Talk:Local churches
|
|
|
This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. |
| Contents |
Local Church Controversy
Could the editors of this article please read my talk comments on Talk:Local Church controversy? I'm trying to see if we can get some order and agreement as we try to forge an informative and valuable set of articles, regardless of whether we support or criticize the local churches. Cokoli 02:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
All things have a cause and effect. The cause of an lsm/lc member usually being unsaved (that is, not having yet been born-again) is that they believe that God is "a Persons who is 3 Persons" confusing the Godhead, or calling the "Father the Son" or saying "God is a threefold Person." These are all quotes of Witness Lee, the deceased cult leader. Witness Lee was a calvinist modalist who falsified locality according to a central hub of filthy lucre with non-independent localities dependent to that central hub of lsm/lc (otherwise known as the Local Church). Watchman Nee would have rebuked this if he was released from prison to give a statement. Watchman Nee was osas arminian, accepted Biblical locality, was trinitarian, and was one of the most spiritual Christians that ever lived, as well as one of the highest IQ Christians that ever lived also. May these facts help understanding. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm
Writer Beware
Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Local Church and its headquarters, the Living Stream Ministry. Try it.
Don't even bother to note it is "controversial"
You will be censored.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/ManbecomingGod.htm - Man becoming God http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/LeeModalism.htm - Lee Modalism http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/business.htm - Killers of the Trinity http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Mingling.htm - Mingling Mess http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Neeapologetics.htm - Watchman Nee was against Witness Lee ...and the list goes on and on.... http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm What happens is when the spiritual is reached (i.e. Watchman Nee), the unspiritual is close behind attempting to molest and pervert holiness for filthy lucre as occured in the lsm/lc/lee man-made system.
disputed article text
This warning was moved from the article and replaced with the standard boilerplate texts for NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Dear readers,
Note: The information on this page is biased. For more accurate information, please do some research yourself since much of the information below is based on the writings of Jim Moran (therefore it has not been experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors).
Pro: www.lsm.org, www.christianwebsites.org, www.contendingforthefaith.org
Against: Sites by Jim Moran, Daniel Azuma, Anton Hein, etc.
Please do not remove this announcement!
I removed some of the more POV passages, including weasel words like 'seeming' and blatent puff passages. It should be possible to write a sensible article about this movement without either canonising or demonising it. I'm going to remove the more purple passages again; please discuss why you think they should go back, if you do. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please explain what facts are disputed. If none, then we can remove the notice. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article hasn't been touched or discussed in two months now, I'll remove the notices and see if there are any further problems that result from it. Bryan 22:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I recommend reinserting the accuracy dispute if there is, in fact, legitimate concern. For what its worth, Christian Websites hosts this site giving the history of the movement from a distinctly insider perspective:
The Lord's Recovery (http://www.lordsrecovery.org/)
If certain facts are still in dispute, even after verification, then it is certainly reasonable to update the page to match the facts. I simply do not have the energy to engage in an extended discussion as to whether or not such and such is actual history. The facts are there and can be researched by anyone who has the inclination to do so. I encourage concerned readers to make factual updates that increase content in the article, as opposed to simply removing factual information simply because it is in some way disagreeable.
As Daniel Quinlan points out in his user page:
"Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas."
Give the overall controversy surrounding this movement, I am concerned that any critical remarks about them will be regarded as non-NPOV, and thus edited out. To this end I had considered adding an entry Local Church controversy, however the same problems would arise with that page. The advantage of Wikipedia is in its online revision control system, so older edits of webpages remain available.
Further discussion points can be placed here, and I will try to remain attentive to these concerns in the future.
