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

[Boxjobox]

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

In this non-hierarchical organic move of God, below is the general hierarchy as I understand it. For the most part it seems to be subsets within subsets as you get higher in the pyramid.

This may be a little outdated, I'm not sure.

1. Co-workers in the Lord's recovery - cover the whole world
>>a. Senior co-workers
>>b. Junior co-workers
2. North America co-workers - includes some regional co-workers, deals only with N.A.
3. Regional co-workers - cover various regions in the U.S., some of whom are North America co-workers, some of whom are not but are elders.
4. Elders in each locality.
5. Responsible brothers in each locality (includes both elders as well as the brothers under them, say, who head up various services in the church, or various district meetings, or handle the HWMR sharing, etc).
6. All the other brothers.
7. All sisters, no matter the age, maturity, responsibility, weightiness, expertise, etc.

7 is a little tongue in cheek, but not really far off from reality as I have observed it.

#nohierarchy

Yes, the ones above do "consider" and "fellowship about" and "notice" and "select" various ones below them to be "brought in" to the next level of fellowship. There is extreme subservience from the "new" or "junior" ones who were just brought in, even if AARP would consider them a senior citizen.

It's not written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people, but when they blow into town, boy you'd better believe the brown-nosing revs up real fast. This is often where the beloved brothers turn into bullies, as they fall in line with the bullying that the previously nameless co-workers who came into town make them carry out.

No, not all of them in the 3 top co-workers rings have LSM affiliation. I believe it is accurate to say that all LSM board members are co-workers, but not all co-workers are LSM board members. If "all" is too much, then 99% will cover it.

This means, for the record, that when the co-workers make a decision, it BY DEFAULT means that LSM has also made a decision, since all LSM board members are co-workers. It's a complete conflict of interest, mixing church and business, appearance of evil, mess.

The not naming names thing is not some humble move. It's totally to avoid accountability and to make it easier to make people disappear and whitewash the tomb over again as if their dead bones aren't inside.

[Boxjobox]

Thanks Trapped.

Do we know the purpose of the Anaheim Palms Telecom Center LLC?

Linked entities to LSM
Raymond J. Graver
Living Stream
Andrew Yu
Kerry Robichaux
Edward Marks
Ronald Kangas
Richard Scatterday
James Miller
Anaheim Palms Telecom Center, LLC
The Church In Irving
Benson Phillips
Hackberry Creek Getaways, LLC
Global American English School
The Church In San Francisco

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Thanks Trapped.

Do we know the purpose of the Anaheim Palms Telecom Center LLC?

The APTC, LLC 2004 initial corporation filings (articles of organization with the secretary of state) indicate "asset management". Name of initial agent or organizer was Laurence Tolmie. I've personally never heard that name.

In 2016 a statement of information filed with the secretary of state describes it as "data center", and Laurence Tolmie is described as "president". Curt Kennard is listed as a manager. Kerry Robichaux, Michael Jones, and Yorke Warden are also listed as managers.

(Curt is a co-worker and on the board of LSM. Kerry is a co-worker and LSM board. Yorke is LSM board, not sure about co-worker. Not sure about Michael Jones at all.)

What comes to mind when thinking of APTC is a vague recall from when the La Palma property was being purchased decades ago. One of the big "God has blessed us" selling points they announced at the live trainings was not only its immediate proximity to a main freeway in southern California, but also some massive bundle of fiberoptic cables (or something similar) that apparently landed somewhere right at the property. Like the "information superhighway" was right there. That's my guess as to what it's about, but it's just conjecture.

Edit: Ah. It's a DBA. It's LSM doing business as APTC.

1. Go to this link: http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/.../Documents.htm
2. You can see at the very top it's LSM dba APTC.
3. According to the three links it does look like the LSM property owns the fiberoptic cables and is leasing their access out to the city of Anaheim.

If I recall correctly, they may have created a number of companies due to the complexity of the LSM property, etc, one of the companies probably being in order to act as landlord for the property as a whole. They used to lease out some of the other buildings to colleges, etc.

