Antichrists love lies and trickery—what else do they like? They like tactics, schemes, and plots. They operate according to Satan’s philosophy, never seeking the truth, relying entirely on lies and trickery and employing schemes and plots. No matter how clearly you fellowship the truth, even if they nod in acknowledgment, they won’t act according to the truth principles. Instead, they’ll rack their brains and act using schemes and plots. It doesn’t matter how clearly you fellowship the truth, it seems that they can’t understand it; they simply do things the way they are willing to do them, the way they want to do them, and whatever way is in their own self-interest. They speak smoothly, concealing their true face and true colors, fooling and tricking people, and when others fall for it, they feel pleased, and their ambitions and desires have been fulfilled. This is the consistent method and approach of antichrists. Regarding those honest people who are straightforward in how they talk, who speak honestly and openly fellowship about their own negativity, weakness, and rebellious states, and who speak from the heart, antichrists are inwardly repulsed by them and discriminate against them. They like people who, like they do, speak in a crooked and deceitful manner and don’t practice the truth. When they encounter such people, they feel delighted in their hearts, as if they’ve found someone like them. They no longer worry about others being better than them or being able to discern them. Isn’t this a manifestation of the wicked nature of antichrists? Can’t it demonstrate that they are wicked? (Yes, it can.) Why can these matters illustrate that antichrists are wicked? Positive things and the truth are what any rational created being with a conscience should love. However, when it comes to antichrists, they regard these positive things as a pain in their necks and a thorn in their sides. Anyone who abides by or practices them becomes their enemy, and they view such individuals with hostility. Doesn’t this resemble the nature of Satan’s hostility toward Job? (Yes.) It is the same nature, the same disposition as Satan’s, and the same essence. The nature of antichrists originates from Satan, and they belong to the same category as Satan. Therefore, antichrists are in league with Satan. Is this statement excessive? Not at all; it’s entirely correct. Why? Because antichrists don’t love positive things. They enjoy engaging in trickery, they like lies, illusory appearances, and pretense. If someone exposes their true face, can they submit and accept it joyfully? Not only could they not accept it, they would respond with a shower of abuse. People who tell the truth or expose their true face would infuriate them and make them fly into a rage. For instance, there might be an antichrist who is very skilled at pretense. Everyone perceives them as a good person: loving, able to sympathize with people, able to understand others’ difficulties, and often supportive and helpful to those who are weak and negative. Whenever others have any difficulties, they are able to show consideration and excuse them. In people’s hearts, this antichrist is greater than God. Regarding this person who postures as virtuous, if you expose their pretense and imposture, if you tell them the truth, can they accept it? Not only will they not accept it, but they will start ramping up their pretense and imposture. Tell Me, if you exposed the imposture of the Pharisees when they carried their scriptures to the street corners to pray and read it for others to hear, and you told them that they were doing it for show, would they confess to what you said? Would they gladly accept it? Would they reflect on your words? Could they admit that what they were doing was imposture and trickery? Could they reflect, repent, and never act this way again? Absolutely not. If you continued by saying, “Your actions are misleading people and you will go to hell and be punished,” wouldn’t that be telling the truth? (Yes.) It is telling the truth. Would they accept it? No, they would become immediately furious and say, “What? You’re saying I’ll go to hell and be punished? That’s rich! I believe in god, not you! Your words mean nothing!” Is that the end of it? What would they do next? They would continue, saying, “I’ve traveled far and wide, spread the gospel to so many people, borne so much fruit, taken up so many crosses, and I’ve suffered so much in prison—you child, when I started believing in the lord you were still in your mother’s womb!” Their nature is exposed, right? Don’t they preach patience and tolerance—why then can’t they tolerate this small matter? Why can’t they tolerate it? Because you’ve told the truth, you’ve uncovered their true self, and they have no destination. Can they still tolerate this? If they are not antichrists, if they are on the path of antichrists but can accept the truth, and they also show a manifestation of imposture, what will they do if you expose their imposture? They might not immediately reflect on themselves, and to say that they do so may sound unrealistic and hollow. However, most normal people’s first reaction to hearing this is that they experience a stinging pain in their heart. What does this stinging pain signify? It means they’re affected by what they hear; they didn’t expect someone to dare to act so rashly, tell the truth, and condemn them like this in front of them—these words are something they never expected and never heard before. Furthermore, they