Supplement: A Dissection of Problems That Arise When Transcribing Sermons

I heard some people remark that the transcribers removed the stories from the beginning of the last few sermons, leaving only the formal content of the sermons that followed them. Is this really the case? Which stories were separated from the sermons that followed them? (The Story of Dabao and Xiaobao, The Story of Daming and Xiaoming, and A Discussion on Capital: “Just Let It Be!”) These three stories were separated from the sermon content, but why? For what reason? Apparently, the transcribers thought that the preceding stories did not fit with the content of the sermons that followed, so they separated them. Was this justified? This is just what the transcribers did. They were too arrogant and self-righteous, taking the stories out and putting them into separate chapters without any sermon content. Would you say the result of doing this was good or bad? Moreover, would you say the story told beforehand must fit and match with the sermon that follows it? Is this really necessary? (No.) Then why did those transcribing the sermons misunderstand the task this way? How could they have such a belief? What is the problem here? They thought to themselves: “The stories You told are off topic. I’ll screen them for You, and when distributing them, I won’t put them together. Sermons are sermons; let them be coherent from one to the next. The content of the preceding stories should not interfere with the content of the sermons. I have to screen them for You because You don’t understand the issue Yourself.” Is this a good intention? Where does this good intention of theirs stem from? Does it stem from human notions? (Yes.) When I preach, do I need to consider everything so comprehensively? Does each story I tell need to match the content that follows? (No.) There is no need for this; this is called a regulation, a notion. What mistakes did the transcribers make? (Doing things based on their notions and imaginings.) What else? (Acting recklessly and arbitrarily.) The nature of this kind of behavior is that it is a little reckless and arbitrary; they lack God-fearing hearts. To say this is reasonable, but it still differs from the essence of the matter. When they transcribed the sermons, what kind of attitude and what kind of viewpoint did they use to look upon everything that God said? Whether it was stories or sermons, what kind of attitude did they adopt, and from what angle did they look upon and listen to these things that were spoken? (From the angle of knowledge and learning.) That’s right. Viewing the stories told and the content of the sermons from the perspective of knowledge will lead to this problem. They believe that when I deliver a sermon, regardless of which section I wish to speak on, the content must follow a sequence; every sentence must be logical, every sentence must conform to everyone’s notions, and every section must have a rigorous aim. They measure My sermons according to this notion. Does this show a lack of spiritual understanding? (Yes.) This is a lack of spiritual understanding indeed! Using logic and inference to treat what I spoke about from a perspective of knowledge is committing a serious mistake. I am fellowshipping the truth, not crafting speeches; you should be clear about this. Those of you who heard the sermons at the gathering and later listened back to these sermons that they transcribed, did you notice any important points or things that were spoken at the time which they removed? Did anything like this occur? For example, maybe you heard a passage at the gathering that was very moving and very edifying, but discovered afterward when listening to the recording of the sermon that the passage was not there; it had been removed. Has this happened to you? If you didn’t listen carefully, you might not have realized, so make sure to listen carefully in future. I listened to a recording once, and where I had just begun to discuss the various manifestations of antichrists, listing them from one to fifteen, they had removed the detailed clarifications and explanations from each one, instead simply listing the first manifestation, the second manifestation, the third manifestation, and so on. Each manifestation was spoken about very quickly, one after another, much faster than a schoolteacher giving a lesson. For most people who hadn’t heard that sermon before and were not familiar with it, they wouldn’t have any space to contemplate when listening to it. If they wanted to listen carefully, they would always have to be pausing, listening to one sentence and then quickly taking notes, then pondering over what this sentence means, and then playing the next sentence. Otherwise, the tempo would be too fast and they couldn’t keep up. This was a serious mistake made by those who edited the sermon recordings. A sermon is a chat, a discussion. What is the content of sermons? They discuss various truths and people’s various states; they all involve the truth. So, are these contents involving the truth easy for people to accept and understand, or do they require consideration, pondering, and mental processing before gradually responding? (They require consideration, pondering, and mental processing.) Based on this situation, then, what kind of speed should the one delivering the sermon maintain? Would it work if they spoke as fast as a machine gun? (No.) Like a teacher giving a lesson? (No.) Like someone giving a speech? (No.) That absolutely would not do. During the sermon there must be questions and answers, space for contemplation, giving people time to respond—this tempo is appropriate. They transcribed the sermons without understanding this principle; does this show a lack of spiritual understanding? (Yes.) They indeed lack spiritual understanding. They thought: “These things You’re talking about, I’ve already heard them. After listening once, I can remember the gist, and I know what You’re talking about. Using my experience and the excellent skills I’ve gained from frequently editing sermon recordings, I’ll do it this way and speed up the pace.” The speeding up did not seem much of an issue in itself—but what does it do to the transcription of the sermon? It turns it into an essay. Once it gets turned into an essay, it loses the feeling of listening to it in person; can it then achieve the same effect? There is bound to be a difference. Does this difference make it better or worse? (Worse.) It makes it worse. People who lack spiritual understanding act on their own initiative, and think themselves clever. They believe that they are educated, skilled, gifted and bright, but they end up doing unreasonable things. Isn’t this how it is? (Yes.) In My sermons, why do I sometimes ask you questions? Some people say: “Maybe You’re afraid we’ll doze off.” Is that it? Why do I sometimes talk about other matters, go off topic and discuss light and cheerful things? It is to let you relax, to give you some space to contemplate. It also allows you to have a broader understanding of a certain aspect of the truth, so that you don’t limit your understanding to words, literal meaning, doctrines, or grammatical structure—it should not be limited to these. So I sometimes talk about other things; I sometimes tell jokes to lighten the atmosphere, but in fact I mainly do it to achieve a certain result—you should understand this.

You see, when a religious pastor gives a sermon, he stands up at the pulpit and only talks about those tedious topics that haven’t the slightest relation to people’s real lives, their mental states, or their existing problems. It is all dead words and doctrines. They say nothing but a few pleasant-sounding words and shout out some empty slogans. It makes the listeners feel bored, and they gain nothing from it. In the end, it results in a situation where the pastor is speaking from above, and down below nobody is paying attention; there’s no interaction whatsoever. Isn’t the pastor wasting his breath? Pastors give sermons this way just to make a living, for the sake of their own survival; they don’t consider the needs of their congregation. As for us now, our giving sermons isn’t about performing a religious ceremony or completing some kind of assignment—it’s about achieving several results. To achieve results, all aspects must be considered—the needs of all kinds of people, their notions, imaginings, and states, and their viewpoints must all be considered. The extent to which people of each social class can accept the language used must also be considered. Some educated people who are quite fond of formal language need to hear some literary words that are relatively grammatical and logical. They are able to understand them. There are also some ordinary people, those in the lower strata of society, who are not familiar with such formal language; so what should I do? I have to speak a little vernacular. In the past, I didn’t use much vernacular, but over the years I have learned a little, and now I sometimes even throw out two-part proverbs or tell jokes. This way, after listening, everyone will feel that everything I talk about is easy to understand, whatever their social class, and that it relates to them more closely. But if it were all vernacular, the content of the sermon would not sound profound enough, so it must be combined with some formal language, all expressed with the language of daily life; only then will it meet the minimum standard. Once vernacular starts getting used, saying things like “just saying,” “like,” “I mean,” and so on, incorporating too many of such expressions can affect the extent to which the truth is conveyed. However, if it were all formal language, all spoken so orderly and formally, following grammatical logic and reasoning step by step, without even the slightest mistake, like reciting an essay or reading a text, as if it were all scripted from beginning to end, word for word, even down to the punctuation marks, do you think that would work? That would be too troublesome, I don’t have the energy for that. This is one aspect. Also, regardless of whether they are educated or uneducated, everyone displays various aspects of their humanity, and these expressions of humanity are related to real life. Real life, in turn, is inseparable from the language of daily life; it is inseparable from your living environment. This living environment is filled with this kind of everyday language, with some vernacular mixed in, plus some simple vocabulary with a somewhat literary flair. This is enough; it basically covers and includes the full scope of concern. Regardless of whether they are old or young, uneducated or possessing some knowledge, essentially everybody can grasp it, everybody can understand it; they will not feel bored, and they will not feel it is beyond them. This is what fellowshipping and delivering sermons must take into account, considering all aspects of people’s needs. If a sermon is to achieve a result, you must consider all of these aspects: speaking tempo, word choice, and manner of expression. In addition, when articulating something and fellowshipping an aspect of the truth, at what point has it been thoroughly conveyed? At what point is it not thorough enough? What aspects should be added? These must all be considered. If you don’t even consider these aspects, then your capacity for thought is severely lacking. Where others imagine in two dimensions, you must be able to think in three. You must see more comprehensively and more accurately than others, be able to view all sorts of issues clearly, and also feel the truth principles involved. In this way, all aspects of corrupt dispositions that people can think of, express, or reveal, as well as the states involved, are basically all covered and will be understood by all. Do the transcribers also have to possess these calibers and ways of thinking? If they do not possess these, instead always relying on the knowledge they’ve learned to summarize the sermon’s main point, its central idea, the gist of every section, it would be like how Chinese students study literary texts. The teacher first makes them preview the entire text, then read through it carefully. In the first formal lesson, the teacher talks about the gist of the first paragraph, introduces new vocabulary, and discusses the grammar involved. When all the sections have been studied, you still have to memorize them, and finally make sentences with the new vocabulary, and understand the text’s central idea and the author’s purpose for writing it. In this way, you will have a full understanding of what the text was trying to convey. Everyone has studied these things, everyone knows them, but if you apply these things to transcribing a sermon, it is too elementary. I’m telling you, if you’re writing an essay you can use these; that’s just basic common sense for writing. But if you apply this thinking, this theory, this method to transcribing a sermon, couldn’t you go wrong? You certainly could. You don’t know why I want to tell this story, you don’t try to understand the truth you’re supposed to understand from this story—this is a mistake. Also, are you able to understand the truth in both the story and the sermon content? If you can’t understand it, then you are lacking in spiritual understanding. What qualifications does someone with no spiritual understanding possibly have to transcribe sermons?

Why do you all think I tell stories? Transcribers of sermons don’t know the reason why, so they add their own viewpoints in. They believe that if I want to tell stories then it must fit with the content that comes afterward—they don’t know why I tell stories. You don’t know either, do you? Since you don’t know, I’ll tell you the reason. From the beginning up to now, I’ve discussed the various manifestations of antichrists about ten times, and I’ve only covered half of them. If I finished talking about this content all the way through in one go, the subject would be quite dull, wouldn’t it? If I talked about things straight away every time we began—first making everyone review what was discussed the last time, and then starting to speak, with you all hurriedly taking notes, writing and writing and struggling to keep your eyelids open—and if I then made everyone summarize once I’d finished, with everyone rubbing their eyes, flipping through and reciting the content fellowshipped today, and, once it seemed like everyone had roughly remembered it, I said, “That’s it for today, let’s wrap up and we’ll continue talking about it next time,” then everyone would be a bit distressed: “Every gathering is always about these things, this same pattern; the content is too lengthy and dry.” What’s more, fellowshipping the truth must be multi-faceted, with people progressing in all aspects of the truth simultaneously. It’s just like man’s life entry: One must grow in terms of their self-knowledge, dispositional change, knowledge of God, awareness of their own various states, and their humanity, insights, and all other aspects—all of these must progress simultaneously. If during this time I only discuss discerning the different manifestations of antichrists, people might put other aspects of the truth aside, and they’d be thinking all day long: “Who seems like an antichrist? Am I an antichrist? How many of them are there around me?” Doing this will affect their entry into other aspects of the truth. So, I think about how the content of the sermon can include one more truth, so that people can understand an additional truth; that is, when discussing the topic “Exposing Antichrists,” people are able to incidentally understand some other aspects as well. The result of such a sermon is better, isn’t it? (Yes.) For example, when you eat a staple food, you’ll sometimes eat an apple along with it. This provides extra nutrition, doesn’t it? (Yes.) Tell Me, then, is it necessary for Me to tell stories? (Yes.) That is certain. If it wasn’t necessary, why would I tell them? Using stories to discuss some light and cheerful topics allows people to acquire and gain something in other aspects of the truth. This is a good thing. When done discussing these light topics, I return to the main topic. Arranging it like this is appropriate. What do you eat before the main course? (An appetizer.) This is an appetizer. Appetizers are usually very tasty and whet the appetite, right? So, when I tell a story, you can gain an aspect of the truth from that story, deepening your knowledge or your understanding. This is all good. Of course, those who lack spiritual understanding hear stories and only hear the surface layer, they don’t see the truth inside that should be understood. They lack spiritual understanding—nothing can be done about this. For example, listening to “The Story of Dabao and Xiaobao,” some people only remember that Dabao was bad and Xiaobao was foolish. They remember Dabao and Xiaobao’s names, but don’t remember in which circumstances the man in the story revealed his corrupt disposition, what kind of disposition was revealed, what this disposition is all about, or what relationship it has to the truth. In what situations would you yourself reveal this kind of disposition? Would you say such words? If you say, “I wouldn’t say such words,” then this is troublesome, as it proves you haven’t understood the truth. Some people say: “I may say such words when I encounter certain situations, it’s a kind of disposition that comes out in a certain state.” Once you know this, you will not have listened to this story in vain. After listening to the story, some people say: “What kind of a person is Dabao? He even bullies and deceives a little child. He’s vile! I wouldn’t deceive children like that.” Is this not lacking spiritual understanding? They are just talking about the matter itself but don’t understand the truth within the story that is being fellowshipped. They can’t connect the situation to themselves; this shows a lack of spiritual understanding, a serious lack of spiritual understanding. Transcribers of sermons encounter this problem. As soon as something involves the truth, some people reveal the views of a disbeliever; as soon as the truth is involved, some people lack spiritual understanding; as soon as the truth is involved, some people become prone to distortions, some become intransigent, some become wicked, and some become averse to it. So what disposition do the sermon transcribers have? At the very least, they are arrogant and conceited, acting on their own initiative, not understanding and not seeking to understand. They did not even ask about it; they just directly separated the stories from the content that followed. They think, “These sermons were given to me to transcribe, so I have the authority to make this decision. With a swing of my axe, I’ll chop the stories clean off. This is just how I’ll treat the sermons You’ve given me. If You don’t like it, then don’t use me.” Isn’t this arrogant and conceited? They cannot take in the truth, they do not understand the truth. They do not know what their duty is or what they should and should not do—they don’t know any of these things. People who lack spiritual understanding can only do unreasonable things, inhuman and undignified things. They also only do things that violate truth principles, thinking themselves clever and lacking submission. Recordings of My sermons were given to them to transcribe, and whatever opinions or thoughts they had about how to handle it, they didn’t ask Me. Isn’t this problem very serious? (Yes.) Serious to what degree? (It has the nature of tampering with the words of God.) It does have a bit of this nature.

I tell a story, discussing a specific aspect of the truth, and then I give sermons on other aspects afterward. Do I consider whether these two things align? I have to consider this at first, but why haven’t I insisted that these two aspects have to align? Am I aware of it? (Yes.) So why has this become a problem for the transcribers of the sermon? I know the story I’m telling has no connection to the sermon that follows it. Are they aware of this? They are not. They haven’t even considered this matter carefully. They think, “You are directed by the Holy Spirit; as long as it sounds like the truth, that’s fine. You told a story that day, and then afterward discussed specific content. What relationship is there between these two things? Why speak in this manner? What benefit can come of it after the speaking is done? You don’t know any of these. This won’t do!” Firstly, what I am to speak about, how I speak, and what specific content I address—tell Me, am I in a clear-headed state while deciding these? (Yes.) I am indeed in a clear-headed state, I am definitely not in a muddled state; My mind has a clear train of thought. If someone is lacking in spiritual understanding, does not know how to seek the truth, and blindly analyzes and blindly categorizes things, thinking it’s quite good, aren’t they a textbook Pharisee? They only like hearing grand empty theories, and don’t like hearing real and practical sermons. The result is that they don’t understand even the shallowest of truths. This shows a serious lack of spiritual understanding! Without a God-fearing heart, people will be arrogant and self-righteous, growing especially audacious; they will dare to judge any matter, thinking they understand it all. Corrupt humankind is precisely this; this is their disposition. Is being bold and acting recklessly a good thing or a bad thing? (A bad thing.) Being bold or timid actually doesn’t matter; what matters is whether there is any fear of God in one’s heart. Later, when you listen to a recording of the sermon, take care to discern whether any key things have been removed from the transcription. These wretches who lack spiritual understanding, sometimes the things they do can inadvertently cause disturbances and damage. They say it is not deliberate—if it is not deliberate, does that mean their disposition is not a corrupt disposition? It is still a corrupt disposition. That is all on this topic for now.

Supplement:

Xiaogang’s Dreams

Today I will begin again by telling a story. Are you interested in listening to stories? Can you gain something from stories? Things happen in stories, and these things contain truths. The people in stories have some states, some revelations, and some intentions and corrupt dispositions. In fact, these exist in everybody, and they are connected to everyone. If you understand and are able to recognize these things in stories, this proves that you have spiritual understanding. Some people say: “You say I have spiritual understanding—does that mean I’m a person who loves the truth?” Not necessarily; they are two different things. Some people have spiritual understanding but do not love the truth. They simply understand and nothing more, and they do not hold the truth against themselves for comparison or put the truth into practice. Some people have spiritual understanding, and after listening to stories, they discover that they have the same problems and consider how to enter and how to change going forward—these people have achieved the desired results. So today, I’ll go on to tell a story. The subject matter is light and everyone will be willing to listen to it. These last two days I have been mulling over which story can enable the majority of people to gain something and be edified after they listen to it, and can furthermore deeply impress an aspect of the truth upon them, as well as enable them to relate it to reality, and benefit from it through entering into an aspect of the truth or correcting a kind of deviation. I forgot to give a name to the last story I told, so today we shall give that story a name. What do you think it should be called? (Special Gifts.) Leave out the word “special”; let’s call it “Gifts.” The word “special” sounds a little strange here, and people will focus their attention on it. “Gifts” has a more ambiguous meaning. So, what story will I tell today? Today’s story is called “Xiaogang’s Dreams.” “Xiao” means “small,” as you all know, and what about “Gang”? (“Post.”) Correct. On hearing this name, you should know the content of the story—you should come close to guessing it. Now I will begin telling the story.

Xiaogang is an enthusiastic, studious, and diligent young man, and he is fairly smart. He loves to study, so he learns a little about some of today’s quite popular computer technologies, and in God’s house, he is naturally assigned to perform his duty in the Video Editing Team. When he first joins the Video Editing Team, Xiaogang is very happy and proud. Because he is young and has a command of certain technologies, he believes that video work is his specialty as well as his hobby, and that he can make use of his expertise by performing his duty there and also make progress in this field through the process of constant studying. In addition, most of the people he meets here are also young, and he very much likes the atmosphere here and enjoys this duty. So, every day he is busying himself with work and studying earnestly. It is in this way that Xiaogang gets up early to start work every day, sometimes not resting until late at night. Xiaogang pays many prices for his duty and suffers some hardships, and naturally he also learns a fair amount of relevant professional knowledge; he feels every day has been spent very productively. Xiaogang also frequently fellowships and attends gatherings with his brothers and sisters, and feels that after coming here, he has made more progress compared to when he believed in God in his hometown and that he has grown up, and can take up some work. He feels very happy and satisfied. When he originally studied computer technology, he hoped that he would work with computers one day, and now his wish has finally been fulfilled, so he really values this opportunity. A period of time passes, and Xiaogang’s work and his post have not changed. He holds to his job and holds to this responsibility and duty of his, and he appears to be more mature than before. He has also made progress in life entry, he frequently fellowships and pray-reads God’s words with his brothers and sisters at gatherings, and his interest in believing in God is becoming stronger and stronger. It can also be said that Xiaogang’s faith is increasing little by little. So, he has a new dream: “It would be great if I could become a more useful person while doing computer work!”

Time passes like this, day by day, and Xiaogang keeps performing the same duty. On one occasion he happens to watch a movie, and afterward it has a deep impact on him. Why? In the movie there is a young man of a similar age to Xiaogang, and he admires this young man’s performance, acting, and speech and deportment in the movie, also becoming a little jealous. After watching the movie, he occasionally imagines: “It would be great if I were that young man in the film. Every day, I’m in front of the computer making and uploading all kinds of videos, and no matter how busy or tired I am, or how hard I work, I’m still just a behind-the-scenes worker. How could anyone know how hard we’re working? If I could appear on the big screen one day like that young guy in the movie, and more people could see and know me, that would be great!” Xiaogang watches this film over and over, as well as all the different shots involving that young man. The more he watches, the more he envies him, and the more his heart yearns, longing to become an actor. Thus, Xiaogang’s new dream is born. What is his new dream? “I want to study acting, and strive to become a qualified actor, appear on the big screen, have an air about me like that young man’s, and get more people to envy me and yearn to be me.” From then on, Xiaogang starts working toward his dream. In his spare time, Xiaogang goes online and looks at all kinds of materials about acting. He also watches all kinds of movies and television shows, watching and learning at the same time, while fantasizing about having the opportunity to become an actor. The days still pass one by one in this way—Xiaogang is studying the acting profession while also holding to his post. Finally, thanks to his perseverance and diligence, Xiaogang masters certain fundamentals of acting. He has learned how to imitate, he has learned how to speak and perform in front of others, and he doesn’t have the slightest bit of stage fright. His repeated requests finally earn him an opportunity: There is a film that needs a young man for the leading role. From the audition, the director realizes his looks, his class, and his basic acting skills are up to the mark. If he has a little more training, he should be able to do it. Upon hearing this news, Xiaogang is overjoyed, and thinks to himself: “I can finally go from behind the scenes to being on screen—another dream of mine is about to be realized!” Xiaogang is then transferred to the Film Production Team to perform his duty.

