Witness Lee and the Lord's Recovery Movement

@divegeester said
I read it and see “Jehovah’s Witnesses”.

I sense that sonship knows what he’s into.

At least Jehovah’s Witnesses get to stretch their legs.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Again, are all these ex-members just making stuff up?

Exaggerating. blowing stuff up out of proportion in his mind.

Like my experience with ChessAtWork. One player beating me and taunting me for losing - "You don't play very well, do you?"

So I dwell on the offense and blow it up to a major aspect of the whole community ...

"Those people over on ChessAtWork are cruelly derisive of other players ! They did me dirt. I'm outta here!"

What are "X-members?" It doesn't mean that they are no longer members of the Body of Christ.

Once born of God you are a "member" of Christ's mystical Body for ever. So don't think the term "X-members" means no longer members of Christ's mystical Body.

Now, "X-members" in the sense that they no longer meet with any local church? It is understood.

Some use to have a saying - "If you meet with the local church long enough, eventually you'll leave."

Transformation by the Spirit of the Lord very much wants to get inroads into our whole being when we enjoy the Lord Jesus.

"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17,18)

That's the way Christ builds His church, by growing Himself in people.
We are all, who are Christians, are going to go through it sooner or latter.
Why not sooner rather than latter?

"And why did you become an X-member of the Jesus cult?"

"Well, Jesus rebuked me one day and called me Satan. My name is Peter. He said get behind me because your mind is not on the things of God but on the things of man. Really hurt my feelings. So I'm an X-member now of the cult."

"And why did you decide to leave the Jesus-cult?'

"Well in my case, I heard Jesus say unless we love Him more than father or mother we could not be His disciple. Now, I thought that was not very family friendly. I love my folks. So Jesus' anti-family cult turned me off. I stopped following Him."

"And why did you leave off being a follower of Jesus?"

"Well, My mother asked Him if her two sons, me and my brother, could sit at his left hand and right hand in the kingdom of God. He was kind of ambiguous about it. We were not promised clearly the position my mom hoped we'd have. So we left."

"And why did you become an X-member of the Christ cult?"

" He said we had to pick up our cross and follow Him. That sounded like trouble - a little masochistic. Now we warn everybody to stay clear of that dangerous Jesus-cult."

"And you, why did you leave the cult?"

"Well, He only took three disciples up to see Him transfigured one day on the mountain of transfiguration. After all the faithful stuff I did, I felt slighted and overlooked. Forget you then! I thought. So I left to be better appreciated somewhere else. Phewy! I didn't like Peter and James all that much anyway. John was OK, sometimes."

"Why did YOU leave the Jesus cult?"

"I got sick and tired of Peter, who seemed to be the leader of the twelve disciples, making mistakes and putting his foot in his mouth. I thought, there're better followers of Jesus then this guy. So I left."

"Why did you leave the Jesus cult?"

"Some of the disciples were complaining that they saw people casting out demons who were not following Jesus. Jesus just let them. But I was offended by their exclusive attitude. So rather than take the word of Jesus, I focused on the divisive thing those guys said. I'm better than that. So I left."

All good reasons right out of the Scriptures, to leave off being a follower of the Jesus cult.

When the laity cannot feel comfortable in publicly expressing their disagreement with a teaching of their church, it is because the leadership are somehow applying pressure to silence those who dissent, those who may be seeking a revised version of what they had been told was the truth. This is religious cultism.

The Local Church group claims on its website that a belief in the trinity is a MUST for attaining salvation. This claim is blatantly erroneous.

Is there anyone who wishes to publicly disagree with this claim by the Local Church?

@divegeester

When the laity cannot feel comfortable in publicly expressing their disagreement with a teaching of their church, it is because the leadership are somehow applying pressure to silence those who dissent, those who may be seeking a revised version of what they had been told was the truth. This is religious cultism.

No, dissent from the pure teaching of the New Testament actually helps to bring out more the truth.

Now there are LEGAL remedies for spreading false slanderous lies. THAT may be brought to court as libel and character assassination through false reports.

But to disagree with Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's preaching from the Bible? Not in this country is there any law against that. You cannot be muzzled.

But when you cannot obtain a winning argument that way, it is not always permitted to LIBEL someone with fabricated accusations about immoral things which did not happen.

That is illegal in this country. That is called libel and character defamation.
But you can argue that the local churches are wrong about the trinity if you want.

As noted in this Forum, you won't get too far. Thanks for the opportunity to speak about the biblical three-onenesss of God with clarity and faithfulness.

@divegeester

" When the laity cannot feel comfortable ..."

The local churches do not have a clergy / laity system.
We do not practice a "laity" of members.

A non- "clergy / laity" table meeting - the Lord's table in the church in Rome. An "all functioning members" meeting of praise.
All exercising their Christ indwelt regenerated spirit.

YouTube

You mean EVERYBODY doesn't have the same sour, bad, cynical feelings as Brent Barber?

YouTube

The church in Cardiff in the UK.

YouTube

@sonship said
@divegeester

" When the laity cannot feel comfortable ..."

The local churches do not have a clergy / laity system.
We do not practice a "laity" of members.