TheLocalChurch 21:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Also, the talk: page serves as a good record for these things too. Now that you've put your concerns here, it's possible that if a problem arises in the future some editor will see them and know that the "NPOVing" might have an ulterior motive. If the article's text isn't currently under dispute, I think it might be best to just leave these warnings here on talk: as a safeguard against potential future problems for now. Bryan 06:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I dispute TheLocalChurch's use of the moniker "TheLocalChurch" as his/her user name. This user claims to have a NPOV on subject matter related to the Local Church, yet it is clear from the user's own statements that his/her position is not neutral on this matter and that he/she is not capable of separating personal grievances from objective description. The moniker "TheLocalChurch" is used by this person not in good faith, as it is misleading in that any reasonable person would assume that a person named "TheLocalChurch" writing on the topic of the "Local Church" would be a representative or authoritative source for the Local Church, which this person obviously is not. If you are having difficulty seeing my point of view on this, consider a person who is in subjective disagreement with the Methodist Church, yet publicly names himself "TheMethodist" and proceeds to subtley modify all Wikipedia articles to spin the Methodist Church in a negative light. Such activity would obviously be considered devious and unacceptable.
I also dispute much of the writing on TheLocalChurch's user page, which I understand is voluntarily off-limits to my redaction. For example, this person's justification for remaining anonymous is itself a subtle slandering of the Local Church. The implication in this user's justification for remaining anonymous is that Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits in order to harass people who disagree with their beliefs and practices, and that this person does not want to be harassed by such frivolous lawsuits. The facts are quite the opposite: Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church have engaged in only three legal actions in their entire existence: one against Thomas Nelson publishers, et al, resulted in the defendants retracting the book and issuing a public apology; one against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, et al, resulted in an $11.9 million judgment against the defendants (with the judge awarding an extraordinay amount of punitive damages to the plaintiffs); and another against Harvest House Publishers, et al, that is ongoing, but is already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million. Evidently, the United States government's judicial system would beg to differ with TheLocalChurch's implication that the Local Church and Living Stream Ministry involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits.
And so we must consider what the real motive is behind TheLocalChurch's insistence on remaining anonymous. I don't think this is Daniel Azuma, as he is not afraid to publish his criticism of the Local Church on the Internet. Neither is it Jim Moran, because he passed away last year. Could it be Anton Hein? Maybe. Anton Hein was convicted in the United States of child molestation and fled to another country, from whence he publishes his website that is critical of the Local Church. He would be motivated to remain anonymous on the Wikipedia in order to limit the damage a child molestation conviction would do to his credibility. TheLocalChurch, are you Anton Hein in hiding?
--Nathan w cheng 21:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
All who are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, please, before you do anything more, read this: Libel Litigations Filed by the Local Churches (http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/index.html). Thank you! --Nathan w cheng 22:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Nathan,
- You are certainly free to have your opinion on these matters! :) In fact, I would encourage you to express it because I value the freedom of speech. You will note, however, that at this point, other than posting the original text for this page, I have made no other major updates to it. Other Wikipedians have themselves defended the article and numerous attempts to deface it. As far as the details you mention above, I do not make a secret of those events, but instead encourage individuals to get both sides of the story. Particularly relevant to this is the SCP Newsletter (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40ab.html) which discussed the events surrounding the actions you list, and the aftermath of the court decision upon SCP. All users of Wikipedia should use the site with the full knowledge that articles are presented in an as-is basis, and further research should be performed to corroborate the information contained within it. Wikipedia, after all, is by definition a work in progress, and therefore not perfect.
- As far as a sound defeat of the Harvest House suit, this is hardly assured. Some details can be found here:
- Harvest House Corporate Statement on the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry Lawsuit (http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/statement1.cfm)
- Harvest House Frequently asked questions regarding the lawsuit (http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/legalfaqs.cfm)
- From Living Stream Ministries, a response:
- Response to Harvest House Corporate Statement (http://www.localchurch-vs-harvesthouse.org/response.html)
- And, the most recent response from Harvest House:
- Harvest House Publishers and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry (http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/statement2.cfm)
- (This statement has only been out a couple days. Living Stream Ministry will likely put out a response shortly, however at the time of this edit I am unaware of a response.)