After Xiaogang transfers to the Film Production Team, the new working environment brings him freshness and vitality. He feels that every day passes so happily, and that it’s not as dreary, dull, and restricted as before, because he lives and works there, and many of the things he comes into contact with every day are totally different to his computer work—he lives in another area of work, in another world. In this way, Xiaogang throws himself into the film production work. Every day he busies himself acting and learning his lines, listening to the director’s instruction and listening to his brothers and sisters analyze the plot. For Xiaogang, the most difficult part is getting into character, so he memorizes his lines over and over and keeps thinking about his own character, how he should speak and act, how he should walk and stand, even how he should sit, he has to re-learn all of these things. After continuing with this complex and varied work for a period of time, Xiaogang finally realizes just how difficult it is to be an actor. Every day he has to memorize the same lines. Sometimes he can recite them perfectly, but when it comes to the actual performance, he always makes mistakes and has to redo the scene. He is frequently reprimanded by the director because one of his actions or lines is not up to scratch. If several of his performances in a row go poorly, he will undergo being pruned, and he will lose face, endure suffering, and even attract strange looks and teasing. Faced with all of this, Xiaogang is a little discouraged, “If I’d known that being an actor on the big screen would be this hard, I wouldn’t have come here, but now I’m in a bit of a quagmire. I’m already here, so it would be unreasonable for me to give up before the filming has finished, and there’d be no way for me to account for it. This was my dream, I must make it a reality, but how long is the road ahead? Can I carry on?” Xiaogang begins to falter. In the following days, Xiaogang struggles to cope with his daily work and life. Each day is more unbearable than the last, but he still has to endure it and force himself to move forward. As one can well imagine, going forward Xiaogang is certain to have problems in various respects. He begins to do the work assigned to him very reluctantly. When the director tells him what to do, he listens and that is it. Afterward, he tries his best to achieve what he can, but if he can’t manage to do something, he doesn’t get serious with himself. What status is Xiaogang in at this moment? He is passing each day very reluctantly, very negatively, and very passively, without accepting the earnest guidance and help of the director or his brothers and sisters into his heart at all. He believes, “This is just how I am, there’s no room for improvement. You are pushing me beyond my abilities. If we can film it, let’s do it; if we can’t, then let’s just forget it. I’ll go back to my Video Editing Team to do my duty.” He thinks of how great it was working on the Video Editing Team, sitting in front of the computer every day. It was so comfortable and easy; he was so happy! His whole self and his whole world were all at the tap of a keyboard, he could have whatever he wanted just by activating a special effect. That virtual world is very attractive to Xiaogang. At this moment, Xiaogang misses his past and the time he spent performing his duty on the Video Editing Team even more. The days pass in this way, then one night, Xiaogang can’t sleep. Why can’t he sleep? He is thinking to himself: “Am I cut out to be an actor? If I’m not cut out for it, then I should return to the Video Editing Team right away. The duty of the Video Editing Team is relaxed and easy, I sit down in front of the computer and half of the day is just gone, and I don’t have to cook my own food. That duty is not strenuous, everything is possible at the touch of my keyboard, there is only the unimaginable, nothing is impossible. Nowadays, being an actor, I have to learn my lines every day and recite them over and over. Yet my performance still isn’t up to par, the director often berates me, and my brothers and sisters often criticize me. Doing this duty is too strenuous, it’s much better to work on the Video Editing Team!” The more he thinks about it, the more he misses it. He tosses and turns for half the night, unable to sleep, and is only able to drift off in the latter half of the night when he is simply too tired to stay awake. When Xiaogang opens his eyes early in the morning, his first thought is: “Ultimately, should I leave or not? Should I go back to the Video Editing Team? If I stay here, I don’t know if the film will even be deemed up to standard after we finish filming, and who knows how much hardship I will have to endure in the meantime. I’m just not cut out to be an actor! Back then, it was out of a momentary impulse and a whim that I wanted to be an actor, I was really muddled! You see, I made one wrong move and now things are so difficult to handle, and there’s no one for me to talk about this hardship with. Based on my current situation, it seems like it won’t be easy for me to become a good actor, so I should give up as soon as possible. I’ll tell the director right away that I’m going back, so that I don’t delay things for them.” Then, Xiaogang summons his courage to say this to the director: “Look, I’m not cut out to be an actor, but you guys just had to pick me—why don’t you just let me go back to the Video Editing Team?” The director says: “No way, we’ve already shot half of this movie. If we change actors, that will delay our work, won’t it?” Xiaogang persists and says: “So what? Replace me with whoever you want, it’s got nothing to do with me. No matter what, you have to let me go. If you don’t let me go, I won’t put any effort into acting!” The director sees that Xiaogang is insistent on leaving and that they won’t be able to finish shooting the movie, so he lets him leave.

Xiaogang finally returns to the Video Editing Team from the Film Production Team. He returns to his former workplace that he knows so well. He touches his chair and his computer, and they feel familiar. He prefers this place. He goes and sits down; the chair is soft and the computer is ready to go. “Making videos is better, this duty isn’t tiring. Working behind the scenes has its advantages, nobody knows if you make a mistake, and nobody criticizes you, you just correct it right away and that’s the end of it.” Xiaogang has finally discovered the advantages of being a behind-the-scenes worker. What is his mood at this moment? He feels incredibly comforted and happy, and thinks: “I made the right choice. God gave me an opportunity and allowed me to come back to this job. I’m honored to have this privilege!” He is glad that he has made the right choice for once. In the following days, Xiaogang keeps to the Video Editing Team’s daily working routine. Nothing special happens during this time, and Xiaogang passes each day in an ordinary way.

One day, when working on a video, Xiaogang suddenly discovers a humorous and classy young man in a dance program who performs very well. He thinks: “He is about my age; how come he can dance and I can’t?” Consequently, Xiaogang is tempted again. What idea comes to him? (Dancing.) Xiaogang has the idea to study dancing. He watches this video clip and the young man’s performance over and over. He then makes some inquiries about where to study dancing, how to learn it, and what the most basic dances are. He also frequently makes use of the convenience of being at work to search on his computer for teaching materials, videos, and study resources to do with dancing. Of course, while searching, Xiaogang is not only looking, he is also learning by practicing. In order to learn to dance, Xiaogang gets up very early every day and goes to bed very late. Building on his very limited foundation of gymnastic dance, he starts formally studying folk dance, getting up early every day to stretch and backbend. In the process of studying, Xiaogang endures a lot of physical pain, and spends a lot of his time, finally making some small gains. Xiaogang feels that his opportunity has finally come, that he can dance on stage because he believes his body is a bit more flexible and he can do some dance moves. Also, through imitation and study, he has just about mastered some of the beats when he plays music. Under these circumstances, Xiaogang feels it is time to apply to the church to change his duty. Again, after repeated requests, Xiaogang finally has his wish fulfilled and he joins the Dance Team to become a dancer. From then on, like the other dancers, Xiaogang gets up early for morning training and rehearses the dance program, and regularly attends gatherings, fellowships, and analyzes and plans out the dance program with these people. He just does this work every day, and when the day is over, he is so tired that his back is sore and his legs ache. Every day is like this, rain or shine. When he started, Xiaogang was full of inquisitiveness about dance, but once he has understood and become familiar with the life and various aspects of a dancer, Xiaogang feels that this is all there is to dance. Dancing a move over and over, sometimes twisting an ankle, sometimes tweaking the lower back, and there is risk of injury. As he dances, he thinks, “Oh no, working as a dancer is difficult too. Every day I tire myself out so much that my entire body stinks of sweat. It’s not that easy. It’s harder than video work! No, I must persevere!” This time he doesn’t give up so easily, and he persists until he finally gets to the dress rehearsal for the dance program, after which, their dance is sent for review. On the day of the review, what mood is Xiaogang in? He is so excited and full of anticipation for the results of his hard work that he doesn’t even eat lunch. “He has put in a lot of effort, hasn’t he?” Finally, when the results are released, their dance doesn’t pass the first round of reviews. The news hits Xiaogang like a thunderbolt, and his mood hits rock bottom. He falls down into a chair, “We spent so long on this dance, and you’re rejecting it with just one word? Do you know anything about dance? We dance with principles, we have all paid a price, and you’re rejecting our dance just like that?” Then he thinks, “The decision is in their hands, and if they don’t approve our dance, we must revise it again. There’s no one to argue about it with. There’s nothing else we can do, so let’s start over.” On the day their dance is rejected in the first round of reviews, Xiaogang doesn’t eat his lunch, and he only reluctantly eats a little at dinner. Do you think he’s able to sleep that night? (He can’t sleep.) He can’t sleep again, his mind is churning, “Why don’t things work out anywhere I go? God has not blessed me. The dance we’ve been working on for two months didn’t pass the first round of reviews. I don’t know when it’ll pass the second round of reviews, and I don’t know how much time we’ll have to spend for that to happen. When will I be able to get up on stage and officially perform? There’s no hope of me stepping into the limelight!” His mind goes back and forth, he ponders and ponders, and thinks, “Video work is better. I just go there and sit down, tap on the keyboard, and flowers, plants, and trees all appear. The birds call when I make them call, the horses run when I make them run, whatever I want, it’s there. But in dance, we have to pass reviews, and every day I tire myself out so much that I stink of sweat. Sometimes I’m so tired I can’t eat or sleep well, and then our dance doesn’t pass the first round of reviews. This duty is also hard. Wouldn’t it be better if I went back to work on the Video Editing Team?” He thinks and thinks, “But that’s so pathetic, why am I wavering again? I shouldn’t think like this, go to sleep!” He drifts off to sleep, puzzled. The next day he gets up and has almost forgotten all about it, so he carries on dancing and continues with the dress rehearsal. When it comes to the day of the second round of reviews, Xiaogang is nervous again. He asks: “Can our dance make it through this review?” Everyone says: “Who knows? If it doesn’t make it, then it proves our dancing isn’t good enough, and we’ll carry on working on it. When it passes, that’s when we’ll officially perform and film it. Let everything take its course and deal with this matter correctly.” Xiaogang says: “No, you can deal with it correctly, but I don’t have time for that.” Finally, the results of the second round come out, and their dance has not passed again. Xiaogang says: “Humph, I knew it! It’s not easy to be successful in this line of work! We are young, good-looking, and we can dance. Aren’t these strengths? Those reviewers are jealous of us because they can’t dance, that’s why they won’t pass our dance. It seems like it’ll never pass, dancing isn’t easy, I’m going back.” That night Xiaogang sleeps very peacefully, because he has made up his mind to pack up, leave, and say goodbye the next day.

In any case, Xiaogang finally has his wish fulfilled again and returns to the Video Editing Team, sitting in front of his computer again. He reflects on those familiar feelings from the past, and thinks, “I was born to do behind-the-scenes work. I can only be an unsung hero, I have no chance of being on stage or being famous in this life. I’ll just behave myself and keep tapping away at the keyboard. This is my duty, so I’ll just do this job.” He has steadied himself after all this back and forth. His second dream has been dashed, and gone unfulfilled. Xiaogang is a “diligent and studious” person, and an “enthusiastic and ambitious” person—do you think it’s likely that he’ll be so willing to sit at a computer and do such tedious work? No, he most likely won’t.

Recently, Xiaogang has become obsessed with singing. How can he change so quickly? Why is he obsessed with this, why can he not stay away from the stage? There is something hidden in his heart. This time he doesn’t rashly request to change his duty; he just searches for materials every day and practices his vocal skills and his singing. He frequently practices until he’s hoarse, sometimes until he can’t even make a sound. Even so, Xiaogang is still not discouraged, because this time he has changed strategy. He says, “This time I can’t change my duty without understanding the actual situation. I’ve really got to be careful, otherwise people will mock me. What will they think of me if I’m always changing my duty? They will look down on me. This time I need to keep on practicing until I think I can be a singing star, as good as the singers in the church, then I’ll sign up for the Hymn Team.” He puts effort into practicing like this every day, both in his spare time and at work, training tirelessly. One day, when Xiaogang is working, his team leader suddenly says to him: “Xiaogang, what kind of work are you doing? If you’re perfunctory like this again and don’t put effort into your work, you won’t be allowed to do this duty anymore.” Xiaogang says: “I didn’t do anything.” Then, everyone crowds around, saying “Xiaogang, what’s happened? Oh, you’ve made such a big mistake! The Above has corrected this kind of mistake so many times, how could you still make it? It’s because you’re practicing singing every day and don’t concentrate on video editing, so you keep making mistakes and delaying important matters. If you make a mistake like this again, the church will expel you. It won’t want you anymore, and we’ll all reject you!” Xiaogang keeps explaining: “I didn’t do it on purpose, I’ll be careful from now on, give me one more chance. Don’t expel me, I beg you, don’t expel me! God, save me!” When he calls out, he feels a large hand clap him on the shoulder, saying, “Xiaogang, wake up! Wake up, Xiaogang!” What is going on? (He’s dreaming.) He is dreaming. His eyes are closed and he’s in a daze, his hands are grabbing and scratching at the air. Everyone wonders what has happened and then they see Xiaogang bent over his keyboard sleeping. A brother pats him, and after a few pushes Xiaogang finally wakes up. When he is awake, he says: “Oh, what a fright, I was about to be expelled.” “For what?” Xiaogang thinks about it and sees that nothing has happened. It turns out that it was a dream after all, he was scared awake by a dream. That’s the end of the story, that was “Xiaogang’s Dreams.”

What problem does this story talk about? The fact that dreams and reality are often conflicting. A lot of the time, people think their dreams are legitimate, but they don’t know that dreams and reality are not the same thing at all. Dreams are just your wishful thinking, just a temporary interest of yours. Most of the time, they are people’s preferences, ambitions, and desires that become the goals of their pursuits. People’s dreams are totally inconsistent with reality. If people have too many dreams, what mistakes will they often make? They will overlook the work in front of them which they should be doing at that moment. They will ignore reality, and push aside the duties they should perform, the work they should complete, and the obligations and responsibilities they should fulfill at that time. They won’t take these things seriously and they’ll just keep following their dreams, constantly rushing about and working hard to realize them, and doing lots of meaningless things. In this way, not only will they fail to perform their duties properly, they may also delay and disturb the work of the church. A lot of people don’t understand the truth or pursue the truth. What do they treat performing a duty like? They treat it like a kind of job, a kind of hobby, or an investment of their interest. They don’t treat it like a mission or a task given by God, or a responsibility which they should fulfill. Even less do they seek to understand the truth or God’s intentions in the course of performing their duties, so that they may perform their duties well and complete God’s commission. Therefore, in the process of performing their duties, some people become unwilling as soon as they endure a bit of hardship and want to escape. When they encounter some difficulties or suffer some setbacks, they back down, and want to escape again. They do not seek the truth; they just think about escaping. Like turtles, if anything goes wrong, they just hide in their shells, then wait until the problem has passed before they emerge again. There are a lot of people like this. In particular, there are some people who, when asked to take responsibility for certain work, don’t consider how they can offer their loyalty, or how to perform this duty and do this work well. Rather, they consider how to shirk responsibility, how to avoid being pruned, how to avoid shouldering any responsibility, and how to emerge unscathed when problems or mistakes occur. They first consider their own escape route and how to satisfy their own preferences and interests, not how to perform their duties well and offer their loyalty. Can people like this gain the truth? They do not put in effort with regard to the truth, and they do not put the truth into practice when it comes to performing their duties. To them, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Today they want to do this, tomorrow they want to do that, and they think that everyone else’s duties are better and easier than their own. And yet, they do not put in effort with regard to the truth. They do not think about what problems there are with these ideas of theirs, and they do not seek the truth to solve problems. Their minds are always focused on when their own dreams will be realized, who is in the limelight, who is getting recognition from the Above, who does work without being pruned and gets promoted. Their minds are filled with these things. Can people who are always thinking about these things perform their duties adequately? They can never accomplish this. So, what kind of people perform their duties in this way? Are they people who pursue the truth? Firstly, one thing is certain: People like this do not pursue the truth. They seek to enjoy a few blessings, become famous, and step into the spotlight in God’s house, just like when they were getting by in society. In terms of essence, what kind of people are they? They are disbelievers. Disbelievers perform their duties in God’s house as they would do work in the outside world. They care about who is getting promoted, who is becoming a team leader, who is becoming a church leader, who is being praised by everyone for their work, who is exalted and mentioned. They care about these things. It is just like in a company: Who is getting promoted, who is getting a raise, who is receiving the praise of the leader, and who is becoming familiar with the leader—people care about these things. If they also seek these things in God’s house, and are preoccupied with these things all day, aren’t they the same as the nonbelievers? In essence, they are nonbelievers; they are typical disbelievers. Whatever duty they perform, they will just be laboring and acting in a perfunctory way. Whatever sermons they hear, they still won’t accept the truth, and even less will they put the truth into practice. They have believed in God for many years without undergoing any change, and no matter how many years they perform their duties for, they will not be able to offer their loyalty. They do not have true faith in God, they do not have loyalty, they are disbelievers.

Some people are afraid of shouldering responsibility while performing their duty. If the church gives them a job to do, they will first consider whether the job requires them to shoulder responsibility, and if it does, they will not accept the job. Their conditions for performing a duty are, first, that it must be a slack job; second, that it is not busy or tiring; and third, that no matter what they do, they do not shoulder any responsibility. This is the only kind of duty they take on. What sort of a person is this? Is this not a slippery, deceitful person? They do not want to shoulder even the smallest amount of responsibility. They even fear that leaves will break their skull when they fall from trees. What duty can a person like this perform? What use could they have in the house of God? The work of the house of God has to do with the work of battling Satan, as well as spreading the kingdom gospel. What duty does not entail responsibilities? Would you say that being a leader carries responsibility? Are their responsibilities not all the greater, and must they not bear responsibility all the more? Regardless of whether you spread the gospel, testify, make videos, and so on—no matter what work you do—so long as it pertains to the truth principles, it carries with it responsibilities. If the performance of your duty is unprincipled, it will affect the work of God’s house, and if you are afraid of shouldering responsibility, then you cannot perform any duty. Is someone who fears taking on responsibility in performing their duty cowardly, or is there a problem with their disposition? You must be able to tell the difference. The fact is that this is not an issue of cowardice. If that person were after wealth, or they were doing something in their own interest, how could they be so brave? They would take on any risk. But when they do things for the church, for God’s house, they take on no risk at all. Such people are selfish and vile, the most treacherous of all. Anyone who does not take on responsibility in performing a duty is not the least bit sincere to God, to say nothing of their loyalty. What sort of person dares to take on responsibility? What sort of person has the courage to bear a heavy burden? Someone who takes the lead and goes bravely forth at the most crucial moment in the work of God’s house, who is not afraid to bear a heavy responsibility and endure great hardship when they see the work that is most important and crucial. That is someone loyal to God, a good soldier of Christ. Is it the case that everyone who fears taking on responsibility in their duty does so because they do not understand the truth? No; it is a problem in their humanity. They have no sense of justice or responsibility, they are selfish and vile people, not true-hearted believers in God, and they do not accept the truth in the least. For this reason, they cannot be saved. Believers in God must pay a great price in order to gain the truth, and they will encounter many obstacles to practicing it. They must forsake things, abandon their fleshly interests, and endure some suffering. Only then will they be able to put the truth into practice. So, can one who fears taking on responsibility practice the truth? They certainly cannot practice the truth, let alone gain it. They are afraid of practicing the truth, of incurring a loss to their interests; they are afraid of being humiliated, of disparagement, and of judgment, and they do not dare to practice the truth. Consequently, they cannot gain it, and no matter how many years they believe in God, they cannot attain His salvation. Those who can perform a duty in God’s house must be people whose burden is the work of the church, who take responsibility, who uphold the truth principles, and who can suffer and pay the price. If one is lacking in these areas, they are unfit to perform a duty, and they do not possess the conditions for the performance of duty. There are many people who are afraid of taking on responsibility in performing a duty. Their fear manifests in three main ways. The first is that they choose duties that do not require taking on responsibility. If a church leader arranges for them to perform a duty, they first ask whether they must take on responsibility for it: If so, they do not accept it. If it does not require them to take on responsibility and to be responsible for it, they accept it reluctantly, but still must see whether the work is tiring or bothersome, and despite their reluctant acceptance of the duty, they are unmotivated to perform it well, preferring still to be perfunctory. Leisure, no labor, and no bodily hardship—this is their principle. The second is that when a difficulty befalls them or they encounter a problem, their first resort is to report it to a leader and have the leader handle and resolve it, in hope that they may keep their ease. They do not care how the leader handles the issue and pay this no mind—so long as they are not responsible themselves, then all is well to them. Is such performance of duty loyal to God? This is called passing the buck, dereliction of duty, playing tricks. It is all talk; they are not doing anything real. They say to themselves, “If this thing is mine to sort out, what if I end up making a mistake? When they look into who’s to blame, won’t they handle me? Won’t the responsibility for it fall first to me?” This is what they worry about. But do you believe that God scrutinizes all? Everyone makes mistakes. If a person whose intention is correct lacks experience and has not handled some sort of matter before, but they have done their best, that is visible to God. You must believe that God scrutinizes all things and the heart of man. If one does not even believe this, are they not a disbeliever? What significance could there be in such a person performing a duty? It doesn’t really matter whether they perform this duty or not, does it? They are afraid of taking responsibility and they shirk responsibility. When something happens, the first thing they do isn’t try to think of a way to handle the problem, rather the first thing they do is call and notify the leader. Of course, some people try to handle the problem themselves as they notify the leader, but some people don’t do this, and the first thing they do is call the leader, and after the call, they just wait passively, awaiting instructions. When the leader instructs them to take a step, they take a step; if the leader says to do something, they do it. If the leader doesn’t say anything or give instructions, they don’t do anything and just procrastinate. Without anyone spurring them on or supervising them they don’t do any work at all. Tell Me, is such a person doing a duty? Even if they are laboring, they have no loyalty! There is one more way in which a person’s fear of taking on responsibility in performing a duty manifests. When they perform their duty, some people do just a bit of superficial, simple work, work that does not entail taking on responsibility. Work that entails difficulties and taking on responsibility, they dump onto others, and if something should go wrong, they shift the blame onto those people and keep their own noses clean. When church leaders see that they are irresponsible, they patiently offer help, or they prune them, so that they may be able to take responsibility. But still, they do not want to, and they think, “This duty is hard to do. I’ll have to take responsibility when things go wrong, and I may even be cleared out and eliminated, and that will be the end for me.” What kind of attitude is this? If they have no sense of responsibility in performing their duty, how can they perform their duty well? Those who don’t genuinely expend themselves for God can’t perform any duty well, and those who fear taking responsibility will only delay things when they perform their duties. Such people are not trustworthy or dependable; they only perform their duty to get food in their mouths. Should “beggars” like this be eliminated? They should. The house of God does not want such people. These are the three manifestations of people who are afraid of taking on responsibility in performing their duty. People who are afraid of shouldering responsibility in their duty cannot even reach the level of a loyal laborer, and are not fit to perform a duty. Some people are eliminated because of this sort of attitude toward their duty. Even now, they may not know the reason and still complain, saying, “I did my duty with fiery enthusiasm, so why did they throw me out so coldly?” Even now, they do not understand. Those who do not understand the truth spend their whole lives unable to understand why they were eliminated. They make excuses for themselves, and keep defending themselves, thinking, “It’s instinctual for people to protect themselves, and they should do so. Who shouldn’t be looking out for themselves a bit? Who shouldn’t be thinking of themselves a bit? Who doesn’t need to keep an escape route open for themselves?” If you protect yourself whenever something befalls you and leave yourself an escape route, a back door, are you putting the truth into practice? This is not practicing the truth—it is being sneaky. You are performing your duty in the house of God now. What is the first principle of performing a duty? It is that you must first perform that duty with your whole heart, sparing no effort, and protect the interests of God’s house. This is a truth principle, one that you should put into practice. Protecting oneself by leaving oneself an escape route, a back door, is the principle of practice followed by nonbelievers, and their most elevated philosophy. Considering oneself first in all things and placing one’s own interests before all else, not thinking of others, having no connection with the interests of God’s house and the interests of others, thinking of one’s own interests first and then thinking of an escape route—is that not what a nonbeliever is? This is precisely what a nonbeliever is. This sort of person is not fit to perform a duty. There are still some people like Xiaogang from the story—he is a typical example. They can’t do anything in a down-to-earth manner. They want to save trouble in everything they do. They don’t want to suffer even a little hardship or frustration. Their flesh must be at ease, they must be able to eat and sleep at regular times, and the wind mustn’t blow on them nor the sun burn them. Furthermore, they don’t take any responsibility for their work. What they do must be something they like, something they are good at, something they are deeply willing to do. If they aren’t doing what they want, they don’t have the slightest obedience. They are constantly flip-flopping and in two minds. They are never committed in what they do—they always have one foot in and one foot out. When they suffer, they want to retreat. They cannot endure being pruned. High demands cannot be made of them. They cannot suffer. What they do is entirely dependent on their own interest and their own plan—there is not a shred of obedience within them. If this kind of person cannot seek the truth and reflect upon themselves, then these practices and corrupt dispositions are difficult to change. Performing a duty as a believer in God requires at the very least a little sincerity. Do you think these people are sincere? When serious effort is required, they cower. They have not one iota of sincerity. This is very troublesome and difficult to handle. They feel that they are great, and they feel wronged even when they are dismissed or pruned. It is so troublesome if people do not seek the truth or enter the truth reality. That’s enough for this topic—let’s get to the main point.

