Talk:Living Stream Ministry

Deletion Debate (Sep. 2004)

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Living Stream Ministry

This page is biased. It doesn't discuss the controversies surrounding this movement. 10:21, 10 April 2007 Patrick

What movement? This is an organization. Please be reminded that wikipedia is not an apologetic board. Pehkay 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a good candidate to be on the Wikipedia. No discussions are going on currently. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg

Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Changes Here First

Please discuss the changes made to the article here so as to not get involved in the edit wars and confusions and controversies. Today I reverted so many bad (Not Good Faith Edits) edits, please respect the Wikipedia policies. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

the related links section is useful and valid. 24.116.189.43 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact No. 1: Bibles for America distributes free copies of "New Testaments" Recovery Version BfA only, and not the Recovery Version complete Bible. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact No. 2: Living Stream Ministry is NOT a church.[1] It is a publisher of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Check out their website here. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact No. 3: Regarding the US Supreme court, there was "NO case" fought in the US Supreme Court, but rather a petition filed for "writ of certiorari" (from the local churches and Living Stream). The Supreme court denied the petition.

Here you have the references: On May 16, 2007 "the Local Church" and "Living Stream" petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 18, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition by "the Living Stream" and "the Local Church" click here.

So the comment that, "The Supreme Court ruled against the LSM, saying that it lawfully could be called a dangerous 'cult'" is a "original research" of someone and also a "false statement".

It's sad to see the usage of the loaded words such as "dangerous" and "cult". Please be honest and do some cross checking and researching before commenting such a statement. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact No. 4: Another comment inserted within the body of the article under the section "Lawsuits" is also overtly biased. The comment inserted was, "To learn more about Living Stream Ministry and their criticism as being identified as a "cult", please visit [2] and the links given from this website were [3] and [4].

I believe, to learn more about Living Stream Ministry one should visit their website and not the above one sided arguments (which are even deceiving to some extent). I think, the best place however to include these links (if they are really helpful for the overall presentation of the article) are in the "external link" section. This article is about the "Living Stream Ministry" in both "general" and "specific terms" and NOT about their preachings and interpretation of some of the stuffs they "publish" and "sell".

So, if there is a dire need to balance the article (if someone thinks that way!) -- please either write a new article on it (for example "Living Stream's Interpretation of the So and So") or put few links with a small comment under the "external links" section. That should be fairly tolerable and positive in a constructive way for the Wikipedia . Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact No. 5: In Texas Judiciary Opinions

On January 5, 2006 the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued this

opinion.

The "Harvest House" statement is available here. The response from the "local churches" is available here. And the other useful readings could be: Liberty Magazine, and so on.

Also, please read how the book "the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions" was not conceived in a good faith, nor in a Christian moral but under the (Harvest House's) self held propaganda. The "document" can be read and viewed by clicking the above link. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1520.htm is a history of the lawsuit on the US Supreme Court website. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/061807pzor.pdf is an alternate Supreme Court source for the CERTIORARI DENIED decision. The link in the phrase "information on this can be seen here", which is localchurch-vs-harvesthouse.org is for sale, with no content that refers to either organization.jonathon (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, by wikipedia's article guidelines, we'd be better off without the "information on this can be seen here" clause and link. If the information is notable enough, it should be included in the article itself. There should be no need to link to an offsite page for further information. The links could still be used as external links, but the relevant content should be included in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately mentioned that phrase/link, since Angrygirl seems to be unaware that it doesn't support her rational for adding it. jonathon (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see there has been significant edit warring the past few days. Please discuss and reach consensus. I'm on a phone call now, I'll post more in a bit and warn the relevant users. GRBerry 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried reaching consensus with users HopeChrist and JRCarter, however these users feel it necessary to bully and threaten comments on my talk page rather than participate in intelligent discourse and make use of intellectual discussion to resolve issues regarding Living Stream Ministry's associations with cult status. This sort of behavior is immature and demonstrates the lack of intellectual thought by these editors.Angrygirl (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you are now starting to use talk pages. Please be aware that "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Now that you are using the talk pages, you can begin to discuss and attempt to reach consensus. Collectively, we have been trying stronger and stronger steps to get you talking with the editors of the page, so that we could stop spinning our collective wheels and make forward progress. HopeChrist has used indivualized messages, I've mixed individualized messages and templates, and John Carter has used templates. The next step up from that is stronger templates, followed by blocking. Your beginning to engage in dialog has gotten us off that escalator. A true dialog, of course will include reasoning, explanation, and reference to sources, rather than taking any one individual's opinion as the truth. I remain optimistic that collectively the editors of this page will do it - I know from long experience that John Carter can, the other two of you are new to me. I will continue to monitor, and if need be protect the article again if the edit warring continues. Protection time is intended to be used by the editors to discuss and reach agreement despite the fact that the article is temporarily unchangeable. GRBerry 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Users: HopeChrist & JRCarter BIASED & do not write from NPOV -- resort to edit warring and undue article censhorship

User pages for HopeChrist and JRCarter indicate that these individuals are obviously a part of the Living Stream Ministry (LSM) organization and Lord's Recovery "local church". This means these users are UNABLE of writing an unbiased edit in favor of LSM.