have a sense of shame and want to save face. As they mull over you telling them that standing at the street corner to pray and read scripture is misleading people, after self-examination they discover that doing this was indeed to show people how devoted they are, how much they love the Lord, and how much they can suffer, that this is imposture, and what you said was true. They discover that if they continue acting like this, they won’t be able to show their face to other people. They have a sense of shame, and with that sense of shame, they might be able to restrain themselves somewhat and stop their evil deeds or their actions that are shameless and would lose face for them. What does it mean when they no longer continue to act like this? It implies a hint of repentance. It isn’t certain that they will definitely repent, but at least there’s a possibility of repentance, which is much better than antichrists and Pharisees. What makes it better? Because they have a conscience and sense of shame, the exposing words of other people sting their heart. Although they may feel ashamed and that their dignity was wounded, they can at least acknowledge that these words are correct. Even if they are unable to save face, deep inside, they have already acknowledged and submitted to those words, accepting them already. How are antichrists different? Why do we say that antichrists are wicked? The wickedness of antichrists lies in the fact that when they hear something that is right, not only are they unable to accept it, on the contrary, they hate it. Additionally, they resort to their own ways, looking for excuses, reasons, and various objective factors to defend and explain themselves. What purpose do they aim to achieve? They aim to turn negative things into positive things and positive things into negative ones—they want to reverse the situation. Isn’t this wicked? They think, “No matter how right you are, or how much your words are in accordance with the truth, can you withstand my silver tongue? Even though all the words I speak are clearly false, cheating, and misleading, I will still deny and condemn what you say.” Isn’t this wicked? Indeed, this is wicked. Do you think that antichrists, when they see good people, don’t consider them honest in their hearts? They do consider them to be honest people and pursuers of the truth, but what is their definition of honesty and pursuing the truth? They think that honest people are foolish. They are repulsed by, detest, and are hostile toward the pursuit of the truth. They believe it to be false, that no one could be so foolish as to forsake everything in pursuit of the truth, to say anything to anybody, and entrust everything to God. No one is that foolish. They feel that all these actions are false, and they don’t believe in any of them. Do antichrists believe that God is almighty and righteous? (They do not.) So, they draw question marks behind all these things in their minds. What’s the implication here? How do we interpret this heap of question marks? They don’t just doubt or question it; in the end, they also deny it and aim to reverse the situation. What do I mean by reversing the situation? They think, “What’s the use of being so just? If a lie is repeated a thousand times, it becomes the truth. If no one speaks the truth, then it isn’t the truth and it has no use—it’s just a lie!” Isn’t this twisting right and wrong? This is the wickedness of Satan—distorting facts and twisting right and wrong—this is what they like. Antichrists excel in pretense and trickery. What they excel in is, of course, inherent to their core, and what is inherent to their core is precisely that which is in their nature essence. Even more, it’s that which they crave and love, and it’s also the rule for how they survive in the world. They believe in sayings like “The good die young while the evil live to a great old age,” “Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost,” “One’s destiny is in his own hands,” “Man will triumph over nature,” and so on. Do any of these statements align with humanity or the natural laws that normal people can comprehend? Not a single one. So how can antichrists be so fond of these devilish sayings of Satan and even treat them as their mottos? One can only say that it is because their nature is too wicked.

There was a certain church leader I came in contact with a few times over the course of about a year. We had several opportunities to meet, but our conversations were limited because he was not one to speak freely. What does that mean—“not one to speak freely”? It means he wouldn’t say much even when you asked him questions. Now, was he like this in his interactions with others in the church? There were two possible situations. With those who were of a like mind, he had plenty to say. However, with those who were not of a like mind, he became guarded and spoke less freely. Later on, I summed up that during My interactions with him, he spoke five “classic” phrases in total. He didn’t speak freely, so when he said something, it became a “classic” phrase. What kind of person is this? Can we call him a “distinguished person”? It’s quite normal for church leaders or workers to have contact with Me and discuss matters, isn’t it? However, this person was unique. He spoke only five phrases, five incredibly “classic” phrases. Listen to what makes these phrases so “classic.” Each phrase of his has its own context and a little story behind it. Let’s start with where his first phrase came from.

