending I get reprimanded because I simply don't think the same homogenous way you do. Pot meet kettle. Gotta love the hypocrisy
-

[UntoHim]

Jay, this forum is named "Local Church Discussions", not "Local Church Bashing". We are all here to discuss, not to bash.

We all have Bibles, and they all presumably have a book called Deuteronomy. Many of us sat under at the feet of Witness Lee for decades. We all know what he taught about what is written in Deuteronomy 12. Many (most) of us can recite the rhetoric that your presenting here in our sleep.

There is something you must understand. Deuteronomy was written over 700 years before the Lord Jesus proclaimed "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him".(John 4:24) And do you know what Jay? This was a direct answer to a person who sounded a lot like you - "Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship!". (v:20) Instead of confirming this persons concept of a physical place to worship, the Lord Jesus directed her to the God-ordained place to worship - in spirit and in truth.

The rest of the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles confirm the words of the Lord Jesus in John 4. The place for God's people to worship him is in spirit and in truth. The sign outside of the physical meeting place (or lack thereof) means little to God. He cares about S(s)pirit, and he cares about Truth.
Much more to say of course.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

So you all can bash the LC to no end, but if I say something mildly condescending I get reprimanded because I simply don't think the same homogeneous way you do. Pot meet kettle. Gotta love the hypocrisy
-

Jay, sorry if you feel I am bashing you. I was deceived by this teaching of the ground of locality. It puffed me up with pride, and gave me a judgmental attitude towards other believers. It damaged me and others. I am upset with that deception, not with you or any of the precious saints in the Recovery.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

And to touch again on your line "the church in Bellevue is like a legal wife." I think your thought here is really similar to women who say things like "my husband is so controlling because he won't let me talk to other men." think about that for a minute......However with that said I don't believe at all that anyone in the LC would tell another member that they COULDN'T go and meet somewhere else. I think they have advised and admonished against that type of thing in ways. Which I understand the warnings behind that. So again I can't really co-sign on your experience here as the LC "controlling" the members with "legalities" over meeting only at the LC. because I have never heard of that type of thing or experienced it. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but certainly nothing I've ever heard about. As far as I know the door in and out of the church is always open

It's more about the attitude claiming to be the only legitimate churches in the city. Let's take Renton for example. I've met with denominational and non-denominational assemblies. Each professing to be part of the local body of Christ. Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ. Not while I was there. Though it would be heartwarming if they did. I never saw it in Renton, Bellevue, or San Bernardino. Rather a claim to be the sole expression of the church in the respective cities.
Certain personalities just aren't welcome to attend a local church meeting or function.
A few years back I recall a facebook post the son of John Ingalls made. Within the decade prior to his passing, someone had invited John to a lovefeast at the Church in Anaheim. John went, someone recognized him and had John escorted out. Whatever grievance they had, never left.
Same with Steve Isitt in Washington state. Sure he had his writings, but still cherished the local church churchlife culture. However whether it's Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, or Spokane, there's no welcome. I will say for a period Steve was welcome in Spokane. Someone must have recognized him or recognized his name and word got back to Seattle.
Even in Renton, I had asked a "what if" question to brother BS while Bill Freeman was still living. What if Bill wanted to come and visit? I was told the brothers would need to fellowship with Anaheim.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It's more about the attitude claiming to be the only legitimate churches in the city. Let's take Renton for example. I've met with denominational and non-denominational assemblies. Each professing to be part of the local body of Christ. Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ. Not while I was there. Though it would be heartwarming if they did. I never saw it in Renton, Bellevue, or San Bernardino. Rather a claim to be the sole expression of the church in the respective cities.
Certain personalities just aren't welcome to attend a local church meeting or function.
A few years back I recall a facebook post the son of John Ingalls made. Within the decade prior to his passing, someone had invited John to a lovefeast at the Church in Anaheim. John went, someone recognized him and had John escorted out. Whatever grievance they had, never left.
Same with Steve Isitt in Washington state. Sure he had his writings, but still cherished the local church churchlife culture. However whether it's Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, or Spokane, there's no welcome. I will say for a period Steve was welcome in Spokane. Someone must have recognized him or recognized his name and word got back to Seattle.
Even in Renton, I had asked a "what if" question to brother BS while Bill Freeman was still living. What if Bill wanted to come and visit? I was told the brothers would need to fellowship with Anaheim.

