Talk:Witness Lee

message: Whatever "Administer"'s views might be about Witness Lee, please discuss factual (verifiable) issues in these pages. If you question the neutrality of the article, please state your reasons so we can discuss them. Cokoli 02:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article lacks third-party reliable sources; it depends only on material from Living Stream Ministry and Lee.  That creates a POV and validity problem.--Parkwells (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I've reverted the addition of extensive criticisms because they are not sourced. Particlularly when we are making allegation of sexual and financial improprieties we need to have verifiable sources that we can attribute the allegations to. I can't find them in the listed sources. -Willmcw 22:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Witness Lee was against letting anyone know his birthdate, lest someone try to idolize it.  However, he was reported to be born in 1905 and died June 9, 1997, aged 91, so he must have been born between June 10 and Dec 31, 1905.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: The Harvest House controversy occurred well after Witness Lee passed away, and so I question whether this is relevant.  Also, Harvest House attacked first, launching a lawsuit and libelous accusations.  Rulings in Harvest House's favor have centered on "free speech" rulings, rather than whether what they said was true or not.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvest House controversy 

message: How is it that "the Lord' recovery" and "oneness" is mentioned but no one has seen fit to include Lee's clearly most central doctrine "God's Economy"? I think the lack of its inclusion is evidence that this article originated mostly in light of controversy surrounding Lee and not in attempts to present an encyclopedic entry on the man. I compared this article to a number of others Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Jr. and L. Ron Hubbard an found Lee's entry extremely deficient. Why have so many Local Church members found the energy to edit this article, but so few actually contribute to make it informative? Certainly no critic is going to advocate the removal of real information.
I think the pattern has been set with Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard to separate their religious movements into separate articles as well as controversy detail... but certainly there is more about Witness Lee's life that is not included in this entry--not just specific teachings, but his life. I think that this entry would best be served by a solid presentation of Lee's life and work, here is the outline I propose based on my understanding or Lee's life and ministry:
1 Early life (pre-U.S)
  1.1 Birth/childhood
  1.2 Christian conversion and early ministry
  1.3 Joining with Watchaman Nee
  1.4 Exit from China/Lee's continuation of Nee's ministry in Asia
2 Later life (in the U.S.)
  2.1 Lee's move to the U.S.
  2.2 Raising up local churches
  2.3 Establishing of the Living Stream Ministry
  2.4 Early Controversy/SCP Lawsuit
  2.5 Return to Taiwan/Development of the New Way
  2.6 Establishing the Full Time Training
  2.7 The High Peak of the Divine Revelation
  2.8 Entrusting his work to a coordinated group of co-workers
  2.9 His death and memorial
3 Major teachings
  3.1 The Ground of Oneness
  3.2 God's Economy
  3.3 The High Peak Truths
4 Writings/Published Works
  4.1 The Publication of Spoken Messages
  4.2 The Life-Study of the Bible
  4.3 The Recovery Version of the Bible
  4.4 Watchman Nee--A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age
  4.5 The Crystallization Study of the Bible
  4.6 Hymns
5 Legacy
  5.1 The Local Churches
  5.2 The Living Stream Ministry
6 Footnotes
7 External Links
I think that the above outline would provide a solid framework for presenting the life and work of Witness Lee. There may be key things that I left out so, I encourage feedback and suggestions. I think that critics, supporters and those who don't know anything about Witness Lee will be well served by a more encyclopedic entry. Please offer some feed back and suggest any resources for information. I would love to know when Lee began to publish his own works in addition to those of Watchman Nee. I have always associated Lee's move to the U.S. with the establishment of his own ministry, can anyone offer some information on that? When did Lee publish his first work under his own moniker?
--Gijones 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been edited quite a bit and it may be that "God's economy" was included prior but was deleted along the way.Ryoung122 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly think that this entry should focus entirely on Witness Lee, and any info on the LSM, the Local Churches or The Lord's Recovery should be limited in scope to their direct relation to Lee. Major teachings should be presented plainly and should not be presented as either truth or error. I think that it can be said, that a major teaching is controversial, but the points of controversy don't have to be elaborated; if it is something that deserves a point-by-point presentation of controversy, then it should live in a new entry and be linked. The subjects "the Lord's recovery" and "one in Christ" are nearly disjointed from a proper and complete context in their relation to Lee. The Lord's recovery section goes way too deeply into information on a concept and looses the focus of the subject--Witness Lee. Something like "the Lord's recovery" is substantial enough to warrant its own entry. How does one go about making such significant changes without upsetting the community involved in this entry? I guess I can slowly add information to the entry and then re-organize it later... thoughts from anyone? --Gijones 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the changes or modification is possible without any significant dispute only when we focus mainly on Witness Lee and on his life and work. For controversy and related stuff there is now already a new page on wiki (controversy- local- churches). All doctrinal issues can be put there without ruining this entry. -HopeChrist, HopeChrist (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A major change to this entry (a proposal) 