In the church led by this leader, there was an evil person who had done several bad things and disturbed the church’s work. Everyone saw that he was an evil person, so they started fellowshipping about him and discussing him. If he was to be expelled and sent away, a notice would need to be made about him in the church, so everyone would know what bad things he had done and why he was being classified as an evil person and sent away. While some of the bad things that evil person had done were being exposed, this leader, who usually didn’t talk much, spoke up and said, “He meant well.” How did he view that evil person doing those bad things and disturbing the church’s work? “The fellow meant well.” He believed that the bad things a bad person does are in line with the truth, so long as that person means well. To him, regardless of the nature of their actions, whether good or bad, or the consequences of their actions, as long as they mean well, even the disruptions and disturbances they cause are in line with the truth. “He meant well.” That was the first phrase this leader spoke. Have you ever heard such talk? An evil person is clearly doing evil, and yet someone says that that person harbored good intentions while doing those bad things. Does everyone have discernment of this phrase? I believe some people might be misled by this phrase because the majority of people think that as long as someone means well, they shouldn’t be handled, and that if someone does something bad with good intentions, they aren’t doing evil on purpose. After being thus stirred up and misled by this leader, it was possible that some people might go over to the leader’s side, and start sympathizing with the evil person. Without this leader misleading them, the majority of people would have understood this matter correctly and thought that evil person should be expelled and sent away for doing evil. However, after being stirred up and misled by this leader, some people thought, “He meant well, that makes sense. Sometimes we’re like that too. So, if we do something bad with good intentions, will we also be cleared out and sent away?” As a result, they came over to the side of this leader. Why? They were thinking about their own futures. Wasn’t it easy for people to accept the phrase that this leader spoke? What were the consequences of them accepting it? They developed doubts about God, about His righteous disposition and about His principles for doing things. They developed doubts about the principles that God’s house has for doing things, raised question marks about them, and then they condemned them. They harbored these doubts in their hearts. In reality, this evil person wasn’t being sent away because he had done one bad thing. In God’s house, nobody is sent away simply because they made an occasional mistake, no matter whether they do manual labor, a special duty, or a duty involving technical skills. They all undergo a joint classification of their consistent behavior by church leaders and the brothers and sisters, and then they are handled. For example, if someone is always lazy when they should be working and makes excuses to avoid work, is it appropriate to send them away based on this behavior? (Yes, it is.) That’s right, it is appropriate. For instance, if you’re assigned to clean, and you frequently eat sunflower seeds, drink tea, read the newspaper, and casually toss sunflower seed shells around, aren’t you neglecting your duties? Not only are you not cleaning, you’re also creating a mess, which means you are neglecting your duties. If you’re incompetent in your work, it’s entirely in line with the principles to send you away, and you shouldn’t argue about it. However, this church leader claimed that the person meant well, which misled people. After the leader stirred up and misled people like this, some of them followed his lead, and they reached a consensus. But where did they place God and the truth principles when they acted this way? They became like a family, talking about “our church” and “our house of God.” How are “church” and “house of God” defined? Can there be a house of God where there is no God? (No.) If there is no God in a place, can a church exist or be established there? (No, it cannot.) So, what did it mean when they said “our”? It meant they had split from God. The church became this muddled leader’s church, he became the master of the church, while those so-called brothers and sisters and muddled people formed a gang with him and acted like relatives toward him. They distanced themselves from God, and so God took on a role outside of the “house of God.” These were the consequences that developed when this leader uttered that first phrase under these circumstances. Everybody particularly approved of him, thinking, “Our church leader is fair, he is considerate of us, forgives our weaknesses, and even speaks up for us. When we make mistakes, God always exposes and prunes us. But our leader always protects us, just like a mother hen protects her chicks. With him around, we won’t suffer any wrongs.” Everyone was grateful to him. These were the consequences of the first phrase spoken by this leader.