Yeah very good points. I see you're painting a picture of exclusivity and elitism

One of the things I'm realizing as I'm scouring this site and the materials available to links from other members and their testimonies regarding the LC and why they left etc., is that they all seem to have serious problems with the leadership. The issues as far as I can tell are almost exclusive to problems with the leadership and not with the regular members. Which is very interesting and very telling

I would have to say that you make solid points about all that you're saying. In my time there as an adult, not as a church kid, I generally didn't see much if any bad behavior in any blatant way. But when I first moved to Bellevue I started to see things that were odd and off and like I said elsewhere the life level and enjoyment of the Lord was off in that locality. But even if it wasn't it wouldn't give the leaders the right to behave poorly. It just so happens that the poor behavior of the leaders in Bellevue also happened to match the poor level of the experience of life and the spirit in that locality. I'm wondering how much of a correlation is there

I remember once I saw a video of a lord's table meeting at the church in Anaheim I think, or it may have been Irvine, but I think it was Anaheim, and I remember thinking in my young mind "this locality seems pretty stifled." I was young at that time but I could still tell even on video that there was an atmosphere of deadness there. I kind of chalked it up to "well maybe I'm just wrong," at that time. But now I realize I probably wasn't. I think the correlation between bad leadership and the deadness of a locality is real probably to a good extent, depending on how bad the leadership is and what exactly they are doing wrong. It may be that in some localities some leaders are kind of "dormant" in their authority and control for whatever reason; disposition, opportunity, how much the saints in that locality are exercised, etc. But I've been a part of localities here in western Wa were the leaders are very much at the forefront and to me that has stood out as a defining factor in how well and how often the average member's function. It's probably a fine line between leadership and clergy-laity. And I feel like a lot of what I've seen in western Wa is leaders who like to dominate meetings in one way or another and this kills the function of the body. I've heard bro Lee say this, and maybe the speaking brothers as well. But what context? Is it that the leaders shouldn't have control? What is control in this context? What is the difference between leadership and control? I think there's a fine line between these things, and at least in western Washington the leadership has very much ridden that line. In my short time in Spokane I believe the church there was flourishing with life because the leadership was so much NOT in the forefront. But when I came to western Wa I see the leaders very much in the forefront and to me it reeks of ambition for position and reveling in their position, as if they are kings

Here is brother Lee condemning the clergy-laity system and the divisions, which he attributes to satan's tactic to stifle the church- https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...TY-SYSTEM.HTML

I agree with his assessment objectively. But how much has the LC leadership crossed over into power and control and clergy-laity in their own dealings with the church in their localities? This is something that I don't know has been at all audited. Maybe it has maybe it hasn't. But from the testimonies from those on this site and elsewhere it is a huge problem in the LC


Anyway, as far as your points on the localities not mingling with the denominations around them, I think it's a nuanced scenario. You said

Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ

I think this is a tough question, and deserves a nuanced answer. On the one hand we all are the body of christ as members of one another (1 Corinthians 12:12), on the other hand Paul also condemns the sectarian behavior (1 Corinthians 3:4, Romans 16:17). So clearly the answer is not straight forward. Now I think you'll have to give me an example of how Bellevue treated Christians who wanted to come and meet with them from other denominations. That too probably is nuanced and dependent on the scenario. If they came and tried to teach different things then maybe I could see precedent for at least not accepting the things they tried to teach depending on what those things were. On the other hand I have heard Bro Lee say we accept Christians who do not practice the same way we do. But it might end at the receiving part. Receiving a brother or a sister is one thing, but allowing them to try to influence the locality with different teachings is another thing. I'm not saying I side with anyone on this, but for objectivity sake I'll post a link to Benson Philips quoting Lee and expounding on this subject- https://afaithfulword.org/articles/ReceivingChurches/

In this link Benson says

We must receive all the believers. But the burden here is that we might receive all the local churches and all the saints in the local churches. They must be received by us, and they must be received according to Romans 14:3 and 15:7. God has received us, Christ has received us; this is one receiving by the Triune God. Since God has received every local church, we must have fellowship, and we must receive one another into the fellowship of the Triune God. Then we must receive all believers. Every church receives every brother and sister. This does not mean that we go along with the denominations or we practice the ways of the denominations. We will never do that