This is the User:HopeChrist's User:Page - please look and judge by yourself. The above comment is an "overt POV" or "an original research".HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The allegations regarding me, or at least I assume she means me, are ones I would like to see substantiated in some way. Personally, in all honesty, I don't think I had even heard anything about this organization before I saw a request for input regarding it on my user talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Below is an example of the blatant biased philosophies held by user HopeChrist. I have pasted direct quotes from this person's userpage to illustrate the complete and utter prejudice in favor of Living Stream Ministry...to the extent that any direct or factual evidence that is negative about Living Stream Ministry (LSM) is considered unfactual to them.

Quote #1: "Occupation: Living Christ and Eating GOD."

I believe and Praise God that this is the true occupation of any sincere Christian. By the way (in real occupation) I am a full time student of "EE" at North Dakota State University. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote #2: "I am a prisoner of Christ Lord Jesus and I live out 'Him' so that Christ may have preeminence in all I do, think, or live."

Quote #3: "Things I'd Like to do if I had free time: Travelling and visiting Lord's churches and greeting saints (the whole World)." It should be noted that individuals in the Lord's Recovery "local church" refer to each other as "saints".

Believers (with all short of backgrounds) around the globe use this term "saints" in love and true biblical pattern, if not brothers and sisters in Christ! But I affirm that I very much agree with the truths and church as described in the article local churches. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote #4: "Occupation: Gospel preaching and dispensing Christ."

Quote #5: "Contribution & Interest on Wikipedia: Lord Jesus!"

None of these above mentioned quotes point anything valuable and informative regarding the disputed matter and towards my "action" of reverting some of the edits or regarding the article "Living Stream Ministry". HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia upholds the position that articles should be free of biased opinions and that ALL facts should be made available in articles regardless the nature of the content being positive or negative. Living Stream Ministry should not be immune from such factual evidence.

True. I agree. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Harvest House publishers are among the top 5 publishers of Christian literature. For this publishing group to publish a book which indicates LSM as a "dangerous cult" is a great step for Harvest House to take against LSM. Furthermore, LSM is the sole publisher for the Lord's recovery "local church" of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Whereas Harvest House publishes Christian books for a variety of churches, not just one organization like LSM.

Lastly, the Texas State Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the book Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (published by Harvest House) states that "Living Stream Ministry can be viewed as a dangerous cult".

The above mentioned statements are false. Please tag your source. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that would be the end of all disputes. HopeChrist (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue in the case of LSM versus Harvest House was LSM claims the book made "defamatory statements" against them. Just the title alone of the book associates LSM with cult activity, if they are included in such a publication. Lastly, the decision that the statements made in the book referring to LSM being identified as a "dangerous cult" were not defamatory.

It has been the mission as of late for users HopeChrist & JRCarter to keep this important information from the Wikipedia article for Living Stream Ministry (LSM). This sort of behavior demonstrates that these two users are trying to personally manage the article and censor any information that could be construed as negative towards LSM. This sort of behavior can be defined as an edit war by Wikipedia *[5]. Wikipedia upholds that articles should have all the FACTS and be UNBIASED.

How do you know our mission? I don't know JRCarter, nor I know my own mission. I simply contribute to the Wikipedia. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia upholds that ALL articles are written from a Neutral point of view (NPOV) *[6]. NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a NPOV, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Please do it as you have described above. And then discuss. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clear the users HopeChrist & JRCarter are not honoring this fundamental Wikipedia mission. Therefore, I have replaced the FACTUAL statements regarding the LSM lawsuit back into the article.Angrygirl (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The matter of fact is the other way around. Ironic! HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read, go through, and reply, and discuss to the "Facts" put above. Please prove your points in NPOV (without any original research) and with reliable sources. I believe everyone will appreciate it very much. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am very happy that we all are participating now on the article's talk page. It will be a lot easier now, for all the editors of this page to resolve the disputed issue. Thanks to all. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of comments made on me has nothing to do with the facts or the article Living Stream Ministry. Please discuss the facts and not someone's "User:Page". Just one click can navigate anyone to someone's "User:Page" but facts have to be presented. So let's please bring and put those. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Harvest House as a publisher and the book "ECNR (Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions)" and their authors are two separate matter. No one party or person is responsible and legally liable for other's views and actions. But the disputed statements inserted again and again in the body of the article has no source tags yet. Please show it (or quote it) from any reputed source. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Two specific requests to User:Angrygirl