Let’s continue with the second phrase spoken by this leader. There had been some work concerning outside affairs in the church that most people couldn’t perform or were too busy with their duties to take care of. There were some believers in name only who were adept at handling outside matters, so the house of God allocated a bit money to get someone like this to take care of these tasks, and sometimes God’s house would spend a bit more for him to handle quite a few tasks on its behalf. Tell Me, did it violate the principles for God’s house to spend an extra 200 RMB to handle matters like these? This was the only way to handle those matters, and it bore good results, so that was how they were handled. Giving that person an extra 200 RMB made it convenient for God’s house to handle these matters, and many issues got resolved. Was it worth it to spend that extra 200 RMB? (It was worth it.) It was absolutely worth it. It was appropriate to do things this way. If God’s house gave that 200 RMB to someone who couldn’t handle those tasks, it would just be a waste. Giving that 200 RMB to him meant that those tasks could be done well—so was it in line with the principles for God’s house to handle things in this way? (It was in line with the principles.) So, was it in line with the principles to not discuss or communicate this with the brothers and sisters? (It was in line with the principles.) Does the Above have the right to handle things this way? (Yes.) Yes, that’s certain. But this church leader said, “The brothers and sisters said that person was given another 200 RMB…. I’m just asking about this matter on behalf of the brothers and sisters. They don’t understand this principle, and we want to seek how to fellowship about this aspect of the truth.” He only spoke in half sentences. This was his second phrase. Obviously, this phrase was a question, meaning, “You say that everything you do is in line with the principles, but this thing isn’t, and some brothers and sisters have opinions and notions about it, so I have to question you about it on their behalf. How do you explain this matter? Give me an explanation.” That’s a question, isn’t it? Now, go ahead and analyze how many messages were contained within this—what is your view when you hear a thing like this? How do you view this person based on this matter? (God, there was a questioning tone to this phrase of his. He was questioning God. Actually, he had his own notions on this matter. He didn’t express his own true thoughts, instead he said it was the brothers and sisters who couldn’t accept the Above’s decision, that they had opinions about it. As a church leader, when the brothers and sisters had notions, he should have fellowshipped the truth with them to resolve this issue, but not only did he not resolve it, he came to question God with these notions. There’s a deceitful and wicked disposition in him.) Two points have been mentioned: One is that he was questioning the Above, and the other is the fact that he already had notions inside him, yet he said, “The brothers and sisters don’t understand the principles, and they want to seek them.” Is there a problem with this phrase? Were the brothers and sisters that important to him? Since he regarded the life entry of the brothers and sisters as so important, when they developed such strong notions, why didn’t he resolve them? Wasn’t he being negligent in his duty? He was being negligent. He didn’t resolve the issue, and he even shamelessly brought the brothers and sisters’ notions with him to question the Above. So, what good was he? What made him capable of questioning? Didn’t he also have notions? Didn’t he also have thoughts about the Above’s decision? Didn’t he also feel that this matter was handled inappropriately? That 200 RMB wasn’t spent on him, so he felt like he missed out, didn’t he? He thought, “I should have received that extra 200 RMB, we deserve it. That guy is a disbeliever, he shouldn’t get it. We truly believe in god and we are people of god’s house, he is not.” Isn’t that what he meant? (Yes.) That’s exactly what he meant. And he didn’t say this directly; he stuttered through it. After hearing this, do you understand it or not? What’s your viewpoint on this matter of spending money? Most people can understand this minor matter. Considering the immense work of God’s house, did that leader really have to take notice of an extra 200 RMB being spent? Besides, it didn’t come from his pocket, so why did he feel so distressed about it? Didn’t he just feel envious upon seeing others being good people? Wasn’t that what he meant? Are you able to understand what I have just explained to you? Are there any of you who disagree, and say, “No! Spending an extra 200 RMB without our knowledge—it’s terrible that we don’t have the right to know about this. Isn’t this squandering the offerings of God’s house?” What is the concept of God’s house? What is the concept of offerings? Let Me tell you, the offerings don’t belong to everyone, they don’t belong to the brothers and sisters; if there were only brothers and sisters and no God, it wouldn’t be called God’s house. When God appears and works, when He calls people before Him and establishes the church—that is God’s house. When the brothers and sisters offer a tithe, it isn’t being offered to