Hackberry Creek Getaways is apparently related to Benson Phillips' son, Ben. It seems Ben and his wife Anna own it or run it. Not sure why it should be related to LSM AT ALL. Edit again: I looked it up. Benson and his wife, plus Ben and his wife, are all managers of it. Still not sure why it should be related to LSM though.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, the ones above do "consider" and "fellowship about" and "notice" and "select" various ones below them to be "brought in" to the next level of fellowship. There is extreme subservience from the "new" or "junior" ones who were just brought in, even if AARP would consider them a senior citizen.

It's not written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people, but when they blow into town, boy you'd better believe the brown-nosing revs up real fast. This is often where the beloved brothers turn into bullies, as they fall in line with the bullying that the previously nameless co-workers who came into town make them carry out.

This means, for the record, that when the co-workers make a decision, it BY DEFAULT means that LSM has also made a decision, since all LSM board members are co-workers. It's a complete conflict of interest, mixing church and business, appearance of evil, mess.

The not naming names thing is not some humble move. It's totally to avoid accountability and to make it easier to make people disappear and whitewash the tomb over again as if their dead bones aren't inside.

I've experienced this. They constantly say there's no position or hierarchy in the church, but like you said when a "high up" level coworker comes to your locality and speaks the entire atmosphere changes and they look at this speaking or "blending" brother with a air of reverence. It's bizarre. I've seen this happen many times and I've been caught up in it myself too. I remember once when Ed Marks stopped by our locality to do a speaking I was in awe of him. I did feel like he had a lot of Christ, but at the same time I caught myself kind of revering him like you would a celebrity and looking back that was strange that I and others had that type of behavior and atmosphere. He was treated like a king

Another time there was a brothers meeting and an elder in a locality was absolutely bashing another brother who had visited their locality (he wasn't a coworker or speaking brother, he was just visiting because he was considering moving there). This brother was recently divorced and the elder was just full of venom against this guy. And I knew this guy personally and the divorce was extremely hard on him. So not only was it not fair how the elder was talking about this guy, but the whole atmosphere was just so fleshly and like a klan rally almost. It was super bizarre. What the brothers do and talk about behind closed doors or in their little elder meetings and important brother meetings is very different from how they present themselves to the general church body

Once more I remember listening to a recording of Brother Lee speaking in a elders and coworker meeting and I'd never heard him so much in his flesh than on that tape. We all have our flesh and can get fleshly if we're not careful, but the way he was talking was like that's how they always do it. I remember he was bashing the American culture and character and uplifting the Chinese character in this tape. He was all like "The American character is too too poor, but the Chinese are so superior and they are fine and detailed and deep and etc." and was just so full of pride it was wild

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I've experienced this. They constantly say there's no position or hierarchy in the church, but like you said when a "high up" level coworker comes to your locality and speaks the entire atmosphere changes and they look at this speaking or "blending" brother with a air of reverence. It's bizarre. I've seen this happen many times and I've been caught up in it myself too. I remember once when Ed Marks stopped by our locality to do a speaking I was in awe of him. I did feel like he had a lot of Christ, but at the same time I caught myself kind of revering him like you would a celebrity and looking back that was strange that I and others had that type of behavior and atmosphere. He was treated like a king

Another time there was a brothers meeting and an elder in a locality was absolutely bashing another brother who had visited their locality (he wasn't a coworker or speaking brother, he was just visiting because he was considering moving there). This brother was recently divorced and the elder was just full of venom against this guy. And I knew this guy personally and the divorce was extremely hard on him. So not only was it not fair how the elder was talking about this guy, but the whole atmosphere was just so fleshly and like a klan rally almost. It was super bizarre. What the brothers do and talk about behind closed doors or in their little elder meetings and important brother meetings is very different from how they present themselves to the general church body

Once more I remember listening to a recording of Brother Lee speaking in a elders and coworker meeting and I'd never heard him so much in his flesh than on that tape. We all have our flesh and can get fleshly if we're not careful, but the way he was talking was like that's how they always do it. I remember he was bashing the American culture and character and uplifting the Chinese character in this tape. He was all like "The American character is too too poor, but the Chinese are so superior and they are fine and detailed and deep and etc." and was just so full of pride it was wild

Jay,

I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:

