Talk:Local Church controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 08 Jan 2006. The result of the discussion was merge to Local churches. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Truce? 1.1 == 2 Seek Mediation 3 Implementing the AfD result:

[edit] Truce?

Thanks, very much, Snowspinner, for listing these articles on "Requests for comments". I fully agree we should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedure. I suggest that we are in the stage of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss_with_third_parties. In the meantime, I make the following suggestions:

• Please let's call a Wikipedia:Truce. In other words, please let's agree to not edit either article (Local churches, or Local Church controversy) any further until some outside community members who are not so personally involved weigh in with their input. Of course, we should continue our discussion on these talk pages.

OK

I have posted Neutrality and Factual Accuracy dispute headers on both articles, but have made no other changes. (I've also placed controversy headers on the talk pages.) In line with good faith and assuming the best of all editors involved here, I suggest that we not request Page Protection just yet. I still believe we can work things out. I personally commit to not making further edits on the articles until we can move forward together, and I hope the other editors can agree to do the same.

Considering that the current state of the "Local Church controversy" page is very dissatisfying to me (I consider it filled with the unverified accusations that I have strongly argued against and full of numerous incredible inaccuracies), I would think that I am showing good faith in calling a truce at this point. I ask other editors to please respect this. We need to have a longterm view for these articles. This edit war is not helping any of our desires.

No! Listing and describing allegations in neutral is neutral

It is certainly NOT true to say that allowing all unsubstantiated allegations to be made is neutral. What if I call you a pimp, slut, whore, those are just allegations, they need not be proven.

— as long as they are not advocated.  Leveling allegations or asserting they are true or false requires proof.  No one leveled any allegations.   Moreover, the LC, including Chitu and Cheng admit that these allegations are being made currently.  However, you asserted they were false; this assertion require validation. 

For example, it is neutral to state: "Ralph Nader alleged that the Ford Pinto was dangerous," but one need not prove that Nader was right. However, if you accuse Nader of being wrong, you need to validate your claims. If you cannot, then you may add "Needless to say, Ford disagreed."

Thus by your own logic, you cannot censor out the neutral list of allegations. By your own logic, you cannot advocate the falseness of the allegations without proof!

Once again, no one asserted the allegation were true. The current nine digit lawsuit against the Christian publisher mentioned below alone indicates that there are allegations. Their veracity or that they are "incredible" is up to you to prove in court in the suit which you have initiated.

• The last, most significant edits were made by an anonymous editor. Could whoever it is please identify themselves, and in the future log in for making edits on these articles. Wikipedia has a policy/guideline on Wikipedia:Log in before making drastic changes, since such edits reduce accountability, and quite frankly, make it difficult to respond to the anonymous editor as a person. I think it is reasonable that we should know who we are directing our comments to. This helps us to be more civil to each other. I consider this important if we are to move forward with meaningful dispute resolution.

Related to this, could we please all get in the habit of signing our Talk entries?

• It might help us all to review Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. The latter policy can help keep those editors like myself who consider the local churches favourably from painting a POV overly-positive picture, whereas the latter could help those who criticize the local churches from making claims without appropriately cited sources.

Actually, no one but the LC has made any claims! (To record an allegation others have made is not to advocate a position!) Now that you have admitted that your posts are not NPOV, delete them!

I personally feel that the current version of Local Church controversy is filled with weasel terms, 

No, you don't. You just made that up.

but that's up for discussion.

No; you haven't provided any examples.

And of course, you might very well feel it is also filled with peacock terms.

I would appreciate everyone's comments on these suggestions, especially on the call for a truce. Chitu 18:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sure you do not! In the past, you have taken only umbrage at any statement any other person has made.

Where you violate, Chitu/Cokoli & Mr. Cheng, Wikipedia's policy and a casual moral belief in honesty, is in suppression of the existence of allegations. You are welcome to challenge the accuracy of the allegations and others are welcome to support their veracity. However, it is dishonest to suppress their existence. That shows a total lack of honesty. What you and Mr. Cheng suggest in your actions is that your Local Church has no moral concept of honesty and truthfulness when it comes to your organization.

The position that "we're right, but everybody else is wrong," or "we're right, but Christianity is wrong" is an unhealthy and dangerous position. So is the position, "I have received God's unique revelation, I have recovered the Lord's move, and everyone else has fallen into sin and is Satanic."