message: I think that saying that the ground of oneness is based on a single eldership is wrong. I have never encountered such a teaching in Lee's ministry. Now, there may be some practice like this among some churches, but I don't believe that this is in any way associated with what Lee believed and taught on this matter. Please provide some reference to support this if it is true.
Lee published a book on this very subject called The Genuine Ground of Oneness in which seems to contradict the idea that eldership is the bases for the ground of oneness. I am including a few quotes for consideration. You can read the book in its entirety online.
It is crucial for us to see that the oneness among God's children is preserved by life and light. It is not maintained through doctrine, organization, or maneuvering.
The ground of oneness is not simply a matter of one city, one church. The ground of oneness is deeper, richer, higher, and fuller than this...simply be in the church life enjoying Christ as the riches of the good land. As we enjoy Him with God, we shall be planted in the house of the Lord, we shall grow, and we shall flourish. This is the proper way to have the Christian life and the church life. This is the ground of oneness.
I am going to post a request for a citation, if no one can post a citation, I will remove the reference to eldership and replace is with something from The Genuine Ground of Oneness which can be directly cited. I think that it is abundantly clear that "oneness" in Lee's ministry is simply the opposite of "division" and not any kind of system or organization of any type.
--Gijones 00:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "One in Christ" 

message: Putting external links inline is ugly. That arrow sign interrupt my reading. If that is intended as a reference, put it under reference section. I have fixed a few, but not all of them. SDiZ (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. Someone need to fix that. If I'm free soon, I'll fix them up. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline external link 

message: Hi all,
I see that the citation tag is still sitting on the top of this article (since April 2008). It has been long time and since no one has provided the valid sources, it is better to remove all the unsourced materials/statements (both objective and subjective & positive and negative) from the article and to put it here on the talk page (for discussion, NPOV, objectivity, and citation). I will go one by one without disrupting the flow and meaningfulness of the article.
If you find that your writing is removed/deleted and put into this section, please don't take it personally rather try to provide source(s) and cite it and put it back in the article at its appropriate place. Thank Y'll. HopeChrist (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: #1. "Beginning on January 1, 1943, the church met continuously for one hundred days. As a result, over 800 believers consecrated their all to the Lord, some even offering to migrate to remote northwestern China for the gospel. Toward the end of that time, in May 1943, Witness Lee was arrested by the Japanese army and was imprisoned for one month."
Does anyone have an independent source for the revival in Chefoo especially since it is referred to a a "great" revival? What does this mean? Is it related to Witness Lee or was it was the revival the result of other peoples work. It seems out of place here almost as if it is left over from some previous content? Appropo (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it is connected to its preceding paragraph. However, I think I've found the link and source: ::This is mentioned in the book "The History of the Church and the Local Churches by Witness Lee" and it is available on Living Stream's website and on Google as well link. I think, I'll quote this and put it back in the article some time soon.
The problem with this is that you have no independent verification of a "revival" in Chefoo other than from Witness Lee's writings. This is not an independent source, rather it is just a claim that is just as unreliable as if I had claimed a revival started in my home town in my church as a result of my effort. Unless independent verification can be found, this should be removed as it is clearly no a NPOV. Localchurch (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, this revival is related to Witness Lee and other christian believers of Chefoo local church. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Unsourced and Subjective Matter 