A Dissection of How Antichrists Have Others Submit Only to Them, Not the Truth or God

Today’s fellowship is on item eight of the various ways in which antichrists manifest: They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God. Are you able to understand this item? Consider first which manifestations of this item you can match up with what you do understand. They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God—the literal meaning is easily understood, but inside it are many states, and various dispositions that several sorts of people exhibit, or various behaviors that those various dispositions exhibit. This is a big topic; we’ll have to fellowship on it from some of its smaller features. To explain this item according to its literal meaning, people who preach words and doctrines would most often say: “It means heeding them in all things—they make people heed them, even when what they say doesn’t accord with the truth. When they preach a few words and doctrines, they have others heed them; when they say a phrase, they have others heed it. They’re always prone to giving others orders, delegating work to others, and forcing others to heed them.” Isn’t that how they most often put it when they speak a bit on its literal meaning? What else? “They think they’re right about everything. They make everyone heed them, and make people submit to what they say, though it doesn’t accord with the truth. They view themselves as the truth and as God, and in heeding them, people are submitting to the truth and to God. That’s what it means.” If it were you speaking on this topic, consider how you should do so. If you were to begin with what you’ve seen or experienced personally, what element would you start out from? As soon as we speak about reality, you’ve got nothing to say. Do you also have nothing to say in your usual fellowship with the brothers and sisters, then? How can you do your work well without talking? Talk a bit first about a few concrete ways and behaviors of this manifestation. Which of them have you seen or witnessed before? Do you have any idea? (When I’m doing my duty, I get some ideas that are fairly strong, and I’d really like to act on them. I think those thoughts of mine are good and right, and when others raise doubts about them, I say that the matter must not be delayed, that it needs to be settled right away. Then, I forcibly do what I’d meant to. Others may wish to seek, but I don’t want to give them the time—I want them to do the thing in line with my ideas.) That’s a concrete manifestation. Who will say another? (I was once fellowshipping with the brothers and sisters about the matter of promoting and nurturing someone. I had in fact already set my heart on promoting that person. I felt that I’d already sought from the Above, and that there was nothing the matter with promoting them. A few of the brothers and sisters didn’t yet understand the matter too well, and I didn’t fellowship about why we ought to promote that person, what the principles were, or what the truth was—I just forcefully told them the ways in which that person was good, that promoting them was in line with the principles. I coerced them into obeying me, into believing the thing I was doing was right.) You’re talking about a class of problems, a class of states, which match up on the whole with this item. It seems that bit of literal understanding is as far as your understanding of the truth goes, so I’ll have to fellowship on it. If you pretty much understood this item, we’d pass over it and fellowship about the next. It seems, though, that we can’t yet, and have to fellowship on it as planned.

Item eight of the various manifestations of antichrists is: They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God. In this, there are several expressions of an antichrist’s essence. It’s certainly not a single matter, a single phrase, a single view, or a single way of handling things; rather, it’s a disposition. What disposition is it, then? It manifests in several ways. The first way is that such people are unable to cooperate with anyone. Is that a way of doing things? (No, it’s a disposition.) That’s right—it’s the revelation of a disposition, one whose essence is arrogance and self-righteousness. Such people can’t cooperate with anyone. That’s the first. The second way it manifests is that they have the desire and ambition to control and conquer people. Is that a disposition? (Yes.) Is it a way of doing things? (No.) Is it distinct from the things you’ve said? You’ve spoken on single events, single ways of doing things—those aren’t an essence. Isn’t this manifestation more severe than the things you said? (Yes.) It gets to the root. And the third way is prohibiting others from intervening, making inquiries, or supervising them in any work they’ve taken on. Is that an essence? (Yes.) There are many behaviors and ways of doing things entailed in each of these essences. Again, this essence matches up with item eight, right? The fourth way is that they pretend to be the embodiment of the truth once they have acquired a bit of experience and knowledge, and learned some lessons, which means that if they can fellowship a bit of truth, they think of themselves as possessed of the truth reality, and wish to show others that they’re someone who has the truth—someone who practices the truth, loves the truth, and has the truth reality. They pretend to be the embodiment of the truth—is this not a matter of a severe nature? (It is.) Does this manifestation match up with item eight? (Yes.) It does. Item eight basically manifests in these four ways. Recite them, beginning with the first. (The first is that such people are unable to cooperate in harmony with anyone.) “In harmony” refers to being able to cooperate; such people are simply unable to cooperate with anyone. They do things by themselves, solo in their doings; “solo” is the defining feature of the first manifestation. Now, the second. (They have the ambition and desire to control and conquer people.) Is this a serious manifestation? (It is.) Well, what’s the defining feature of the second manifestation? Describe it in a word. (Wicked.) “Wicked” is an adjective; it describes their disposition. The word should be “control.” To “control” is an action, one of a sort that arises from such a disposition. And the third manifestation. (They prohibit others from intervening, making inquiries, or supervising them in any work they’ve taken on.) Is that not a disposition that’s common in antichrists? (It is.) It’s a characteristic disposition that’s peculiar to antichrists. Is there an apt word to sum up this manifestation? Yes—“resist.” Whoever comes, they resist them; and forget about them accepting the supervision and inquiries of the brothers and sisters and of ordinary people—they won’t even accept God’s scrutiny. Is that not resistance? (It is.) And the fourth manifestation. (They pretend to be the embodiment of the truth once they have acquired a bit of experience and knowledge, and learned some lessons.) We’ll sum this one up with a fitting word: “pretend.” Pretense is more serious than fakery. The fundamental, characteristic behaviors, ways of doing things, and dispositions that are related to item eight are all to be found within these four manifestations. The defining feature of the first manifestation is “solo.” They don’t cooperate with anyone, but want to act on their own. They don’t heed anyone but themselves and they have others heed them alone, no one else. It’s their way or the highway. The defining feature of the second manifestation is “control.” They wish to control people, and they’ll use a variety of means to control you, your thoughts, your ways of doing things, your heart, and your views. They don’t fellowship the truth to you. They don’t get you to understand the truth principles, and they don’t get you to understand God’s intentions. They want to control you for their own use, so that you’ll speak for them, and do things for them, and labor for them, so that you’ll exalt them and testify for them. They want to control you as their slave, their puppet. The defining feature of the third manifestation is “resist,” which means to resist everything—everything that may constitute discernment or supervision of, or a threat to, their work and speech, they resist and oppose wholesale. The defining feature of the fourth manifestation is “pretend”—what do they pretend to be? They pretend to be the embodiment of the truth, meaning that they require people to remember what they say and what they do, and even record them in their notebooks. They say, “How could it suffice just to keep mental notes? You need to write it in your notebooks. None of you understand what I’m saying—it’s very deep stuff!” What do they take their words to be? The truth. Now, from here, we’ll fellowship about them one by one.

I. A Dissection of Antichrists’ Inability to Cooperate With Anyone

The first item is that antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone. This is the first manifestation of antichrists’ having others submit only to them, not the truth or God. They can’t cooperate with anyone—that “anyone” encompasses everyone. Whether their personalities are compatible with someone else’s or not, and whatever the circumstances, they just can’t cooperate. This isn’t a question of an ordinary revelation of corruption—it’s a problem in their nature. Some say, “There are certain people whose personalities are incompatible with mine, and I can’t cooperate with them because of that.” That’s not a simple issue of personalities, but one of a corrupt disposition. To have a corrupt disposition is to have an antichrist’s disposition, but that doesn’t mean that one has an antichrist’s essence. If someone can seek the truth, and can obey what others say, whoever they may be, so long as it accords with the truth, won’t it be easy for that person to achieve harmonious cooperation with others? (Yes.) It’s easy for people who can submit to the truth to cooperate with others; people who can’t submit to the truth can’t cooperate with anyone. Some people, for instance, are quite arrogant and self-righteous. They don’t accept the truth in the least, and they can’t cooperate harmoniously with anyone. Now, this is a serious problem—they have an antichrist’s nature, and they can’t submit to the truth or God. People have a corrupt disposition: If they can accept the truth, it’ll be easy for them to be saved; but if they have an antichrist’s nature and can’t accept the truth, they’re in trouble—being saved won’t be easy for them. Many antichrists have been revealed due primarily to their inability to cooperate with anyone, always acting dictatorially. Is that a revelation of a corrupt disposition, or is it the nature essence of an antichrist? Being unable to cooperate with anyone—what problem is that? What does it have to do with having others submit only to them, not the truth or God? If we were to fellowship this item clearly, you’d be able to see that those with the nature essence of an antichrist are unable to cooperate with anyone, that they’ll part ways with whomever they’re cooperating with, and that they’ll even become bitter rivals. On the surface, it may seem like some antichrists have assistants or partners, but the fact is that when something happens, no matter how right others may be, antichrists never listen to what they have to say. They don’t even take it into account, much less discuss it or fellowship about it. They don’t pay any attention at all, as if others may as well not be there. When antichrists listen to what others have to say, they are merely going through the motions or performing an act for others to witness. But when it ultimately comes time for the final decision, it is the antichrists who call the shots; anyone else’s words are wasted breath, they don’t count at all. For example, when two people are responsible for something, and one of them has the essence of an antichrist, what is exhibited in this person? No matter what it is, they and they alone are the one who gets the ball rolling, who asks the questions, who sorts things out, and who comes up with a solution. And most of the time, they keep their partner completely in the dark. What is their partner in their eyes? Not their deputy, but simply window dressing. In the antichrist’s eyes, their partner simply doesn’t exist. Whenever there is a problem, the antichrist thinks it over, and once they have decided on a course of action, they inform everyone else that this is how it is to be done, and no one is allowed to question it. What is the essence of their cooperation with others? Fundamentally it is to have the final say, never discussing problems with anyone else, taking sole responsibility for the work, and turning their partners into window dressing. They always act alone and never cooperate with anyone. They never discuss or communicate about their work with anyone else, they often make decisions alone and deal with issues alone, and in many things, other people find out how things were finished or handled only after the deed is done. Other people tell them, “All problems have to be discussed with us. When did you handle that person? How did you handle him? How did we not know about it?” They neither provide an explanation nor pay any attention; to them, their partners have no use at all, and are just decoration or window dressing. When something happens, they think it over, make up their own mind, and act however they wish to. No matter how many people there are around them, it’s as if these people are not there. To the antichrist, they may as well be air. Given this, is there any real aspect to their partnership with others? Not at all, they are just going through the motions and acting a part. Others say to them, “Why don’t you fellowship with everyone else when you come across a problem?” They reply, “What do they know? I’m the team leader, it’s up to me to decide.” The others say, “And why didn’t you fellowship with your partner?” They reply, “I told him, he had no opinion.” They use other people having no opinion or not being able to think for themselves as excuses to obfuscate the fact that they are acting as a law unto themselves. And this is not followed by the slightest introspection. It would be impossible for this kind of person to accept the truth. This is a problem with the antichrist’s nature.

How is the term “cooperation” to be explained and practiced? (Discussing things when they arise.) Yes, that’s one way of practicing it. What else? (Offsetting one’s weaknesses with the other’s strengths, supervising each other.) That fits entirely; practicing like that is cooperating in harmony. Is there more? Soliciting the other’s opinion when things happen—isn’t that cooperation? (Yes.) If one person fellowships theirs, and the other theirs, and in the end, they just go with the first person’s fellowship, why go through the motions? That’s not cooperation—it’s out of line with the principles, and it doesn’t yield the results of cooperation. If you speak on and on, like a machine gun, and don’t give others who’d like to speak the chance, and don’t listen to others even after you’ve spoken all your ideas, is that discussion? Is it fellowship? That’s just going through the motions—it’s not cooperation. What is cooperation, then? It’s when you, having spoken your ideas and decisions, can solicit the other’s opinions and views, then hold your and their statements and views against each other for comparison, with a few people exercising discernment on them together, and seeking the principles, thus coming to a common understanding and determining the correct path of practice. That’s what it means to discuss and to fellowship—that’s what “cooperation” means. Some people, as leaders, can’t see through some matter, but won’t discuss it with others until they’re out of options. They then say to the group, “I can’t handle this matter autocratically; I need to cooperate in harmony with everyone. I’ll let you all express your opinions about it and discuss it, to determine the right thing for us to do.” After everyone has spoken and had their say, they ask the leader what he thinks of it. He says, “What everyone wants is the same as what I want—I was thinking it, too. It’s what I’ve planned to do from the start, and with this discussion, unanimity is guaranteed.” Is this a candid remark? There’s a taint to it. He can’t see through the matter at all, and there’s an intent to mislead and trick people in what he says—it’s meant to get people to esteem him. His solicitation of everyone’s opinions is just a matter of form, meant to get everyone to say he’s not being dictatorial or autocratic. To avoid that label, he employs this method to cover things up. The fact is that while everyone is talking, he’s not listening at all, and not taking what they say at all to heart. And he’s not being sincere in letting everyone speak, either. On the surface, he’s letting everyone fellowship and have a discussion, but in reality, he’s only letting everyone talk in order to find a method that lines up with his own intentions. And once he’s determined the suitable way to go about the thing, he’ll force people to accept what he intends to do, whether it’s correct or not, and make everyone think that his way is right, that it’s what everyone intends. In the end, he executes it by force. Is that what you’d call cooperation? No—what would you call it, then? He’s being dictatorial. Whether he’s right or wrong, he wants to have the sole, final say. Moreover, when something happens and he can’t see through it, he has everyone else speak first. Once they have, he recapitulates their views and looks in them for a method that he likes and finds suitable, and makes everyone accept it. He’s adopting a pretense of cooperation, with the result that he still acts as he means to—still, he’s the one with the sole and final say. He finds faults and pokes holes in what everyone says, giving commentary and setting the tone, then goes on to synthesize all of it into one complete, accurate statement, with which to make his decision, showing everyone that he’s more elevated than others. From the outside, he seems to have heard everyone’s messages, and he does let everyone talk. The fact, though, is that he alone makes the decision in the end. The decision is in fact everyone’s insights and views, just summarized by him, put in a slightly more complete and accurate way. Some people can’t see through this, and so think it’s him who’s elevated. What’s the character of such action on his part? Isn’t it an extreme cleverness? He summarizes everyone’s messages and states them as his own, so that people worship and obey him; and in the end, everyone acts as he wills. Is that harmonious cooperation? It’s arrogance and self-righteousness, dictatorship—he takes all the credit for himself. Such people are so disingenuous, so arrogant and self-righteous, in cooperating with others, and people will see that, given enough time. Some will say: “You say I’m unable to cooperate with anyone—well, I do have a partner! They cooperate well with me: They go where I go, do what I do; they go wherever I have them go, do whatever I have them do, however I’d have them do it.” Is that what cooperation means? No. That’s called being a footman. A footman does your bidding—is that cooperation? Clearly, they are a lackey, without ideas or views, much less opinions of their own. And beyond that, their thinking is that of a people-pleaser. They’re not meticulous in anything they do, but perfunctorily go through the motions, and they don’t uphold the interests of God’s house. What purpose could cooperation like that serve? Whoever they’re partnered with, they just do their bidding, ever a lackey. They heed whatever others say and do whatever others have them do. That’s not cooperation. What is cooperation? You have to be able to discuss things with each other, and express your views and opinions; you must complement and supervise each other, and seek from each other, make inquiries of each other, and prompt each other. That’s what it is to cooperate in harmony. Say, for instance, you handled something according to your own will, and someone said, “You did it wrong, entirely against the principles. Why did you handle it however you wanted, without seeking the truth?” To this, you say, “That’s right—I’m glad you alerted me! If you hadn’t, it would have spelled disaster!” That’s what prompting each other is. What is it, then, to supervise each other? Everyone has a corrupt disposition, and may be perfunctory in doing their duty, safeguarding only their own status and pride, not the interests of God’s house. Such states are there in every person. If you learn that someone has a problem, you should take the initiative to fellowship with them, reminding them to do their duty according to the principles, while letting it stand as a warning to yourself. That’s mutual supervision. What function does mutual supervision serve? It’s meant to safeguard the interests of God’s house, and also to keep people from taking the wrong road. Cooperation has another function, apart from prompting each other and supervising each other: making inquiries of each other. When you want to handle a person, for instance, you should fellowship with and make inquiries of your partner: “I haven’t encountered this sort of thing before. I don’t know how to handle it. What’s a good way to handle it? I just can’t sort it out!” They say, “I’ve handled problems like this before. The context that time was a bit different than it is in this person’s case; it would be a bit like rule-following, if we handled this the same way. I don’t know a good way to handle this now, either.” You say, “I have an idea I’d like to run by you. This person seems evil, to look at their character, but we can’t be sure for the moment. They can labor, though, so let them do so for now. If they can’t labor, and keep disrupting and disturbing things, we’ll handle them then.” They hear this and say, “That’s a fine way. It’s on the prudent side and completely in line with the principles, and it’s neither suppressive nor a vent for private anger. Let’s handle it that way, then.” The two of you reached a consensus through discussion. Work done that way runs smoothly. Suppose the two of you aren’t cooperating and don’t discuss things, and when your partner doesn’t know how to handle something, they foist it off onto you, thinking, “Handle it however you please. If anything goes wrong, it’ll be your responsibility, at any rate—I won’t be sharing it with you.” You can see that your partner is acting from an unwillingness to take on responsibility, yet you don’t point that out to them, but act rashly according to your own will, thinking, “You don’t want to take on the responsibility? You want to let me handle it? Fine, I’ll handle it, then—I’ll expel them.” The two of you don’t share a mind; each has your own angle—and as a result, the matter is handled haphazardly, in violation of the principles, and a person who’s capable of laboring is arbitrarily cleared out. Is that harmonious cooperation? Harmonious cooperation is the only way to achieve positive results. If one person won’t take responsibility and the other would act arbitrarily, that’s the same as them not cooperating. They’re both acting by their own will. How could such performance of one’s duty be satisfactory?