God’s house, nor to the church, and it certainly isn’t being offered to any individual. It is to God that they are offering this tithe. In plain terms, that money is given to God; it’s His private property. What does His private property imply? That God can allocate it as He pleases, and that the leader was not qualified to get involved with it. Asking questions and wanting to seek the truth because of this matter, let Me tell you, was a bit excessive and unnecessary; that was him being fake and pretending! There were so many significant matters that this leader hadn’t sought the truth on, yet he chose to seek it in this matter. Why didn’t he handle that evil person? Why didn’t he seek, saying “This person has displayed some manifestations of doing evil; the brothers and sisters are all sickened by him. Shouldn’t I handle this?” The leader didn’t ask about that; he was completely blind to this evil person. Isn’t that a problem? What was the first phrase spoken by this leader? (He meant well.) “He meant well.” Look how “benevolent” this fellow was being; what a hypocrite! He was wicked, yet his words were full of benevolence and morality; there was honey in his words, but daggers in his heart, and he did not act like a human. What was his second phrase? “God’s house gave an extra 200 RMB to someone to complete a task. I want to seek on behalf of the brothers and sisters about how we should understand and grasp the principle in this matter.” I provided this as a complete statement; of course, he didn’t say it like that. He spoke hesitatingly, making it hard to understand what he meant. That’s just how he talked. This was the second phrase spoken by that leader.

Now listen to the third phrase spoken by that leader. Everyone was working together, digging. Each person had been assigned to fill one basket of soil. There was one person who worked quickly and finished first, then sat there drinking some water and resting, waiting for everyone else. Then, something went wrong. What went wrong? The third problem arose. This leader came once again to ask the Above, saying, “We have someone here who works fast and moves swiftly, but there’s one thing wrong with him. After finishing the work, he just sits there and doesn’t help anyone else, so everybody is starting to form opinions about him.” The brother Above asked, “Is he usually lazy when he works?” This leader replied, “No, he isn’t. He just works quickly, and after finishing, he just sits there waiting, not helping anyone, so the brothers and sisters have opinions about him, they say he lacks compassion.” When the brothers and sisters mentioned this, it distressed this leader. He thought, “Oh dear, look at how cruel that person is! My brothers and sisters are tired from working, they work slowly, and no one is helping them.” The whole group felt upset, so he also felt upset. How “empathetic” of him! He brought this “burden” with him to report to the Above. The first thing he asked was, “Can someone like this be punished?” Tell Me, do you think someone like this can be punished? (No.) So, what is your reaction after hearing this? Do you have mixed feelings about it? Do you feel upset? (Yes.) God’s house has always fellowshipped that people must understand the truth and treat others fairly, but he couldn’t even do this small thing. He believed that punishing that person would be fair. Isn’t this wicked? (Yes, it is.) He thought, “My brothers and sisters are suffering, and they’ve reported to me that this person lacks compassion. As a leader, how can I win over these people, appease them, protect them, keep them from being wronged or feeling hard done by?” His first response was to punish that person, thinking that by punishing him, everybody’s anger would be assuaged, and everything would be fair and equitable. Didn’t he want to do this? (Yes.) He thought, “We all eat the same food, live in the same place, and we are all treated the same. What right do you have to work so fast? If you work quickly, why don’t you help the others?” Tell Me, how do people feel after hearing this? “Working fast is a sin. It seems like we must never work fast—it won’t do us any good in the hands of this leader. Working fast is no good, and neither is being proactive. It’s justifiable to be slow!” The Above asked the leader, “What about those who work slowly? Do you reward them?” The leader was stumped, but he wasn’t muddleheaded. He said, “No, I can’t reward them. However, that guy who works quickly should be punished. The brothers and sisters all say he needs to be punished.” That was the phrase that he uttered. Tell Me, does this phrase truly represent the brothers and sisters, or does it represent the leader himself? (It represents the leader himself.) Let’s set aside the brothers and sisters—among them, there are all sorts of muddled people: those who don’t love the truth, those who speak in a crooked way, those who are selfish and self-serving, those who incite arguments, those who speak without principles, and those who act without a moral baseline. What kind of person can’t be found among them? So, what was his responsibility as a church leader? Was it his responsibility to speak for the influential brothers and sisters, to defend these wicked trends and evil practices? (No.) Then what was his responsibility? When