- I think your speculation about my identity will be seen by users as adolescent :) That said, I do appreciate your speculation that I might be Anton Hein, and take it more as a compliment than an attack. Anton has his own website, Apologetics Index (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/), which has information about this movement posted. Apparently he can defend himself :) As an aside, if you disagree with Anton's site, there are avenues on his website with which you can express your disagreement. As far as Anton Hein purportedly being a child molestor, how does this speculation relate to the accuracy of this particular article?
- As far as NPOV is concerned, NPOV applies to all sides of a discussion, not just one particular one. It would be irresponsible to remove mention of controversy from this article in the interest of a supposed NPOV, as I pointed out already with Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen. If you disagree with my user page, feel free to bring that up with me on my talk page. If you feel that I am a problem for Wikipedia, then you are welcome to address that with one of the Wikipedia Sysops :)
- Thanks!
- TheLocalChurch 05:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My only real problem with you is your use of the moniker TheLocalChurch, because it is such an underhanded thing to do, and it doesn't seem to bother you at all. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- In that case, thanks for clearing up your concern! :) I don't think it bothers me much, certainly not any more than the local churches portraying themselves as just another evangelical church seems to bother elders of the local churches. This attempt at portraying the movement as just another church is evident in how much "unspinning" this article has been through in the last dozen of so edits.
- TheLocalChurch 05:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nathan w cheng is entitled to his opinion, but not when it involves wrongful accusations regarding issues he is not familiar with.
For one thing, I post to Wikipedia under my real name, Anton Hein. I do not post anonymously to this - or any other website or online forum. Thus, for the record, I do not post under the name TheLocalChurch
My own websites, Apologetics Index (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/) and Religion News Blog (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/) are posted under the name of my wife and myself.
Nathan sees fit to mention my conviction on the charges of child molestation, and claims that I fled to another country. In reality, I accepted a plea bargain - in part on the advice of the Dutch consul, who was not impressed with America's justice system and for other reasons highlighted in the FAQ section at my own web site (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/faq.html#accused). As a result, I then spent 6 months and 20 days in jail. Shortly after my release, I received permission to visit the Netherland on account of the fact that my sister suddenly died. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Justice Department looked at my case, declared it to be a case of wrongful conviction, and advised me to remain in the Netherlands. Your suggestion that I am in hiding is ludicrous. The Dutch Justice Department interacted with the California Department of Justice regarding this matter. I'm in the phone book, and my address information is available to each and every person.
Has this experience hurt my credibility? Not that I know of. Scientologists and a handful of other adherents of groups deemed by some to be 'cults' have tried, but failed. In large part that is because since April, 2000, my website's FAQ section has included details about this case (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/faq.html#accused). Too, many people - lots of Americans included - know that the U.S. Justice System is notorious for its high frequency of wrongful convictions (http://tinyurl.com/2rraf) - including those that people have been pushed into with so-called pleabargains.
If you are going to make comments on legal issues, Nathan, make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you'll have to be concerned about your own credibility. Speaking of which, with regard to the Local Church's lawsuit against Harvest House, you claim that it is "already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million." Really? That would surprise the judge, lawyers and parties involved as this is an ongoing case that hasn't gone to trial yet. I advise you and others to check the facts (http://harvesthousepublishers.com/info.cfm), including a look at Harvest House's corporate statements.
With regard to the LC's lawsuit against the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, I invite people to look into the details of the case (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#legal). See also, When Talk Isn't Cheap and Speech Isn't Free: The Abuse of Libel Law (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40ab.html)
I have little time nor interest in pursuing an ongoing discussion on this matter. Just wanted to set the record straight. And should you or anyone else visit Amsterdam, let me know. We'll get together for a beer and talk face to face.
Anton Apologetics Index Research resources on religions, cults, sects, doctrines, and related issues: News and news archives (http://www.religionnewsblog.com) Other research resources (http://www.apologeticsindex.org)
- Well, I'm glad you clarified that. It is interesting to me that you seem to imply here that your conviction was unjust, but yet I have read your own testimony in which you admit to having done something that I care not to even write about on this site, let alone think about. Do you really think that grown men should be able to do that to adolescents and not be corrected by the law? I suppose you feel that the U.S. justice system failed again when it made an $11.9 million judgment against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, basically having found SCP to be the real conterfeit. Some day there will be a final Judgment, and at that point it won't really matter how you spin the outcome. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look Nathan, I don't know what your agenda is, but it looks like you'll only see what you want to see. Suffice it to say that those who - unlike you - are familiar with all the details of the case, support me. Among others, that includes the Dutch justice department.