When something comes up amid cooperation, you have to make inquiries of each other and discuss things with each other. Can antichrists practice in this way? Antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone; they’re always wishing to set up solitary rule. The characteristic of this manifestation is “solo.” Why use the word “solo” to describe it? Because before they take action, they don’t come before God in prayer, nor do they seek the truth principles, much less do they find someone to fellowship with and say to them, “Is this an appropriate course? What do the work arrangements stipulate? How’s this sort of thing to be handled?” They never discuss things or seek to reach a consensus with their co-workers and partners—they just consider things and scheme on their own, making their own plans and arrangements. With a mere cursory read-through of the work arrangements of God’s house, they think they’ve understood them, and then they blindly arrange the work—and by the time others know of this, the work has already been arranged. It’s impossible for anyone to hear their views or sentiments from their own mouth in advance, as they never communicate the thoughts and views they harbor to anyone. Someone may ask, “Don’t all leaders and workers have partners?” They may nominally have someone as a partner, but when it comes time to work, they don’t anymore—they fly solo. Although leaders and workers have partners, and everyone who does any duty has a partner, antichrists believe that they have good caliber and are better than ordinary people, so ordinary people are not worthy of being their partner, and are all inferior to them. This is why antichrists like to call the shots and don’t like to discuss things with anyone else. They think doing so makes them look like an incompetent good-for-nothing. What kind of viewpoint is this? What kind of disposition is this? Is this an arrogant disposition? They think that to cooperate and discuss things with others, to make inquiries of them and seek from them, is undignified and demeaning, an affront to their self-respect. And so, in order to protect their self-respect, they don’t allow transparency in anything they do, nor do they tell others about it, much less discuss it with them. They think that to discuss with others is to show themselves as incompetent; that to always solicit other people’s opinions means they are stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves; that working with others in completing a task or sorting out some problem makes them appear useless. Isn’t this their arrogant and absurd mentality? Isn’t this their corrupt disposition? The arrogance and self-righteousness within them is too obvious; they have lost all normal human reason, and they aren’t quite right in the head. They always think they have abilities, can finish things by themselves, and have no need to cooperate with others. Since they have such corrupt dispositions, they are unable to achieve harmonious cooperation. They believe that to cooperate with others is to dilute and fragment their power, that when work is shared with others, their own power is lessened and they can’t decide everything for themselves, meaning they lack real power, which for them is a tremendous loss. And so, no matter what happens to them, if they believe they understand and that they know the appropriate way to handle it, they won’t discuss it with anyone else, and they will call all the shots. They will prefer to make mistakes over letting other people know, they will prefer to be wrong over sharing power with someone else, and they will prefer dismissal over letting other people intervene in their work. This is an antichrist. They would rather harm the interests of God’s house, would rather wager the interests of God’s house, than share their power with anyone else. They think that when they’re doing a piece of work or handling some matter, this isn’t the performance of a duty, but rather a chance to display themselves and stand out from others, and a chance to exercise power. Therefore, although they say that they will harmoniously cooperate with others and that they will discuss matters together with others when they occur, the truth is, in the depths of their heart, they are unwilling to give up their power or status. They think that so long as they understand some doctrines and are capable of doing it themselves, they don’t need to cooperate with anyone else; they think that it should be carried out and completed alone, and that only this makes them competent. Is this view correct? They don’t know that if they violate principles, they aren’t doing their duties, they aren’t able to carry out God’s commission, and they are merely laboring. Rather than seek the truth principles when doing their duty, they exercise power according to their thoughts and intentions, show off, and parade themselves. No matter who their partner is or what they do, they never want to discuss things, they always want to act on their own, and they always want to have the final say. They are obviously playing with power and using power to do things. Antichrists all love power, and when they have status, they want more power. When they possess power, antichrists are liable to use their status to show off and parade themselves, so as to make others look up to them and to achieve their goal of standing out from the crowd. Thus do the antichrists fixate upon power and status, and will never relinquish their power, ever. Whatever duty they’re doing, whatever realm of professional know-how it entails, they’ll pretend to know about it, even when it’s clear they don’t. And if someone should accuse them of not understanding, and just pretending, they’ll say, “Even if I start studying this now, I’ll understand it better than you. It’s just a matter of looking up some resources online, isn’t it?” This is how arrogant and self-righteous antichrists are. They view everything as a simple matter, and they’d dare take it on wholesale and alone. And as a result, when the Above checks on the work and asks how the matter is coming along, they say it’s more or less taken care of. The fact is that they’ve been flying solo, not discussing things with anyone—they’ve been deciding everything themselves. If you ask them, “Are there principles to the way you’re acting?” they’ll trot out a whole set of theories to prove that what they’re doing is right and in line with the principles. In reality, their thinking is distorted and mistaken. They haven’t discussed things at all with others, but have always had the final say, making the decisions themselves. Decisions made by a single person are bound to contain deviations most of the time, so what disposition is this, thinking themselves right and accurate? It’s an obvious disposition of arrogance. They have an arrogant disposition, and that’s why they’re dictatorial—that’s why they run riot doing bad things. It’s autocracy—a monopoly. This is the disposition of antichrists. They’re never willing to cooperate with anyone, but find it extraneous, unnecessary. They always think they’re better than others, that no one else compares to them. That’s why at heart, antichrists have no wish or will to cooperate with others. They want to have what they say go; they want a monopoly. Only then do they feel delight—only then can they demonstrate their superiority, making others submissive to them and worshipful of them.

There’s another part of it, which is that antichrists always wish to have absolute power, to have the sole and final say. This aspect of their disposition also makes them unable to cooperate with others. If you ask them whether they’re willing to cooperate, they say they are, but when time comes to do so, they can’t. This is their disposition. Why can’t they do it? If an antichrist were to be an assistant group head, say, and someone else the group head, that person with the nature essence of an antichrist would go from assistant to head, and the group head would then be their assistant. They’d flip it around. How would they achieve this? They have many techniques. One element of their techniques is that they make use of the times when they’re taking action in front of the brothers and sisters—the times when most everyone can see them—to speak and act a lot and show themselves off, to make people esteem them and acknowledge that they’re much better than the group head, and that they’ve surpassed the group head. And with time, the brothers and sisters come to say that the group head isn’t as good as the assistant group head. The antichrist is delighted to hear this; they think, “Finally, they admit that I’m better than him. I’ve accomplished my goal.” What are the responsibilities and obligations an assistant group head should fulfill, under normal circumstances? They are to cooperate with the group head in carrying out and implementing the work arranged by the church, and to raise things to the group head, and prompt him, and supervise him—and to act together in discussion with him. The group head must play the role of primary leader; the assistant group head must have his back, and cooperate with him in seeing that every work project is taken well care of. Apart from not sabotaging things, everything must be done in cooperation with the group head, so that the work that’s to be done is done well. If the group head’s actions violate the principles, the assistant group head must then raise it to him and help him, and correct the mistake. And with everything that the group head does right and well, and that’s in line with the truth principles, the assistant group head must support and cooperate with it, and make an all-out effort in its service, and be of one heart and mind with the group head to do the work well. If a problem should occur, or if one should be found, the two of them must discuss its resolution. Sometimes, there are two things that must be done at the same time; once the two of them have talked it over, they must each take good care of their own work, separately. That’s cooperation—harmonious cooperation. Do antichrists cooperate in this way with others? Absolutely not. If it’s an antichrist serving as assistant group head, they’ll get to figuring out what they must do to swap positions with the group head, to turn the group head into the assistant and the assistant into the group head, thereby taking charge. They command the group head to do this and that, showing everyone that they’re much better than the group head, that they’re fit to be the group head. In this way, their prestige increases among others, and they’re then naturally chosen as group head. They intentionally make the group head look foolish and lose face, such that others look down on him. Then, with their words, they mock him and satirize him, and expose and belittle him. Bit by bit, the disparity between the two grows bigger and bigger, and the places they have in people’s hearts grow more and more different. The antichrist thus becomes the group head, in the end—they’ve won people over to their side. With a disposition like theirs, can they cooperate in harmony with others, then? No. Whatever venue they’re in, they want to be the mainstay, to have a monopoly, to hold the power in their own hand. Whatever your title, chief or assistant, a big one or a small one, status and power, as they see it, must sooner or later become theirs alone. Whoever it may be doing a duty with them, or doing any work project with them, or even debating an issue with them, they remain a loner who acts on their own. They don’t cooperate with anyone. No one is allowed to have the same prestige or title as them, nor the same ability or reputation. As soon as someone would surpass them and threaten their status, they’ll try to turn the situation around, by any means at their disposal. Everyone is discussing a matter, for instance, and when the discussion is on the verge of yielding a result, they’ll understand this at a glance and know what’s to be done. They’ll say, “Is this really so hard to take care of? Does it still need such discussion? None of what you’re saying will fly!” And they’ll offer a novel theory or high-sounding idea that no one had thought of, ultimately refuting everyone’s views. Once they have, it’ll make people think, “They’re high up, alright; how come we didn’t think of that? We’re just ignorant rabble. That’s no good—we need you at the helm!” That’s the result the antichrist wants; they’re always spouting high-sounding ideas, so that they can come to cut a unique figure, and win the esteem of others. And what impression of them do people wind up with? That their ideas are beyond those of ordinary people, more elevated than those of ordinary people. How elevated? If they’re not there, the group can’t make a ruling or finalize anything, so they must wait for them to come and say something. Once they have, everyone admires them, and if what they say is fallacious, everyone still says it’s elevated. In this, aren’t they misleading people? So, why can’t they cooperate with anyone? They feel, “Cooperating with people is putting myself on a level with them. Can two tigers occupy the same mountain? There can only be one king of the mountain, and that kingship goes to whoever can hold it—and it’s a capable person like me who can do that. You all aren’t that bright of mind; your caliber’s poor, and you’re timid. And add to that, you haven’t cheated or fooled people in the world—you’ve just been fooled by others. I alone am qualified to be leader here!” With them, bad things thus become good things. They flaunt these bad things of theirs—isn’t that shameless? Why do they say these things? And what’s the purpose of their acting like this, then? It’s to be the leader, to take pride of place, no matter how large a group of people they’re in. Is that not their intention? (It is.) So, they think of every way to belittle, demean, and mock everyone, and then offer up high-sounding ideas of their own, to convince everyone and have everyone do what they say. Is that cooperation? No—what is it? This squares with item eight, which we’re speaking on: They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God. This is spoken in regard to cooperation. Can antichrists—whatever they’re doing, in their language or in their methods—do their duty in cooperation with others? (No.) They don’t cooperate, but just demand that others cooperate with their statements and methods. Can they take advice from others, then? Certainly not. Whatever advice others may offer them, they’re quite indifferent to it. They don’t ask for details or for reasons, nor do they ask how things really should be handled, much less do they seek the truth principles. Worse still, they don’t even ask Me when I’m in front of them—they treat Me as air. I ask them if they have some problem, and they say no. Clearly, they don’t know what to do about something that’s just happened, yet they don’t ask Me, though I’m there in front of them. Can they cooperate with anyone else, then? No one’s qualified to be their partner, just their slave and footman. Is that not so? Some of them may have partners, but in fact, those partners of theirs are their footmen, much like puppets. They say, “Go here,” and their partner does; “Go there,” and their partner does; their partner knows what they’d have them know, and with what they wouldn’t have them know, they don’t even dare ask. Things are as they say they are. Someone may say to them, “This won’t do. There are some things you can’t be in sole charge of. You have to find someone to cooperate with, someone who’ll supervise you. Moreover, there was some work you didn’t handle so well in the past. You need to find someone of caliber, with an ability to do the work, to cooperate with you and help you—you need to safeguard the work of the church and the interests of God’s house!” What will they say to that? “If you dismiss my partner, there’s no one else fit to partner with me.” What’s this they’re saying? Is it that they’ll have no partner, or that they can’t find that sort of footman and slave? They’re afraid that they won’t be able to find such a slave or footman, such a “partner” who does only their bidding. How would you say this challenge they raise should be resolved? You may say, “Oh, you can’t find a partner? No need for you to work on this project, then—whoever has a partner can do it instead.” Is the problem not thus resolved? If no one’s fit to partner with you and no one can cooperate with you, what sort of thing are you, then? You’re a monster, a freak. Those who truly have reason are at least able to cooperate with the average person, unless that person is too poor of caliber. That wouldn’t work. The first thing reasonable people must do is learn to cooperate with others in doing their duty. They must be able to cooperate with anyone, unless that person’s feeble-minded or a devil, in which case there’s no way to cooperate with them. It’s a very important thing, to be able to cooperate with most people—it’s a sign of normal reason.

One of the most obvious characteristics of the essence of an antichrist is that they monopolize power and run their own dictatorships: They do not listen to anyone, they do not respect anyone, and regardless of people’s strengths, or what correct views or wise opinions they may express, or what suitable methods they might put forward, they pay them no heed; it is as if no one is qualified to cooperate with them, or to take part in anything they do. This is the kind of disposition antichrists have. Some people say this is being of bad humanity—but how could it be commonplace bad humanity? This is an entirely satanic disposition, and such a disposition is supremely vicious. Why do I say that their disposition is supremely vicious? Antichrists expropriate everything from the house of God and the property of the church, and treat them as their personal property, all of which is to be managed by them, and they do not permit anyone else to intervene in this. The only things they think about when doing the work of the church are their own interests, their own status, and their own pride. They do not allow anyone to harm their interests, much less do they allow anyone of caliber or anyone who is able to speak of their experiential testimony to threaten their reputation and status. And so, they try to suppress and exclude as competitors those who are able to speak of experiential testimony, and who can fellowship the truth and provide for God’s chosen people, and they desperately try to isolate those people completely from everyone else, to drag their names thoroughly through the mud, and to bring them down. Only then will the antichrists feel at peace. If these people are never negative, and are able to carry on doing their duty, speaking of their testimony, and supporting others, then the antichrists will turn to their last resort, which is to find faults with them and condemn them, or to frame them and fabricate reasons to torment and punish them, until they get them cleared out of the church. Only then will the antichrists completely relax. This is what is most insidious and malicious about the antichrists. What causes them the most fear and anxiety is the people who pursue the truth and are possessed of true experiential testimony, because people with such testimony are the ones whom God’s chosen people approve of and support the most, rather than those who blather on emptily about words and doctrines. Antichrists do not possess true experiential testimony, nor are they capable of practicing the truth; at best, they are capable of doing a few good deeds to curry favor with people. But no matter how many good deeds they do or how many nice-sounding things they say, these are still incomparable to the benefits and advantages that a good experiential testimony can bring to people. Nothing is a substitute for the effects of the provision and watering provided to God’s chosen people by those who are able to speak of their experiential testimony. And so, when antichrists see someone speaking of their experiential testimony, their gaze becomes a dagger. Rage ignites in their hearts, hatred rises up, and they are champing at the bit to shut the speaker up and stop them from saying any more. If they carry on talking, the antichrists’ reputation will be completely ruined, their ugly faces completely exposed for all to see, so the antichrists find a pretext to disturb the person who is speaking testimony, and to suppress them. Antichrists permit only themselves to mislead people with words and doctrines; they do not allow God’s chosen people to glorify God by speaking of their experiential testimony, which indicates what kind of people the antichrists hate and fear the most. When someone distinguishes themselves with a little work, or when someone is able to speak of true experiential testimony, and God’s chosen people receive benefits, edification, and support from it, and it earns great praise from everyone, envy and hate grows in the hearts of the antichrists, and they try to exclude and suppress that person. They do not, under any circumstances, allow such people to undertake any work, in order to prevent them from threatening their status. People with the truth reality serve to accentuate and highlight the poverty, wretchedness, ugliness, and wickedness of antichrists when they’re in their presence, so when the antichrists choose a partner or co-worker, they never select people with the truth reality, they never select people who can speak of their experiential testimony, and they never select honest people or people who are able to practice the truth. These are the people the antichrists envy and hate the most, and they are a thorn in the side of the antichrists. No matter how much these people who practice the truth do that is good or of benefit to the work of God’s house, the antichrists will try their hardest to cover these deeds up. They will even twist the facts to claim the credit for good things while shifting the blame for bad things onto others, as a means to elevate themselves and belittle other people. Antichrists have a great jealousy and hatred toward those who pursue the truth and are able to speak of their experiential testimony. They are fearful that these people will threaten their own status, and so they do all they can to attack and exclude them. They prohibit the brothers and sisters from contacting them or getting close to them, or from supporting or praising these people who are able to speak of their experiential testimony. This is what most reveals the satanic nature of antichrists, which is averse to the truth and hates God. And so, too, does it prove that the antichrists are an evil countercurrent in the church, that they are the ones to blame for the disturbance to church work and impedance of God’s will. What’s more, the antichrists often fabricate lies and twist facts among the brothers and sisters, belittling and condemning people who can speak of their experiential testimony. No matter what work those people do, antichrists find excuses to exclude and suppress them, and are judgmental about them, saying they are arrogant and self-righteous, that they like showing off, and that they harbor ambitions. In fact, these people have some experiential testimony and possess some of the truth reality. They are of relatively good humanity, have conscience and reason, and are able to accept the truth. And though they may have some shortcomings, deficiencies, and occasional revelations of a corrupt disposition, they are capable of reflecting on themselves and repenting. These people are the ones whom God will save, and who have hope of being made perfect by God. In sum, these people are suited to doing a duty. They satisfy the requirements and principles for doing a duty. But the antichrists think to themselves, “There’s no way I’m going to put up with this. You want to have a role in my domain, to compete with me. That’s impossible; don’t even think about it. You’re more educated than me, more articulate than me, more popular than me, and you pursue the truth with greater diligence than I do. If I were to cooperate with you and you stole my thunder, what would I do then?” Do they consider the interests of the house of God? No. What do they think about? They think only of how to hold on to their own status. Though antichrists know themselves to be incapable of doing real work, they do not cultivate or promote people of good caliber who pursue the truth; the only people they promote are those who flatter them, those who are apt to worship others, who approve of and admire them in their hearts, those who are smooth operators, who have no understanding of the truth and are incapable of discernment. The antichrists bring these people up to their side to serve them, to run about for them, and to spend each day orbiting around them. This gives the antichrists power in the church, and it means that many people draw close to them, and follow them, and that no one dares to offend them. All these people whom antichrists cultivate are people who do not pursue the truth. Most of them lack spiritual understanding and know nothing but rule-following. They like to follow trends and the powers that be. They are of the sort that is emboldened by having a powerful master—a gang of muddle-headed people. How does that saying of the nonbelievers go? Better to be a squire to a good man than the worshiped forebear of a bad one. Antichrists do precisely the opposite—they act as the worshiped forebears of such people, and set out to cultivate them as their flag-wavers and cheerers-on. Whenever an antichrist is in power in a church, they will always recruit muddle-headed people and those who blindly fool around as their helpers, while excluding and suppressing those people of caliber who can understand and practice the truth, who can take on work—and especially those leaders and workers who are capable of actual work. In this way, two camps are formed in the church: In one camp are those whose humanity is relatively honest, who do their duty with sincerity, and are people who pursue the truth. The other camp is a gang of people who are muddle-headed and who blindly fool around, led by antichrists. These two camps will continue to battle each other until the antichrists are revealed and eliminated. Antichrists always fight and act against those who do their duty with sincerity and pursue the truth. Does this not severely disturb the church’s work? Does this not disrupt and disturb God’s work? Is this force of antichrists not a stumbling block and an obstacle preventing God’s will from being carried out in the church? Is it not a wicked force opposing God? Why do antichrists act this way? Because, in their minds, it is clear that if these positive characters were to stand up and be leaders and workers, they would be antichrists’ competitors; they would be antichrists’ opposing force, and would absolutely not listen to antichrists’ words or obey them; they would absolutely not follow antichrists’ every bidding. These people would be enough to constitute a threat to the antichrists’ status. When antichrists see these people, hatred rises up in their hearts; their hearts will be without peace and reassurance if they do not exclude and defeat these people and ruin their names. Therefore, they must work quickly to cultivate their own power and strengthen their ranks. This way, they can control more of God’s chosen people, and will never again have to worry about a handful of truth-pursuers threatening their status. Antichrists form their own force in the church, taking those who listen to them, obey them, and are sycophantic toward them, and promoting them to be in charge of every aspect of work. Is doing this beneficial to the work of the house of God? No. Not only is it not beneficial, it also creates disruption and disturbance to the church’s work. If this wicked force has more than half of the people on its side, there is a chance it will topple the church. This is because the number of truth-pursuers in the church constitutes a minority, whereas laborers and disbelievers who are just there to eat their fill of loaves constitute at least half. In this situation, if antichrists focus their strength on misleading and drawing those people over to their side, they will naturally have an upper hand when the church elects leaders. Therefore, the house of God always stresses that during elections, the truth should be fellowshipped on until it is clear. If you are unable to expose and defeat antichrists by fellowshipping on the truth, the antichrists could mislead people and be elected as a leader, seizing and controlling the church. Would that not be a dangerous thing? If one or two antichrists appeared in the church, it would not warrant fear, but if antichrists were to become a force and achieve a certain level of influence, that would warrant fear. Therefore, antichrists must be uprooted and expelled from the church before they achieve that level of influence. This task is of the highest priority, and it is necessary to do. Moreover, those disbelievers in the church, especially those inclined to worship and follow man, who like to follow force, who like to be accomplices and henchmen to devils, who like to form cliques—such disbelievers and devils as them should be cleared out with all haste. That’s the only way to prevent those rabble from forming a force to disturb and control the church. This is something God’s chosen people must see clearly, something those who understand the truth should burden themselves with. All who burden themselves with the work of the church, all who are considerate of God’s intentions, must perceive these things for what they are. They must especially see the ilk of antichrists for what they are, as well as the petty devils who like flattering and worshiping people, and then put restrictions on them or clear them out of the church. There’s such a great need for practice like this. People like antichrists set out specifically to get on good terms with such muddle-headed people, useless wastrels, and vile people who don’t accept or love the truth. They win them over and “cooperate” with them quite harmoniously, and intimately, and enthusiastically. What sorts of creatures are those people? Aren’t they members of the antichrists’ gangs? If the Above should replace their “worshiped forebear,” these dutiful offspring won’t stand for it—they’ll judge the Above to be unfair, and they’ll join up to defend the antichrists. Can God’s house allow them to prevail? All it can do is cast its net over all of them and clear them all out. They’re demons of the antichrists’ gangs, and not one of them may be let off the hook. People like antichrists seldom act alone; most of the time, they assemble a group to take action with, formed of at least two or three people. However, there are some individual cases of antichrists who act as individuals. This is because they have no talents, or perhaps haven’t gotten their chance. What they have in common with the others, though, is their special love of status. Don’t assume they don’t love status because they have no skills or education. That’s wrong. You haven’t seen through clearly to an antichrist’s essence—so long as someone is an antichrist, they like status. Seeing that antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone, why is it, then, that they cultivate such a group of muddle-headed people, trash, and vermin to lick their boots? Do they mean to cooperate with these people? If they really could cooperate with them, then the statement that “antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone” wouldn’t hold water. They can’t cooperate with anyone—that “anyone” refers primarily to positive people, but to take an antichrist’s disposition into account, they can’t cooperate with their accomplices, either. So, what are they doing in cultivating these people? They’re cultivating a group of muddle-headed people who are easy to boss around, who are easy to manipulate, who have no views of their own, who do whatever the antichrists say—who’ll go on together to safeguard the antichrists’ status. If an antichrist relied on themselves, they’d be all alone, and it’d be no easy thing for them to safeguard their status. That’s why they win over a group of muddle-headed people to flock around them each day and do things for their sake. They even mislead God’s chosen people: They talk about how these people pursue the truth and how they suffer; they say they deserve to be nurtured; they even say that when these people have an issue, they inquire of them about it, and ask them about it—that they’re all obedient, submissive people. Are they cooperatively doing their duty? The antichrist is finding a group of people who will act for them, who’ll be their henchmen, their accomplices, in order to consolidate their status. That’s not cooperation—that’s running their own operation. Such is the force of antichrists.