he discovered issues of distortion and deviation among the brothers and sisters, it was his responsibility to resolve these issues using the truth, so that those people could understand where the problems were, and the issues with their states, leading them to know themselves and understand the truth, and bringing them before God. Isn’t this the responsibility of a church leader? (It is.) Did he fulfill it? Not only did he fail to fulfill it, he even fostered those wicked trends and evil practices, protecting, inciting, and condoning their breeding and spreading in the church. Isn’t this wicked? (It is.) Tell Me, after the Above prunes and exposes a person with this kind of wicked disposition, will they be defiant in their heart? (Yes.) They certainly will be defiant. Will they treat people fairly according to the principles given to them by the Above? Absolutely not. You can see from the words he spoke that he was thoroughly devious. Later, I thought to Myself: “If those who work quickly will be punished, who will dare to work quickly? Everyone will become as slow as turtles, unable to climb onto the riverbank even after puttering around for three days.” Isn’t that how things will be? Besides his inability to treat people fairly, the most fatal and severe aspect of this leader, and the one that could mislead people the most, was that no matter what bad things the brothers and sisters did or what erroneous and absurd viewpoints they spread, he not only failed to discern and correct them, he indulged them, sheltered them, and even tried to please them. Wasn’t he a dangerous individual? (He was.) He was extremely dangerous! This was the third phrase spoken by that leader.

Let’s continue on to the fourth phrase. I frequently visited the church where that leader was in charge, and they kept some chickens there. Every time I visited, he would kill a chicken. One day, a chicken would be stewed in a clear broth; the next day, a chicken would be red braised; the day after, a chicken would be smoked. I thought that if I kept going there every day, that flock of chickens may well be gone in a few days. Why was that? When a chicken was cooked, sometimes I’d have a piece, and sometimes I wouldn’t want any, but those people ate it regardless, and an entire chicken was consumed each time. Later, I considered this: If an entire chicken was consumed each time I visited, no matter how many chickens they had, they wouldn’t last long being eaten like that. So, I told the leader that he couldn’t kill chickens anymore. Wasn’t this the proper thing to do? (Yes, it was.) Now, this really got him in a fix. He came out with a question, saying, “If we can’t kill chickens, then …” You have no idea what he asked next. What did he finally choke out? “Then what do you want to eat?” I said, “Isn’t there anything else to eat besides chickens? Isn’t the garden full of vegetables? I’m fine with eating any of them.” He meant that if they weren’t allowed to kill chickens, I’d still need to have some meat. “Considerate,” wasn’t he? I said, “What meat! If you have vegetables then I won’t eat meat. If I don’t tell you to kill the chickens, don’t kill them!” This should have been easy to understand, shouldn’t it? (Yes.) But in his case, it became a dilemma. Not being able to kill chickens made him really uncomfortable; he started to act very strangely, like a man possessed. Since he couldn’t eat chicken that time, the next time I visited, he asked another question, which brings us to the fifth phrase. Listen to how his questions got more and more laughable. What was the question? He said, “Since we can’t kill chickens, and we also keep rabbits—would you eat them instead?” That really made Me angry. I said, “The little rabbits we keep are so cute, with their bright red eyes and pure white fur. They’re having a great time playing around. Why are you always thinking about eating meat? Can’t you do without meat?” I didn’t understand. Their kitchen was never short on meat; there were endless chicken legs and pork chops. It wasn’t like there was no meat for him to eat, so why did he keep asking about killing rabbits and eating their meat? I just retorted with these words: “You’re not allowed to kill them! What’s all this killing for?” When he saw Me respond like this, he grew afraid of being pruned and didn’t dare to ask any more questions. What meals did he prepare after that? During the season of June and July, there were all sorts of things in the garden; leafy greens and fruit-bearing vegetables were abundant. One day, that leader prepared a table full of dishes. What did he prepare? Stir-fried mung bean sprouts, soybean sprout soup, tofu stewed with fish, stir-fried green peas and eggs, stir-fried wood-ear mushrooms—there was not a single leafy green vegetable on the table. I took a gander at all those dry dishes. The season called for something fresh, but the foods he prepared were completely out of season. I thought, isn’t this person being wicked? There were all kinds of vegetables in the garden; why didn’t he make some leafy greens? In the end, I said that he should be quickly sent away. With someone like him in charge of cooking, people would never get to eat seasonal foods. Instead, they’d always eat foods that were out of season. Is that normal? It’s definitely not normal!