As for the Final Judgment, I have no fear. My conscience is clear before God. That said, you may want to think about the fact that you and others who bring false accusations will have to give an account.
Now, I have given full disclosure, but you are still trying to bolster your case by ad hominem attacks on me. I guess you have no idea how weak that makes your arguments look.
- ...But not the American justice system. I'm American, and I think you are too.
- I think my agenda is pretty clear: to expose just about everything you have to say about the local churches as being untruthful and not in good faith, coming from a person who cannot be trusted because he has a criminal past for which he is not repentant.
- Um, what "false" accusation? ...Um, what "accusation"? Have I accused you of anything? What "ad hominem" attacks? Where have I abandoned fact or reason? If my case is made weak by statement of fact, then so be it; I care for the truth, regardless of whether or not it helps my case.--Nathan w cheng 06:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Nathan, I was born and raised in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Though I lived in America for a while, I always remained a Dutch citizen.
Your quest for truth is admirable. Unfortunately, the way you go about it virtually guarantees that you won't find it. After all, it appears that you merely pick and choose from what you consider to be 'facts,' while dismissing anything and everything that doesn't quite fit your opinions.
As for the American 'justice system,' you ought to check the facts presented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the Innocense Project. Then try and find similar information about the Dutch justice system.
On ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies see this entry (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) in Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. If you study the information at that site, you may learn why it is self-defeating to try and defend your opinions the way you do.
So I suggest you cut your losses and return to defending your views regarding the Local Church. You're only spinning your wheels by attacking me. Anton Hein
- Anton, if you read the original post in which I brought you up, I was speculating as to the identity of a user who insists on remaining anonymous, and why he might be motivated to do so. Thank you for clearing up the fact that you do not post anonymously--I commend you for that and wish that others would follow your example. As to your invitation to get together with you next time I am in Amsterdam, I must say that several years ago when I read on your website your own explanation of your personal controversy, you seemed to be quite unrepentant. Perhaps your view of the incident has changed in recent years, in which case I would be happy to meet you for a meal if I am ever in Amsterdam again.--Nathan w cheng 01:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- And I must add that I do believe when discussing--and especially disputing--topics related to Christianity and morality it is appropriate to consider the Christian testimony and moral character of the persons involved in the discussion or dispute.--Nathan w cheng 01:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
---
Nathan, my wife and I are in relationships of mutual accountability with fellow Christians. My conscience is clear before them and before God, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do to change that. So again, stick to the issue of the Local Church rather than play judge and jury. You gain absolutely nothing by continuing to focus to me. -- Anton Hein
Purpose of this talk page
This talk page exists to improve the article on Local churches. The above section discussing Anton Hein's private life is completely off-topic and will shortly be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose is to provide the truth of mistaken assumptions regarding the lsm/lc/lee man made system,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/ManbecomingGod.htm - Man becoming God http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/LeeModalism.htm - Lee Modalism http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/business.htm - Killers of the Trinity http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Mingling.htm - Mingling Mess http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Neeapologetics.htm - Watchman Nee was against Witness Lee ...and the list goes on and on.... http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm What happens is when the spiritual is reached (i.e. Watchman Nee), the unspiritual is close behind attempting to molest and pervert holiness for filthy lucre as occured in the lsm/lc/lee man-made system.
Recommendation
Not being involved in the above discussion, I wanted to propose moving the material in "The Local Church as a Cult" to the "Local Church Controversy" page as it is off topic in the page about the history and practices. Furthermore, I submit that "Cult Awareness" is not NPOV and that the title should be changed to what is now the subtitle, "Opposing Points of View" E David Moyer 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)