1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up
3. leaders who laugh when turning away those in need (homeless member of the church)
4. members who praise God and call on the Lord joyfully while ignoring the homeless brother
5. leaders who refuse to help a disabled/needy member when the headquarters have bountiful millions of dollars at their disposal
6. double-speak that there is no hierarchy when there definitely is
7. leaders venomously bashing a depressed divorced man
8. the top leader fleshly bashing the character of people based on country of origin
9. top leader potentially plagiarized others’ works giving general credit but not specific
10. delegated authority teaching being problematic
11. speaking against clergy-laity while having what is in practice elders who are like a special class of people
12. judgmental of genuine believers in denominations while hypocritically ignoring own behavior/son
13. top leader being a poor example in “dissing the denominations”
14. prevailing belief that those in recovery are more special than other believers
15. cult-like homogenous thinking, mantras and maxims that are not really biblical in nature
16. being cult-like in telling people they will die by the hand of God if they leave, and that leaving is rebellion
17. members being told not to go online to read about ‘storms’ so they never get the real details
18. appointing unworthy sons to high positions who misused those positions to abuse others
19. top leaders getting away with protecting immorality because they are revered to almost a deity status, ruining lives
20. False application of the story of Noah and his sons in order to protect criminal behavior and sexual predation
21. top leader misusing his position, and those under him being complicit
22. revere of top leader as if he is a king
23. doctrine being used as a scapegoat for things, to brainwash people into being automatons and live robotic lives
24. treating poor people without love
25. top leader taking money from members and his subordinates hiding his involvement in it, no apology ever issued, no admission to this day
26. top leader gaslighting, leadership above criticism when it does something wrong
27. leadership lying to the members saying they are trying to protect them from dissent and rebellion when they are really trying to cover up serious allegations

All of this is what you described or concluded. What a pit of garbage the local churches are!

Yes, I know the common response is “the churches in the Bible are filled with problems” or “no church is perfect”, but let’s stop and think for a minute. Those who behaved this way in the Bible were called out, rebuked, and driven out if they did not genuinely repent and change. But in the local church, this is the behavior that is continually propagated, and those who rebuke it are the ones who have to leave the cesspool in order to take care of their conscience!

The local church is not the church. The local church is what the genuine church has to depart from!

The problem comes from the top, dead and decayed Witness Lee, and gets replicated down to the co-workers and then to the local elders who obey the ministry, on down. It is what has marked and characterized the local churches for what…..75 years? The entire system has been called out and warned and admonished and rebuked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and yet those who should be driven out continue to remain in control and in darkness.

God does not remain in a place like that. Yes, God can save anyone, and yes God continues to love everyone and desires that no man perish. But when a situation of sewage like this continues on unabated, and where sin and lies and evil and falsehoods are continuously DEFENDED, God gives people up to their own desires to slip around in their own filth and vomit. I’m thrilled that you are willing to be honest in describing so many of the problems in the local church. But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.

I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,
I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:
1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up.............................
All of this is what you described or concluded.

O voice of reason. Thank you for taking the time to mine out these "crucial points"
Gives an excellent "bird's eye view"
Anyone to PSRP these 27 points with me?
Then we can all prophesy!

Originally Posted by Trapped

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over... but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

The Lord’s Recovery Unchained youtube channel has been a bit of an oasis to me.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,
I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:
1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up....................
I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

Can someone please give this bro a real bullhorn, so he can sound the reality check trumpet worldwide? I concur with this assessment, and reading some things in the last couple days here, took me back to the training sessions where the spin is so lethal that unless you see the web that’s being built there, you will fall in it all over again!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,

I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:

