Talk:Local churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Christianity in China work group. See also Portal:Christianity in China.

(with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Most Important WIKI Guidelines

[edit] writing articles on religious subjects/groups

I've studied the WK guidelines and pages of discussion and as much edit wars as I was able to find. I also researched the contribution, deletion, and the ways the editing has been going on WK (for this and related article). Here is a summary of what I thought would be good to put here:

1. For any given topic, pro- writers will want to cast the group in as favourable light as possible. Con- writers will want to show the negative aspects of membership in the group, and the negative effects of the group and society in the world. Following WIKI guidelines helps to prevent topics from becoming pro- and con- battlegrounds. I'd like to summarize those guidelines I've found to be especially pertinent and useful.

1b. First, any useful, non-controversial statements such as 'the sky is blue' to which pro- and con- observers agree, and which are not obvious to the general reader, should be allowed without citations. This is because for many groups, no good secondary sources exist and basic information is always of use to the interested. “An example might be to describe the way in which baptism is carried out.” Or “The present order of worship.” This has nothing to do with controversy or showing the group in an favourable light. The meeting is a fact (eg: the sky is blue) and the order is a fact but then you can't have press articles or newspapers, or volumes of book written on this silly matters.”

2. However other thing related to doctrines and controversial aspect should be cited. That means adding an in-line reference for each line being written, so that the fact is numbered, and a footnote made in the reference section. [IMO, if it's not cited and it's in any way controversial you should not add the point at all.] The argument is often made, that exceptions should be made for beginners. I think that beginners should work like this from day one, and thus spared embarrassment and editor slams. (Which is how I learned.) Also we should not delete the whole section in a instant. We all should work together to present the facts and if we know that something is true (pro or con), we should not turn it into controversy or edit wars.

3. When you cite, use only 'secondary sources' such as encyclopedias, articles in scholary journals, and published books (which have been peer reviewed), or other responsible publishing houses. This is very important because only these sources know how to cross check information, avoid libelous issues, and generally provide a WP:NPOV. Do not use any of the following, which wikipedia disallows: Self-published sources, especially web sites either pro- or con-. See also WP:SPS. Newspaper articles, photos, diaries, journals, and so on. These are primary sources, and writing which uses such sources is original research which violates WP:NOR.

4. There is a situation where I believe newspaper articles can be used. This is the case of a survey newspaper or magazine article which is wide in scope and has performed background research. Newspaper articles however on specific events should not be used, especially historical events.

5. We don't delete sections when citations are needed. We use fact tags.

6. Anyone's work is good as long as one has a valid reason for what she/he is editing on the wikipedia. Before deleting a whole section based on "duplicate" item, please wait for a day or two to see if the editor is improving or editing the section or not. Please be patience!

7. Also, please check the reference page before you change a (or any) content quoted based on the references. (for ex. "devout to the movement" vs. the devout to Christ or the Lord", etc)

8. Some of the facts or things can't have citation. I am repeating it here, it is important to understand. For ex: the order of meeting can't have a (third party) citation (until and unless a group is 500 years or more old) and it can't have "simply" because these things are of not doctrinal or disputed item but a matter of observance.

9. Finally, if someone can not cite for something which you think should have citation, put a fact|date tag and try to improve it if you can cite it (and instead of deleting it or turning the article into a "stub").

Please consider these humble request in good conscience and do think on it. These are WK guidelines only and the experience of editing on WK on religious/controversial subjects. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Disputed Neutrality boilerplate

i've tried to sort out the mess that was the Controversies section by separating out the For and Against arguments. in light of that may i suggest removing the Disputed Neutrality boilerplate?

i suppose the Disputed Facts boilerplate should stay as sources are scarce, though, unless someone can suddenly find a wealth of online/written information.

[edit] About Local Church

The local churches are criticized on some websites for not having "traditional Christian doctrine"- whatever that is. Most Protestants would agree that the Christian church was hijacked by Roman Catholicism, and all kinds are things were added that are not Biblical, such as meeting in cathedrals, the worship of Mary, transubstantiation, and praying to "saints". They know that is NOT what the Church is, but until Watchman Nee, no one went back to the Bible to find out what the Church IS. The local churches are according to the Biblical pattern.