No. 1: Please quote source(s) for the statements, (a) "The supreme court ruled against the LSM calling it a dangerous cult, lawfully." (b) "To learn more about the LSM as a cult, please visit so and so sites." -- please quote the reliability of the sites. HopeChrist (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. 2: Please do not delete the current article (and version) just for putting your "two sentences" into it. (mentioned above)! Also, it will be very sober if you can discuss these points on the talk page until the disputes are resolved, before adding or putting it in-to the main article. Thanks a lot. HopeChrist (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court ruling

It is not permitted by wikipedia policy to say something which the source itself does not explicitly state. I request information on exactly where in the source it is explicitly stated that the Supreme Court ruled it is acceptable to call this organization a "cult". It should also be noted that all content must be sourced. The use of the word "dangerous" as a modifier of "cult" would thus also have to be sourced. Please indicate exactly where it is explicitly stated that the sources say explicitly that the Supreme Court explicitly authorized the use of these two words regarding this subject. Thank you. The words "cult" carries an inherently prejudicial subtext to most editors, and is as such one we seek to avoid whenever possible. The word "dangerous" is even more prejudicial, and inclusion of such exceptional content requires exceptional sourcing. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

It should be noted that the article is now fully protected, as per Wikipedia:Protection policy. I would encourage all those who wish to make any changes to the article to suggest them here first. Then, if consensus can be reached, we can request an uninvolved administrator to make the appropriate changes. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Background of lawsuit

It seems to me that the article could greatly benefit from expanded material regarding the nature of the works it publishes. Right now, we have content which indicates that the LSM has been broadly criticized for some of its publications. We do not yet however have content in the article which indicates that the materials it publishes include several works which are very critical of Christian denominations, and that the criticism of the LSM seems to at least in substantial part arise from the publication of those works. Adding material to that effect would make the article more comprehensible to the average reader, I think. Also, part of the dispute seems to be the use of the word "cult". The book in question uses the phrase "cults and new religions" so I'm thinking the content added a bit more to justify how the group is called a "cult". If anyone can produce the material which the LSM objected to from that book, that would be particularly useful, as it would also establish on what basis the group was called a "cult" in the first place. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, we have to be accurate and precise in what we write on Wikipedia. I very much appreciate the idea of expansion of the nature of the works LSM publishes. But I disagree with some of the comments made above, at-least in few areas. But then, it's a healthy discussion.

Few facts, 1) In the very beginning (1968 - until 1976) there was no criticism. In the late 70s there was some. [for example, SCP, Mindbenders, God-Man, wherein the formar two are the same group of people]

Then the criticism grew in 1985 over the same issues (mentioned before) but LSM was never broadly criticized by the major branches of Christianity (including most of the denominations). In-fact not many Christians and Christian denominations even know about local churches and Living Stream Ministry, besides the name and works of popular Watchman Nee, who was one of the earlier leader of the current "movement". (It is interesting to note down here that Nee, or Lee never considered local churches as a "new movement"). [Watchman Nee, "What Are We" [7] (1934); Witness Lee, "The History of the Church and the Local Churches" [8] (1973)]

In early 2007, LSM got attention of evangelical Christians, once again, over the matter of denunciation of all denomination by local churches. This bring in some criticism once again (eg: "open letter") but then today, the controversies are settling down; LSM is having more and more open talks with other Christian publishers and organizations (for example, talk with "Christianity Today"). "Also, the open letter was "really an appeal to the movement to be clear about where they stand on the doctrinal [issues]" raised by some of Lee's quotes."[9] A lot of those who once opposed and criticized Living Stream and local churches are now issuing their positive analysis about the group. (for example, Fuller theological seminary, Walter Martin of "Christian Research Institute", etc.) It became the member of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association in 2002, after being scrutinized by them.[10]

Also, most of these "early" controversies are already "poorly" documented in the article, Local Church controversies. So it will be not a good idea to deal with the past controversies here again. So expanding the article with its publishing "matter" will be far more better and informative than to include the past criticism of LSM. This article should be limited with the LSM and their publications work only. The rest of the thing can be dealt in within the "local churches" article on Wiki.

But then, I think, a section on the titles they publish is a good idea, though. The nature of the content they publish would also be helpful.