message: This article has a tone tag. I have read it several times and as it stand now, I believe, it's the right time for the discussion on the tone of this article. I will remove the "tag" after one week from today, unless I hear from at-least another editor of this article. If you are just a reader and feel that the tag should remain – please explain the reasons and give us some hint on it. Thank You. HopeChrist (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of the article 

message: For this article to stand the test of quality (B-level), I think, it will require a free domain picture of Witness Lee. Does anyone have any idea on how to put a picture of him. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what I thought to be the Lord's leading I added a "personally taken" photo of Witness Lee to the Wikimedia free media repository on 3/14/09. If deemed appropriate by others, would someone please go ahead and utilize that photo [or a re-cropped version] on this page? Here is the direct link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WitnessLeeSpeakingOct1987TaipeiTaiwan.jpg Srsrnelson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.60.56 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Thanks! HopeChrist (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of witness lee 

message: There is a problem with this quote from Witness Lee which is typical of a non-theologian trying to make a theology and that is this: Lee defines "the recovery", which is something that needs to be accomplished because something is lacking or corrupted in terms of things that have already taken place, i.e. "God becoming the flesh, the flesh becoming the life-giving Spirit, and the life-giving Spirit becoming the sevenfold intensified Spirit", and "the church that becomes the Body of Christ and that consummates the New Jerusalem." God becoming is not intended in the modalistic sense (see discussion above) and so it is a fact not an accomplishment or a future act. In similar fashion, the church is the Body of Christ and therefore is not "becoming". This is typical of Witness Lee's teachings and in fact is not what he meant by saying this. He most likely meant that we need to learn to enjoy and appropriate the fact of "God becoming the flesh, the flesh becoming the life-giving Spirit, and the life-giving Spirit becoming the sevenfold intensified Spirit", and "the church that becomes the Body of Christ and that consummates the New Jerusalem." Since Lee didn't actually write, but spoke things, it is virtually impossible to make a theology out of what he said since it was spoken in the moment and with a context using English as a second language and primarily spoken for the edification of the listeners. No one needs to "recover" God becoming the flesh" and so without explaination these types of quotes are unintelligible to those not familiar with Lee's speaking. This quote is also not consistent with Lee's other speaking on the recovery referring to the recovery of practices such as calling on the name of the Lord. Lee is not a theologian, but a practitioner. He rarely spoke of truths that were not already "recovered" by others, but instead emphasized their practice. It is my opinion that this quote is therefore inappropriate and should be replaced by a better explanation of what Lee meant by "the recovery".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Witness Lee was both a practitioner and a theologian. He did preached much on how various Christian groups of past practiced their faith but he also did expounded the Bible and taught doctrines such as Believers as the New Jerusalem, God's Economy as God dispensing Himself into man to make the corporate man into the Body and Bride, etc...! Dear Localchurch, Please explain specifically your point on your above comments. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think I liked the idea that we should expand that paragraph and explain further or link how this is related to God's recovery in Lee's vision. It will serve the readers in a greater way. This article is about Witness Lee and his life and works. The itemized Christians and groups are the very notable and important aspect of Lee's life and ministry. HopeChrist (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery 

message: HopeChrist,
Please reference http://www.witnesslee.org/life-ministry.html and search for wise master builder.--Localchurch (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the reference mentions Lee as "certainly a wise master builder". However, the sentence as you have put into the God's economy paragraph, doesn't fit with it. May be a new section in the article would do the justice. The thing is -- we should not confuse the reader with the words. Tell the facts and then insert a reference. Putting something in the parenthesis in the middle of a running sentence is not at all encyclopedic. That's all, that's my only concern. If you want to put it, put it -- if that makes sense! To me "wise master builder" sentence without an explanation would be incomplete, vague, and with double meaning. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wise Master Builder 

message: This is too detailed already. "First Witness brushed his teeth, then Witness made a change to hymn # 1158," etc. Readers are going to begin to think the writers idolize his every move. Localchurch (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymns 

message: A list of books written by the subject was deleted with this edit summary:
*List is not exhaustive and therefore can't be NPOV and appears as advertising not encyclopedic.
I don't understand the point. How is a partial list not NPOV? Many articles on people who've written books have partial lists. Could the editor explain the deletion more fully?   Will Beback  talk   08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess that little about this person is studied outside of local church followers. How do we know which books are popular and which are controversial? Better to just add them all.   Will Beback  talk   18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Do they have a list?   Will Beback  talk   21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a list here, http://ministrybooks.org/witness-lee-books.cfm But even then, it isn't complete and books are still being published. And the collected works of witness lee, http://www.livingstream.com/collected-works-wl.html, is still on its way. 60.48.248.196 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books 