As far as doctrine goes, using the same Bible, the Lutherans saw more than the Catholics; they saw salvation by grace through faith. Through the years since then more light has been recovered (hence: recovery). Each time this has resulted in the building of a "tabernacle" to try to retain the light like Peter wanted to do on the Mount of Transfiguration. These "tabernacles" are the various denominations of Christianity. What Watchman Nee recovered is the "completing ministry" of the Apostle Paul (Col. 1:25) to reveal "the mystery" (26). This makes the whole New Testament, and indeed, the whole Bible make sense. It's like seeing the picture on the box of a jigsaw puzzle. The history of the "recovery" of truth and light is described on http://www.lordsrecovery.org/site_map/index.html .

Paul wrote over half of the New Testament, yet who knows what he was talking about? Watchman Nee showed that Paul focused on Christ living and being formed in us(Gal. 2:20,Gal. 4:19), being magnified and lived out of us(Phil. 1:20-21), that we as the church His Body, may become His fullness, His expression (Eph. 1:22-23). The Apostle Peter tells us that we are "partakers" of Christ's divine nature (2 Pet. 1:3-7). The Apostle John tells us that the divine life comes into us as the divine seed that we may live out a life that is like God (1 Jn. 2:29, 1 Jn. 3:9, 1 Jn. 4:17) to be the church, a lampstand, which bears the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 1:9, 11-12) which will consummate in the New Jerusalem for God's expression unto eternity (Rev. 21:2-3). This is all from one footnote in the Recovery Version of the Bible (James 1:26 fn.1) which just points out what has been under our noses for 2000 years, and we missed it somehow while we were concentrating on "rightly dividing" the Body of Christ.

Criticisms about "calling on the Lord", of course, cannot be defended by the Bible; the Bible is full of calling on the name of the Lord. Also, everyone hanging off a cliff by the fingers would probably call loudly and repeatedly. They probably wouldn't consider it "vain repetition". Criticisms of pray-reading can only be done by those who don't know Eph. 6:17-18.

Rev. 22:17 says, "And the Spirit and the Bride say 'come'..." Amen Lord! Come! You say "come", and we say "come". Lord, your Bride is longing for your return: Come!. There, that's pray-reading. Was that so scary? Heretical? ~~PalaceSpider~~

[edit] A Biased Soapbox

I am sorry to see such an unprofessional biased soapbox is permitted to exist in Wikipedia. There are a series of controversial claims which can not be verified to be true or accurate or based on any local church published materials. Wikipedia should not become a chatboard, whereby those who are negative against the local churches get to paste their claims (i.e. on a soapbox). It seems that accuracy and unobjective posting on topics, is unexplainedly not being required here. Why not have chatboard pages for every group in wikipedia? then those who are negative can repost their "unsubstaniated, biased, personal interpretations". This kind of trash journalism serves only to degrade wikipedia. I am not clear why posting quotes from the local church publishedn materials is not required for each "controversial claim"?. Allowing potentential misinterpretations or biased opinions masquerading as facts, is shameful and certainly below the standard of a fact based presentation. If one removes the controversial claims/personal opinions then the major content surround lawsuits which each one can be objectively verified and reported on. Whether wikipedia wants to act as link post for Pro/Con websites, my question is are there such pro/con website references for other christian groups/denominations i.e the catholic church, if they have controvery pages as well then the it would seem fair to do likewise. I think for instance in the ruling of Harvest House it would be very beneficial to post the decision (properly referenced), to note that in fact the court could not rule on the controversial claim of the LSM or the plaintiff churches as being a cult, as a matter of law they could not express an opinion on such a definition. The major controversy I have is why these opinions masquerading as facts have been allowed to remain? As for merging this topic with the main page, it seems to me that garbage in garbage out principle dictates this should not be done.

I think it is wrong to say you are God in any way; to sue Christians for faith; engage in violent screaming and repetitive mantra which is neither reading nor prayer; defending calvinism the pride of believing in being premade for salvation whiles others premade for hell; teaching modalism that the Father is the Son and that the Godhead is a Person; designate one's organization as abiding in Biblical locality when the very existence of a central command associated with products for sale violates the work of apostles; altering Watchman Nee's writings is bearing false witness.