1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up
3. leaders who laugh when turning away those in need (homeless member of the church)
4. members who praise God and call on the Lord joyfully while ignoring the homeless brother
5. leaders who refuse to help a disabled/needy member when the headquarters have bountiful millions of dollars at their disposal
6. double-speak that there is no hierarchy when there definitely is
7. leaders venomously bashing a depressed divorced man
8. the top leader fleshly bashing the character of people based on country of origin
9. top leader potentially plagiarized others’ works giving general credit but not specific
10. delegated authority teaching being problematic
11. speaking against clergy-laity while having what is in practice elders who are like a special class of people
12. judgmental of genuine believers in denominations while hypocritically ignoring own behavior/son
13. top leader being a poor example in “dissing the denominations”
14. prevailing belief that those in recovery are more special than other believers
15. cult-like homogenous thinking, mantras and maxims that are not really biblical in nature
16. being cult-like in telling people they will die by the hand of God if they leave, and that leaving is rebellion
17. members being told not to go online to read about ‘storms’ so they never get the real details
18. appointing unworthy sons to high positions who misused those positions to abuse others
19. top leaders getting away with protecting immorality because they are revered to almost a deity status, ruining lives
20. False application of the story of Noah and his sons in order to protect criminal behavior and sexual predation
21. top leader misusing his position, and those under him being complicit
22. revere of top leader as if he is a king
23. doctrine being used as a scapegoat for things, to brainwash people into being automatons and live robotic lives
24. treating poor people without love
25. top leader taking money from members and his subordinates hiding his involvement in it, no apology ever issued, no admission to this day
26. top leader gaslighting, leadership above criticism when it does something wrong
27. leadership lying to the members saying they are trying to protect them from dissent and rebellion when they are really trying to cover up serious allegations

All of this is what you described or concluded. What a pit of garbage the local churches are!

Yes, I know the common response is “the churches in the Bible are filled with problems” or “no church is perfect”, but let’s stop and think for a minute. Those who behaved this way in the Bible were called out, rebuked, and driven out if they did not genuinely repent and change. But in the local church, this is the behavior that is continually propagated, and those who rebuke it are the ones who have to leave the cesspool in order to take care of their conscience!

The local church is not the church. The local church is what the genuine church has to depart from!

The problem comes from the top, dead and decayed Witness Lee, and gets replicated down to the co-workers and then to the local elders who obey the ministry, on down. It is what has marked and characterized the local churches for what…..75 years? The entire system has been called out and warned and admonished and rebuked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and yet those who should be driven out continue to remain in control and in darkness.

God does not remain in a place like that. Yes, God can save anyone, and yes God continues to love everyone and desires that no man perish. But when a situation of sewage like this continues on unabated, and where sin and lies and evil and falsehoods are continuously DEFENDED, God gives people up to their own desires to slip around in their own filth and vomit. I’m thrilled that you are willing to be honest in describing so many of the problems in the local church. But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.

I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

Good assessment I suppose

"God does not remain in a place like that" - could be true. or like Lee always says "There's always the remnant. Not all in the local churches will be overcomers." But then that would lend to plausible deniability to not deal with the major problems, which it doesn't sound like they are. And I agree with you that they should. But how do you deal with the main guy who started the whole thing, is highly revered, and literally owns the LLC of the incorporation? Also if they publicly outed him wouldn't the entire thing become defunct? Or maybe it would still stand who knows? All food for thought, you're right

As far as I know the doctrines are all biblical. I'll check out that channel though thanks

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.


Trapped

Doctrinally speaking I have a hard time believing that there is anything else. I do believe God wants to get his bride, this is seen in Revelation. How could he get his bride if there's not a corporate people being built up together in his life? I do believe that the local church idea is biblical. And I believe that Christianity is degraded. So the concept of a recovery is biblically correct. It makes sense. But you're right about the other stuff. If leadership is wrong it stands to reason that those particular leaders shouldn't be allowed to continue in their position

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,



You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things. His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with

He sidesteps the necessity for a ground of the church in leu of his concept that all is needed is simply metaphysical or spiritual oneness. This is pretty subtle, but the affects are large. To disregard the grounds of the church is very very serious and undermining to God's blueprint in the word

But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

Gotta hand it to you, Jay: you've probably picked the funnest one. I suggest watching it all. Maybe even read some of the comments. I'll be providing you some feedback on your thoughts regarding this video and the video itself as soon as I can.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Gotta hand it to you, Jay: you've probably picked the funnest one. I suggest watching it all. Maybe even read some of the comments. I'll be providing you some feedback on your thoughts regarding this video and the video itself as soon as I can.