About the time that Lee founded his church, there was a best seller called I'm OK, You're OK. In it, the psychiatrist and author describes in layman's terms the frame of mind known as '"I'm OK, you're not OK." Naturally, I assume that you have the same minimum of moral fortitude that the majority of the world's population have, since God created you. You can order the book anywhere, or check it out from any library. Look up what "I'm OK, you're not OK" means, and what kind of rare individual (about 1-3% of the population) is like that. The psychiatric explanations are still valid today, and fit the most current DSM-IV. However, it would be too inflammatory and ungracious to make comparisons with specific entries there.

Once again, your actions show that the LC is deceptive and dishonest. :-)

I think that, if this is your attitude, you need very much to step away from this page and from Wikipedia for a while, and review the purpose of Wikipedia - it is not a vehicle for your beef with the Local Curches, however justified that beef may be. Furthermore, you are rapidly crossing the line into personal attacks. I strongly reccomend rethinking your attitude here. Snowspinner 05:13, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

== No posting unsubstatinated and bizarre claims is not OK, and is NOT neutral, and the page should be BLANKED until a concensus is reached. If someone muddies a window, is OK to leave it with dirt on it and leave it, so those who use it are left onlt to put up with the dirt?. I think not - These alagations are nothing more than flames. In the following claims the controversies are actually opions masquerading as facts based on thin air. They are hurtful and are worthless, and aught to be removed.

• Expense to Members of Trainings and Conferences:

- no cost comparisons are provided to anything yet it is claimed such costs "drain members expenses". No references are provided. This is an opinion mmasquerafing as fact, solidly based on thin air.

   * Calling on the Name of the Lord Compared to Buddhist-style Mantras

- This section is bizarre in that the only references sited are biblical instances of calling on the Lord's name, yet again in a bizarre comparison it is emphasised this practice is of Buddhist origen. This is opinion is masquerading as fact based solidly on thin air.

• Allegation of Un-Christian doctrine:

- This section presents some very complex and important isses without any references yet makes unverifiable negative assertions such as they have reversed the meaning of essential beliefs. Nothing is defined and or referenced as fact. Most confusing is they claim the local church adheres to the Nicene creed yet they illogically claim that the local church has reversed the meaning of essential beleifs. It would seem that there is nothing but an accusation regardlesss of any local church meanings. This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air.

• Allegation of Disdain Toward Christianity and all things Christian: Critics claim that the Local Church blatantly hates Christianity.

- There is a lapse in truth and common sense here, in that the local church claims to be christian yet it is claimed to have disdain toward all things Christian. This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air.

• Pray-Reading: Critics claim that Local Church members worship the published words of Witness Lee through their practice of Pray-Reading.

- There is an unsubtantiated interpretation provided on an undefined practice of pray-reading. Perhaps had the practice been referenced and defined in the article, it would be obvious that what is being said about the practice is factually incorrect and basically a lie. This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air.

• Allegation of Having Numerous front organizations: Critics claim that the Local Church has placed several "front" organizations to hide their identity from the unsuspecting public.

- There are an undefined and all together unsubstantiated claim that the local churches are hiding their identity through fronts. There is no reference to validate this wild and rather paranoid dillusion. This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air.

• A related allegation that there is extreme secrecy because the churches take no denominational name. Without reference it is concluded that this is being done so no one can know who they are. This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air. Finally two organisations are listed as Fronts the Living Stream which is a publishing agency, and Bibles for America which is an agency which "surprise, surprise" hands out bibles. If these are fronts the big question what is fronted or hidden when a publisher publishes, and a Bible agency hand out bibles? Since most every christian group has both of these types of agencies it is a bizarre claim that these are fronts hidding something? This is an opinion masquerading as fact based on thin air.

It would seem this entire section, on supposed controversy are a set of opinions masquerading as facts based solidly on thin air. This entire setion should be removed right away, as it is offensive and worthless.

[edit] ==

[edit] Seek Mediation

I strongly encourage those involved in the edits on this page and on Local Church to avail themselves of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and sort this out. These edit wars are getting tiresome and destrcutive, and as it drags on, Wikipedia continues to not have a viable or quality article on this matter. This has gone on long enough - those of you with strong opinions on the matter should seek mediation, and hammer out a compromise. Snowspinner 05:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

You need to show how this has worked foe similar situations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology. I see others have asked you this, but you failed to come through. I think TheLocalChurch is right, all we can do is use Wikipedia's archives to set the record straight for the few who would look.

Mediation is pretty much what you do when a page is deadlocked and getting ugly. Users should not have to use the archives to get information. That is not an acceptable solution. If you cannot reach a consensus on this page, take it to mediation. That's just what you do here. Snowspinner 04:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I reversed the entries on this talk page to have the most recent on top. I think this makes it easier to follow new discussion.