This article should be an encyclopaedic summary of what the local church is, NOT an apologetic or diatribe by persons with biased points of view. What matters is NOT what YOU believe...what matters is that the article is FACTUAL and NEUTRAL point of view. NO ONE in the local church ever uses the word "mantra" (which is Hindu) so using it is BIASED. NO ONE in the local church says that Witness Leee is part of the Trinity. No one engages in "violent screaming". What is prayer and what is NOT prayer is in the eye of the believer, not in your eye. Free will and freedom of thought means that the individual person has the right, not YOU, to decide if what they are doing is prayer or not. And if that sounds agnostic, fine. The local church never taught modalism. Predestination is a major tenet of Calvinism (which last I checked, was considered CHRISTIAN several centuries ago). Also, it is YOU, not the local church, that teach about HELL (a word not even in the Bible...the Greek word is "Hades"). The local church only teaches what the Bible says...that some were found with their names written in the Book of Life, and others not (see Revelation 22). Last I checked, no one said that the BAPTISTS weren't Christian because they had a BAPTIST BOOK STORE. The bottom line: your ranting and raving is a poor reflection of YOU, not the local church. If the local church is wrong, it would only be because all religion and belief is wrong, there is no God, and atheism is correct. But if there is a God, and the Bible is the basis for belief ("all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching") then I would surmise that the local church is among the most logically correct of all denominations. Last I checked, I couldn't find the Easter Bunny in the Bible. Oh wait, that's because its a 'pagan' fertility goddess (Ishtar). Hmmm...but if you choose to believe that, its up to you...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disputed article text and discussion

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)

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

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. 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 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
Harvest House Frequently asked questions regarding the lawsuit
From Living Stream Ministries, a response:
Response to Harvest House Corporate Statement
And, the most recent response from Harvest House:
Harvest House Publishers and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry
(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, 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!

[edit] Points

I think it is important we stick the 6 major teachings of The Local Church, so we can hold those in Lee camp accountable instead of continually letting them off the hook by their not addressing these problems (i.e. always skirting around the facts): calvinism (pride in believing in being premade for salvation), suing for faith, modalism (saying the Father is the Son and the Godhead is a Person), altering Watchman Nee's writings (e.g. limiting affection to love and desire only to hate in LSM TSM), calling oneself God (in any way shape or form), and violent screaming mantra (which is neither prayer nor reading to yell 2 or 3 words aggressively).

Also, can we please stick to why it is wrong to have a central-hub command and control centre of LSM for filthy lucre, and no Aposles (which is rejecting Eph. 4.11). If the outlets of the lsm/lc system are without Apostles, then their outlets are taken care of by false Elders since those Elders are not and never will be appointed by Apostles. All this seems like quite a reasonable assessment stated succinctly. If only we could maintain the focus on these specific problems instead of always filling the pages with other matters, perhaps you will help this organization to find the way of the Dodo bird which is God's will. Sincerely. (unsigned comment)

The above rant does more to expose the negative motives of the anti-local church apologist fanatics than it does about the local church. Using words like "filthy lucre" is a joke! Last I checked, when I went to a Presbyterian church, they passed around a collection plate. At a local church meeting, there was NO COLLECTION PLATE. So, the charge is false and biased.

Two, the Catholic church has a central hub-command system. Each church has the right to structure itself the way it sees fit. To be honest, since Catholics are a majority of Christians and others (including Anglicans) have a central structure, in fact the opinionator is in the minority.

Three, an "apostle" is a "sent one." The local church has "apostles." However, they do not officially name persons "apostles". Not doing so is a sign of humility, as it is up to God to decide who is a real apostle or not.

Four, such a response is far from reasonable. If anything need go the way of the Dodo bird, it is those who spout off first without thinking, coming at a subject with an agenda and a closed mind.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

I've nominated the outsourced criticism page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy. According to our policy, the criticism almost always should be part of the main article. Some major editing here is needed. --Pjacobi 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I started this separate article, and I agree that for the sake of NPOV, it should be part of the main article. Chitu 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the January AfD was merge and major problems were seen with the Controversies article:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy

I've waited months that somebody knowledgeable would volunteer to do the prune and merge, but to no avail. To end thsi stalemate, I bluntly inserted the entire Controversies article here and hope for merciless editing to resolve the problems. --Pjacobi 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I want 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)

Last I checked, freedom of religion meant the right to believe whatever one chooses. What I find controversial is not the local church teachings but the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments. In the 1500's, Martin Luther was 'controversial'...but 500 years later, we see that he was right about a great many things. But in this case, right or wrong does not matter, what matters is a NPOV. Considering that most of the 'controversy' in fact amounts to apologist attacks from outsiders, might WIKIPEDIA consider downplaying the 'controversial' aspect. Might we say that all religion is controversial to those who do not agree with it.→ R Young 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Might I say the above stories miss the mark. First, this talk page should be about the local church, not one's personal experiences. Second, since no one is forced to join a 'brother's house'/'sisters house', what is the point of explaining it? After all, the vast majority of local church members live in their private homes. 'Brothers houses' and 'sisters houses' are ther to provide alternatives to dorm living. One thing I do agree on: there is no force; if you don't want to be there, you are free to leave.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 11:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ryoung, you are right in that what's controversial is "the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments." What's more disturbing is that the critical sites are written by the same group of people.