Facts, 2) The nature of early criticism and modern criticism were always, the "theology" issue (as it is with the entire Christianity). Their criticism of the organized system of Christianity runs along three primary lines (since the Keswick Convention in 1875): For example, Nee said,

Protestantism did not give us a proper church. {W. Nee, The Orthodoxy of Church, pp. 55 (1945)}

On "Contending for faith" website[11], (related to local churches), there are some very clear points on the the nature of the disputes and controversies:

Criticism of institutional Christianity by the local churches and the books LSM publishes, includes:

1. The replacement of the normal experience of Christ in the lives of the believers with so many substitutes, including unscriptural things such as philosophy and culture and including the misuse of many scriptural things, such as doctrine, gifts, knowledge, etc.

2. The nullification of the proper function of every member of the Body of Christ in serving the Lord by the unscriptural clergy/laity system.

3. The division of the one unique Body of Christ into so many denominations and free groups.

HopeChrist (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, if I'm getting this right, this could be called, effectively, a broadly Protestant group which has criticized other Protestant groups for being so numerous. It seems to have largely left the Orthodox and Catholic groups alone, although I imagine that they have serious questions regarding both bodies at least as part of point 1 above. That's hardly new to either group, though.

But it does seem that at least part of the criticism comes from the opposition to the proliferation of denominations. That probably does more directly belong in the Local church movement article or some other offshoot article, although it probably would deserve at least a passing reference in this article. Maybe something like, "Some of its publications, including [name(s)], have been critical of the proliferation of denominations and other groups within Christianity, in turn drawing criticism from several of those denominations and other groups." Such a statement would go some way to explaining why there has been opposition to it.

I do however have to question whether the article should deal with the LSM and its publishing work only. First, I assume the other media aspects, like radio, should be included as well, if they are in fact directly involved with them. Also, it does seem to me that the legal matters are definitely encyclopedic and well enough sourced to be included somewhere. Also, as the publishing house was involved in those matters, the article should fairly clearly include at least some mention of it, possibly in summary style with a link to the other article containing the rest of the information.

Also, if anyone can produce clear statements as to what specifically caused them to file the Texas suit, that would be relevant either in this article or wherever that content does ultimately get placed. I can try to find out that information myself, because that is directly relevant to the lawsuit, but can't guarantee success. John Carter (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The best independent source I found in a 5 minute web crawl (not search) is this Christianity Today article. A statement by the publisher about why the Local Church movement was in the book is here. If I'm following the breadcrumb trail correctly, this is a statement from the LSM or some other aspect of the Local Church movement about why the suit was filed and this is their complete commentary upon the case. I'm not sure of the authors of those last two links, so they probably aren't reliable sources unless someone can evidence authorship by the LSM or one of their authoritative spokesmen. GRBerry 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The last two links (contending-for-faith website) are not of Living Stream's but they are of "DCP" (Defence and Confirmation Project). DCP is separate from LSM, as in terms of organization, entity, and work but they do however represent the "local churches" officially, atleast to some extent. One more link to "DCP" is this. Here in this link you can see their statement about themselves.HopeChrist (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

LSM is probably better described as Restorationist Christianity than Protestant Christianity. The usual definition of "Protestant Christianity" mandates both the acceptance of the Apostles' Creed and its brethren, and adherence to either Calvinist or Arminian theology. "Restorationist Christianity" mandates that there was a Great Apostasy which can be fixed, only by throwing away everything between the time of Christ, and "today".jonathon (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

LSM claims adherence to the "Apostle's Creed", but at the same time rejects both Arminian and Calvinist theology. For non-Orthodox, non-Catholic, non-Oriental Christianity, this is theologically, an ambiguous position. Observers of the Local Church Movement saw practices and doctrines that they believed were inconsistent with "mainstream" Christianity. LSM published an explanation of how those doctrines, beliefs, and practices are based on the Bible.jonathon (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions" defined "cult' in terms of a set of theological criteria. "Living Stream Ministries" defines "cult" differently, and views the use of that term as being defamation. The original court ruling was on first amendment grounds, implying that the dispute was entirely theological, and hence not actionable. (When a court in the united states even thinks that the reason for legal action has a religious basis, the usual response is to state that the first amendment applies, and rule accordingly.) jonathon (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes or Bible

Come on guys. The LSM is not distributing the Bible, they are distributing their footnotes. Localchurch (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the lies. The Recovery Version Bible has every verse in the Protestant Bible. It is the Bible.Ryoung122 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the footnotes make up the majority of the text, they are meaningless without the actual Biblical content, so I have to agree with Ryoung here. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view, however, the footnotes are very extensive in the Recovery Version and it has headings. There are at least some who agree with my point of view as to how such extensive footnotes and inserted headings color or distort the Bible to a particular point of view. Please reference the site below:

http://www.bigbible.org/blog/2009/02/adding-to-scripture.htm

Adding to Scripture David Kerr has a good post "Those nefarious section titles in your Bible" in which he discusses the section headings that one finds in most printed Bibles today.