That was dishonest.

What you really mean to say is: "I don't want anyone to see what anyone else is written, so I put my comments first, so if the people somehow managed to find this ibscure boring page, they'll read my comments and go away. The Local Church is not a cult! The Local Chgurch does not hurt people or take their money!"

I know of MANY church groups that are more cultic and demand far more money than the local church.

Please continue the same way as we go along.

Why? Did you think everyone belonged to your cult?

This other man uses restraint, while you continue to use WEASEL WORDS. I say YOU are a cultmember. Afraid to tell what cult you belong to?

I made some previous comments about not including verifiable allegations--they don't necessarily have to be proven factual (NPOV, as I understand it, is not about proving any facts), but the sources should be traceable and verifiable. I quote from Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute:

Only for assertions. You make a whole tonne of assertions, but don't substantiate one. I think you should delete all your own unsubstantiated claims in the article.

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.

What does "unlikely" mean?

• It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.

By the same token, the main article on the LC, should be deleted, because it is too difficult to verify that the LC really does what it says. The whole point of allegations, is that the LC cannot be trusted as the sole source of all information.

Based on this Wikipedia policy, I would expect that any allegations should be properly cited. "Properly cited" is specified in the article Wikipedia:Cite your sources:

Great, Chitu and Cheng! Now hop to it! You, too, can learn to be honest like the rest of humanity!

Cite your sources. When external sources are consulted in the writing or verification of an article, provide a list of references (books and articles as well as web pages). If an article is about a person or organization, list its homepage. Not only is this intellectually honest, but it will help readers to find more information as well as to check the veracity of the Wikipedia content. Do it especially if the topic is controversial (like Genocide), or if the Wikipedia article is a condensed summary (this is usually the case, especially for technical or historical topics).

I hope we can move forward by following these guidelines. Chitu 19:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

We're all waiting for you to do that, Cokoli/Chitu. :-)

And, since you asked:

• Allegations of severe emotional damages to members: To protect the privacy of these followers and ex-followers, no identifying information can be given. Therefore the veracity is indicated in the specificity of detail. The information is current and is spread within the Local Church to warn what happens if anyone dare leave, and among ex-followers to show how horrible the experience was. A couple was told to get married in one southern California "local church." After about ten years of marriage, and the birth of a baby girl, the husband announced that he was gay, and as the story goes from within the Local Church, began having sex in the local public park. The wife was heartbroken. However, a few years later the wife announced, that she, too was gay.

The younger sister of the mother, in her early thirties began to have severe schizophrenic episodes shortly after her departure from the organization. She was hospitalized several times. These both are stories told about real people with their names in the Local Church by current and active followers. The moral is: if you defy "God's move on the earth today" and successfully leave, God will judge you. At least, you will be humiliated by those whom you formerly called your "brothers and sisters."

Another story, which I have confirmed directly with the wife involved follows. Another couple was arranged to be married. They did, but soon after, it came about that the husband was gay when he was arrested for having anonymous sex with young boys in the bathrooms of public parks. The woman divorced him while he was incarcerated and is still single. She attends church at a local independent evangelical church, but lonely and broken-hearted. She lives alone with her parents. Of her ex-husband, and abut love in the Local Church in general, she says, "You never really know the lie a person lives until you live with him."

The Local Church often expresses anxiety about publicity over its "corporate living" arrangements of "brothers houses" and "sisters houses." The fear is that if the public found about them, they would assume they were hotbeds for homosexuality. In all fairness, I do not believe there is any impropriety going on there, until I hear otherwise. These houses are simply young people sharing rent, just as college students trying to keep costs down. Indeed, these houses are usually held in priority for college students. This arrangement is no more scandalous than a Christian college dorm and much less scandalous than a fraternity house at a land grant college.

fiat lux

ARE THOSE THE WORST UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS YOU CAN COME UP WITH? A FAR CRY FROM PAUL SHANLEY AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SCANDALS!

---

Thanks for your detailed, clarifying comments, "TheLocalChurch". Let me try to follow-up or address some of them:

• First, I'm glad that you agree that talk pages are not equivalent to articles. I hope User:Administer will also agree.

• I'm not sure I fully agree with your perspective about controversy versus rumour regarding Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Personally, I don't think every single claim that has ever been made, regardless of factual support, somehow "deserves" to be posted. I don't see how that advances knowledge. For example, I have heard claims about those in the local churches saying that we eat babies--I don't see how it serves anyone to mention in an encyclopedia article that "some people say" something so ridiculous. I suggest that any allegations are meaningful only when some evidence is offered to support them; otherwise there is no limit to the claims that could be made. It seems to me that this is the usual Hopefully, in my responses to "TheLocalChurch"'s comments below, I might clarify my feelings on this matter.