--Pehkay

[edit] A Mess

This article is a mess. It seems there isn't an editor available who knows something about the subject and is able and willing to write encyclopedic style. Silly disclaimers like As the issues here are of disputed neutrality and accuracy, it is hoped that Wikipedians will add (rather than delete) information to point out any deficiencies in these respects, in the spirit of having a neutral, factual discussion. (in article space!) don't help much. --Pjacobi 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to volunteer to be an editor for this topic. I have attended meetings at the local church for a few years and have a good grasp of their teachings. Since 2002, I have not participated in any meetings or had contacts with anyone involved with the Local Church. Having been on both sides, I believe I will make a good editor. Please let me know how to best proceed as an editor.FredCheng 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to say wikipedia is a wonderful site. But is becoming more or less generic and it seems to be digressing. If it were upto me I would have gotten rid of this article on the local churches along time ago. This action should have been foreseen whether or not who put the article up. I'm not quite sure who put the article up, but from what I can tell its points are somewhat inaccurate, especially the allegations. It sickens me to have seen this. This is not a controversy, its just crap and uselessness. You people have no position to make this article, especially if you have never witnessed the church life. I've been in the church life for 17 years, and it sickens me to see this horrid stuff on here. I can honestly tell the viewers of this site that they are becoming bigots of bigotry just falling into this madness.

I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.

It disgusts me that members of the Body should be called "followers of Lee", "Leeists", or believers in "Leeism". Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were both faithful servants used by the Lord to recover many truths lost over the years. God gave them the revelations. Do not think that Witness and Watchman thought it all up on their own and then tried to spread their teachings. Believers who meet with the local churches should NEVER be called followers of Lee. The Bible is their standard and the Lord is one and only Head. They would never think that they are in "Lee's church" or that Living Stream Ministry is in charge of everything.

[edit] Claims Need to Be Verified -- or Retracted

Please explain your unsubstantiated claim that "the critical sites are written by the same group of people." The "same" in what sense? They're not all with the same organization, not all located in the same part of the world, not all of the same theological persuasion. Thank you.

Neil Duddy involved with SCP wrote "God-men" in defaming the LC, which were retracted.

John Weldon of Harvest House, was involved with SCP wrote another book at the same time from 1977-78. Thread of Gold's author is with the Bereans Apologetic board. etc..

[edit] Moved Allegations to New Page

I have created a Allegations page, because I believe having allegations on the main page gives the organisation a bad look, and therefore destroys the organisation's reputation.
I don't see any allegations on the front page of Wikipedia, and I don't think it is in Wikipedia's interests to create a article with a bias point of view.
-Michael Quantum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelquantum (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

You need to do this according to wikipedia guidelines, not to protect the organization: this isn't your personal project; please check Wikipedia guidelines and then give the justification for this on the discussion page or it will need to be reverted. For example of a (now) good page about handling controversial articles related to faith-groups see the page and discussion page of Great Commission Association. That's one that's been relatively genial and which has become fairly balanced. Thanks. : ) Infinitelink (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Editors from local churches

My first advice to help leeists is to ask them to be intellectually honest with themselves at the very least. In the matter of their thinking the Son is the Father and the Godhead is a Person rather than 3 Persons they should ask themselves where evidence for their theory exists and why change Christianity after all these centuries?

They want to feel special with their special teaching and revelation to self-exalt themselves above mankind and God, but if their thoughts can't be proven, they are receiving teaching from the evil spirit whom is Satan to separate themselves from God wittingly or unwittingly. Self-declarations are deadly points of pride.

Recall Satan tries to replicate God's design and plans, for the Devil is the great deceiver. Satan, the false accuser, feels God's design is a cosmic gag reel for God's own sadistic pleasure, by placing everything in opposites: look but don't touch, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow. Satan suffers from his own mistaken assumptions about reality through his initial disobedience to the Triune Godhead. The truth of his mistaken assumption, of course, is that sin is so nefarious it penetrates all things and confuses proper order in relationship with God that it appears everything is placed in opposites, but it is not the case at all. There is no yin yang. The truth would be in some cases look but don't taste, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow.