Oh, I guess that means you don’t have to answer my question then.

After Angie's share, the circle felt a little bleak. So much for Experience, Strength, and Hope. "Keep coming back," a few offered even though crosstalk wasn't usually allowed. Then some guy went next.

"People usually say my name wrong, and I'm not really The Lord, but a lot of people call me that."

"Welcome, The Lord," they said in unison.

"Well, the thing is -- oh, heck, I used to be so pithy -- I just don't know where to begin, although at one time I thought I did. Sorry, I think I would just ramble. Happy to be here."

"Keep coming back," they said.

At the end, because they were an LGBT QAF MOUSE group (all welcome), they just said the Serenity Prayer again because most members were averse to the patriarchal implications of The Lord's Prayer, and that was cool with Him.

@sonship said
@divegeester
No, dissent from the pure teaching of the New Testament actually helps to bring out more the truth. Now there are LEGAL remedies for spreading false slanderous lies. THAT may be brought to court as libel and character assassination through false reports. But to disagree with Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's preaching from the Bible? Not in this country is there an ...[text shortened]... for the opportunity to speak about the biblical three-onenesss of God with clarity and faithfulness.

Your post is just another pile of jazz-handed waffle sonship. This is not about Nee’s teaching itself, not about Lee’s preaching and it’s not about the New Testament,. Nor is my question anything to do with “LIBEL”, what is or isn’t illegal and it’s not even about “my arguing if the Local churches are wrong about the trinity”.

No this is much much simpler than all your attempts to deflect and obfuscate sonship, this is a very simple premise the response of which from yourself is a simple truth, a truth which will exit in your mind as either a “yes” or a “no” to the simple question below....

The local church, which I think is a cult and there is much evidence of that and witnesses to that, states that in belief in the doctrine of the trinity is a MUST for salvation.

Do you agree with this statement of belief or not, yes or no?

You either agree with it or you don’t.

The interesting thing of course is not you answering, it is you NOT being able to answer because you disagree and you are in a cult who will not permit you to answer in disagreement.

@divegeester

The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).

I agree with this.
But from the moment I was saved, I could not give a theological conversant discussion academically on it.

Something else i agree with.

In order to be saved, one must have a living faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Yes, I agree.

Now let's see if we can find your phrase "the doctrine of the trinity".

Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), which includes what we must believe in order to be saved: we must believe that the Bible is the complete divine revelation wholly inspired by God; that there is a unique Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnated to be a man; that Christ died on the cross for our sins, shedding His blood for our redemption; that on the third day He was bodily raised from the dead; that He has been exalted to the right hand of God and made the Lord of all; and that He is coming again for His own and to set up His kingdom on earth.

Yes, I agree. But I didn't see your phrase "the doctrine of the trinity."

What I see is -

that there is a unique Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit;

I told you many times, I don't think the authors mean that from day 1 of one becomming a Christians she or he is fully conversant on doctrinal statements as one would be familiar with in, say an theological academic seminary.

"You just got saved. Explain then the doctrine of the trinity and we'll decide. You have to explain hypo stasis, co-inherance, and the Nicean Creed, etc. OR we do not receive you as a saved brother in Christ. DAY #1, Right Now ... defend the one of the two or more doctrines of the trinity."

You are asking me to give you a Yes or a No on YOUR understanding of the church's procedure to receive Christians. But that is YOUR mistaken concept -

"You must be conversant on one, two or more presentations of the doctrine of the trinity."

I do not think that that is what that paragraph suggests. And if you want to report me to what "cultic pressure" authorities anywhere you imagine I'm fearful of, it is not the FIRST time, I invited you to do so.

Put up. Or shut up.

Living Stream Ministry www.lsm.org

Send them this post. Name - Jack Wilmore. Meeting with the church in Gaithersburg MD.

But you're not going to do it, I bet, because you are a blowhard, cowardly, anonymous, trollish, big mouth whose grandstanding isn't worth a nickel.


And the emphasis on leading people to Christ is below this.

In order to be saved, one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ. Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth.

I agree with this too.

@sonship said
You mean EVERYBODY doesn't have the same sour, bad, cynical feelings as Brent Barber?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25IS-mv6edc

The church in Cardiff in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9CT1sZxUC0

You seem fixated on the one testimonial I provided from Brent Barber while ignoring the many others from ex-members will negative and cultish tales to tell.


Trying to reduce it to just one person is highly disingenuous.

Your post is just another pile of jazz-handed waffle sonship. This is not about Nee’s teaching itself, not about Lee’s preaching and it’s not about the New Testament,. Nor is my question anything to do with “LIBEL”, what is or isn’t illegal and it’s not even about “my arguing if the Local churches are wrong about the trinity”.

Did you report me in yet Divegeester?

Tell us when you reported me in to the whoever it is you think I am afraid of.

Or are you working on excuses why you don't need to DEMONSTRATE this alleged cultic pressure I fear?

So tell me whether this is a true statement or not.

"Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23)

Take it back to your Unitarian teachers and ask them whether you should say "Yes, that is true" or "No, that is not true."

Are you still on speaking terms with them?
If not then check your Unitarian handbook and tell me if 1 John 2:23 is God's true word or not.