What do you say, is it hard to cooperate with other people? It isn’t, actually. You could even say it is easy. But why do people still feel this to be difficult? Because they have corrupt dispositions. For those who possess humanity, conscience, and reason, cooperating with others is relatively easy, and they can feel that this is something joyful. This is because it is not easy for anyone to accomplish things on their own, and whatever the field they’re involved in, or what they’re doing, it is always good to have someone there to point things out and offer assistance—much easier than doing it by themselves. Also, there are limits to what people’s caliber is capable of or what they themselves can experience. No one can be a master of all trades: It is impossible for one person to know everything, to be capable of everything, to accomplish everything—that is impossible, and everyone should possess such reason. And so, no matter what you do, whether it be important or not, you will always need someone there to help you, to give you pointers and advice, or to do things in cooperation with you. This is the only way to ensure that you will do things more correctly, make fewer mistakes and be less likely to go astray—it is a good thing. Serving God, in particular, is a big deal, and not resolving your corrupt disposition could put you in danger! When people have satanic dispositions, they can rebel against and oppose God in any time and at any place. People who live by satanic dispositions can deny, oppose, and betray God at any time. The antichrists are very stupid, they don’t realize this, they think, “I had enough trouble getting hold of power, why would I share it with anyone else? Giving it to others means I won’t have any for myself, doesn’t it? How can I demonstrate my talents and abilities without power?” They do not know that what God has entrusted people with is not power or status, but a duty. Antichrists only accept power and status, they put their duties aside, and they don’t do actual work. Instead, they only pursue fame, gain and status, and only want to seize power, control God’s chosen people, and indulge in the benefits of status. Doing things this way is very dangerous—this is opposing God! Anyone who pursues fame, gain and status rather than properly doing their duty is playing with fire and playing with their life. Those who play with fire and their lives can doom themselves at any moment. Today, as a leader or a worker, you are serving God, which is no ordinary thing. You are not doing things for some person, much less working to pay bills and put food on the table; instead, you are performing your duty in the church. And given, in particular, that this duty came from God’s commission, what does performing it imply? That you are accountable to God for your duty, whether you do it well or not; ultimately, an account must be given to God, there must be an outcome. What you have accepted is God’s commission, a hallowed responsibility, so no matter how important or minor this responsibility is, it is a serious business. How serious is it? On a small scale it involves whether you can gain the truth in this lifetime and it involves how God views you. On a larger scale, it directly relates to your prospects and destiny, to your outcome; if you commit evil and oppose God, you will be condemned and punished. Everything you do when you perform your duty is recorded by God, and God has His own principles and standards for how it is scored and evaluated; God determines your outcome based on all that is manifested by you as you perform your duty. Is this a serious matter? It is, indeed! So, if you’re assigned a task, is it your own matter to handle? (No.) That work is not a thing you can complete on your own, but it does require that you take on responsibility for it. The responsibility is yours; you must complete that commission. What does this touch on? It touches on cooperation, on how to cooperate in service, on how to cooperate to perform your duty, on how to cooperate to complete your commission, on how to cooperate such that you follow God’s will. It touches on these things.

Harmonious cooperation involves many things. At the very least, one of these many things is to allow others to speak and make different suggestions. If you are genuinely reasonable, no matter what kind of work you do, you must first learn to seek the truth principles, and you should also take the initiative to seek the opinions of others. As long as you take every suggestion seriously, and then resolve problems with one heart and mind, you will essentially achieve harmonious cooperation. This way, you will encounter far fewer difficulties in your duty. No matter what problems come up, it will be easy to solve and deal with them. This is the effect of harmonious cooperation. Sometimes there are disputes over trivial matters, but as long as these don’t affect the work, they will not be a problem. However, on key matters and major matters involving the work of the church, you must reach a consensus and seek truth to resolve them. As a leader or a worker, if you always think yourself above others, and revel in your duty like it’s a government post, always indulging in the benefits of your status, always making your own plans, always considering and enjoying your own fame, gain and status, always running your own operation, and always seeking to gain higher status, to manage and control more people, and to expand the scope of your power, this is trouble. It is very dangerous to treat an important duty as a chance to enjoy your position as if you are a government official. If you always act like this, not wishing to cooperate with others, not wanting to dilute your power and share it with anyone else, not wanting anyone else to upstage you, to steal the limelight, if you only want to enjoy the power on your own, then you are an antichrist. But if you often seek the truth, practice rebelling against your flesh, your motivations and ideas, and are able to take it upon yourself to cooperate with others, open up your heart to consult and seek with others, attentively listen to others’ ideas and suggestions, and accept advice which is correct and aligns with the truth, no matter who it comes from, then you are practicing in a wise and correct manner, and you are able to avoid taking the wrong path, which is protection for you. You must let go of leadership titles, let go of the filthy air of status, treat yourself as an ordinary person, stand on the same level as others, and have a responsible attitude toward your duty. If you always treat your duty as an official title and status, or as a kind of laurel, and imagine that others are there to work for and serve your position, this is troublesome, and God will detest and be disgusted with you. If you believe that you are equal to others, you just have a little more of a commission and responsibility from God, if you can learn to put yourself on an even footing with them, and can even stoop to asking what other people think, and if you can earnestly, closely, and attentively listen to what they say, then you will cooperate in harmony with others. What effect will this harmonious cooperation achieve? The effect is huge. You will gain things you never had before, which are the light of truth and the realities of life; you will discover others’ virtues and learn from their strengths. There’s something else: You conceive of other people as stupid, dim-witted, foolish, inferior to you, but when you listen to their opinions, or other people open up to you, you will unwittingly discover that no one is quite as ordinary as you think, that everyone can offer up different thoughts and ideas, and that everyone has their own merits. If you learn to harmoniously cooperate, beyond just helping you learn from the strengths of others, it can reveal your arrogance and self-righteousness, and stop you from imagining that you are clever. When you no longer consider yourself smarter and better than everyone else, you will cease to live in this narcissistic and self-appreciative state. And that will protect you, will it not? Such is the lesson you should learn and the benefit you should gain from cooperating with others.

In My dealings with people, I listen attentively to what most people say. I make a point of examining people of all sorts, and listening to them speak, and studying the language and style they employ in doing so. You used to assume, for instance, that most people have no more than a bit of education, but don’t know the skills of a trade, and so need not be interacted with. In fact, that’s not right. When you come into contact with these people, or even with some special people, you’re able to understand things deep in their hearts that you can’t see or perceive—things like their thoughts and views, some of which are distorted, and some of which are proper. Of course, that “properness” may be quite far from the truth; it may have nothing to do with it. But you’ll be able to know more aspects of human nature. Is that not a good thing for you? (It is.) That’s what insight is; it’s a way of enhancing your insight. Some may say, “What’s the use of enhancing our insight?” It’s of benefit to your understanding of the various sorts of people, and to your discernment and dissection of various sorts of people, and even more to your ability to help various sorts of people. This is the path on which much work is done. Some people are falsely spiritual and believe, “Now that I believe in God, I don’t listen to broadcasts or the news, and I don’t read the papers. I don’t interact with the external world. All people, of all walks of life and professions, are devils!” Well, you’re wrong. If you have the truth, are you still afraid of interacting with devils? Even God sometimes has dealings with Satan in the spiritual realm. Does He change for it? Not one bit. You’re afraid of having dealings with devils, and within that fear, there’s a problem. What’s actually to be feared is that you don’t understand the truth, that you have an inaccurate comprehension and view of belief in God and of the truth, that you have many notions and imaginings, and that you’re being too dogmatic. That’s why, whether you’re a leader or worker or a group head, whatever job you’re responsible for and whatever role you play, you must learn to cooperate with others and have dealings with them. Don’t spout high-sounding ideas, and don’t always affect nobility, to make people heed you. If you’re always spouting high-sounding ideas, and you’re never able to put the truth into practice, or cooperate with others, you’re making a fool of yourself. Who’d pay you any mind then? How did the downfall of the Pharisees come about? They were always preaching theological theories and spouting high-sounding ideas. As they went on doing so, God was no longer there in their hearts—they denied Him, and even made use of man’s notions, laws, and rules to condemn and oppose God, and to nail Him to the cross. They held their Bibles all day, reading and researching them, able to recite scripture fluently. And what came of that, in the end? They didn’t know where God is, nor what His disposition is, and though He had expressed many truths, they didn’t accept a bit of them, but opposed and condemned Him. Was that not the end of them? You clearly know what the results of that were. Do you have such fallacious views in your belief in God? Are you not sealed off? (We are.) Do you see Me being closed off? I sometimes read the news, and sometimes watch interviews with special guests and other such programs; sometimes, I chat idly with the brothers and sisters, and sometimes, I chat with someone who’s cooking or cleaning. I speak a bit with whomever I see. Don’t think that because you’ve taken on a task, or because you have some special talent, or even because you’ve taken on a special mission, that you’re more special than others. That’s wrong. As soon as you think you’re more special than others, that mistaken view will imperceptibly lock you in a cage—it’ll wall you up from the outside in iron and bronze. You’ll then feel that you’re the highest of all, that you can’t do this and that, that you can’t speak or have communications with such-and-such a person, that you can’t even laugh. And what happens in the end? Who do you turn into? (An isolated loner.) You become an isolated loner. Look how the emperors of old always said things like “I, alone, am such and so”; “I, isolated, am this and that”; “I, alone, think”—always declaring themselves alone. If you always declare yourself to be alone, how great must you think yourself to be? So great that you’ve really become the son of heaven? Is that what you are? In essence, you’re an ordinary person. If you always think yourself great and extraordinary, you’re in trouble. It’ll go south. If you conduct your worldly dealings with such a mistaken view, then the ways and means of your actions will change—your principles will change. If you always think yourself to be set apart, that you’re higher than all others, that you shouldn’t do this or that sort of thing, that doing such things is beneath your status and standing, have things not then gone south? (They have.) You’ll feel, “With status like mine, I can’t just say everything to others!” “With status like mine, I can’t tell others I’m rebellious!” “With standing like mine, I can’t tell others such demeaning things as my weaknesses, defects, faults, and lack of education—I absolutely can’t let anyone know about those things!” That would be exhausting, no? (It would.) If you lived in such an exhausting way, could you do your duty well? (No.) Where does the problem arise? It arises in your views on your duty and status. However great an “official” you are, whatever position you hold, however many people you’re in charge of, really, it’s no more than a different duty. You’re no different from others. You can’t see this for what it is, but always feel at heart, “It’s not a different duty—it really is a difference in standing. I need to be above others; how could I cooperate with others? They may as well cooperate with me—I can’t cooperate with them!” If you’re always thinking like that, always wishing to be above all others, always wishing to stand on others’ shoulders, above them and looking down on them, it won’t be easy for you to cooperate with people. You’ll always be thinking, “What does that person know? If he knew things, the brothers and sisters would have chosen him as leader. So, why’d they choose me? Because I’m better than him. So, I shouldn’t discuss things with him. If I did, it would mean that I’m not great. To prove that I am great, I can’t discuss things with anyone. There’s no one fit to discuss the work with me—no one at all!” This is how antichrists think.

In mainland China, the Communist Party suppresses religious belief. It’s a terrible environment. Believers in God face the danger of being arrested at any time, so leaders and workers don’t gather so frequently. At times, they can’t even hold co-worker meetings once a month; they wait until conditions allow to gather, or until they’ve found a suitable spot. How is the work carried out, then? When there are work arrangements, someone must be found to deliver them. Once, we found a nearby brother to deliver work arrangements to a regional leader. This brother was an ordinary believer, and when he delivered the work arrangements, the regional leader read them and said, “Humph. This is what I expected.” What was he flaunting in front of that brother? He was throwing his weight around, so that anyone looking would say, “Wow, that was so dignified. What style!” And that’s nothing—right afterward, he said, “This is the guy they send to deliver work arrangements to me? His rank isn’t high enough!” This meant: “I’m a regional leader, an important leader. How could an ordinary believer be sent to deliver things to me? Isn’t this overstepping? The above really looks down on me. I’m a regional leader, so they should at least have sent a district leader to deliver this, and yet they got a lowest, ordinary believer to do it—his rank isn’t high enough!” What sort of person this leader is! How much does he treasure his status, to say the deliverer isn’t ranked highly enough? He treats his title as a pretext for asserting his authority. Is he not a devilish thing? (He is.) He’s a devilish thing, alright. In the work of the church, are we picky about who’s sent to deliver things or to give notices? In an environment like mainland China, brothers and sisters face such great risks while on the way to make deliveries, and yet when this brother arrived with the work arrangements, he was told by the leader that he was not of high enough rank, implying that someone of sufficient rank must be found, someone who corresponded with the leader in terms of standing and status, and that to do otherwise was looking down on the leader—is that not the disposition of an antichrist? (It is.) It’s the disposition of an antichrist. This devilish person can’t do any actual work, and he has no skills, yet he still makes such demands—he still puts such emphasis on status. What’s his catchphrase? “His rank isn’t high enough.” Whoever’s speaking with him, he first asks, “What level leader are you? The head of a small group? Off with you—your rank isn’t high enough!” If it’s the brother Above holding a gathering, he’ll always be moving forward, saying, “This brother is the greatest among the church leaders, and I’m next after him. Wherever he sits, I go right next to him, according to rank.” That’s how clear-cut this is in his mind. Isn’t that shameless? (Yes.) It’s so shameless—he has no self-knowledge! How shameless is he? Enough to disgust people. Even though he has the title of leader, what is he able to do? How well does he do it? He needs to have some results to show before he can flaunt his qualifications—that would be fitting; that would be logical. Yet he differentiates people according to rank without having achieved any results, without having done any work! And what’s his rank then? As a regional leader, he hasn’t done much actual work—he falls short of this rank. If I were to differentiate people according to rank, is there anyone who could come close to Me? No. Do you see Me differentiating based on rank when I interact with people? No—regardless of who I meet, I speak to them a bit if I can, and if I don’t have time, I just greet them and that’s it. This antichrist, though, doesn’t think like that. He sees standing, status, and social worth as more important than anything, as even more precious than his own life. Do you differentiate based on rank when you do your duties together? Some people differentiate by rank in everything they do; at the drop of a hat, they’ll say that other people are going beyond their rank in the work they do and the notices they give. What rank is it that they’re going beyond? Do your own duty well first. You can’t do any duty well or do any work, yet you’re still differentiating based on rank—who asked you to do that? It’s not yet time to make differentiations based on rank. You’re doing it too early; you have no self-knowledge. There are times when we go somewhere and find people there to resolve a problem. Do we look for suitable people based on rank? We basically do not. If you’re in charge of the work, then we’ll go looking for you, and if you’re not there, we’ll find someone else. We don’t differentiate based on rank, nor based on high or low status. If someone takes it on themselves to make such differentiations, they have no self-knowledge, and they don’t understand the principles. If you differentiate based on status, rank, and titles in God’s house as minutely as nonbelievers do, then you’re really lacking in reason! You don’t understand the truth; you’re so lacking. You don’t understand what believing in God is about.

We’ve just talked about the practice of cooperating with others. Is this an easy thing to do? Anyone who can seek the truth, who has a bit of a sense of shame, and humanity, conscience, and reason, can practice cooperation with others. It’s those people without humanity, who always wish to have a monopoly on status, who’re always thinking of their own dignity, status, fame, and gain, that can’t cooperate with anyone. Of course, this is also one of the primary manifestations of antichrists: They don’t cooperate with anyone, nor can they achieve harmonious cooperation with anyone. They don’t practice that principle. What’s the reason for this? They’re unwilling to relinquish power; they’re unwilling to let others know that there are things they can’t see through to, that there are things about which they need to seek counsel. They present people with an illusion, making them think that there’s nothing they can’t do, nothing they don’t know, nothing of which they’re ignorant, that they’ve got all the answers, and that everything is doable, possible, and achievable for them—that they don’t need others, nor help, reminders, or advice from others. That’s one reason. What’s the most glaring disposition of antichrists, besides that? That is, what’s the disposition you’ll be able to see through to when you come into contact with them, from just hearing a phrase or two of theirs? Arrogance. How arrogant are they? Arrogant beyond reason—like a mental disease. If they take a sip of water, for instance, and they cut a pretty figure as they do so, they will bring it up as something to brag about: “Look what a pretty figure I cut when I drink water.” They are particularly good at flaunting themselves and showing off; they’re especially shameless and unabashed. That’s the sort of thing antichrists are. As they see it, no one measures up to them. They’re particularly good at showing off, and they completely lack self-knowledge. Some antichrists are particularly ugly, yet think they look good, with an oval face, almond-shaped eyes, and arched brows. They lack even this shred of self-knowledge. By 30 or 40 years of age, an average person will have more or less accurately appraised their own looks and abilities. Antichrists, however, don’t have such rationality. What problem is at play here? It’s that their arrogant disposition has exceeded the bounds of normal rationality. How arrogant are they? Even if they look like a toad, they’ll say they look like a swan. In this, there’s something of an inability to distinguish what is from what isn’t, and of turning things upside down. Such an extent of arrogance is arrogance to the point of shamelessness; it’s irrepressible. When ordinary people speak well of their own looks, they find it to be unmentionable and get embarrassed. Once they’ve spoken, they feel ashamed for the rest of the day, with a blush on their face. Antichrists don’t blush. They’ll praise themselves for the good things they’ve done and the strengths they have, for whatever ways they’re good and better than others—these words just flow from their mouth, as if they were ordinary speech. They don’t even blush! This is arrogance beyond measure, shame, or rationality. This is why, in the eyes of antichrists, every normal person—especially every person who seeks the truth, and possesses the conscience and reason of normal humanity, and normal thinking—is a mediocrity, has no talent to speak of, is lower than them, and lacks their strengths and merits. It’s fair to say that because they’re haughty and believe that there’s no one who measures up to them—that because of this reason, they don’t wish to cooperate or discuss things with anyone, in anything they do. They may listen to sermons, read God’s words, see the exposure of His words, or be pruned at times, but in any case, they won’t own up to having revealed corruption and having transgressed, much less to being arrogant and self-righteous. They aren’t able to understand that they’re just an ordinary person, of ordinary caliber. They can’t understand such things. Regardless of how you prune them, they’ll still think they’re of good caliber, that they’re higher than ordinary people. Is this not beyond hope? (It is.) It’s beyond hope. That’s an antichrist. However they’re pruned, they just can’t hang their head and admit that they’re no good, that they’re incapable. As they see it, admitting to their problems, faults, or corruption would be like being condemned, like being destroyed. This is the way they think. They think that as soon as others see their faults, or as soon as they acknowledge that their caliber is poor and that they do not have spiritual understanding, they’ll lose energy in their belief in God and find it meaningless, as their status will no longer be guaranteed—they’ll have lost their status. They think, “Is there a point to living without status? It’d be better to die!” And if they have status, they’re irrepressible in their arrogance, running amok doing bad things; and if they hit a wall and get pruned, they’ll want to abandon their post, and become negative and slack off. Want them to act according to the truth principles? Don’t even think about it. What do they believe? “How about you give me a position and let me act on my own? You want me to cooperate with others? That’s impossible! Don’t find me a partner—I don’t need one; no one’s fit to be my partner. Or, just don’t use me—have someone else do it!” What kind of creature is this? “There can only be one alpha male”—this is the mindset of antichrists, and these are their manifestations. Is this not beyond hope? (It is.)