My great reluctance

You're lying again. Look at how much you're going to write:

towards wild and unsubstantiated allegations is that this tactic has been repeatedly used to slander the local churches. As a case in point, I have carefully examined the sources of many of Neil Duddy's quotations from the Mindbenders, and have found the ones I've checked to be outrageously out of context. (I can give concrete examples, if anyone would like them.) How much more worthy of suspicicion would be uncited negative claims? I hope you understand where I'm coming from. As I said before, I just want to ensure that there is as little misinformation as possible.

You haven't challenged that the allegations are made. In fact, your other comments admit they are made. The list of allegations does not advocate any position.

However, you do advocate the position that they are false. Therefore, you must cite every single statement you made, or delete them. You may replace them with the disclaimer "the Local Church denies the veracity of these claims." While you're at it, you might add "The Local Church sues anyone advocates these allegations with large team of lawyers and a nine digit war-chest."

• Doubts over Witness Lee's true identity: If you could include a full citation of this claim (including page numbers in Kinnear's book), I would consider it quite appropriate to mention such doubts. You see, I would be the first to look up the book to verify just what Angus Kinnear said.

Do you have primary sources from the PRC verifying Lee's identity? How many tens of million of people have the last name Lee?

• Financial misconduct: Again, I would welcome admission of these allegations if you could improve these citations to the point of verifiability. I understand that Ingalls' manuscript is unpublished, but a Web version or at least full title and date would be necessary.

• Mind control: As you alluded, the very concept of "mind control" is controversial. I do personally believe that such a concept exists, but I also believe that the claim of "mind control" is often used to slanderously discredit a disliked organization. For example, it is my understanding that many Jews consider Jews for Jesus to be a "mind control cult" because they brainwash their kids into betraying their heritage and identity, as some Jews claim. This shows that "mind control" is often a perception on the side of the one whose mind cannot comprehend why someone would so radically change their views. What I would suggest here is that merely rather than throwing out the term "mind control", any allegations include some detailed points on the basis of these claims. Only then could fair answers (whether detractors agree with them or not) be offered.

This is the one allegation that is made over and over again. No one suggested in the article that it is true. You, however, assert that it is not but do not validate your claim.

• Subsequent mental disorders; Sexual improprieties: These are some of the worst of the slanderous mudslinging, simply because they are so wild and unsupported that there is hardly anything to say about them. Although I meet with the churches, how could I even say that no such thing exists, when there is no detail given of who, when, and where? Please understand my insistence that verifiable evidence needs to be given before throwing around such slander.

• Lack of grace-based soteriology: In my opinion, all theological disputes are fully admissible because they are easily verified or disconfirmed by the voluminous publications of Living Stream Ministry. However, there are so many such issues, that I would expect that they would eventually be addressed in a dedicated sub-section, if not a separate article.

For this particular point, I can answer that this claim springs from a complete lack of understanding about what we in the local churches believe. I can testify that I have known GRACE (= God's Riches As Christ Enjoyed)

Well, actually that is not grace. That is simply blather which the LC uses as a slogan. It sounds neat but means nothing. They're easy to make up. How about: "Goofy Rants are the Church's Enemy!"

Crossword Puzzle-makers are paid to make much better acronyms than the LC can come up with. But hey, maybe one of you at the Stream could get a job working for the Weekly Reader." They, too can make up silly acronyms that fit in crosswords. And they sell books, too!

The scary thing is that y'all take it so seriously!

more than ever since I started meeting with the local churches. Grace is the living person of Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of God, experienced as the Spirit.

No its not. And did you ever ask yourself what, if anything, this means? And don't come back with another hideous, run-on sentence of slogans! Speak English, please. :-)

I used to think that reading the Bible more, praying more, or meeting with other Christians more, made me a more mature, "better" Christian in God's eyes. Through Witness Lee's ministry, I know believe that nothing matters except for my enjoying Christ as my life and supply day by day.

I think I'm gonna scream "O LORD JEZIZ" at the top of my voice ten times fast. Then I'll become God. :-)

Nothing I ever do can in anyway ever please God--only Christ pleases God. I do not make God "happy" by faithfully following or imitating Christ, but rather by resting by his waters of rest, loving him, enjoying him, bathing in him, and simply letting him live himself out of me. He himself is my grace, my bountiful supply, the one working and willing in me, my all-inclusive all-in-all. To consider this perspective of grace to be a "lack of grace-based soteriology" reveals an utter lack of understanding of what we believe and practice.