So you kind of have to discern here what the real point is. And it's possible the elders misconstrued this message. I know that Lee had touched on this topic a lot in his ministry. And it's confirmed that he had the wrong type of spirit and this caused a lot of exclusivity. In fact he himself admits to this here-
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/rep...edTheMark4.pdf

He says

"(Concerning the matter of receiving people according to God),…we coworkers in every place all need to learn, the responsible ones in every place
all need to learn, the brothers and sisters in every place all need to learn…,
too many things cause us to learn. We all made mistakes in this matter in the
past, I myself included; I confess that, I had, for this matter and before the
Lord, a very painful repentance. I am really sorry…toward the Body of Christ,
also really sorry, not only toward the brothers and sisters among us, but even
to those in the denominations, also really sorry toward them…(a long pause)
You must bring this message back, read it once, read it twice, and
come together to fellowship with one another. Then you will see that, we, in
the past, were wrong! Of course, denominations are wrong. The sectarianism
is what God condemns the most. However, the Lord still hopes that all His
children… do not have such condemnation. Such an understanding and
analysis will require much effort. I say again, you must, some people, a few
people, come together to read, pray, speak and say…"

So for all the people on this site who repeat "can the LC leadership ever admit they were wrong." Here you have brother Lee clearly and openly admitting that he was wrong in how he treated the brothers and sisters in the denominations

However it's nuanced is it not? Because what if they come and try to change things? What if they come and teach differently? Are we to receive leavened teaching? Idk I'm not a leader in the LC and I'm not trained to be so, but I would venture to say that is a big problem

But I would say also a lot of nuance is in HOW the LC leaders behaved and treated the news ones, how they treated our bros and sisters that visited from the denominations. I think that really matters here. And it's not an easy scenario to navigate. But again, the LC leader's behavior matters greatly. How they treated the congregation that they lead, and whether or not they exercised their flesh and abnormal authority and control over any given situation matters. And I've seen what I believe is fleshly control and abused authority. And combined with all the testimonies on this site and other sites I would conclude that they probably were very wrong in many ways for a very long time. And I would also probably say it stemmed from Nee and Lee's behavior around this. It's probably a top to bottom problem and it's probably very systemic and it probably needs to be gutted and receive a massive overhaul in various ways. And we even see Lee here admitting that he was wrong, and that his behavior towards the denominations was wrong. And that does mean something. But will that behavior continue? Or has it become a habitual practice amongst the leadership? Has other bad practices from them become habitual and dare I say even cultural at this point in time?


As far as not receiving Bill Freeman and brother Isitt and brother Ingalls. This also is nuanced. On the one hand I would agree with a lot of the sentiments with the brothers and sisters here on this site and elsewhere that to quarantine other believers is a grievous situation. Not just for that single member, but for his/her family and the families that are involved. Very serious and sober stuff, that honestly I'd just like to avoid the entire concept altogether as I'm sure most of the average LC members wouldn't want to entertain that scenario either. But it's a burden probably heavy on the shoulders of the LC leadership. Maybe, or they're just closed off to any emotions surrounding things that they view as attacks of the enemy. Which, probably wouldn't be the correct spirit, but rather a spirit of sorrow towards the situation would seem to be more apt

But again, there are verses that say to not entertain factious men (Romans 16:17), to not even accept them for fellowship. Which is very somber. But I am assuming the point behind that is to guard against poison, and to guard against division. This isn't Nee or Lee's words, this is the Bible saying that. So Biblically the LC has precedent to not entertain a man who would come and cause divisions in the body. and to not receive someone who creates a type of poison, and I'm assuming the LC leaders include those who would come from the denominations and cast doubt and confusion as well. Not a fun scenario to try to navigate by any means

Now you also bring up an interesting and truthful point that those in the denominations ARE technically a part of the body. But are they standing on the correct ground in their locality is the real question. So while although they are genuine believers, and our brothers and sisters, and members of the body, which also we are, they just so happen to be in a situation of division with regards to how they meet. I am wholly convinced from the Bible that this matters greatly to God. There is just simply far too much in the old and new testament regarding this that just can't be overlooked. It really really matters to God. It's not something that Nee and Lee concocted on their own, our of their supposed ambition to control or whatever. No, this is biblical. This matters to God.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