Headings are added to the Bible by translators, they are then printed in such a way that they look and feel like part of the biblical text. They are not and never have been part of the Bible text. (Except the mysterious and often incomprehensible headings to Psalms, those these same Bible publishers often put in small print - they are merely part of the Bible text and not therefore as "important" as the clever ideas of the inspired translation team. Warning: the previous sentence may contain irony and sarcasm.)

Section headings are therefore systematic and institutionalised lies, that are presented as Scripture. (Chapter and verse divisions are too, but they are at least a convenient way of identifying the passage one is talking about.) This practice is a travesty and institutions like Bible Societies ought to have more respect for Scripture than to amend it in this way.

Please note as David's examples suggest these "titles" are not neutral, they often direct us as readers to understand the text in a particular way. While those directions may often be good, they are never scriptural.

Since the headings are not scripture and the footnotes are so extensive the LSM Recovery Version description should include at least a minor reference to this fact. Please compare the scholarly and highly respected version by the scholar John Nelson Darby to the Recovery Version. All of Darby's footnotes are concerning the Greek and Hebrew words themselves and their meanings and how they are translated by various authors and explain why Darby chose to translate them the way he did and possible other meanings to the words. Witness Lee was not a recognized Greek scholar and his footnotes are generally not related to the translation, rather to the meaning he finds in the text and his interpretation of it and hence both the footnotes and the headings color the text. I believe that at least a hint of this should be included in the text to let the reader know what kind of "translation" the Recovery Version is. Just a suggestion. Localchurch (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I entirely understand what you're trying to suggest. In my experience, most people understand that anything added to the text of the Bible aside from the verses themselves are not part of the original texts. Also, if you look at the Bible as a piece of fiction, for instance, it's very obvious that the footnotes are just the opinion of one or a few people, since all literature is open to interpretation. There's no reason that would be any different for a religious text. Anyone reading the Recovery Version should understand that immediately, so just listing what it includes here instead of pushing the negative point of view that it's all "systematic and institutionalized lies" should be sufficient and meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view rules, should it not? KhalfaniKhaldun 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I think you are right only because it is called "The Recovery Version". Had it been called a translation I would be more correct. It would be kind of like if I wrote "The Mickey-Mouse Version" of the Bible. I could make the lead character to be Mickey-Mouse who is out to get his bride, Minnie-Mouse, and that would be ok as long as I call it a Version and not a translation. So, ok, I concede the point and our discussion has helped me see the difference between a "version" and a "translation". But it is a NPOV to say that it has added section titles. Localchurch (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MinistryWatch statistics

Please reference a site which actually verifies the "2nd largest" claim. I could not find it in the reference provided. Localchurch (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) The statistics they show do not even list LSM in the top 20. Localchurch (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not quite sure why that edit was reverted as "vandalism." KhalfaniKhaldun 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved controversy stuff to Local Church controversies

Basically, I saw a lot of duplicated content between Living Stream Ministry and Local Church controversies, so I sought to move the controversy/lawsuit related stuff to the controversies article, and left a short summary overview of the main issues with a "main article" link to Local Church controversies. Please see my discussion post on that article's talk page: Talk:Local_Church_controversies#Integrated_material_from_Living_Stream_Ministry. Thanks! -- Joren (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One Publication

Paragraph two of the "One Publication" section says that churches in certain regions were quarantined but the cited references (8-11) refer to specific people in those regions being quarantined. More importantly those sources do not say anything about LSM policy, though the organization is mentioned a few times in one of them. Juubaa (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the hard work of source verification. Those are some really long letters, and while one of the letters in the Titus Chu list seems to make reference to quarantining a church, it doesn't say which ones or what region. There is also another letter that repudiates the claim that they are quarantining the entire Great Lakes region, but only those who support this Titus Chu. The letters seem to portray the quarantine as applying to the individual and those that help them/supporters, etc. That could possibly mean an entire church or group of churches, if they happen to fall into this category? I don't know. So what I have done for now is I've separated the claims that CAN be supported (I also added the names of the individual named in each letter), but I have added a "citation needed" tag to the regional claims. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.

-- Joren (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been a while so I am just gonna remove the unsourced claims. Check out Wikipedia:NOCITE for more information. Juubaa (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference 6, a self-published source.