• Deceptive recruitment tactics: I believe I addressed these comments in the article under the heading "numerous front organizations". In short, it seems that those critical of the churches would like us to identify ourselves as "The Local Church". I don't know if you think that we are lying through our teeth or something when we claim that this is not our name, and that we do not even call ourselves this. Why in the world would we give newcomers a name we do not use for ourselves, but is used primarily by those who criticize us? I honestly don't know how else to put it. For comparison, consider that the Ethiopian Jews disdain the outsider name "Falasha", a name given to them even though they call themselves "Beta Israel".)If you have some distinct concerns in mind, please restate and clarify them.

On a related note, although Living Stream Ministry has indeed joined some Evangelical Christian publishing associations, I have never otherwise seen anyone in the local churches "portraying itself as just another Evangelical Christian organization". I certainly do not consider myself to be an Evangelical Christian--I'm just a Christian, nothing more, nothing else. I'm just a Christian just as those who consider themselves "Baptists" are Christians, as are those who call themselves "Methodists", or "Episcopalian", or "Roman Catholic", as long as they believe 1Co 15:3-4. And to be explicit again, I (and everyone in the local churches) absolutely believe that all the editors on this article (even those who disagree with me and the local churches) are genuine Christians, just as much as I am.

• Avoid the word "oppose": I agree with you; this word is probably too strong. I admit that even I was uncomfortable as I used it, but I didn't take the time then to think of something better. Now I have updated the article, replacing "opposer" with "critic".

• Inadequate expression of points of contention: I fully confess that I did not develop the side of those disagree with the local churches--this is simply because I do not want to misrepresent that side by setting up a straw man. I simply repeated the points that had already been stated. Those who actually argue those points should please freely expand on the points of contention.

Regarding your example, I don't know what other groups are claimed to be "front groups", for the reason that the very concept is bizarre to me, as I explain above. I wonder, though, if this claim might arise from the common perception that Living Stream Ministry is the "headquarters" of the "Local Church". Without a doubt, LSM is a much-appreciated source of spiritual supply and coordination for the local churches--though certainly not the only major one, whether in the United States or internationally. There are many such organizations, though, of course, LSM was Witness Lee's personal ministry. However, considering that no local church is "under" LSM, LSM has no authority to impose any regulation on any individual or church, no church pays any "dues" whatsoever to LSM, etc., I don't know why it is considered a "headquarters". Apparently, from this perception, any organization run by believers meeting in the local churches becomes a "front group" for the "Local Church", a non-existent organization. One of our strong distinctives is that we despise and reject hierarchy; I don't know if some of our critics' love of hierarchy blinds them such that they cannot evaluate us from any other perspective.

Thanks for your time and co-work. (Note: I've changed my user alias to my first name "Chitu", but I am the same person who previously signed "cokoli".) Chitu 22:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

First, thank you Cokoli for addressing these issues. It is certainly good to work on forging common ground.

I am not sure who decided to merely copy my user page and paste it wholesale into this article. My user page is not meant to be an article discussing controversial issues surrounding the Local churches, and its contents when kept in their entirety are not appropriate for this article.

As to the points that you removed, while I was not the individual who added them, please let me take a moment to address them as best as I understand them. Please keep in mind since this article discusses issues regarding the controversy, the Wikipedia verifiability policy applies to this article in matters of area where controversy has existed, not upon areas where the claims can be substantiated. As such, all areas of controversy should be listed; the quality of such claims then may be discussed in the article itself. If these claims are indeed merely rumors, then this article is where such rumors should see the light of day and be exposed.

Some observations on the various points that were brought up:

• Doubts over Witness Lee's true identity and his claims to be the one heir to Watchman Nee, who was held in Chinese prison until his death without contact to the outside world.

Though this is not a facet I am particularly interested in, this could be discussed further. Some points in this regard may be found in The Story of Watchman Nee by Angus I. Kinner.

• Financial misconduct and abuse of funds.
• Erratic business ventures.

The Phosphorus venture would be one example that comes to mind. There were a number of moral and legal issues that led to a number of people leaving the Local Churches in the late 1980's. For instance John Ingalls, a former elder, left as a result of his concerns in this regard and wrote an unpublished manuscript that discussed these concerns in detail, covering events from Summer of 1987 through April 1989. Many other brothers expressed similar concern, as we saw in the tract "Reconsideration of the Vision," written January 29, 1988.