message: I would like to make available a couple more graphics that may add depth and value to this page about Witness Lee. [I am the same person who made the photo of WL available]
First picture is of a wall plaque which my wife and I received as a wedding gift in 1975. It contains 12 quotations by Witness Lee and it is dated 1932 at the bottom.
*150dpi image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/wwhw_wl_150dpi.jpg
*200dpi image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/wwhw_wl_200dpi.jpg
Second image is a negative rendering [my idea to make it look like chalk on a blackboard] of two actual pages [merged] from Witness Lee's journal in 1997. This was handed out as an 8.5X11" photocopy during an Elders Training in 2006. We were told that this was Witness Lee's actual handwriting:
*Image: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_Acts20/WL_neg_ab3_50pct.gif
*Translation: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_Acts20/sacrificeX8merged.txt
Anyway, I am hopeful that you all might feel these should be incorporated into this page about Witness Lee.
Thanks!
I agree to release my contributions under the GFDL
Srsrnelson (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WL Quotations – 1932 and WL Handwritten Journal Page – 1997 

message: In the 1980's Lee developed what he called the new way. It inlcuded having home meetings, going door to door to preach the gospel, the coming together of all the saints for 5(or7) annual feasts or conferences and the training of full-time cowokers . This was the final vision of Witness Lee toward which he labored until his death. I propose that this be added with a discussion of the impact of this change on the local churches. Appropo (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say this: I could be an atheist or impartial observer, and recognize that IF you believe that the local chuch is God's way, then yes, leaving it is a "sin" in their perspective. But to go further and suggest that "all former attendees must be quarantined" is simply paranoid ranting. Anyone is free to leave, forever if they choose, and many have done so. However, being free to leave does NOT give one a free license to spread lies and false rumors. The other side of "freedom of speech" is to not be libelous or slanderous in that speech.Ryoung122 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Way 

message: From Wiki: "The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with orthodox Christianity in the following ways:
:"The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in orthodox Christianity at the time and since. The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church. A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage. Some of the Montanists were also "Quartodeciman" ("fourteeners"), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. The orthodoxy held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)"
The reference to Montanism in the article is vague. Does Witness believe in all of Montanism or certain parts? If this is part of the recovery did Lee advocate speaking as God, "Thus saith the Lord..."? Does the speaking of Lee supersede the doctirnes proclaimed by the Apostles? Did Lee teach that Chritians who fell from grace can not be redeemed? Does Lee forbid remarriage? These are just examples that show that trying to tie Lee and Nee to Montanism is not helpful in this article. However, if there are specific things of the Montanists that are crucial to Lee's teachings then maybe they should just be stated rather than a claimed lineage from the Montanists. Maybe it is better to leave this reference out rather than spend the time to justify it. Maybe the same can be said of all the other references. We will have to see. Appropo (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "The foundation of the doctrines of the Priscillianists was Gnostic-Manichaean dualism, a belief in the existence of two    kingdoms, one of Light and one of Darkness. Angels and the souls of men were said to be severed from the substance of the Deity. Human souls were intended to conquer the Kingdom of Darkness, but fell and were imprisoned in material bodies. Thus both kingdoms were represented in man, and hence a conflict symbolized on the side of Light by the Twelve Patriarchs, heavenly spirits, who corresponded to certain of man's powers, and on the side of Darkness by the Signs of the Zodiac, the symbols of matter and the lower kingdom. The salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter. The twelve heavenly spirits having failed to accomplish their release, the Saviour came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of earthly matter. These doctrines could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture only by a complex system of exegesis, rejecting conventional interpretations and relying on personal inspiration. The Priscillians respected most of the Old Testament but rejected the creation story. Several of the apocryphal Scriptures were acknowledged to be genuine and inspired. Because the Priscillians believe that matter and nature were evil, they became ascetics and fasted on Sundays and Christmas Day. Because their doctrines were esoteric and exoteric, and because it was believed that men in general could not understand the higher paths, the Priscillianists, or at least those of them who were enlightened, were permitted to tell lies for the sake of a holy end. Augustine wrote his famous work, "De mendacio" ("Of lies") in reaction to this doctrine."
Does Witness Lee teach that "salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter" and more specifically that "the Savior came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of earthly matter"? Does Witness "reject the creation story", believe that matter and nature were evil"? Does Witness advocate asceticism or does he permit "lies for the sake of a holy end"? In what way does the writer of this article believe Witness Lee and Watchman Nee are part of the recovery that went back to the Priscillianists? Maybe it is better to leave this reference out rather than spend the time to justify it. Appropo (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "According to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, the Lord's recovery can be traced back at least to God's raising up of Martin Luther and the reformers, and continued in recovering lost biblical truths through others such as Madame Guyon, Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian Brethren, John Nelson Darby, the Plymouth Brethren, Watchman Nee, and himself. He believed that one of the primary items that God used him and Watchman Nee to recover was the oneness of all believers in Christ, and the practical expression of this oneness in the practice of the local churches."
This previous description of Lee's stand seems accurate and NPOV. It is supported by the references in the Relationship with Christianity. Maybe some of it should be worked into the current article in some way or another. Appropo (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord's Recovery 