So you kind of have to discern here what the real point is. And it's possible the elders misconstrued this message. I know that Lee had touched on this topic a lot in his ministry. And it's confirmed that he had the wrong type of spirit and this caused a lot of exclusivity. In fact he himself admits to this here-
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/rep...edTheMark4.pdf

He says

So for all the people on this site who repeat "can the LC leadership ever admit they were wrong." Here you have brother Lee clearly and openly admitting that he was wrong in how he treated the brothers and sisters in the denominations

I had posted that a time or two on this forum. Years ago there used to be a YouTube video regarding Witness Lee speaking the exact message. However Living Stream Ministry did not print his message verbatim. Just to be sure I knew a Chinese speaking brother in Bellevue. I sent him the link and asked brother WH to transcribe. It's just as the Concerned brothers article says it was. That YouTube video has long been removed and/or suppressed (copyright claim perhaps).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Now you also bring up an interesting and truthful point that those in the denominations ARE technically a part of the body. But are they standing on the correct ground in their locality is the real question. So while although they are genuine believers, and our brothers and sisters, and members of the body, which also we are, they just so happen to be in a situation of division with regards to how they meet. I am wholly convinced from the Bible that this matters greatly to God. There is just simply far too much in the old and new testament regarding this that just can't be overlooked. It really really matters to God. It's not something that Nee and Lee concocted on their own, our of their supposed ambition to control or whatever. No, this is biblical. This matters to God.

Jay, I think you'll find on this forum many equate the local church ground as a doctrine of dirt. My dad and mom still adhere to the ground doctrine. Others I know still do even if the end result is not to meet anywhere.
There is no technicality. We are all part of the Body.

1 Corinthians 12:12-26
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

I raise the question for those who accept the ground of locality doctrine. Who is to say the local churches affiliated with Living Stream Ministry are not on the proper ground?
Who is to say which church is meeting on the proper ground?
What do you do when in a given city you have multiple congregations claiming to meet on the proper ground?
As for the local churches, I believe they're ministry churches.
When ones fellowship is based on a Christian publishing company, that is the outcome.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

One of the things I'm realizing as I'm scouring this site and the materials available to links from other members and their testimonies regarding the LC and why they left etc., is that they all seem to have serious problems with the leadership. The issues as far as I can tell are almost exclusive to problems with the leadership and not with the regular members. Which is very interesting and very telling

Jay, exactly!

Sometime during the Midwest purge (aka quarantine) I was considering all the precious brothers I had known - who had left by then - in my 30 years in the LC’s. So many were gifted, loving Christ and His church, real shepherds and teachers, yet they had left. Over the years I would hear the stories of “what happened” to them. There was always one common denominator with each brother. Suddenly something became glaringly obvious to me. It was real simple - each and every brother was gone for the exact same reason - they all had a “problem with TC” our regional leader.

So I pictured one of those balancing scales for measuring and weighing. What if we put all those brothers who left on one side, and TC on the other side. Which side would have more value? Well, history had given me the answer. All those brothers were gone, and most of them bad-mouthed by those remaining, but TC is still here. That’s the system I left.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, exactly!

Sometime during the Midwest purge (aka quarantine) I was considering all the precious brothers I had known - who had left by then - in my 30 years in the LC’s. So many were gifted, loving Christ and His church, real shepherds and teachers, yet they had left. Over the years I would hear the stories of “what happened” to them. There was always one common denominator with each brother. Suddenly something became glaringly obvious to me. It was real simple - each and every brother was gone for the exact same reason - they all had a “problem with TC” our regional leader.

So I pictured one of those balancing scales for measuring and weighing. What if we put all those brothers who left on one side, and TC on the other side. Which side would have more value? Well, history had given me the answer. All those brothers were gone, and most of them bad-mouthed by those remaining, but TC is still here. That’s the system I left.

I'm not sure what you mean by "TC is still here." No he's not, he was quarantined by LSM as far last I heard and the entire region was lost