Apostle Dog wrote in part:

JRS should have listened to his own tapes.



_____________________________________________________________________

You're right. Another of his tapes he should have listened to was "Is God Enough for Me?"

He worked long hours, probably was highly stressed, faced a lot of expectations and responsibilities and had cancer and all of that could have made anyone vulnerable and lead them to make relationship choices based on emotional needs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2015 03:58PM by lily rose.

For years I've worked long hours, been highly stressed, faced a lot of expectations and responsibilities...but so far the only relationship choice I've made based on an emotional need has been with my dog.
Our relationship is purely platonic, in case anyone is wondering. Neither one demands that the other submit to him. I fetch my own newspaper every morning, and maintain a right spirit doing so (I think). He makes his own bed, or tries to, and I'm fine with the result.

Whatever messages he brought on ministries being accountable for their actions, would be good ones to listen to. I've noticed that when something goes horribly wrong, often starting with bad decisions from leadership, somehow the sheep are put on the spot for either not having enough faith, having a bad spirit/unbroken spirit...something along those lines. I feel it's been a manipulative device to keep top leadership from assuming responsibility for their misdeeds.
Did John ever assume any responsibility before the congregations for the mine debacle (among other things)--where many, who could least afford, lost a good chunk of their savings?
If so, disregard this comment :)



ily rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apostle Dog wrote in part:
>
> JRS should have listened to his own tapes.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> ___________________
>
> You're right. Another of his tapes he should have
> listened to was "Is God Enough for Me?"
>
> He worked long hours, probably was highly
> stressed, faced a lot of expectations and
> responsibilities and had cancer and all of that
> could have made anyone vulnerable and lead them to
> make relationship choices based on emotional
> needs.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whatever messages he brought on ministries being
> accountable for their actions, would be good ones
> to listen to. I've noticed that when something
> goes horribly wrong, often starting with bad
> decisions from leadership, somehow the sheep are
> put on the spot for either not having enough
> faith, having a bad spirit/unbroken
> spirit...something along those lines. I feel it's
> been a manipulative device to keep top leadership
> from assuming responsibility for their misdeeds.
>
>____________________________________________________________________

I agree. The way I see it (having read an accounting that begins in 2004 of actions by TLWF on these message boards) is the sheep prayed like Hannah for JRS only to have their commissioned spiritual leaders become their adversaries, ridiculing and persecuting them. And then, when the Internet appears, the spiritual leaders become troubled that their actions are publically made known to the world. Many pastors and ministries can lose touch with the messages they teach their congregations about God's ways and TLWF has not been alone in this.

Examine everything!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2015 02:32AM by lily rose.

Exactly

In the Walk, all the blame went down hill to the congregation. All the praise, all the prayer for, went to the leader. Now what exactly is wrong with that picture?

I was in another church large church, 12,000 members at one time, which went to nothing practically overnight due to the leader's sexual improprieties. That leader said in one Sunday service, that the reason he made so much money is because he is like the CEO of a company with 12,000 "employees."

See, that is the same mentality as Living Word. The members of the church are "employees." They somehow turn into the servants of the leader or leaders. In reality, the leaders are the employees of the flock, they are to minister to, which means serve the interest of the flock.

The leader of that other church I was speaking of also said that the "bishop" and the inner circle around the bishop doesn't live under the same rules as the flock, because the bishop can handle special extra marital kingdom relationships.

See, the double standard again, that is in all cults. A Christian cult is simply an aberrant Christian sect, that has a rogue leader, and the followers have lost touch with what a church really should be.

There is nothing that special about Living Word Fellowship.

Apostle Dog Wrote In Part:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... that is the same mentality as Living Word.
> The members of the church are "employees." They
> somehow turn into the servants of the leader or
> leaders. In reality, the leaders are the employees
> of the flock, they are to minister to, which means
> serve the interest of the flock.


_____________________________________________________________

If I had received a dollar for every time JRS said, "If there had been a Man of God (referring to himself) when I was a young man, I would have crawled on my hands and knees to serve him." That was such loaded language (of course I bought into it) and that along with all the sermons out of the OT about young prophets serving older prophets (and getting a double portion) became the ground work (I think) for the LW mandating the "upward flow" and ignoring what the NT says about ministers serving the flock. How convenient for the LW ministers. The LW wasn't/isn't a new testament church; it's an old testament church.

For some reason, a couple of times I tried to post something but it said it was rejected because of a hacker alert or something, so this might appear again later, but anyway, here it is again.

I was wondering how many of you would consider the Walk to be sexist? I recall in the original Walk, I don’t know about the sequel, but the sisters were considered to be too stupid to make it on their own, and if they weren’t married, then they needed to stay under the “covering” of the brothers. If the “shepherd” was not around, they needed to submit to the “brothers,” meaning any of the men in the congregation, because if they were left to make up their own mind about anything, why the devil would jump in and deceive them, after all, it was the Eve that was deceived first, (*even Paul said that, but you know what, Adam just happened to be off considering his naval, or naming the animals and the devil didn’t get to him first.)

I recall that the standard “word” that people said over the men was “spirit of David.”, they loved that, inflated the ego, that’s the way to tickle a man’s ears, just make him think of himself as someone courageous.

The woman, now they always got the standard “spirit of Hanah.” See, women in the Walk had one function, other than cooking and cleaning, of course, and changing diapers, working in the garden, just about anything other than seeking the Lord and getting drunk, that was man’s work. But the women were supposed to bring forth the prophets, they were to be the cheerleaders, puffing up the men so they could “kill the wolves,” and become great prophets, the sons of God that would rule all areas, high finances, the music industry, politics, everything, that was the place for the sons of God, and the sisters, well, they were to be in the supportive role.

Now we get to the story of Mary and Martha. Odd coincidence, Mary (Marilyn) Mary sat at the Lord’s feet in total attention. While Martha (Martha Stevens?) was doing the kitchen work. Hmm.

Apostle Dog,

I don't think overtly JRS was sexist and if you were in the 3 Southern California Churches that he oversaw, I think you would conclude that he encouraged females to prophesy and participate in the church and attend the School of Prophets as much as males. Whether or not he would have gone as far as G&M in setting in female pastors, I am not sure. But of course at the time his priority and agenda was sons and bringing forth male ministries just by laying hands on them. As we learned later, that didn't really work out.

I always believed that if you were really pursuing a spiritual life in Christ, then there was no male or female. But I am sure there were those in the congregation who struggled with that.

Lily Rose

That observation was more about what I witnessed in the churches that I was in. That really wasn't about JRS. It' was more the local elders and people in general. I wasn't stretching there, people did have the idea that the women had to be "covered" all the time. I don't mean that the women, as well as the men, should be under the cover of the Lord, meaning that we are to live in the Presence of Christ, that is a given, no, I mean something rather mystical here, a sort of mumbo jumbo thing. Hard to explain. You would just have to be there. Which, I am glad that I aint no more.