• Mind control over followers.

Indeed this has been a point of controversy. Much of SCP's writings on this topic referenced mind control techniques, and had even prepared to present this material by way of expert witness Margaret Singer in Lee v. Duddy, however as we know they were forced into bankruptcy without being able to present their case.

It should also be noted that the topic of "mind control" and "brainwashing" is itself controversial, for a variety of reasons that would lend themselves to other Wikipedia articles.

• Sexual improprieties, especially involving Lee's son, Philip, the erstwhile heir to the Presidency of Living Stream Ministry.

Once again this has been a source of concern among the brothers, and is not something those outside the movement would concern themselves with normally. However it has been the source of controversy among the brothers.

• Subsequent mental disorders of followers, especially Anxiety Disorders, Manic Depression, Schizophrenia, and sexual identity.

A point of controversy. However, in my conversations with the brothers in the past, they were not entirely closed to the existence of such problems in the body. At the very least, one should note that Witness Lee's reasons for evangelizing college campuses, for instance, were to find students who were alone, hurting, etc. That there would be these problems with those who become involved should be incontrovertible. The point of contention then becomes this dilemma: Do the local churches in any way provide an environment for emotional healing? Or, do they tend to exacerbate existing emotional problems?

One could make a case either way. The wonderfully tight-knit family atmosphere of the fellowship give a sense of belonging and love that could be healthy. Others, however, report extreme emotional abuse, and argue that the tight-knit nature of the group is brought about by the emotionally needy nature of its members. This happens through the use of peer pressure, giving gifts that have strings attached, parading all the good things as a means of social pressure, using guilt as a motivator, making appeals to scripture not for scriptures' sake but as a means of control, telling people what God's will is for their life rather than helping them to discover it, and in some extreme cases "quarantining" people from fellowship until they "fall in line."

From a theological perspective, many have criticized the lack of grace-based theology. While there is a form of grace, it is mingled with works in the soteriology of the local churches (see God's Salvation). This leads to a performance-based view of one's position with God and the brothers, where one's position in the eternal sanctification and progression toward being a God-man is based on how well someone has done. Realizing they cannot meet the standard of a God-man leaves them depressed for extended periods of time, through which more serious disorders may begin to manifest themselves.

• Deceptive recruitment tactics.
• Deception and secrecy in regard to the true nature of organizational doctrine and ritual.

A group portraying itself as just another Evangelical Christian organization without identifying themselves is considered deceptive, regardless of what the organization is. In the case of the local churches, the sense of deception comes when one comes to the meetings and gets something other than what they had expected - in terms of questionable doctrine, questionable forms of practice and piety, and a high degree of social pressures as described above.

All this said, a rephrasing of many of these points would be in order.

Other NPOV points:

I would suggest avoiding the use of the word "oppose" for those merely being critical of the local churches, as this expresses a particular POV. If someone were to say the local churches are a "cult," this does not necessarily imply that they are opposed to them. Additionally, much of the controversy is concern from brothers in the local churches - not merely from those outside.

Many of the comments you added to the list additionally do not adequately express why people would argue this point. For instance, Bibles for America and Living Stream Ministry are hardly the only two organizations seen as "front groups" - otherwise this would be a limited argument. Additionally, I think any neutral individual would read the article as you recently amended it and see a distinct insider POV. Perhaps Administer would be kind enough to make some suggestions in this regard :)

TheLocalChurch 03:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I utterly, unequivocally, absolutely protest your suggestion that my father-in-law, Philip Lee, engaged in any "sexual improprieties". I also protest your implication that he is the "heir to the Presidency of Living Stream Ministry". He is not, and there is no such thing as an "heir to the Presidency of Living Stream Ministry"; besides the fact that such a thought is ludicrous, Living Stream Ministry is a 501(c)(3) public charity.--Nathan w cheng 04:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

• One important allegation is regarding the controversy surrounding Witness Lee's oldest son, Philip. Shortly after Philip moved to the U.S.A. from China in 1985, Witness Lee made him the President of the Living Stream Ministry. Some said this made Philip Witness' heir apparent of the entire Local Church organization. This sparked controversy in that a man who knew no English was now the head of a profitable publishing business. When Philip arrived, he was given the multi-million dollar home on the same compound as Witness and his third wife. Philip happily accepted this along with his new salary and had Local Church followers move the extensive landscaping and large decorative hills to make room for a swimming pool.