Ha ha ok. Well it was literally the first video that popped up in search. The guy talks in circles which is usually something people who don't know what they're talking about do

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things. His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with

He sidesteps the necessity for a ground of the church in leu of his concept that all is needed is simply metaphysical or spiritual oneness. This is pretty subtle, but the affects are large. To disregard the grounds of the church is very very serious and undermining to God's blueprint in the word

But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city

You mentioned the conflation of the ground of oneness with the ground of the church in the video. I think ACuriousFellow has already brought up a ministry quote that shows it is conflated/equated in the ministry in at least one place, and therefore is not wrong to conflate them. I'd just like to add an additional place where they are conflated, on www.shepherdingwords.com here: https://shepherdingwords.com/assaili...new-testament/

"In standing for the authority of God’s Word, we must also stand for the New Testament teaching and pattern concerning the genuine ground of the church, the ground of oneness in each locality, to uphold the testimony of the one Body and to afford the Lord a way to build His church."

As a church kid myself, I would also add that it was my experience that the two concepts were regularly conflated in practice and in speech in the local church. I think the other two aspects of the ground of the church were more spiritual in nature and therefore fell to the wayside in emphasis, because it was harder to pretend like other believers are not one in those ways. The "one church one city" part grew in importance because it was concrete rather than nebulous, and was the stark difference between the local church and denominations, such that it kind of took over and became equated with the ground of the church. As such, when I listened to the video, I didn't have a problem with how it was presented, because it was in line with how I had heard the concepts used.

You gave a summary of what you felt the first third of the video said, so I went back and listened to the whole thing again and took some notes, and here is the point I got from it:

It is taught in the local church that if you are not meeting "on the basis of the church in your city", but instead are meeting in a place that is based upon something else, like any of the denominations, then you are in division, i.e. you are not in oneness. (I think you would agree with this statement, based on the way you have talked about "how can the church be one if there are denominations?")

But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"

In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.

And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".

In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?

There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.

And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.

If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.

Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".

And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.

After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

As a church kid myself, I would also add that it was my experience that the two concepts were regularly conflated in practice and in speech in the local church. I think the other two aspects of the ground of the church were more spiritual in nature and therefore fell to the wayside in emphasis, because it was harder to pretend like other believers are not one in those ways. The "one church one city" part grew in importance because it was concrete rather than nebulous, and was the stark difference between the local church and denominations, such that it kind of took over and became equated with the ground of the church. As such, when I listened to the video, I didn't have a problem with how it was presented, because it was in line with how I had heard the concepts used.

I think I see now that Lee is conflating the two, and I'm just about 100% certain they're not supposed to be conflated. As far as I know they are two different things. The ground of the church as I understand it literally is the concept of 'one church per one city.' And the ground of oneness COMES OUT of the concept of uniting the body in each city. Which is probably what gave Lee the confidence and liberty to bash the denominations so harshly, because in his mind it was justified based on their not dropping their practices to meet on the ground of oneness of locality. So naturally the LC couldn't be one with anyone else who wasn't meeting on the same correct ground...and I'm not saying I agree with that attitude. It's an elitist and exclusive attitude. On the one hand maybe the denominations are degraded. On the other hand should we constantly bash them? I don't think so, we're all brothers and sisters in the Lord

So now I'm thinking that Lee is wrong in his speaking if he is conflating them, which it seems the evidence shows that he did. I suppose one just gets so caught up in the amount of his words and his works that you fail to notice important details like that. I know in the LC they make it a point to "stay on the line of life" which is a mantra to essentially only focus on Christ and the spirit. The bigger concepts the average member probably just leaves up to the speaking brothers or the higher up brothers. So it's interesting that more people don't realize or recognize when significant errors like that are presented in their writings/speakings

For a long time it's been in the back of my mind while reading Nee/Lee ministry that I am pretty sure the spoken messages are not verbatim or word for word what gets put into the books. I am sure at least some editing is involved in things that are said, and I'm pretty sure certain questionable comments and quotes are left out when they put the speaking into book form. Take from that what you will. To my mind it kiiiiind of opens up the possibility to leave out things said that make them look bad and to take liberties to add or put more clarity onto things said. Which is at least somewhat suspect

In fact I remember listening to some old tapes of Lee and things that he said in any particular message and what was put into the book later on were definitely expanded upon. The books come across very polished and very thoughtful. His speaking a lot of times comes across not quite that way. So I am just about fully positive that they take much liberty in editing into his speakings and elaborating more on concepts that he was speaking about. How far and how wide this adding was who knows. You'd have to go back and painstakingly listen to the message and compare it with the words in the book form

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"

In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.