Through the questions asked by this leader and his way of cooking, I observed that firstly, his character was poor; secondly, that he had a wicked and insidious disposition; and thirdly, that he did not pursue the truth. However, there was a certain unexpected thing; you could even call it bizarre. In the past, every time there was an election in this church, he received the most votes, and even in re-elections, he still received the most votes. What was going on for such a person to repeatedly receive the highest number of votes? Weren’t there reasons for this on both sides? (Yes.) There were reasons for this on both sides. What were the main reasons? On the one side, most of the brothers and sisters did not pursue or understand the truth, and they lacked discernment of people. On the other side, this church leader was extremely capable of misleading people. You don’t know who this person was, you haven’t seen what he did, and you don’t know what kind of person he was behind closed doors. But just based on the matters I’ve spoken about, along with the five phrases that he spoke, what kind of person would you say he was? Was he suited to being a church leader? (No.) Then why did those brothers and sisters keep electing him? It’s because he had strategies and misled these people. He absolutely was not as guileless and down-to-earth as he appeared on the surface; he definitely had strategies. Later, I said that there were no people in that church suited to act as a leader and that someone else should be dispatched to serve in this position. But some people didn’t understand; they felt that this leader wasn’t chosen by the brothers and sisters. How should “brothers and sisters” be defined? Do the brothers and sisters represent the truth? Is this how they are defined? (No.) When the brothers and sisters collectively create a demand, a rule, or an opinion and an argument, are these things necessarily in line with the truth? Should God consider their issues and care for them first? Can God do this? (No.) So how should they be treated? How should these brothers and sisters be defined? Most of them are willing to do their duties, labor, and work, but they don’t pursue the truth. They lack the ability and caliber to comprehend the truth, they are foolish, numb, and dull-witted, they are unable to discern people or to see through matters, and they are selfish and self-serving. Although they possess some good intentions and are willing to forsake things, expend themselves, and toil for God, what’s their fatal flaw? They don’t understand the truth or accept it. They adhere to “Whoever feeds me is my mother; whoever gives me money is my father.” Whoever is good to them or advantageous to them, whoever speaks on their behalf and protects them, that is the person they choose. If such people were allowed to choose their own leader, could they elect a good leader? They could not. Could they make any progress in their life entry? If the Above allowed them to be so willful, and to keep casually acting so recklessly, wouldn’t that be irresponsible? (Yes.) They were muddleheaded, but the Above is not, and the leader these people had chosen was removed and replaced with someone else. Even though these people were unwilling to accept the new leader, as long as that person could do some real work, they were much better than that false leader who misled people. Although these brothers and sisters didn’t understand the arrangement of the Above, there will come a day when they grasp some truths and have some understanding of things, and then they will know who was good and who was bad. By acting in this way, the Above was completely taking responsibility for them. Was doing this appropriate? (It was appropriate.) Even though they didn’t understand, they couldn’t be allowed to just do as they pleased in electing whomever they wanted. Do they want to rebel? If they want to do evil, to become Satan’s accomplices, they’ll be completely destroyed. So, the Above made the decision for them and selected another leader. But they didn’t accept this; they insisted that the person they had chosen was suitable. Isn’t this being wicked? Why did they always think that he was good? What was so good about him? Why were they so determined to keep him? There was a problem there: They had been misled and harmed by this false leader without realizing it. They truly were a pack of fools. I’ve finished talking about this matter. We take people like this false leader as a typical case to dissect and analyze within this topic—doing this is proper. After all, the wickedness in their dispositions is itself typical.