The controversy began when Philip was accused of committing adultery with several different women of the Church in Rosemead (California) in 1990. Arguably, the three most important men in the organization after Lee in the organization were: William H. Duane, Jr. of the original Church in Los Angeles, and Albert Knoch and Jon Ingalls of the flagship Church in Anaheim. It was their names which were printed as the translators of the original complete New Testament Recovery Version. These three heard the charges and were convinced of their veracity. They and others confronted Witness Lee and the rest of the relevant leadership. Lee refused to discipline his son or even acknowledge the problem. They resigned their positions and left The Church as did thousands of followers. The Church removed their names from all future editions of their work.

Ultimately, Philip did resign his senior position at the LSM, but remains a member in good standing of The Church; no wrong doing was ever admitted.

I similarly protest your involvement in articles that you are this close to. Snowspinner 05:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I have been chasing this same handful of people around on the Internet for over 10 years--long before I had any personal involvement with the Lee family. They repeat their same awful twistings over and over, fully knowing that they misrepresent everything that the local churches stand for, finding pleasure in the misunderstanding they breed and hardship they cause those in the local churches. I did not start this present spat, but I will stick it out to the end, as I did on OC Register talk, which I also did not start. Please take a look at my contributions to WikiPedia before this whole local church thing erupted; they were not much, but I was minding my own business, making what I think were useful contributions--mainly on topics related to Christianity.

If my editing of WikiPedia articles has not been fair and objective, please point those places out to me and I will own up and repent for it. But I know that I have tried my very hardest to use NPOV wording and NPOV explanations in the main articles. You cannot disqualify a cheese lover from editing articles on cheese; please judge my editing on the editing itself. The history is there, take a look.--Nathan w cheng 08:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact is, you can't be objective. Even your use of English is stilted and laden with LC operational jargon.

That is not a fact. Please provide some examples of my "stilted" English and texts that I have written that are "laden" with "LC operational jargon". I am open to correction if it is warranted. And who are you, by the way?--Nathan w cheng 01:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi y'all, I'm the one who started the "Controversy" spinoff page. Please let me introduce myself. My name is Chitu Okoli, and I meet with believers in Montréal as the church in that city (what opposers would call "being a 'member' of the Local Church in Montréal"). I am a lover of Jesus Christ, and am a lover of all Christians, including all the editors of this article (both supporting and opposing), since I receive all Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm sorry I didn't do this earlier, but let me explain my reason for splitting off the "Controversy" page:

We are editing a controversial topic. Some of us editors seem to have a primary purpose of "exposing" the "Local Church" as a "cult". In the spirit of Christian love, I will give you the benefit of doubt and accept that you want to do so within the Wikipedia boundaries of the NPOV. Other editors, like myself, want to minimize misinformation about the local churches so that anyone who wants to look into them has accurate information. Please also give me the benefit of doubt, in the spirit of Christian love, that I also want to remain within the bounds of NPOV.

I know that what we're trying to do is difficult, coming from such opposing perspectives, but I believe it is possible to work together to create an informative and accurate set of articles that can give readers both perspectives. I want to make sure, though, that we have a common view of what we mean by a "neutral point of view". I have examined the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology pages you referred to above. (Of course, I have nothing to do with these groups, but I want to respect your reference and sincerely want to understand you.) I thought they did a pretty good job of attaining NPOV. You will note that in these cases, there is a main article stating mainly objective (none-controversial) facts, then separate articles which list controversies to the hearts' content of their opposers--and to which there are defences. But I take it from your comments that you felt that the articles are not NPOV. Could you please explain what you see wrong with these articles, so that we can work together with a common view?

In the meantime, I have removed the transcript of TheLocalChurch's talk pages from the "Local Church Controversy" article--even as Snowspinner pointed out, a live article surely is not the place for the discussion of the article. However, I tried to take as much as practical from the talk pages to include in the latest edition of the article, with extensive revision and responses to the "allegations".

However, there is a set of allegations that I took out altogether. Some of the allegations are, quite honestly, slanderous and unsubstantiated, having no basis in fact or any evidence to support them. I believe that these unsubstantiated allegations are calculated to bias the minds of newcomers to keep them from making an objective, experiential evaluation of whether they like the local churches themselves or not. In other words, even if the claims are not true, they "scare people off" without having a chance to evaluate their truth.

In view of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, I have removed the following unsubstantiated allegations:

• Doubts over Witness Lee's true identity and his claims to be the one heir to Watchman Nee, who was held in Chinese prison until his death without contact to the outside world.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you and other followers of Witness Lee. Birth certificates? PRC identity card? Proven quotes from Watchman Nee that he was his heir? Transcripts from schools he claims he attended? Certificates of completion of educational programs? Statements from Nee's Little Flock in Taipei on why Lee was excommunicated, why he fled to the USA, and why he temporarily returned thirty years later?