Since we find in the Bible evidence for the Father being a distinct personage from the Son and the Spirit before the foundations of the world then a Christian holds no assumptions and accepts plainly what the Scriptures tell us that God is a Triune Being of One Substance. Leeists, on the other hand, suffer greatly by their assumptions in their 6 major sins of leeism...http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm

The same test of faith can be observed in other areas as well such as these false teachings they harbor: screaming mantra, suing for faith, bearing false witness (e.g. against Watchman Nee's writings), calvinism (claiming they were premade for salvation like robots), calling themselves God (deification) and central-command and control of all their outlets under the ownership of The Local Living Stream Ministry Church.

Remember, according to Biblocality in the Scriptures, there is no central command, but apostles are regional workers. Not only is the Roman Church wrong so is the The Local Church for their divisive centrality. Do not divide the body of Christ by theories of men: "I of Apollos" or "I of Cephas," (denoms) nor even "I of Christ" (non-denoms); the church locale has no central command apart from Christ Himself. The Biblical locality is within a region of churches only, e.g. church of Jerusalem in the churches of Judea, the church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia Minor, or the church of Antioch in the churches of Syria.

There is no evidence in God's Word for the LLSMC false teachings, and evidence exists for these ideas being false, so they should be rejected. The prayers of the body of Christ is for your acceptance of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.74.101 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the Article from 'Local Churches' to "The Lord's Recovery"

I would like to propose the change of the article name from the "Local Churches" to "The Lord's Recovery" as the members of this organisation call themselves and refer to themselves as.Michaelquantum 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.

The quote that is quoted above from an insider has the answer to your request or if not than atleast some insight to it. Let the name be as it is. Further changes will create more mess. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and Unbiased opinions needed

We all have agreements/disagreements points of views about different opinions and views.

However, please give an unbiased description and cite sources about the "local churches", the editor pehkay appears to be a member of the local church organization and writing a lecture of a sermon of the organization's point of view.

Just as an lobbyist or company for an organization tried to use their point of view in promoting legislation or a product, ie the bankruptcy bill, or "tort reform" legislation, so pehkay is trying to do this.

There is nothing wrong if pehkay wants to cite, but he/she needs to also be unbiased and list critics and sources. This is rational and fair. We don't need a person from the organization dominating this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyuse200 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is sorely lacking in sources- the first paragraph has 8 links for sources and then none; other then 4 links to one website that is owned by the "church."
I will give the page some time, then I will reccomend turning it into a stub.
Also there are too many critical links WP:UNDUE and many of them are weak, blogs and the like. Sethie (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Blogs should be removed. Thanks HopeChrist (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for Encyclopedic type information - which means that it should contain unbiased factual information on the topic - not recruiting style advertising: or everything is rosy, smoke and mirrors. This could include information that may not be positive or wanted by people associated with the topic to become the public view. Also, there is a lot of disinformation in this page. For example, the "links of web sites supportive of the Local Church" are all sites published by Local Church members - not by serious scholars or anyone who has done serious objective study of the group from an outsiders perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the article "local churches" is not a great one as there are not so many good faith editors working on to improve it. Also the article is not so clear about what really the local churches is? and how is it Lord's Recovery? and other information about the believes of this movement. There is much to be written and expanded and made clear to both Christians and non-Christians alike. (I believe this is the purpose of wikipedia - all users could access trustworthy information.)
I think under the section "sites supportive of LC" there is an external evaluation from "Fuller Theological Seminary". These sites are not from LSM or any any LC. These are independent sites (no doubt created by people of same faith); but then the information contained inside these cites are factual and correct; and not to deceive others.
However, there is no information control going on by anyone but but there is lack of co-ordination between the editors. If all the editors could place more weight on FACTS than to Good or Bad, any article could be made great. For example, there are many Christian scholarly critics of Local Church movement and doctrine -- > Factually true. So let it be. Now scholars accuse LC by saying they believe in the doctrine of Modalism ---- > Factually wrong, so tell this too. Another example, LC emphasize on being the Lord's recovery and both Nee and Lee were crucial in God's move----> Factually true, so let it be in the article. Some other say, LC is of Witness Lee ---> Factually wrong, as the history of LR or LC didn't say that. LC is different than other Christian denomination ---> Factually true, few difference in the ways meetings are carried can be seen in the article. Some say, so it is a cult ---> Factually wrong; cult? based on what parameters (a cult based on lawsuits, a cult based on defending herself by presenting the truth, ??), etc, etc ... so if we place greatest weight on the FACTS, all the readers of wikipedia will have some beneficial gain.Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)