Reference 6 is a link to someone's personal website. I refer to policy WP:SPS. Remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juubaa (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it and its related claims. Juubaa (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this line incorrectly convey the role of Living Stream Ministry (LSM): "It also mediates between churches, provides financial support, and trains their elders"? "[Living Stream Ministry] is not a central headquarters" for the churches in the body of Christ. Isn't LSM simply a publication resource in the Lord's recovery? The line makes LSM seem like the central authority on the body of Christ, which it isn't; Christ is the head of the Church, which is revealed in the Bible, which this verse shows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1); thus the Biblical word is God, and the authority of the local churches. "Thy Words were food and I did eat them" (Psalms ); LSM, people (except Christ), or organizations do not supply life to anyone. Therefore, and correct me if I am wrong if you have the time, this sentence should be edited because I think it misconstrues the role of LSM in the Lord's recovery, and in God's move on the earth, as being more than just a publication company, to readers. I have always been under the impression that LSM was and is only a publication company of Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's ministries.

Is LSM a training, mediation, lending, and publication facility??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.24.73 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning against Living Stream Ministry

Living Stream Ministry started in USA many years ago, now the Living Stream Ministry well known as Bibles for America has become a ministry of lies and attacks against servants of God. They lie about Pastors, Leaders and as many servants of God that are on this earth, they believe and think that God has given them more power and revelation than other Christian groups, and because of that, if anyone doesn't agree with what they believe will be persecuted. Don't pay attention to their words, all they say against servants of God is a complete lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavalcas (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This is not the proper use of the talk page.--Theophilus144 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the conflict over the Inclusion of the "Leadership" Section

Regrettably, a protracted "edit war" has developed, over one user's insistence on including the section titled "Leadership", that warrants civil discussion. Firstly, the author of this edit's accusations of edit warring towards fellow editors ignore the fact that he/she has reverted the omission of this content eleven times in three months. Also, in the face of objections from at least two other editors, myself included, he/she has consistently failed to demonstrate the validity of this section.

The user's rationale repeatedly appeals to Wikipedia's directive that an article be a "comprehensive summary of information" but has not, in continual defiance of the spirit of friendly collaboration that Wikipedia requires, offered an explanation as to how this section contributes to that end. The fact remains that the vast majority of organizations with articles on Wikipedia do not include such a "Leadership" section listing specific personnel, precisely because they are summaries and such information is superfluous. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that this section makes this article any more informative, especially since the individuals listed have no corresponding pages by which an inquisitive reader could find out more about them.

Finally, maintaining the accuracy of this section is problematic. For example, who is expected to monitor this list to ensure that it and the corresponding citation are up to date? What purpose would such an on-going effort serve for anyone reading this article? I invite fellow editors of this article to resist the inclusion of this section until it is demonstrated, by way of civil discourse, that it genuinely enhances this article's utility. Should the call for discourse be ignored and the edit war continue, it will become necessary to involve an administrator. Abishai 300 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

From LSM's One Publication page:

He felt that after his departure the ministry should be carried out by a group of co-workers who are blended, just as his own service in the ministry was under his coordination with the co-workers. Further, the need to publish the ongoing ministry still exists, and to this end Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room, a blended service overseen by a group of blended brothers who serve in coordination with the blended co-workers, continue to publish the Lord’s speaking among us in all the seven annual “feasts” and the weekly ministry meetings. In a meeting with the brothers to whom he committed the responsibility for Living Stream Ministry, Brother Lee said, “My burden is for the recovery based on the interpretation of Brother Nee and me. I am the continuation of Brother Nee; I would like to have a continuation of me, and this needs a corporation...The Living Stream corporation will continue this ministry” ... He placed the direction of this corporation for the continuation and publication of the ministry in the hands of a group of blended brothers, who labor to fulfill this charge before the Lord.

The individuals who oversee LSM were appointed by Lee to be his continuation. Removing their names would be tantamount to eliminating Donald Trump JR, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Michael D Cohen, and Allen Weiselberg from the Trump Organization page. If the argument is that those very individuals who were handpicked by Lee to be the continuation of his work should remain nameless, then so should Lee since he considered himself to be the "continuation" of Nee and those who run LSM to be the continuation of his own ministry.

As mentioned in earlier comments as well as the article, LSM publishes the works of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee while functioning as the de-facto hub for a wide variety of matters concerning the local churches, including running a full-time training center, effectively presiding over church doctrine, and intervening in church disputes among other things. A cursory search through pages of organizations that fulfill similar roles indicate that it is common practice to include an organization's key people on its page.

The one publication is not only a testimony of our oneness in the Body but also a safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord’s recovery. Without one publication, there is no way to preserve the integrity of the Lord’s ministry among us, which is crucial to the practical oneness among the local churches. 

The Biblical Research Institute , which functions as the SDA's theological hub, contains a nearly identical leadership section to that which has been repeatedly removed from this page. The PC USA publishes a list of moderators as a separate page. The LDS contains a quite lengthy page of key people, the smaller Acts 29 network contains a section listing board members, & the catholic church publishes a lengthy list of cardinals who preside over its theological matters.