The Local Church (this is the official, legal name of the organization in the Heritage suit for suppression of free speech where the LSM functions as the legal headquarters), asserts that Lee is Nee's heir, and also gives biographical information. But the LC gives no proof! That an elderly couple claims to have met him once somewhere in China proves nothing!

The LC needs to answer why "Witness Lee" spoke such a poor pidgin if he indeed spent so many years of his life in English schools? Moreover, Witness Lee spent about forty years in the USA and spoke English almost incomprehensibly. Obviously, he read English at least at a high school level, but one reads alone. Didn't he interact socially with anyone? Was he anti-social?

If a source makes such assertions, but does not cite primary source evidence that would prove LC's claims, then it is hear-say, and to be disregarded.

For neutrality's sake, only the existence of the allegation need be listed, not the proof of its accuracy.

• Financial misconduct and abuse of funds.
• Erratic business ventures.
• Mind control over followers.
• Subsequent mental disorders of followers, especially Anxiety Disorders, Manic Depression, Schizophrenia, and sexual identity.
• Sexual improprieties, especially involving Lee's son, Philip, the erstwhile heir to the Presidency of Living Stream Ministry.
• Deceptive recruitment tactics.
• Deception and secrecy in regard to the true nature of organizational doctrine and ritual.

If, however, anyone feels that these allegations should be included, then I believe evidence should be provided to back them up. According to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, I would be more than happy to follow up and verify any reliable sources that anyone might offer. But without substantiation, they do not belong on Wikipedia, as this encyclopedia should not be an outlet for rumours.

Please respond with your thoughts on my comments. I look forward to and pray for a profitable relationship together, awkward as things may be. Cokoli 02:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Fine. I'm just very opposed to spinoff articles. I'd rather see the stuff get edited for POV and kept in the right article. I think moving it to spinoff articles is too often a cover, in that it allows POV junk to fester. I'd rather have this all stay on Local churches and get worked on than fragmented. Since the content is currently redundant, that's not a big deal - just make the edits to Local churches and let this be a redirect. Snowspinner 04:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You are completely right. I feel the same way. I think there should be just one article. But that article keeps getting censored to fit the POV of the Local Church alone. Sorry, I couldn't explain sooner — I was in the middle of editing the page and had forgotten to log in. Have a look at Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; nothing NPOV sticks. For that matter, look at the history of Yahweh and Talk:Yahweh: the Jehovah's Witnesses kept reverting it because they believe that "Jehovah" is the only name for God and all else must go.--Administer 05:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

All of that is terrible. May I suggest Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, as well as the mediation and arbitration processes as really good ways to deal with that instead of creating a terrible offshoot article that no one is ever going to find. I mean, if you have to sacrafice usability, you're better off just not trying. Either fight it out on the useful page or give up, honestly. Me, I'd fight it out. Snowspinner 05:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I find this article largely biased in favor of Local Church. I am not a member of the Local Church, nor am I its critic. A curious student of knowledge like myself would find this article disappointing.

From the title of this article, it seems its relevant content would fit entirely under the article "Local Churches". However, at this time (Jan. 14, 2006), this article seems to have detracted from its supposed topic. It is now leaning largely toward "Defense against Local Church controversy". It gives minimum information regarding "who, what, where, when, why" about the controversies, and large body of information regarding "why not" about the conversies.

Although it is useful to learn the Local Church's reactions to these controversies (ie. agree, disagree, no comment), their explaination, defense, and most importantly, persuasion, is not necessary, nor relevant.

---

Please note the ongoing discussion in the Talk:Local Churches entry regarding the NPOV discussion. This particular article, while it presents some factual data, neglects quite a bit of information at this time. If time permits, I'll attempt to address this, but please be aware that I do not edit Wikipedia as a full time job.

For more information about my concerns, please visit my user page. If you would like to discuss these concerns, feel free to bring that up with me on my talk page.

TheLocalChurch 05:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Implementing the AfD result:

I will shortly replace this article with a #REDIRECT to Local churches. This REDIRECT-page which still holds the entire article history and this discussion page will not be deleted, to provide reference to further discussions.

It is most difficult for me, to put concise version of verfifiable criticism into Local churches, does anybody volunteer for this task? See also the sources mentioned by Irmgard [1]. --Pjacobi 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)