In the first item, which says that antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone, what’s entailed in that “unable”? That they don’t cooperate with anyone, and that they can’t achieve cooperation with others—are these not two strains of it? These two meanings are entailed in it, as determined by the essence of antichrists. Though people may work in tandem with them, the essence of it isn’t true cooperation—they’re just footmen, providing back-up, running errands and handling affairs for them. It’s nowhere near qualifying as cooperation. How is “cooperation” defined, then? The fact is that the ultimate goal of cooperation is achieving an understanding of the truth principles, acting according to them, resolving every problem, making the right decisions—decisions that align with the principles, without deviation, and reducing errors in the work, so that all you do is the performance of your duty, not doing as you wish, and not running riot. The first manifestation of antichrists’ having others submit only to them, not the truth or God, is that they’re unable to cooperate with anyone. Some may say, “Being unable to cooperate with anyone isn’t the same as having others submit only to them.” Being unable to cooperate with anyone means that they don’t heed anyone’s words or solicit anyone’s suggestions—they don’t even seek God’s intentions or the truth principles. They just act and behave according to their own will. What’s implicit in this? They’re the ones who reign in their work, not the truth, not God. So, the principle of their work is to have others heed what they say, and treat them as if they were the truth, as if they were God. Is that not its nature? Some may say, “If they’re unable to cooperate with anyone, maybe it’s because they understand the truth and don’t need to cooperate.” Is that what’s going on? The more someone understands the truth and practices it, the more sources they make inquiries of and seek from when they act. They discuss things and fellowship with people more, in an effort to minimize damage and the odds of errors occurring. The more someone understands the truth, the more reason they have, and the more willing and able they are to cooperate with others. Is that not so? And the less willing and able someone is to cooperate with others, those who won’t heed anyone else, who won’t consider anyone else’s suggestions, who, when they act, don’t consider the interests of God’s house and are unwilling to seek whether their actions are in line with the truth principles—such people seek the truth all the less and understand it all the less. What is it that they mistakenly believe? “The brothers and sisters have chosen me to be their leader; god has given me this chance to be a leader. So, all I do is in line with the truth—whatever I do, it’s right.” Is this not a misunderstanding? Why would they have such a misunderstanding? One thing’s for sure: Such people don’t love the truth. And something else: Such people simply don’t understand the truth. This is beyond all doubt.

Antichrists are unable to cooperate with anyone. This is a serious problem. Whatever duty an antichrist is doing, whomever they’re partnered with, there will always be conflicts and disputes. Some may say, “If they’re in charge of cleaning and they tidy up inside every day, what’s there for them to be uncooperative with others about?” There’s a dispositional problem in it: Whomever they’re interacting with or doing a job with, they’ll always scorn them, always wishing to lecture them, to have them do what they say. Would you say that such a person can be cooperative with others? They can’t be cooperative with anyone; this is because their corrupt disposition is too severe. Not only can’t they cooperate with others, they’re also always lecturing and constraining others from above—they wish always to sit astride people’s shoulders and force their obedience. This isn’t a mere dispositional problem—it’s also a serious problem with their humanity. They have no conscience or reason. This is how evil people are. They can’t cooperate with anyone; they can’t get along with anyone. What are the things that are shared in humanity between people? Which of those things are compatible? Conscience and reason, and their attitude of loving the truth—these are shared. If both parties possess such normal humanity, then they can get along; if they don’t, then they can’t; and if one possesses it and one doesn’t, then they can’t, either. Good people and bad people can’t get along—benevolent people and evil people can’t get along. There are certain conditions that must be met for people to get along with each other normally: Before they can cooperate with each other, they must at least have a conscience and reason, and be patient and tolerant. People must be of one mind in order to be able to cooperate in doing a duty; they must draw on the other’s strengths and offset their own weaknesses, and be patient and tolerant, and have a baseline to their comportment. That’s how to get along in harmony, and though there may be conflicts and disputes at times, the cooperation can continue, and at least no enmity will arise. If one person has no such baseline, and isn’t conscientious or reasonable, and does things in a profit-focused way, seeking profit alone, wishing always to profit at others’ expense, cooperation will be impossible. This is how it is among evil people, and among devil kings, who do battle with each other, without cease. The various evil spirits of the spiritual realm don’t get along with each other. Though devils may, at times, form consortia, it’s all about mutual exploitation in order to achieve their own goals. Their consortia are temporary, and before long, they shatter on their own. It’s the same among people. People without humanity are bad apples that ruin the bunch; only those with normal humanity are easy to cooperate with, patient and tolerant of others, able to heed others’ opinions, and able to set aside their status in the work they do, to do it in discussion with others. They, too, have corrupt dispositions, and always wish to make others heed them—they, too, have that intention—but because they have a conscience and reason, and can seek the truth, and know themselves, and feel that doing so is inappropriate, for which they feel reproach, and they are able to curb themselves, their ways and means of doing things will change, bit by bit. And thus, they’ll be able to cooperate with others. They’re revealing a corrupt disposition, but they’re not evil people, and they don’t have the essence of antichrists. They won’t have any major problems cooperating with others. If they were evil people or antichrists, they’d be unable to cooperate with others. This is how all the evil people and antichrists are whom God’s house clears out. They’re unable to cooperate with anyone, and they all get revealed and eliminated as a result. Yet there are many people with the disposition of antichrists, who walk the path of antichrists, who, having undergone much pruning, can accept the truth, and can truly repent, and can be patient and tolerant with others. Such people are capable of coming gradually into harmonious cooperation with others. Antichrists alone are unable to be cooperative with anyone. However much of a corrupt disposition they reveal, they won’t seek the truth to resolve it, but will remain persistent in their own way, unscrupulous and unrestrained. It’s not just that they can’t cooperate in harmony with others—if they see that someone has discerned them and is displeased with them, they’ll even set out to torment that person, and adopt an exclusionary, hostile attitude toward them. They’ll remain in hostility toward them, at the cost of any interference with the church’s work. This is determined by the nature essence of antichrists.

What are the lessons you should learn in training to cooperate in harmony? Learning to cooperate is one element of the practice of loving the truth, and one sign of it, too. It’s one way that a person’s possession of a conscience and rationality manifests. You may say you have a conscience, dignity, and rationality, but if you can’t cooperate with anyone, and can’t get along with your family, with outsiders, or with friends, and your interactions fall apart, and have endless disputes in shared tasks, which makes enemies of you—if you’re thus never able to get along with anyone, you’re in danger. If such behavior is among the behaviors of all your corrupt disposition, or one behavior among all those you have that do not conform to the truth, and is no more than a behavior, one that you know of, and in regard to which you’re constantly seeking and changing, you still have a chance. There’s still room for salvation; it’s not a major problem. But if you’re inherently a person like this, inherently unable to get along with anyone, and no talk about it is of use—you just can’t restrain it—then that’s a serious problem. If you don’t take it as something of note, no matter how the truth is fellowshipped to you, but feel that the problem is no big deal, that it’s your normal life, the main way in which your corrupt disposition manifests, then yours is the essence of an antichrist. And if that’s your essence, that’s a different matter than if you walk the path of antichrists. Some people walk the path of antichrists, and some are themselves antichrists. Isn’t there a difference there? (Yes.) Those who walk the path of antichrists exhibit these behaviors of antichrists in their actions; they’ll reveal an antichrist’s disposition a bit more noticeably and obviously than the average person, but they’re still able to do work that’s in line with the truth, has humanity, and has rationality. If someone can’t do any positive work at all, and what they do is instead entirely these behaviors of antichrists, these revelations of an antichrist’s essence—if all the work they do and the duties they perform are such revelations, without anything that’s in line with the truth—in that case, they’re an antichrist.

Some leaders and workers have, in the past, often revealed an antichrist’s dispositions: They were wanton and arbitrary, and it was always their way or the highway. But they didn’t commit any obvious evils and their humanity was not terrible. Through being pruned, through brothers and sisters helping them, through being transferred or replaced, by being negative for a time, they finally become aware that what they revealed before were corrupt dispositions, they become willing to repent, and think, “What is most important is to persist in doing my duty, no matter what. Though I was walking the path of an antichrist, I wasn’t classed as one. This is God’s mercy, so I must work hard in my belief and my pursuit. There’s nothing wrong with the path of pursuing the truth.” Bit by bit, they turn themselves around, and then they repent. There are good manifestations in them, they are able to seek the truth principles when doing their duty, and they seek the truth principles when engaging with others, too. In every regard, they are entering in a positive direction. Have they not then changed? They have turned from walking the path of antichrists to walking the path of practicing and pursuing the truth. There is hope and a chance for them to attain salvation. Can you class such people as antichrists because they once exhibited some manifestations of an antichrist or walked the path of antichrists? No. Antichrists would rather die than repent. They have no sense of shame; besides that, they are vicious and wicked of disposition, and they are averse to the truth in the extreme. Can someone who is so averse to the truth put it into practice, or repent? That would be impossible. That they are so absolutely averse to the truth means that they will never repent. There is one thing certain about people who are able to repent, and it is that they have made mistakes but are able to accept the judgment and chastisement of God’s words, are able to accept the truth, and are able to try as hard as they can to cooperate when doing their duties, taking the words of God as their personal maxims, and making God’s words into the reality of their lives. They accept the truth, and deep down, they are not averse to it. Is this not the difference? This is the difference. Antichrists, however, don’t stop at refusing to be pruned—they won’t listen to anyone whose words accord with the truth, and they don’t believe that God’s words are the truth, nor do they acknowledge them to be so. What nature is that of theirs? It’s one of being averse to the truth and hating it, to an extreme degree. When anyone fellowships the truth or speaks of experiential testimony, they’re extremely repulsed by it, and they’re hostile to the person fellowshipping. If someone in the church is spreading various preposterous and evil arguments, saying absurd, preposterous things, it makes them very happy; they’ll get on board at once and wallow in the mire with them, in close collaboration. It’s a case of birds of a feather flocking together, of like seeking out like. If they should hear God’s chosen people fellowshipping the truth or speaking of experiential testimony of their self-knowledge and sincere repentance, it flusters them to exasperation, and they get to considering how to exclude and attack that person. In brief, they don’t look fondly on anyone who pursues the truth. They want to exclude them and be their enemy. Whoever is skilled at showing off by preaching words and doctrines, they like them very much and are quite approving of them, as if they’d found a confidant and fellow traveler. If someone should say, “Whoever does the most work and makes the greatest contribution will be greatly rewarded and crowned, and will reign together with god,” they’ll grow excited to no end, with a rush of hot blood. They’ll feel that they’re head and shoulders above others, that they finally stand out from the crowd, that there’s now space for them to display themselves and exhibit their worth. They’ll be quite satisfied then. Is that not being averse to the truth? Suppose you say to them in fellowship, “God doesn’t like people like Paul, and He’s most disgusted by people who walk the path of antichrists, and those who go around all day saying, ‘Lord, Lord, haven’t I done much work for You?’ He’s disgusted by people who go around all day begging Him for a reward and a crown.” These words are certainly the truth, but what feeling are they left with when they hear such fellowship? Do they say amen to and accept such words? What’s their first reaction? Revulsion at heart and an unwillingness to listen—what they mean is, “How can you be so sure about what you’re saying? Do you have the final say? I don’t believe what you’re saying! I’ll do what I’ll do. I’m going to be like Paul and ask god for a crown. That way, I can be blessed, and have a good destination!” They insist on maintaining the views of Paul. Aren’t they thus fighting against God? Is that not obvious opposition to God? God has exposed and dissected Paul’s essence; He’s said so much on it, and every bit of it is the truth—yet these antichrists don’t accept the truth or the fact that all Paul’s actions and behaviors were in opposition to God. In their mind, they still question: “If you say something, that means it’s right? On what grounds? To me, what Paul said and did looks right. There’s nothing mistaken in it. I’m pursuing a crown and a reward—that’s what I’m capable of! Can you stop me? I’ll pursue doing work; once I’ve done a lot, I’ll have capital—I’ll have made a contribution, and that being so, I’ll be able to enter the kingdom of heaven and be rewarded. There’s nothing wrong there!” That’s how stubborn they are. They don’t accept the truth in the slightest. You can fellowship the truth to them, but it won’t get through to them; they’re averse to it. That’s the attitude of antichrists toward God’s words, the truth, and it’s their attitude toward God, too. So, what feeling do you get when you’ve heard the truth? You feel that you’re not pursuing the truth, and that you don’t understand it. You feel you’re still far short of it, and that you’ll need to strive toward the truth reality. And whenever you hold yourselves up for comparison to God’s words, that’s when you feel that you’re just too deficient, and poor of caliber, and lacking in spiritual understanding—that you’re still perfunctory, and that there’s still wickedness in you. And then, you get negative. Is that not your state? Antichrists, on the other hand, are never negative. They’re always so enthusiastic, never reflecting on themselves or knowing themselves, but thinking they’ve got no major problems. This is how people who are always arrogant and self-righteous are—as soon as they get their hands on power, they turn into antichrists.

II. A Dissection of How Antichrists Always Have the Desire and Ambition to Control and Conquer People

We’ll continue by fellowshipping on the next item: Antichrists always have the ambition and desire to control and conquer people. This problem is more serious than that of their inability to cooperate with anyone. What sort of people would you say are those who like controlling and conquering others? What sort of person has the ambition and desire to control and conquer others? I’ll give you an example. Do those who particularly like status enjoy controlling and conquering others? Aren’t they the ilk of antichrists? They mislead, control, and subdue other people, who then worship and heed them. They thus gain people’s esteem and respect, and get people to worship and look up to them. Is there not then a place for them in people’s hearts? If people weren’t convinced by them and didn’t approve of them, would they worship them? Absolutely not. So, after these people have status, they still need to convince others, to completely win them over, and to make them admire them. Only then will people worship them. That’s one sort of person. There’s another—those who are particularly arrogant. They treat people in the same way: They begin by subduing people, making everyone worship and admire them. Only then are they satisfied. Very vicious people also like controlling others, having people heed them, be in their orbit, and do things for them. When it comes to both very arrogant people and people with vicious dispositions, once they’ve taken power, they become antichrists. Antichrists always have an ambition and desire to control and conquer others; in their encounters with people, they always wish to ascertain how others see them, and whether there’s a place for them in others’ hearts, and whether others admire and worship them. If they encounter someone who is good at bootlicking, flattery and fawning, they get very happy; they then begin to stand on high, lecturing people and prattling on about high-sounding ideas, inculcating people with regulations, methods, doctrines, and notions. They have people accept these things as the truth, and even put a lovely face on them: “If you can accept these things, you’re someone who loves and pursues the truth.” Undiscerning people will think what they’re saying is reasonable, and though it is indistinct to them, and they do not know whether it’s in line with the truth, they feel only that there’s nothing wrong with what they’re saying, and that it doesn’t violate the truth. And so, they obey the antichrists. If someone is able to discern an antichrist and may expose them, it will rile the antichrist, who will unceremoniously heap blame on them, condemn them, and threaten them, with a show of force. Those without discernment get entirely subdued by the antichrist and admire them from the bottom of their hearts, giving rise in them to worship of the antichrist, reliance on them, and even dread. They have a sense of being enslaved by the antichrist, as if they’d be unsettled at heart if they lost the antichrist’s leadership, teachings, and reproaches. Without these things, it’s as though they’d have no sense of security, and God might not want them anymore. Then, everyone has learned to watch the antichrist’s expression when they act, for fear that the antichrist will be unhappy. They all attempt to please them; such people are dead set on following the antichrist. In their work, antichrists preach words and doctrines. They’re good at teaching people to adhere to certain regulations; they never tell people what the truth principles they should adhere to are, why they must act in this way, what God’s intentions are, what arrangements God’s house has made for the work, what the most essential and important work is, or what the primary work to be done is. Antichrists say nothing at all about these important things. They never fellowship the truth when doing and arranging work. They themselves don’t understand the truth principles, so all they can do is teach people to adhere to a few regulations and doctrines—and if people should go against their sayings and regulations, they’ll face the antichrists’ reprimand and rebuke. Antichrists often do work under the banner of God’s house, rebuking others and lecturing them from a high position. Some people even get so flustered by their lecture that they feel they’re indebted to God by not acting according to the antichrists’ requirements. Have such people not come under the antichrists’ control? (They have.) What sort of behavior is this, on the antichrists’ part? It’s behavior of enslavement. “Enslavement” is called “brainwashing” in the words of the nation of the great red dragon. It’s just like when the great red dragon captures believers in God. Aside from torturing them, it uses another technique: brainwashing. Whether they’re farmers, or workers, or intellectuals, the great red dragon uses its slew of heresies and fallacies—atheism, evolution, and Marxism-Leninism—to brainwash people; it inculcates these things in people by force, no matter how disgusting or loathsome those people find them, then uses these ideas and theories to fetter people’s limbs and control their hearts. This is how the great red dragon keeps people from believing in God, from accepting the truth, and from pursuing the truth to be saved and made perfect. In the same way, no matter how many sermons people who are controlled by antichrists hear, they can’t understand the truth, or what believing in God is really for, or what sort of path they should take, or the correct view they should have in doing each thing, or the stance they should adopt. They understand none of these things; all that’s in their hearts are the words and doctrines, and the hollow theories of those antichrists. And after being misled and controlled by antichrists for a long time, they grow to be entirely like them: They become people who believe in God, but don’t accept the truth at all, and even oppose and set themselves against God. What kind of people are those who are misled and controlled by antichrists? Without a doubt, none of them are lovers of the truth—they’re all hypocrites, people who don’t pursue the truth in their belief in God and who don’t attend to proper affairs in doing their duties. In their belief in God, these people don’t follow God; instead they follow antichrists, they become the antichrists’ slaves, and as a result they can’t gain the truth. This outcome is inevitable.

What is the principle by which God treats people? Is it force? Is it control? No—it’s precisely the opposite of control. What’s God’s principle in how He treats people? (He gives them free will.) Yes, He gives you free will. He enables you to come to your own understanding amid the environments He lays out, so that you naturally produce human understanding and experience. He enables you to understand an aspect of the truth naturally, so that when you encounter such an environment again, you know what to do and what to choose. He also enables you to understand what’s right and what’s wrong, from the depths of your heart, so that you ultimately choose the right path. God doesn’t control you, and He doesn’t force you. An antichrist, however, acts in the exact opposite way: They’ll brainwash and indoctrinate you by misleading you, then go on to make you their slave. Why do I use the word “slave”? What is a slave? It means that you won’t discern whether the antichrist is right or wrong, and you won’t dare to—you won’t know whether they’re right or wrong; you’ll be confused and muddled at heart. You’ll be unclear on what’s right and what’s not; you won’t know what you should and shouldn’t do. You’ll just wait like a puppet for the antichrist’s instructions, not daring to take action if the antichrist doesn’t give the word, and only daring to act once you’ve heard their orders. You will have lost your own innate abilities, and your free will won’t play its role. You’ll have become a dead man. You will have a heart, but you will not be able to think; you will have a mind, but you will not be able to consider problems—you won’t know right from wrong, or what things are positive and what things are negative, or what the right way to act is and what the wrong way to act is. Imperceptibly, the antichrist will have taken control of you. What is it that they’ll control? Is it your heart, or is it your mind? It’s your heart; your mind will then naturally fall under their control. They’ll tie your limbs up tight, binding them fast and firm, so that with each step you take, you get mired in hesitation and doubt, and you shrink back afterward; and then you want to take another step, to take some action, but you shrink back again. In each thing you do, your vision will be clouded and unclear. This is inseparable from the misleading remarks of the antichrist. What’s the main technique by which antichrists control people? All they say is stuff that accords with people’s notions and imaginings, with human sentiments, and with human reasoning. They seem to have a bit of humanity when they speak, but they don’t possess any truth realities. Tell Me, can people who are controlled by and follow antichrists do duties in God’s house with all their heart and all their strength? (No.) What’s the reason behind that? They don’t understand the truth—that’s the main reason. And there’s another reason: Antichrists engage in power plays; they don’t practice the truth in doing their duty, nor do they do it with all their heart and strength. Can their footmen practice the truth, then? Whatever an antichrist is like, their footmen in tow will be like that, too. Antichrists lead the way in not practicing the truth, in going against the principles, in betraying the interests of God’s house, in being unreasonable and acting like dictators. Could this fail to affect their footmen? There’s absolutely no way it could. So, what will become of those people whom they constrain and control? They’ll guard against each other, they’ll be suspicious of each other and fight with each other—competing for fame and gain, for a chance to shine, and for capital. Deep down, everyone controlled by an antichrist is in discord and no longer of one mind. They’re cautious and circumspect in their actions; they’re not open with each other, and they don’t have normal human relationships with each other. There’s no normal fellowship between them, no pray-reading, no normal spiritual life. They’re fragmented, just like the nonbelieving, satanic groups out there in the world. That’s how it is when an antichrist is in power. There’s guardedness between people, open and hidden struggles, sabotage, jealousy, judgment, and comparison of who’s taking on less responsibility: “If you won’t take responsibility, I won’t, either. On what basis would you have me consider the interests of god’s house, when you don’t consider them yourself? I just won’t consider them, then!” Is such a place God’s house? No. What sort of place is it? It’s Satan’s camp. The truth doesn’t reign there; it doesn’t have the work of the Holy Spirit, or God’s blessing, or His leadership. And so, every one of the people there are like little devils. Superficially, the words of praise they speak about others sound nice: “Oh, they really love god; they really make offerings; they really suffer in doing their duty!” But have them give an evaluation of a person, and what they’ll tell you behind their back will be different from what they say in their presence. If brothers and sisters should fall into the hands of a false leader, they will be as fragmented as a pile of loose sand in the performance of their duties—they won’t get results, and they won’t have the work of the Holy Spirit, and most of them won’t pursue the truth. What, then, if they fell under the control of an antichrist? Those people couldn’t be called a church anymore. They’d belong entirely to Satan’s camp, and to the antichrist’s gang.