If the argument is that the people listed are not prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, that principle would need to be justified as there is a strong precedent across Wikipedia to list an organization's key people whether they have their own pages or not. Even Thomas Nelson Publishers has a place on its page to list its key people, none of whom are notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia page.

LSM also runs a full time training center and radio broadcast as does the Moody Bible Institute, whose page lists its president and provost and links to a lengthy page of key people. The Moody Radio page, furthermore, is narrower in scope yet contains roughly the same number of key people as was removed from this page. The "length" objection raised by an earlier editor is not consistent with the precedent set elsewhere of including names of key people as encyclopedic content.

If the argument is that because the names of the leadership change over time and need to be updated they should be excluded from the page, this principle would be new to Wikipedia and, if applied consistently, would disqualify content on millions of pages. Given the level of attention that several users have devoted to removing the section, I am confident that the minor edits needed to update it would not become problematic.

As it stands, the multiple editors who have repeatedly removed the leadership section from the article have even eliminated the president of the organization. These efforts both lessen the encyclopedic nature of the article and impugn the neutrality of the article's point of view. If the names of the individuals handpicked by Witness Lee to run the organization that he founded are not relevant, there would have been no reason for virtually all of them to have signed this letter that was distributed to the local churches across the globe.

It is clear that the names of LSM's leaders do matter, are relevant to an encyclopedic article about the organization that they run, and that there is a clear precedent across Wikipedia for encyclopedic content to include the names of the key people in both spiritual and secular organizations, whether or not they have their own pages.

Faylor (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated why it is so pressing to include information from a 2013 tax return in the article. Your cursory search is a random selection of entities. I could pull several entities that have Wikipedia articles that don’t include board members and make the opposite point. As stated before, this addition adds nothing to the article and doesn’t help the general reader. The general reader is not interested in the finer points of an argument that I assume you are trying to make about Living Stream Ministry. Furthermore the documents you link to demonstrate a definite pov.

Theophilus144 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate Faylor taking the time to present his rationale but I agree with Theophilus that the case has not been made for this section to remain. Of Faylor's examples, the only one that is even relevant is Thomas Nelson publishing. The other organizations held as examples, including the Presbyterians and the LDS, expose a misconception that the Living Stream Ministry is the leadership entity of the local churches. This is simply not correct. LSM is primarily and fundamentally a publisher. Therefore, any information offered in this article should be restricted to LSM as an organization. If there is something substantive to be written about the leadership of the local churches and any controversy related to it, such material belongs in Local Church Controversies. -Abishai 300 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to Theophilus144' points, it is a bit misleading to shift the discussion away from the content to the source of the information while ignoring the discussion of this point already provided. It is also intellectually dishonest to construe a position that one finds disagreeable as "so pressing" while leaving theirs as the de facto standard. Additionally, it is a double standard to demand evidence for including the key people, dismiss a detailed, cited list of evidence without interacting with it in a meaningful way, then repeat the generalization that the "casual reader" would find the directors less informative and relevant than the rest of the contents of the article without providing any evidence to substantiate.

Wikipedia's page on NPOV explicitly describes this as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," so any question of an author's neutrality would need to be substantiated vis-a-vis Wikipedia's own definition. And finally, the principal that if pages can be found that omit a piece of content then all other such pages should eliminate that content undermines the very premise of a collaborative, expanding encyclopedia. If anything, examples of key people being removed from their own pages would constitute a historical precedent for what has happened repeatedly here, but again no evidence has been provided for omitting encyclopedic content on this page that does appear on the pages for several comparable (not identical) organizations.

Abishai 300's subjective and thus far unsubstantiated claim that "LSM is primarily and fundamentally a publisher" does not advance the idea that its directors are not relevant. If this claim is based on LSM's homepage description, then there is a strong basis for comparison with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania , whose purpose

the mental, moral and religious improvement of men and women, by teaching the Bible by means of the publication and distribution of Bibles, books, papers, pamphlets and other Bible literature, and by providing oral lectures free for the people

is remarkably similar to LSM's:

To promote the enlightenment and revelation regarding the Bible as interpreted by the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and to prepare, select and distribute information of all kinds which may be useful for the growth of spiritual life among Christians

They too list key people.

I have cited organizations that just publish who list key people, and as LSM's own page states, Nee is to Lee as Lee is to Directors, so we should either list all or none. It is difficult to find other organizations with the same exact relationship with a group of churches as LSM has, so pages like Acts 29 and PC USA were included as illustrations of groups that are responsible for the doctrinal principles of a family of churches, which I clearly cited from LSM's page as the link between LSM and such organizations. But it is clear that an organization that runs a bible school, publishes books, and has a radio broadcast (among other things) is more like an organization that does all 3 (Moody Bible institute) than one that does only 1 (Thomas Nelson publishing). A perhaps more similar organization would be the

I also find the suggestion that information from LSM's homepage or tax returns belonging on a local church controversy page to be a bit strange.