And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".

In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?

There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.

And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.

If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.

Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".

And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.

After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.

Definitely a lot of food for thought here

But as far as my Bible reading is concerned. I believe that Jesus was talking about spiritual oneness in regards to "that may be one, father, as you and I are one." But there are different types of oneness. Paul says in Philippians 2:2 I urge you, then, to make me completely happy by having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind (International standard version)

Philippians 2:2 Make my joy full, that you think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking the one thing (Recovery version)

The difference between these two translations is kind of pertinent to the opposing concepts you and I are talking about. The ISV version is pretty general and could be more open to interpretation. You said you felt one with other Christians in their giving and their good works. But Lee's translation says 'thinking the one thing' which the ISV doesn't say. That little difference is probably huge. In the footnote he elaborates and says "According to the context of this book, the one thing here must refer to the subjective knowledge and experience of Christ (Phil. 1:20-21; 2:5; 3:7-9; 4:13). Christ, and Christ alone, should be the centrality and universality of our entire being. Our thinking should be focused on the excellency of the knowledge and experience of Christ. Focusing on anything else causes us to think differently, thus creating dissensions among us."

This type of oneness is in the soul and the mind, and apparently the spirit. Implying to share the same thoughts and be of the same spirit. It's not saying a oneness in spirit in the verse, but Lee is attaching it to the oneness of the spirit of Christ, particularly in our subjective knowledge and experiences of Him

In John 17:21 I believe Jesus was talking about a oneness in the spirit similar to how the triune God is one

Here's Lee's interpretation in his footnote for John 17:21. He says "This is the second aspect of the believers' oneness, the oneness in the Triune God through sanctification, separation from the world by the word of God. In this aspect of oneness the believers, separated from the world unto God, enjoy the Triune God as the factor of their oneness." So Lee's interpretation of John 17:21 is that the believers are one with one another through sanctification and separation from the world. Which that is yet another different type of oneness

So we see different types of oneness in the Bible. Which is all pretty confusing. I suppose I understand why people would just stop short because it's a lot to understand

I don't think though, that oneness has much to do with good works. But I suppose we could say that's a certain kind of oneness in a general sense. If a large stadium of people go to a football game, they are "one" in the sense that they're all at the football game. They are one physically in location.....but does any of it matter? I suppose if you say that God only blesses 'one group of people who are standing in oneness on the correct ground' and 'in the same thought, mind, and sprit of oneness' then it certainly does matter what is meant by oneness. Because according to Lee Christians who are not in the spirit are not one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not meeting on the ground of locality are not really one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not sanctified and seperated from the world are not one according to the Bible. Which are very very cut and dry pivotal things to say

Or another way to say it is that can Christians really be one if they're not exercising their spirit, seperated from the world, sanctified, and meeting on the correct ground? Which is a crucial question. I think if that's true it would be very hard for Christians to be one with one another. But I suppose it all hinges on the way you interpret the word. It would almost lend to judgements being passed on others such as "oh I can't be one with so and so brother because he watches TV," or "oh I can't be one with so and so sister because she dresses worldly." It sounds like a great way to create factions and schisms. But then some might say, "well we all just need to turn to our spirit because we can only be one in spirit." Which is kind of like glossing over all that other very strong and differentiating type of oneness. Or maybe that's the truth. Maybe we all just need to come together and be in spirit and be built up in spirit with one another

So is it all open to personal interpretation? Idk, is any of the Bible open to personal interpretation? Or is that dangerous? Is Lee's interpretation the only correct one? That's dangerous to say too. I guess we have to make up our own minds and work out our own salvation according to the best way we see fit and God will judge our works at the end. A questionable test? Or are the dominoes all set up around Lee's theology? If there's a hole in Lee's theology somewhere does the entire dominoes fall over? Should we throw out all of Lee's theology if he is wrong at a certain point or conflating two crucial ideas?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

It did not start after the death of Lee. Have you read the account of Don Rutledge?