message: Like other biographies, this one probably should include the name of Witness Lee's wife, her maiden name, the date or year of their marriage, and the names of all children (living and deceased), and the year of their birth. This should especially be the case for children who held a significant role in Lee's ministry or who inherited special careers or vocations.
A good biography will also indicate whether the person was widowed, divorced, separated, married more than once, and other facts pertinent to marriage and family. Was Lee's marriage arranged by his family? Any other details pertinent to his genealogy should be included. 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages, Children 

message: For the sake of accuracy, is "Witness" (Chángshòu) the given name of Mr Li? According to Angus Kinnear, Watchman Nee's given name was Shu-tsu which he later changed to Tuòshēng (gong-ringer, or Watchman) later in life. Is it possible that Witness Lee followed a similar path, and that he was given a different name at birth, but adopted the new name of Chángshòu following a conversion or spiritual experience?  Are there any reliable sources or biographies on this point? EricP (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witness Lee's given name 

message: “Despite Witness Lee's controversial statements, not all evangelicals agree that his teachings are a departure from the orthodox Christian faith.” Witness Lee’s controversial statements have nothing to do with departure from orthodox Christian faith. The statements in the section on Witness Lee's view of Christianity are regarding Witness Lee’s belief that his work is separate from Christianity and Christendom, not the Christian faith. Whereas Gretchen Passantino, Hank Hanegraaff and Fuller Theological Seminary are responding to allegations that Witness Lee’s teachings not discussed in this article are heretical. The quotes from Witness Lee are criticism against the Roman Catholic Church and all the Protestant Churches. Witness Lee’s stance on “the essentials that define biblical orthodoxy” are not disputed in the entire article. This added paragraph is an attempt to fight “windmills” that do not exist here. This article does not quote any of the above writers nor anyone affiliated with them. Consequently, until and unless this article were to include Witness Lee’s controversies, these paragraphs are inappropriate here.Appropo (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Apology 