The case that I put forward above is straight-forward and based on Wikipedia's principles of encyclopedic content, historical precedent, and LSM's own documents, which I am the only one to quote in support of my position. Merely dismissing these points undermines the process Wikipedia has put forth for reaching consensus, and given the "when in doubt, don't delete principal" I think at this point it would be safe to end here and leave the content on the page.

Faylor (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't understand your repeated appeals to Wikipedia's policies, such as NPOV to validate your edits. To which "significant views that have been published" are you referring? To which of these scholarly published sources do you intend to cite to make the case that LSM is not, as I asserted, primarily and fundamentally a publisher as indicated by their own mission statement? So far you have cited LSM's 2013 income tax return, a website criticizing the leadership of LSM and the local church membership it serves, and an open letter published by local church leadership. Which of your citations constitutes a "reliable [source] on the topic" that validates the necessity of listing the board of directors? Underneath your manifold arguments so far, all I really see are superficial comparisons to a small and select minority of other organizations' articles that have members of the board listed, along with your own POV analysis of the alleged similarities.

And are we honestly to believe that all this is for the sake of maintaining neutrality? The pattern of edits made are suspect, such as developing the issue of "one publication" (which, according to the citation employed, is really an issue related to Witness Lee's directive rather than LSM), removing the reference to LSM's ECPA membership, and insisting on including a link to a website critical of the leadership of LSM. I would also question whether citing LSM's 2013 income tax return does anything to advance the goal of preserving neutrality. The neutral POV, I would argue, is to present LSM as a publisher of the the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, according to its stated mission, and to include a description of the other activities of note that the organization engages in. Abishai 300 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have responded in detail to the repeated calls for precedent and questions over relevance. I appealed to wikipedia's first pillar, namely that it is an encyclopedia, which entails including "a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" as a response to the idea that an organization's key people are not relevant. The people who run an organization are no more in the realm of "significant views" than an organization's location, but no one is arguing to remove Anaheim from the page as it is clearly encyclopedic content.

As such, the direct links on their website regarding hosting a radio program and bible school, for example, which are ostensibly under the auspices of the names that have been removed, provide sufficient documentation that LSM does what it says it does and their Wikipedia page should reflect this. Quibbling about the source used to furnish the list seems like a red herring. Even if someone went to the office in Anaheim every week to keep the list up to date, that wouldn't answer the question of whether an organization's key people belong on its wikipedia page.

The list of organizations provided as a precedent for functionally similar organizations including key people was intentionally selected as a response to the request for precedent. The case for functional similarity was made on the basis of their own documents.

The primary justification cited for including key people was based on Wikipedia's encyclopedic content principle. Discussion of other issues, such whether the page should link to both the letter by 70 Evangelical scholars to LSM and LSM's response to it or just one or the other, belongs elsewhere. If neutrality means "to present LSM as a publisher of the the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, according to its stated mission, and to include a description of the other activities of note that the organization engages in" then we would need to remove far more than just the leadership section. Wikipedia's definition, however, requires articles to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" so restricting the article's scope to internal perspectives would not be consistent with this principal.

It appears we are at a standstill beyond that has transcended the "when in doubt, don't delete" principle. I have requested dispute resolution, so hopefully an uninvolved 3rd party can help us to reach a resolution.

Faylor (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw this listed at DRN where I'm a regular volunteer, but I'm posting here in my capacity as just a regular editor, not in my capacity as a volunteer there. I express no opinion (at least at this point) about whether, in general, the leadership section should be included but I will point out that it cannot be included supported only by the ministry's tax filing. The BLPPRIMARY policy says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis added.) Their tax filing is a public document and cannot be used to support the assertion that those individuals are the leadership. Before you reach the question of whether or not it ought to be included, you're going to have to find some other reliable source as defined by Wikipedia for it. However, I will say this: What is done in other articles here provides absolutely no precedent for what should be done in this article since, among other issues, the fact that something is some particular way in another article does not mean that it should be that way in that article. (Also see OTHERSTUFF which, though stated in terms of deletion arguments, is generally accepted to apply to text as well.) Except when controlled by policy or guidelines, every article here stands on its own. There may — or may not — be good reasons for including the leadership section, but what happens in other articles is not such a reason. But be that as it may, you have to get a different and proper source for the material, first, since having such a source is the threshold to inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Living Stream Ministry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716192409/http://ftta.org/visit-the-ftta/ to http://ftta.org/visit-the-ftta/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For copyright

I need to translate the book The Economy of God by Witness Lee in Ao naga language and seeking permission copyright. Thanks Wati69 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)