When it comes to our fellowship on wickedness within the seventh manifestation of antichrists, through integrating these specific examples, and analyzing and comparing them, has this subject become any clearer to you? Whether this person I just discussed will be able to pursue the truth in the future is unknown, it is difficult to say, and we will refrain from drawing any conclusions for now. However, one thing is certain: His disposition, essence, and nature were all wicked. So, what did he love? Did he love fairness and righteousness? Did he love the various truths spoken by God? Did he love being an honest person, treating others fairly, acting with principles, and seeking the truth? Did he love these things? He didn’t love any of them—this is one hundred percent certain. Through these few phrases that he spoke and these few questions that he asked, the things he loved deep in his heart and in his bones were exposed. There wasn’t a single thing among them that aligned with positive things. Who were the people he liked and felt willing to protect? He protected those who did evil, who disturbed the work of the church, who completely lacked loyalty and engaged in many evil deeds in their performance of their duties. He didn’t view such people with anger or hatred; he even spoke up for them and defended them. What does this indicate? That they were of the same sort: They shared common interests and a common essence. They were naturally in agreement with one another, and they were two of the same rotten kind. When some brothers and sisters kept harboring notions and misunderstandings about God’s words and actions, how did this leader feel? Did he bear a burden when it came to resolving these issues? (No.) He didn’t bear this burden; he didn’t address these issues or pay attention to these matters—he turned a blind eye to them. When someone humiliated the name of God, or disrupted and disturbed the work of God’s house, when someone lacked loyalty and was perfunctory in doing their duty, or harmed the interests of God’s house and brought about disturbance and destruction while doing their duty, or vented negativity and circulated notions, could he identify any of these as problems? He couldn’t identify them as problems; he thought, “It’s normal for these issues to exist; who doesn’t have revelations of corruption?” What was he implying? He was implying that those people must act this way, as then he wouldn’t seem so bad—he could “hide” and be “protected.” Isn’t this wicked? These people continuously caused disruptions and disturbances, and he didn’t handle them. Based on this, tell Me, did he have a sense of justice? Did he love the truth? What kind of place did he take God’s house for? He didn’t want God’s house to be filled with honest people, people who were loyal to God, people who followed God’s way and knew their place while doing their duties. He didn’t want everybody to open up and fellowship about God’s words, to submit to God and bear witness to Him. He didn’t want everyone in God’s house to be like that. So, what was it that he wanted? He wanted everyone to be making self-serving connections, safeguarding each other’s interests, not harming anyone else, or exposing the skeletons in anybody’s closet. He wanted everybody to be mutually protecting and sheltering one another, concealing any bad things that others did from outsiders, and acting as a united front. That was what he wanted. When someone brought another’s wrongdoings and true circumstances into the open and made these things public, speaking directly and letting everybody know about them, he hated and detested such actions. He liked when wrongdoings remained concealed and shrouded, when lies went unexposed, and when whoever engaged in trickery or harmed the interests of God’s house wasn’t handled according to the principles. In the church he supervised, what became of God’s words and the administrative decrees and work arrangements of God’s house? They became empty words, and they weren’t able to be implemented. Why were they unable to be implemented? Because he blocked them; he became a wall that cut them off. This is the wicked disposition which antichrists reveal by distorting the facts, employing certain tactics and engaging in certain schemes and ruses to fool and trick others in order to achieve their own goals.