message: I was in the "Local Church" movement for over 10 years.  As so many people in the movement know, but are loathe to admit,there is a large constituent of people who have experienced the "cultish" nature of the group and have left.  Upon initial examination their doctrines may appear sound, but all one must do is delve deeper into the more meaty teachings to discover some very questionable ideas.  I have experienced first hand "calling on the name of the Lord" and "pray reading", both of which have no basis in scripture.  I have had heard from the mouth of Witness Lee himself many many derisive and divisive comments about poor pitiful Christianity.  I heard the stories in the summer and winter trainings about people who left the movement only to meet with untimely death or a total decay of their moral condition.  I was there when Witness Lee was alive.  The local church for our city met in our house.  We were sold out – not on the fringe by any means – for the group. The teachings that are the most like all other cults are the ones that stress that the Recovery is God's move on the earth today.  Funny thing, this is taught by all cults out there.  There are many many other teachings that take the truth and tweak it just enough to make it rotten.  Just like rat poison is only 1% strictnine so the local church doctrine though almost right is just enough off to be deadly.  After almost having a nervous breakdown under the relentless pressure of performance, I took a break and visited a poor pitiful Christian church only to find that what I was taught by the local church about all of Christianity being degraded and empty was blatantly untrue.  I have grown and matured immensely as a believer since leaving this movement and hope and pray that others will find their freedom too.
I think one of the last straws was in one winter training when Witness Lee had re-written the beloved hymn, Hark the Herald Angels Sing to fit his own theology.  The line that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up was "baby Gods and soon we'll fly" – sounds pretty reminiscent of other cult teachings of today.  And when people would stand up in these meetings and shout, I am becoming God, I knew it was time to leave.  I know that the folks in this group will never admit that it functions like a cult, because that is how all people in a cult think, but I hope this posting can help at least one poor confused soul find their way out.  I am sure glad I did – I am a born again, growing into maturity believer and am so thankful to be free from the false teaching and oppression found in that group and to be a member of the living body of Christ.  You know, Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  This includes all of Christianity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulagles (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the ground of oneness in the local churches 

message: Where did the birthdate in this article come from? The source cited does NOT provide a birthdate. Is this just an example of people making up data when the answer is not known?Ryoung122 21:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: As the section heading is stated "the basis for the believers' oneness", it needs to be made more clear what is the basis. It's never stated.
"The church as the Body of Christ has two aspects, universal and local."
The distinction made between the universal and local church is never made. Just language on the local.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "The Basis for the Believers’ Oneness in the Church" 

message: Actual church practices are not stated.Chuckd83 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Church Practice" 

message: Article says:  "Lee’s mother studied in an American Southern Baptist mission school and was baptized as a teenager into the Southern Baptist Church."  There is no such thing as "the Southern Baptist Church"!  There are independent Baptist churches,  local congregations.  Some of these send representatives to the Southern Baptist Convention (not "Church").  You don't get baptized into the Southern Baptist Convention.  Spirit baptism puts anyone into the Body of Christ, the Church universal & catholic, not some denomination.  Water baptism is an obedience to the command of Christ indicating that one believes Christ died and rose again.  Water baptism is a prerequisite in many local churches for local church membership, but in such a local church one is not "baptized into a church."  Whatever is said requires a reliable source.  If you have a reliable source for it, just say, "was baptized as a teenager and became a member of a baptist church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention."  (EnochBethany (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  false statement about Southern Baptists needs deleting 

message: Substituted at 10:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: To Back to Walvis Bay: I am not 'complaining about secularization.' Let us please avoid straw men while giving each others' viewpoints the careful and objective consideration that successful collaboration requires. I actually think that the article's language should be secularized as much as possible and it is obvious that it is not to be a vehicle for 'religious promotion.' However, this should not come at the cost of conveying the intended meaning.
What is the 'intended meaning' you ask? It is simply an inference drawn from what the writer wrote with the citation they provided. Again, to revise the language is one thing. To change the meaning of what is being conveyed is another. For example:
The article originally  stated that Nee and his co-workers decided to send Witness Lee to Taiwan to preserve Nee's ministry and which was cited, in part, with Laurent. That statement is exactly what Laurent, who is being cited, recounts. It was changed to "Witness Lee moved to Taiwan" and the portion about preservation removed (but the citation left).  For Lee to be "sent" to Taiwan by Nee and his co-workers and for Lee to "move" to Taiwan are not the same thing. The revision, therefore, does not simply secularize the article. It removes important facts and changes the meaning of what is being conveyed. Do you see now why I disagree with some of the changes?
Concerning the wholesale revision of changes (which must refer to my activity in Local churches (affiliation) because I did not do that for this article) I respectfully disagree that it is my responsibility to check each of the changes to cited material to ensure corroboration. I feel it would be better if the one instituting the changes did this themselves. However, I am willing to do this if the end result is that the article is improved.
In the end, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this and will refrain from doing another full revert. But I do hope that we can work together to secularize the language of this and the related article (where necessary) but also try to preserve language that best conveys any unique or salient characteristics of this person/group.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishai 300 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Secularizing Language in Article