Why is it that antichrists always want to control people? It’s because they don’t safeguard the interests of God’s house, nor do they care about the life entry of God’s chosen people. Their only consideration is for their own power, status, and prestige. They believe that so long as they have control over people’s hearts and get everyone to worship them, their ambition and desire will be fulfilled. As for matters that touch on the interests of God’s house, or on the work of the church, or on the life entry of God’s chosen people, they don’t care about those things at all. Even when problems arise, they can’t see them. They can’t see problems such as where staffing arrangements aren’t appropriate in God’s house; or where the property of God’s house has been distributed unreasonably, with too much of it lost, as well as who has squandered it; or who’s causing disruptions and disturbances in their work; or who’s using people unsuitably; or who’s being perfunctory in their work—and less still do they handle such problems. What do they handle? What things do they interfere in? (Trifling matters.) What sorts of things are trifling matters? Provide some details. (Some leaders will set off to resolve the household affairs of certain brothers and sisters—for example, someone in their family not getting along with someone else. These are just matters of everyday life.) That’s something false leaders do. And what do antichrists do? (They pay no mind to the brothers’ and sisters’ life entry, nor to things that go against the truth principles; they only pay mind to things that touch on their face and status—people not doing what they say, for instance, or some people taking a dislike to them. They handle things like that.) That’s part of it. Such things happen. Antichrists check to see who’s an unwelcome presence to them, who’s not deferential to them, and who can discern them. They see these things and make a mental note of them; such things are very important to them. What else? (If the person elected in some church has discernment of them and isn’t of one mind with them, they’ll seek out ways to find fault with that person, and have them replaced. They like doing that stuff.) No matter what faults or problems someone who does bad things has, or however they cause disruptions and disturbances, an antichrist pays this no mind—they specifically find fault with people who do their duty and those who pursue the truth, looking for justifications and excuses to get those people replaced. There’s one more main way in which antichrists controlling others manifests: In addition to controlling ordinary brothers and sisters, they try to control the people in charge of each aspect of the work. They always wish to hold all of power in their own grasp. So, they ask after everything; they keep an eye on and watch everything, to see how people do things. They don’t fellowship the truth principles to people at all, or give people free rein to act. They want to make everyone do as they say and submit to them. They’re always afraid that their power will be dispersed and taken by other people. When discussing an issue, no matter how many people are fellowshipping about it or what results their fellowship yields, they’ll reject all of it when it gets to them, and the discussion will have to start over again. And what’s the end result of this? Things aren’t over until everyone heeds them, and if that hasn’t happened, they’ll have to go on fellowshipping. This fellowship sometimes goes on into the middle of the night, without anyone being allowed to sleep; it doesn’t come to an end until the others heed what they say. This is something antichrists do. Are there people who believe that in doing this, an antichrist is taking responsibility for the work? What’s the difference between taking responsibility for the work and the despotism of antichrists? (It’s a difference in intention.) When people are being conscientious and responsible toward the work, they do this in order to fellowship the truth principles clearly, so that everyone may understand the truth. Antichrists, on the other hand, act like despots in order to maintain power, to gain the upper hand, to refute all views that diverge from their opinions and may cause them to lose face. Is there not a difference between these intentions? (There is.) What’s different about them? Can you discern that? Getting people to understand the truth principles through fellowship, and vying for esteem—what’s the difference between the two? (Intentions.) Not just intentions—of course the intentions are different. (One of these approaches will benefit God’s house more.) One of them benefitting God’s house more is another difference—considering the interests of God’s house. What’s the main difference, though? When someone is truly fellowshipping on the truth, it’s evident when you hear it that it’s not a personal justification or defense. All that they fellowship on is intended to make everyone understand God’s intentions, it is all testimony to God’s intentions. Such fellowship makes the truth principles clear, and after hearing it, people have a path forward—they know what the principles are, they know what they should do in the future, they won’t be likely to go against the principles in doing their duty, and the goal of their practice will be more accurate. Such fellowship isn’t contaminated in the slightest with personal justification or defense. But how do those people preach, who’d like to turn things in their favor and bring others under their control? What do they preach about? They preach about their self-justifications, and the thoughts, intentions, and goals behind whatever they did, so that people will accept it, buy it, and not misunderstand them. It’s all just self-justification; there’s no truth at all in it. If you listen closely, you’ll hear that there’s no truth in what they fellowship—it’s all human sayings, excuses, and justifications. That’s all it is. And after they’ve spoken, does everyone understand the principles? No—but they’ve understood quite a bit about the speaker’s intentions. This is the method of antichrists. It’s how they control people. As soon as they feel that their status and prestige have suffered a loss and been impacted within the group, they call a gathering at once to try to salvage them, however they can. And how do they salvage those things? By giving excuses, by offering justifications, by saying what it was they were thinking at the time. What’s their goal in saying these things? To clear up all the misunderstandings everyone has about them. It’s just like the great red dragon: After it’s tormented and punished someone, it’ll vindicate them and clear them of whatever they’ve been charged with. What’s the goal of doing this? (Whitewashing.) It vindicates you and compensates you after it has finished doing something bad to you, so that you think that the great red dragon is actually good and trustworthy, after all. In this way, its rule goes unthreatened. This is how antichrists are, too: There’s not one thing they say or do that’s not for their own sake; they won’t say anything for the sake of the truth, much less will they say or do anything for the sake of the interests of God’s house. All they say and do is for the sake of their own reputation and status. Some may say, “It’s unjust of You to define them as antichrists, because they toil a lot, and they do their job very diligently, working and running about for God’s house from dawn until dusk. They’re sometimes too busy to eat. They’ve suffered so much!” And whom do they suffer for? (Themselves.) For themselves. If they had no status, would they do the same thing? They run about like that for their own reputation and status—they do it for a reward. If they weren’t rewarded, or if they had no fame, gain, or status, they would have backed out long ago. They do these things in front of others, and as they do, they want to let God know about them, and make Him give them their due reward, in light of all that they’ve done. What they ultimately want is a reward; they don’t want to gain the truth. You must see through to this point. When they feel they’ve accrued enough capital, when they have an opportunity to speak among others, what’s the content of what they say? Firstly, it’s flaunting their contributions—a psychological attack. What’s a psychological attack? It’s letting everyone know, deep in their hearts, that they’ve done many good things on behalf of God’s house, made contributions, taken on risks, done dangerous work, run about a lot, and suffered no small amount—it’s laying out their credentials and talking about their capital in front of others. Secondly, they talk in an extravagant and nonsensical way about some unrealistic theories, which people feel they understand, though they don’t. These theories sound quite profound, mysterious, and abstract, and they make people worship the antichrists. Then, they talk in a grand and confusing way about stuff they believe no one has ever understood—technology, for instance, and outer space, finances and accounting, and matters of society and politics—and even underworld matters and scams. They narrate their personal history. What’s this, then? They’re flaunting themselves. And their goal in flaunting is to launch a psychological attack. Do you think they’re stupid? If this stuff they say had no effect on people, would they still say it? They would not. They have a goal in saying it: It’s about laying out their credentials, showing off, and flaunting themselves.

Furthermore, what manner do antichrists often adopt? No matter where they go, they adopt the manner of the head of a household—wherever they go, they say, “What are you working on? How’s it going? Are there any difficulties? Hurry up and handle the things you’ve been assigned! Don’t be perfunctory. All the work of god’s house is important, and can’t be delayed!” They’re just like the head of a household, always supervising the work of the people in their house. What does that mean, that they’re the head of a household? It means that anyone in their house might make a mistake, or take the wrong path, so they need to watch over them; if they didn’t, no one would do their duty—they’d all end up stumbling. Antichrists believe that everyone else is an idiot, a child, that if they didn’t fuss over them, if they let them out of their sight for a second, some of them would make mistakes and take the wrong path. What sort of view is this? Are they not assuming the manner of the head of a household? (They are.) Do they do concrete work, then? They never do; they arrange for others to do all the work, concerning themselves only with bureaucracy and being the master, and when others have done the work, it’s the same as if they’d done it themselves—all the credit goes to them. They just enjoy the benefits of their status; they never do anything that benefits the work of God’s house, and even if they find that someone’s being perfunctory or derelict in their performance of their duty, that someone’s disrupting and disturbing the church’s work, they just give them a few words of exhortation and comfort them, but they never expose or restrict them—they never offend anyone. If no one wants to listen to them, they’ll say, “My heart has broken into pieces worrying about you all; I’ve talked until my mouth ran dry—I’ve tired myself out to the point that it’s nearly broken me in two! You give me so much to worry about!” Isn’t it shameless of them to say this? Does it disgust you to hear it? This is one way that antichrists’ constant desire to control people manifests. How do such antichrists fellowship with people? They say to Me, for instance, “The people beneath me don’t do as they’re told. They don’t take the church work seriously. They’re perfunctory, and they indiscriminately spend the money of god’s house. They’re truly beasts, these people—they’re lower than dogs!” What’s their tone here? They’re making themselves the exception; they mean, “I consider the interests of god’s house—they don’t.” Who are the antichrists regarding themselves as? A “brand ambassador.” What’s a brand ambassador? Take a look at the brand ambassadors from some countries—what sort of people are they? They’re chosen for their beauty; they’re very pretty, they can speak well, and they’ve all been through training. Behind the scenes, they all have connections and dealings with tall, rich, and handsome men, with high-ranking officials, with wealthy businessmen—that’s why they’re brand ambassadors. What do they rely on, to get to be brand ambassadors? Is it purely their nice looks, good figures, and eloquence? They mainly rely on their behind-the-scenes connections. Isn’t that how it works? (Yes.) Yes, that’s how it works. Antichrists, who always have the manner of a leader or the head of a household, want always to use this manner, this posture, to mislead people and control them. Isn’t that a bit like the style of a brand ambassador? They stand there, hands clasped behind their back, and when the brothers or sisters nod and bow to them, they say, “Nice—do a good job!” Who are they to say that? What position have they appointed themselves to? I don’t say such things, anywhere I go—have you ever heard Me say such a thing? (No.) Occasionally, I’ll say, “This opportunity you have to do your duty with peace of mind is no easy thing to come by! You have to seize this opportunity, and do your duty well—don’t get yourself sent away for doing evil and causing disturbances.” What do I say this out of, though? Sincerity. But is that how an antichrist thinks? That’s not how they think, and it’s not how they act. They tell others to do a good job—do they do so themselves? They do not. They’d have others do a good job, working themselves to the bone for them, laboring for them, and in the end, they’re the ones who get all the credit. Do you work yourselves to the bone for Me now, doing your duties? (No.) You’re not laboring for Me, either; you’re performing your own duties and obligations, and then God’s house provides for you. Would it be excessive to say that I provide for you? (No.) This isn’t an incorrect statement, and in fact, it’s truly how things are. But if you’d have Me say that, I wouldn’t—that would never come from My lips. I’d say only that God’s house provides for you: You do your own duties in God’s house, and God provides for you. So, who is it you’re doing your duties for? (Ourselves.) You’re performing your own duties and obligations; this is the responsibility you ought to fulfill as created beings. You’re doing this before God’s presence. You absolutely mustn’t say that you’re working for Me—I don’t need that. I don’t need anyone working for Me; I’m not the boss, nor am I the president of some company. I’m not making money from you, and you’re not eating My food. We’re just cooperating with each other. I fellowship the truths I should fellowship to you so that you may understand them, and you set off on the correct path, and with that, My heart is put at ease—My responsibility and obligation have been carried out to completion. It’s mutual cooperation, with everyone playing their part. It’s far from being a case of who’s exploiting whom, who’s using whom, who’s feeding whom. Don’t affect that manner—it’s useless, and it’s disgusting. Truly do the work well, such that it’s evident to everyone, and in the end, you’ll be well positioned to settle your accounts before God. Do antichrists have such reason? No. If they take on a bit of responsibility, make a bit of a contribution, and have done some work, they show off about it, in a way that’s frankly disgusting—even wishing to be brand ambassadors. If you don’t try to be a brand ambassador, and you get down to some actual work, everyone will have some respect for you. If you adopt the posture of a brand ambassador, but you’re unable to do any concrete work, and make it so that the Above must concern themselves with and personally give directions for all the work, and follow up by supervising you and giving you guidance, with the Above doing every aspect of the work, and if you still think yourself able, that you’ve become more skilled, that it was you who did it all—is that not shameless? Antichrists are capable of this. They rob God of His glory. When normal people have experienced a few things, they can understand a bit of the truth, and see that, “My caliber is just so poor—I’m nothing. Without the concern and supervision of the Above, without them holding my hand so to help me, I wouldn’t be able to do anything. I’ve just been a dummy. I’ve now come to know myself a little bit. I know my paltry measure. I won’t have any complaints if the Above prunes me again in the future. I’ll just submit.” Knowing your own paltry measure, you’ll do the work that’s yours to do in a well-behaved manner, with both feet on the ground. Whatever the Above assigns you, you’ll do it well, with all your heart and all your strength. Is this what antichrists do? No, it’s not—they don’t consider the interests of God’s house, or the work of God’s house. What is the greatest interest of God’s house? Is it the church’s wealth? Is it offerings to God? No. What is it, then? What aspect of the work does everyone’s performance of their duty revolve around? Spreading the gospel and bearing witness for God, so that all mankind understands God and returns to Him. This is the greatest interest of God’s house. And that greatest interest branches downward, splitting into each group and each aspect of the work, and then splitting more finely all the way down to the various duties that each person does. This is the interest of God’s house. Did you see this before? No, you didn’t! When I speak of the interests of God’s house, you think they’re money, houses, and cars. What kind of interests are those? Aren’t they just a few material things? Will some people then say, “Seeing as those aren’t interests, let’s squander them as we please”? Is that alright? (No.) Absolutely not! Squandering offerings is a grave sin.

What else interests antichrists, apart from their desire and ambition to control people? Nothing, essentially. They’re not too interested in anything else. Whether each person is doing the appropriate duty, whether staffing is arranged appropriately, whether there’s anyone disrupting and disturbing the work of the church, whether each aspect of the church’s work is progressing smoothly, which segment of the work has a problem, which segment is still weak, which segment hasn’t been thought about yet, where the work isn’t being done properly—antichrists don’t involve themselves with any such things, nor do they ask about them. They never care about them; they never do this concrete work. For instance, translation work, video editing work, film production work, text-based work, the work of spreading the gospel, and so on—they don’t diligently follow up on any aspect of the work. So long as something doesn’t touch on their fame, gain, or status, it’s as if it has nothing to do with them. So, what’s the only thing they do? They just handle some general affairs—superficial work that people pay attention to and see. They finish with that, then trot it out as a qualification of theirs, and then they begin to enjoy the benefits of their status. Do antichrists care about the life entry of God’s chosen people? No; they care only about their reputation and status, about matters in which they can stand out, and get people to esteem and worship them. So, no matter what problems arise in the work of the church, they neither concern themselves with them nor ask about them; no matter how serious a problem, no matter how great a loss it incurs to the interests of God’s house, they don’t feel that it’s a problem. Tell Me, do they even have a heart? Are they people with loyalty? Are they people who love and accept the truth? Question marks must be drawn behind these things. Well, what must they be doing all day, for them to make a shambles of the work of the church? This suffices to show that they’re not the least bit considerate of God’s intentions. They don’t do the essential work that God has entrusted to them, but busy themselves exclusively with superficial, general affairs, so that they’ll appear to be working to other people; on the outside, they’re busy doing a duty, to show people that they have zeal and faith. This pulls the wool over some people’s eyes. But they don’t do a single aspect of the church’s essential work—they do none of the work of watering and providing the truth. They never use the truth to resolve problems; they just handle some general affairs, and do a bit of work that makes them look good. With the church’s essential work, they’re just perfunctory and irresponsible—they don’t have the least sense of responsibility. They never seek the truth to resolve problems, no matter how many should arise, and they go through the motions in their duties. And having handled some superficial, general affairs, they think they’ve done actual work. While antichrists do their duties, they run amok doing bad things and act in an arbitrary and dictatorial way. They make a shambles and a total mess of the church’s work. Not one aspect of the work is done to an adequate standard and without error; no aspect of the work is done well without the Above having to intervene, and ask after it, and supervise it. And even so, there are some who are full of grievances and defiance after being replaced; they make deceptive arguments on their own behalf, foisting responsibility off onto upper-level leaders and workers. Is that not completely unreasonable? A person’s true attitude toward the truth can’t be seen when nothing has happened, but when they’re pruned and replaced, their true attitude toward the truth is revealed. People who accept the truth are able to do so under any circumstances. If they’re wrong, they can admit their mistake; they can face the facts and accept the truth. People who don’t love the truth won’t admit that they’re wrong, even if their error has been exposed; less still will they accept God’s house handling them—and what would some of them even use as a justification? “I meant to do well—I just didn’t. I can’t be blamed now for having done badly. I meant well, and I suffered and paid a price, and I expended of myself—not doing something well isn’t the same as doing evil!” To use this justification, this excuse, to refuse to be handled by God’s house—is that proper? Whatever justifications and excuses a person gives, they can’t conceal their attitude toward the truth and toward God. This relates to their nature essence, and it is the most indicative thing. Whether something has happened or not, your attitude toward the truth represents your nature essence. It’s your attitude toward God. How you treat God can be seen just by looking at how you treat the truth.

What did we cover in our discussion just now about antichrists’ behavior of controlling people? (Antichrists are interested only in controlling people.) That’s right. People who are particularly arrogant and have a particular love for status have an ample “interest” in controlling people. This “interest” isn’t positive—it’s a desire and ambition, it’s negative, and it’s pejorative. Why would they be interested in controlling people? From an objective perspective, it’s their nature, but there’s another reason: People who would control others have a special passion and affection for status, fame, gain, vainglory, and power. Can I put it like that? (Yes.) And is that special passion and affection not similar to Satan’s? Is that not Satan’s essence? Satan contemplates all day long how to mislead and control people; every day, it inculcates in people fallacious ideas and views, whether through inculcation and education, or through traditional culture, or through science, lofty knowledge, and teachings—and the more it inculcates these things in people, the more they worship it. What is Satan’s aim in inculcating these things in people? Once it has done this, people possess its ideas; they possess its philosophies and mode of existence. This is tantamount to Satan taking root in people’s hearts. They live by Satan, and their living is Satan’s living—it’s the living of devils. Is that not so? Is this not also the nature of antichrists controlling people? They want to make everyone else into people like them; they want to make everyone live for them, be at their disposal, and do things for them. And everything must be under their control: People’s thoughts and speech, their style of speech, ideas, and views, the perspective and attitude from which they act, even their attitude toward God, their faith, and their will and aspiration to do their duties—all of this must be under their control. How deep does that control go? They first brainwash and indoctrinate people, then go on to make all people do the same things as they do themselves. They become the “godfather.” To make people like this, antichrists use many methods: There’s misleading, inculcation, frightening, and what else? (Psychological attacks.) That’s part of misleading. What else? (Coercion and buying people off.) How do they buy people off? Some people run amok doing bad things while doing their duties in God’s house. Can antichrists see this clearly? It’s all too clear to them. Do they handle it, then? They do not. And why don’t they? They wish to use the matter to buy those people off; they say to them, “Not handling you is a favor I’ve done for you. You need to thank me. I saw you do a bad thing, but I didn’t report you, and I didn’t handle you. I was lenient. Don’t you now owe me a debt of gratitude going forward?” Those people are then grateful toward them and consider them their benefactors. Then, the antichrists and those people are just like pigs wallowing in the same sty. While they are in power, antichrists can buy off such people: those who do evil, who harm the interests of God’s house, who pass judgment on God in private, and who undermine the work of God’s house in private. This is the sort of gang of evil people that antichrists protect. Is this not a kind of control? (It is.) The fact is that antichrists know deep in their hearts that these people aren’t those who safeguard the interests of God’s house. They all know it—there’s a tacit understanding—and so, they’re working hand in glove. “We’re peas in a pod. You don’t consider the interests of god’s house. You fool god, and so do I; you don’t pursue the truth, and neither do I.” Antichrists buy such people off. Is this not buying them off? (It is.) They have no qualms about letting the interests of God’s house suffer. At the price of the interests of God’s house, they condone these people running amok doing bad things, and freeloading off God’s house. It’s as if they’re providing for these people, and these people are unconsciously grateful to them. When the time comes for God’s house to handle these evil people, how do they view the antichrists? They say to themselves, “Oh, no. They’ve already been dismissed. If they hadn’t, we’d have been able to enjoy ourselves a while longer—with their cover, no one was able to handle me.” They still feel so attached to the antichrists! It’s evident that all these things antichrists do are disruptions and disturbances, things that mislead people, and evil deeds that oppose God. And any person who doesn’t love the truth won’t hate these evil deeds, and they will even cover up for them. For instance, there was a certain leader who shielded antichrists. The Above asked him whether anyone in the church was causing disruptions and disturbances, or running amok doing bad things, or if there were any antichrists misleading people. The leader said, “Well, I’ll ask around. Let me check for you.” Wasn’t that part of his job? With that tone—“Let me check for you”—he coped with the Above, and they didn’t hear any more about it afterward. He didn’t check—he didn’t want to offend those people! And when the Above asked him again, “Did you check?” he said, “I did—there aren’t any.” Was that true? He was the biggest antichrist of all, the principal culprit for disturbing the church’s work, and for harming the interests of God’s house. He was an antichrist himself—what was there for him to check? With him there, whatever bad things the people beneath him did, whatever disruptions and disturbances they caused, no one could check up on these things. He blocked them from doing so. By implication, under such circumstances, had he not separated the people under him from God? He had. And whom did those people heed, having been separated from God by him? Didn’t they heed him? And so, he became the town bully, the bandit leader, the local tyrant—he got those people under his control. What method did he use? He tricked the Above and duped those below him. With the people below him, he bought them off and spoke pleasant words, and with the Above, he engaged in trickery—he didn’t let the Above know what was going on below. He said nothing about it to the Above, and he also created a facade. What facade did he create? He said to the Above, “There’s someone in our church who all the brothers and sisters report to be of poor humanity, to be incredibly malicious, and to be incapable of any duty. What do you say—can I handle her?” To hear him tell it, it was clear from that person’s manifestations that she was an evil person who should be handled. So, the Above said, “In that case, you may handle her. Have you handled her?” He said, “We handled her last month and cleared her out.” Were the facts truly as he said? What turned out to really be going on after more detailed questioning? That person didn’t get along with him. And there was a reason they didn’t get along: This leader didn’t do actual work, and he was always forming gangs and cliques among the brothers and sisters—he displayed the manifestations of an antichrist, and that person had discernment of him, and she reported and exposed those problems. As soon as she made that report, she was found out by the leader’s associate underlings, and she was consequently punished and cleared out by him. This antichrist did a good job of getting everyone beneath him to rise up against that person and reject her, and eventually, he handled that person and cleared her out, after which he reported this “good news” to the Above. That wasn’t what was really going on, in fact. Do such things happen in the church? They do. These antichrists suppress the brothers and sisters; they suppress those who can discern them and report their problems, as well as those who can see through to their nature essence. They even lodge complaints against their victims first, reporting to the Above that it’s those people who are causing a disturbance. Who’s actually causing a disturbance? It’s the antichrists who are disturbing and controlling the church.