Back in 1978 a little blue pamphlet came out titled, "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches," put out by "the Co-workers in the Lord's Recovery."

I still have a couple of those. Many brothers at the time, including Don, wondered who these nameless brothers were. Who was now deciding what were the "proper" beliefs and practices of all local churches, other than the Bible and the Spirit of God?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It did not start after the death of Lee. Have you read the account of Don Rutledge?

Back in 1978 a little blue pamphlet came out titled, "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches," put out by "the Co-workers in the Lord's Recovery."

I still have a couple of those. Many brothers at the time, including Don, wondered who these nameless brothers were. Who was now deciding what were the "proper" beliefs and practices of all local churches, other than the Bible and the Spirit of God?

I do recall that pamphlet and kind of even remember some grumbling about it. I think I too have a couple of copies. I don’t recall it staying around as an important thing.
It seems LSM has really walled themselves in; their premise is that all light the scripture could offer is to be found only in LSM material, which is WL and WN writings or in case of WL audio and video. Anything apart from that is of no real value. They seem to constantly repackage the same material. So, if after, let’s say the past 50 years, the saints have read all the LSM material and constantly reinforced it in their various meetings and conferences and trainings, why would LSM even be necessary? Shouldn’t everyone have been enlightened, straightened out, constituted, or whatever one would want to say so that the average little saint has no need of anything else than Just the Bible and the Spirit. Shouldn’t the saints be so clear about all biblical matters so that they would all do the work of propagating this great enlightenment? Any new ones should just fall into the hands of the enlightened saints that are so perfectly practicing the NT economy and Gods eternal purpose, and so filled with the Spirit that there is on longer any need for LSM to repackage the same stuff. It seems by now, LSM would be a useless entity to the local churches. But instead, it seems LSM is now replacing the Bible and Spirit and it appears the headship of Christ and the God given local overseers. I don’t recall in any WN writings the need for such an all encompassing extra-scriptural entity. I don’t recall seeing it set up in the NT either. How do the LCs and the saints not react to this? If no one can question the validity of LSM because they have set themselves up as the only clear speaking concerning the Bible, what will happen in 20 or 30 more years with their marketing plan? How often does one need to repurchase the same material or hear a different voice say the same things? If the business/ government they have set up failsdoes that mean a return to the dark ages?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I do recall that pamphlet and kind of even remember some grumbling about it. I think I too have a couple of copies. I don’t recall it staying around as an important thing.

Before the Midwest LC's were quarantined and divided by LSM/DCP operatives (~2002 to 2004 in the year of our Lord Jesus) every Midwest LC had new copies of that booklet circulated to remind us of the liberties we once enjoyed in the Recovery, and how things had radically changed.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Before the Midwest LC's were quarantined and divided by LSM/DCP operatives (~2002 to 2004 in the year of our Lord Jesus) every Midwest LC had new copies of that booklet circulated to remind us of the liberties we once enjoyed in the Recovery, and how things had radically changed.

I still have a copy of the LA Times that riled up WL, concerning the mindbenders. There was going to be a big church meeting in Anaheim where reporters would come to observe and a lot of us from San Diego went to support- you know- large numbers impress. At that meeting, I remember the elders calling old Christian hymns one after another so the wild saints would not have a chance to shout out lines or give the Oh Lord Jesus, or any of the typical LC performances. Then WL gave a nice Christian message, then a few leading ones gave a couple of nice testimonials, then the meeting was over. The impression they wanted to give reporters was that we were just average dear Christians. That was one of the first times I started to see the phoniness, and made a strong mental note of it.

I also still have a copy of the deposition WL gave- just a little bible preacher. It was shortly after that that he really started turning on the deputy authority thing and going after the malcontents.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I still have a copy of the LA Times that riled up WL, concerning the mindbenders....I also still have a copy of the deposition WL gave- just a little bible preacher.

Boxjobox referenced some documents that interest me. Does anyone know where these can be found online?

P.S.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Boxjobox referenced some documents that interest me. Does anyone know where these can be found online?

P.S.

I think the deposition was posted here or on the old Bereans site.

The "tract wars" between WL and the Bible Answer Man were published in the Orange County Register.

If I find anything I'll let you know. I've thrown so much away.