What are antichrists’ techniques for getting people to submit to them? One such technique is using various means to control you—to control your thoughts, your methods, the path you walk, and even, by means of the power they wield, the duty you do. If you get close to them, they’ll give you an easy duty that enables you to stand out; if you’re always disobedient to them, and always point out their faults, and expose the problem of their corruption, they’ll arrange for you to do a job that people don’t like—for instance, getting a young sister to do some dirty, tiring work. They arrange easy, clean jobs for whoever gets close to them, flatters them, and always says what they want to hear. This is how antichrists treat people and control them. That is, when it comes to power over staffing and transfers, who does what is all up to them, they’re in sole control. Is this merely a kind of ambition and desire? No, it’s not. Does this not correspond exactly with item eight of the manifestations of antichrists: “They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God”? What does “They would have others submit only to them, not the truth or God” refer to? What’s wrong with this manifestation? In what way is it wrong? It’s that what they’d have people submit to goes entirely against the truth. It doesn’t accord with the truth principles. It goes entirely against the interests of God’s house and against God’s intentions; not a bit of it safeguards the interests of God’s house, and not a bit of it accords with the truth. What they’d have people submit to is entirely their own ambitions, desires, preferences, interests, and notions. Is this not the essence of the problem? This is one way antichrists’ essence manifests. Does this not get to the crux of the matter? This way that antichrists act should be easy to discern. There are some leaders and workers who put forward right and correct views, and though some people are unconvinced and can’t accept them, these leaders are able to persist in implementing those correct views and putting them into practice. What’s the difference between this behavior and that of antichrists? The two seem similar on the surface, but there’s a difference in their essence. What antichrists do is intentionally go against the truth and the work principles of God’s house, getting people to do what they say under the guise of them doing a duty for God’s house and submitting to the truth. This is wrong—egregiously, absurdly wrong. Some leaders and workers uphold correct views. That which accords with the truth principles should be upheld; this isn’t arrogance and self-righteousness, nor is it constraining people—it’s upholding the truth. The two behaviors seem similar on the outside, but their essences are different: One is upholding the truth principles, and the other is upholding mistaken views. What antichrists do is all in violation of the truth, in hostility to it, and entirely driven by their personal ambitions and desires—that’s why antichrists would have people submit only to them and not the truth or God. That is the crux of this item. What we talked about just now is an established fact. What do desires and ambitions refer to here? They refer to some people who don’t do obvious things that an antichrist would, yet still have these tendencies. They have these tendencies and manifestations, meaning they have these desires and ambitions. Whatever group they’re in, they always wish to command people like an official: “You, go make food!” “You, go notify so-and-so!” “Work hard at your duty, and have more loyalty—god’s watching!” Do they need to be saying that stuff? What sort of tone is that? Who are they to always be acting like a lord and master? They’re nothing, yet they’d dare to say such things—is that not a lack of reason? Some may say, “They’re blockheads.” But they’re no ordinary blockheads—they’re special ones. Special how? When they argue or deliberate about a matter with anyone, whether they’re right or not, they must ultimately prevail; whether they’re right or not, they must have the final say, call the shots, and make the decisions. Whatever their status may be, they wish to make the decisions. If another person should prevail by expressing a correct opinion, they get angry; they give up their post and stop their work—they quit, saying: “You can say whatever you like—it’s not like you do what I say, anyway!” Do they not have that ambition and desire? What consequences come of such people being lords and masters, of them being the ones in charge, of them becoming leaders? They become standard antichrists. Do you have such manifestations? That would not be a good thing! Wouldn’t it be a great calamity if a believer in God does not gain the truth, but instead becomes an antichrist?

How do nonbelievers view people? When they encounter a person, they look first at their appearance and clothing; when they listen to others speak, they always want to see whether they’re possessed of learning. If they find that your appearance and clothing aren’t much to look at, and that you aren’t very well-educated or knowledgeable, they scorn you, and want to get the upper hand when they talk with you. I say, “If you want to argue, then go ahead—you talk.” I hold My tongue; I yield. Most people in God’s house listen to Me, wherever I go. So, I look for chances to hear others speak, to let others do more of the talking—I’m trying to let everyone speak from the heart, and talk about the difficulties inside them, and of their knowledge. As I listen, I can hear some deviations. I can hear a few of their problems and shortcomings, what problems have arisen with the path they walk, and which area of the church’s work isn’t being done well, what problems remain with it, and whether they need resolving. I concentrate on listening for these things. If we’re debating some issue—if I say a cup is paper, for instance, and you insist on saying it’s plastic, I’ll say, “Fine. You’re right.” I won’t argue with you. Some people think, “If You’re right, why don’t You argue?” It depends on the issue. If it’s something that touches on the truth, it’s only right for you to heed Me; if it’s some external affair, then no matter what you say, I won’t get involved—such things have nothing to do with Me. There’s no use in arguing about such things. There are some people who discuss certain matters of state. To them, I say, “As I understand it, this is how that thing is.” I tack on “as I understand it” at the beginning; there’s a bit of self-knowledge in that. I bring out a fact I know to illustrate the matter, saying, “Here’s the situation as it is now, but if there are some special circumstances, I don’t know about those.” It’s all I can do to evaluate the matter with such a fact, but I’m not showing off how much I know. I’m just giving them a bit of information as a reference—I don’t mean to assume a higher station than theirs and suppress them, to show them how brilliant I am, that I know everything, that they don’t know anything. That’s not My perspective. When some people are chatting with Me, I mention a bit of information they don’t know, and they say, “You spend all day inside—what do you know?” They don’t know that information, yet they want to argue and fight with Me over it. I say, “That’s right. I don’t go out, but I do know this one thing. I’m just telling you about it, and that’s it—believe it or not.” What’s there to argue about in that? Arguing about this sort of thing is a disposition. Some people even want to compete for superiority when it comes to an external matter, saying: “How did you come to know about this? Why don’t I know about it? Why can you talk about the long and short of it, while I can’t?” For instance, I say, “Over the years I’ve been staying here, I’ve discovered something distinctive about the climate: It’s fairly humid.” This is an observation I’ve come to after staying in this place for a long time—it’s a fact. Yet some people hear that and say, “Is that how things really are? How come I haven’t felt the humidity, then?” Just because you haven’t felt the humidity, that doesn’t mean it’s not humid. You can’t just go by what you feel—you have to go by the data. The daily weather forecasts go into great detail, and once you’ve seen enough of them, you’ll know that it is, in fact, humid here. It’s not something I just imagined, and I’m not talking based on a feeling. And why is that? There’s always moss at the shady bases of walls all year round; in springtime, there are some places I wouldn’t dare walk, they’re so slippery. This observation came from Me going through this, experiencing it, seeing it with My own eyes, and personally feeling it. Talking in this way isn’t going against the facts, right? But there are some people who challenge Me over these things when they talk to Me—I say it’s humid here, and they just say it isn’t. Are these not muddled people? (They are.) Some statements are made on the basis of reality, as they come from experience, and aren’t imagined out of thin air. Why do I say they’re not imaginings? Because they lay out the details clearly, thoroughly, and systematically, and when a person sees and experiences what was described in those statements, it matches up exactly with what was said. Are those statements not then accurate? (It is.) Yet even with these accurate statements, there are some people who are always contentious, and they argue with Me in this way. What is it they’re arguing for? Is this mortal combat? Are they fighting for their lives? That’s not what they’re arguing for, they just want to compete over who knows more. They just like to argue—this is a disposition. How do you think such people ought to be treated? Do they need to be exposed, and argued with until you’re flushed with anger? (No.) With such ignorant people, there’s no use in arguing. It’s degrading. Just let them be. Won’t that do? What’s the use in arguing with such foolish and rash people? If there’s an argument or debate because someone does not understand some matter that touches on the truth, that’s alright—but isn’t it ignorant to argue about these external affairs? The disposition of antichrists is, primarily, that of not accepting the truth, of being arrogant and self-righteous, of being averse to the truth. Antichrists don’t even accept any right words, or remarks and sayings that accord with the facts, and they will research them, and dispute and argue with you about them—and that’s to say nothing of the truth. Is that not a disposition? (It is.) What disposition is it? Arrogance. What they mean is, “You just understand a bit of the truth, don’t you? You don’t understand external affairs, so you’d be right to listen to me about them! Don’t run your mouth—it really makes me mad. These external affairs aren’t yours to manage. With your responsibilities, with speaking the truth, I’ll listen to you—but stop talking about these external matters. Shut up, why don’t you! You’ve never encountered these matters, so what do you know? You need to listen to me!” In everything, they’d have people listen to them. They wish to conquer everyone, without even looking to see who it is. What disposition is that? Is there any reason at all in it? (No.)

Tell Me, is getting along with Me easy or difficult? (Easy.) How can you tell? Why do you say it’s easy? I’ll tell you, and you can see whether My explanation of Myself is right and accurate. First, My rationality is normal. How can this normalness be explained? It means that I have accurate standards and an accurate perspective with regard to all matters. In that way, aren’t My views and statements regarding each sort of thing, and My attitude toward each sort of thing, all normal? (Yes.) They’re normal—at least, they accord with the standards for normal humanity. Second, the truth is keeping Me in check. These are two things that normal rationality at the very least possesses. And there’s one more aspect to this: The reason you can see that it’s easy to get along with Me is that I have the right measure and I know the standards when it comes to people of each sort. I have the right measure, as well as ways and means for how I treat leaders and ordinary brothers and sisters, for how I treat the elderly and the young, for how I treat arrogant people who are liable to show off, and for how I treat those who do and don’t have spiritual understanding, and so on, for each sort of person. What primarily is this right measure, and these ways and means? They are going along with the truth principles, not doing things at random. Suppose, for instance, I were to esteem you for being a university student, or to scorn you for being a peasant—those are not the principles. So, how do I grasp these principles? Through looking at a person’s caliber and humanity, at the duty they do, at their faith in God, and at their attitude toward the truth. I regard people based on a combination of these various aspects. There’s yet another reason why you see Me as easy to get along with, which is something many people perhaps have notions about and are unable to accept. They think, “You have status, but why don’t You seem like someone with status? You don’t assert Your status; You aren’t all high and mighty. In people’s minds, they think that they should look up to You—but why is it that when people see You, they find it most fitting to regard You from the same level, or even to look down on You?” And so, they think it is easy to get along with Me, and they relax. Is that not so? That’s how it is. They consequently think I’m nothing to be afraid of, and that getting along with Me in this way is great. Tell Me, if I were to suppress you at every turn, and prune you for no good reason, and rebuke you and lecture you all day with a dark expression on My face, would things not then be different? You’d think, “You’re so hard to get along with, with Your eccentric personality and Your mood swings!” I wouldn’t be easy to get along with then. It’s precisely because I seem normal to you in all of My aspects, in My personality, in My pleasures and angers, in My sorrows and joys, and because in your mind’s eye, you think that people with standing and high status ought to be high and mighty, yet the Me you see now is just so ordinary—that’s precisely why you let your guard down and feel I’m easy to get along with. Besides, do you find that I use bureaucratic jargon when I speak? (No.) I don’t—when it comes to things you don’t understand, I help you as much as I can with whatever I can, and I rarely deride you. Why do I rarely do that? There are times when I feel very exasperated and can’t help but say a few words deriding you, but I must also consider that you may become weak, and so I speak that way to you as little as possible. Instead, I’m tolerant, forgiving, and patient. I help you as much as I can, where I can, and I teach you as much as I can, of what I can—this is what I do in most circumstances. And why is that? It’s because the majority of people are most lacking when it comes to matters of testimony for God and understanding the truth—but when it comes to eating, drinking, and making merry, or clothes and makeup, or gaming, or any such worldly matters, people know all about these things. On the other hand, regarding matters of belief in God, and matters that touch on the truth, people are ignorant; when it comes to testifying for God, and using their professional skills, their strengths, and their gifts to do a bit of the work of testifying for God, to produce some work that testifies for God, they have nothing to say. What am I to do, when I see such a situation? I must teach you, coaching you bit by bit, and teaching you as best I can. I select the things that I understand, and know, and can do, and I teach them to you, on and on, until a piece of work is finished. I teach you all that I can, as much as I can—and as for the things that I can’t teach or that can’t be learned, whatever you understand of them, that’s how much you understand. Let this take its natural course. I won’t force you to understand those things. Ultimately, there are some who say, “Those of us who understand a profession have yielded to a layman. We, who understand this profession, have been unable to get anything done, and this person who doesn’t know anything about this profession always has to teach us. It’s so humiliating!” This isn’t humiliating. All of mankind draws a blank when it comes to testifying for God as a believer—if people were born able to testify for God, then no one would oppose Him! It’s because people are the ilk of Satan and have a nature essence that’s hostile to God that they’re unable to do things that involve the truth and testimony for God. So, what are people to do, then? So long as they put forth their greatest efforts to do what they can, that’s enough. If I have the energy to offer help and coaching, I help. If I don’t, or if I’m busy with other things and can’t make the time, then you just do what you can. That’s in line with the principles, isn’t it? It’s the only way it can be. I don’t force you to go beyond your capabilities. It’s useless—it can’t be done. In the end, people think: “You’re quite easy to get along with, and Your requirements are easy to achieve. You tell us what to do, and we’ll do as You say.” Some people may get pruned on occasion. Most of them come away from that fine, with the correct comprehension. A few people give up their work, and a few cause disturbances in secret, don’t try hard to do their duty, and don’t do actual work. Such people are then replaced. If you’re not willing to do the work, then step down. Why must you be the one being used for it? We’ll replace you—that’s all there is to it. Simple, isn’t it? If in the future, those people should repent, change, and do their work well, they’ll be given another chance—and if they still cause disruptions and disturbances in the same way, they’ll never be used again. I’d be better off using someone obedient. What’s the use of being entangled with people of that sort all the time? Right? That would be hard for them and exhausting for Me. There are principles for how I handle these things, and there are principles for how I get along with others, too. Another reason why I am easy to get along with is that in getting along with people, I never require things that are too demanding of them. Do whatever you can; for the things you can’t do, I’ll talk you through them, one by one. Do what you can with all your heart; if you don’t do it with all your heart, I won’t force you to do so. As for the rest, that is, how you believe in God, that’s your own business. If you don’t gain anything in the end, you’ll have no one to blame. What do you think of My principles for how I treat people? Do you feel that they are a bit indulgent? That’s absolutely not the case—the way I handle this is in complete alignment with the principles. What principles are those? Listen to Me, and you’ll understand.

I, God incarnate, work within humanity—can I entirely replace the Holy Spirit, or God’s Spirit, in doing work? No, I can’t. So, I don’t try to go beyond My limits, saying that I’d like to replace God in heaven and do all of His work. That would be magnifying Myself—I am not capable of that. I am an ordinary person. Whatever I can do, I do. I do what I can do well; I do it to completion, and I do it properly. I put My heart and all My strength into doing it. That is enough. That’s the work that falls to Me. Yet if I couldn’t understand this, and felt defiant toward this fact, and didn’t acknowledge it, but always tried to pretend to be great, always trying to shine, always trying to show off some incredible skills, would that accord with the principles? No. Do you think that I understand this matter? I do, all too well! The scope of what God’s flesh can say and what work the flesh can do is the scope of the work that He does in the flesh. Beyond this scope, people privately experiencing God’s disciplining and pruning, and the enlightenment and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and even God bestowing visions, and whom God will perfect and whom He’ll eliminate, and what view and attitude God has regarding all people—these things are all God’s business. If you’re in close contact with Me, I can see these things, too—but no matter how I look, how much of them can I see? There’s a limit to the number of people I can see, and the number I come into contact with—how could this possibly include every single person? That would be impossible. Shouldn’t you be clear on this matter? Tell Me, am I clear on this matter? I am. This is what a normal person should do. I don’t think about things that aren’t those I should do. Are people capable of this? They aren’t—they lack that rationality. Some people ask Me, “Aren’t You always secretly looking into things? Aren’t You always making inquiries about who’s doing what and what bad things they’re saying about You in private, or who’s secretly passing judgment on You and doing research on You?” I will be honest with you: I have never inquired into those things. Who’s in charge of those things? God’s Spirit is—God scrutinizes all; He scrutinizes all of the earth and He scrutinizes people’s hearts. If you don’t believe in God’s scrutiny, then isn’t your reason abnormal? (Yes, it is.) Then you’re not somebody who truly believes in God, you’re adopting the wrong position, and a big problem has occurred. I require you to believe in God, and I believe in this absolutely. So, My words and deeds are built on this foundation. I don’t do things beyond My bounds; I don’t do things beyond the scope of My abilities. Is that not a disposition? (It is.) Some people don’t see it like that. They think I have this identity, this status, and this power, so they wonder why I don’t act in that way. They think that I need to understand more things, and get a grasp on more things, so that I appear to have more standing, greater status, more power, and more authority. However much authority and power God gives Me, that’s what I possess. These are not things that I struggle for, nor things that I snatch. God’s authority, His power, and His almightiness aren’t things that can be represented by an insignificant flesh. If you’re not clear on that, then something’s wrong with your reason. If you can’t see through this matter after many years of believing in God, then you are too foolish and ignorant. There are many things that I don’t ask about—but do I know about them in My heart? (You do.) What do I know? Do I know everyone’s name? Do I know how many years each person has believed in God for? I don’t need to know those things. It’s enough for Me to know everyone’s states, what everybody lacks, the degree to which they’ve gained life entry, and what truths everybody ought to hear, and be watered with, and be provided with. Knowing these things is sufficient. Is this not what falls to Me? To know what falls to Me—what I should say and the work I should do—is that not rationality? (It is.) How does such rationality come about? If God incarnate didn’t even have this rationality, if He didn’t even have that standard for measuring all things and all events, what truth would He have to speak of then? If God incarnate were to fight with God’s Spirit and compete with Him for status, wouldn’t something have gone wrong? Wouldn’t that be incorrect? Could things be like that? No—that’s something that could never occur.

Some people always worry and say, “Are You always making inquiries about us and always doing research on us in secret? Is God always trying to gauge what we think about Him and how we view Him in our hearts?” I don’t think about such things. They’re superfluous! What’s the use of thinking about those things? All of this is within God’s scrutiny. There’s a scope to the actions of God’s Spirit, and even more so for the actions of God incarnate. God incarnate is God, He is the outlet and expression of the truth, and the work He does in this stage is representative of this stage, not the last. God incarnate can only do the work that’s within this period and this scope. Can this work be representative of the next stage, then? Well, we don’t know what will happen in the future. That’s God’s own business. I don’t overreach. I do what’s Mine to do; I do the things I should and can do. I never push Myself beyond My limits, saying, “I’m almighty! I’m great!” That’s God’s Spirit; God incarnate only represents an expression and outlet for the work that God is doing during this period. The scope of His work and what work He’s to do have already been determined by God. If you were to say, “Christ incarnate is almighty,” would you be right or wrong? Half right, half wrong. God’s Spirit is almighty; Christ can’t be said to be almighty. You should say that God is almighty. That’s an on-point and accurate way to put it, and one that accords with the facts. What rationality must I possess? Everyone says I am God, God Himself, that I am God incarnate, so do I believe that I could then stand in for God Himself, for His Spirit? I couldn’t. Even if God gave Me that power and ability, I couldn’t accomplish that. If I could stand in for God in that way, wouldn’t that be a kind of virtual blasphemy against His disposition and essence? The flesh is so limited! That’s not the way to understand it; that isn’t the angle to approach this topic from. Isn’t that so? (It is.) So, because I have these thoughts, these principles for doing things, and considerations in doing each thing, I don’t seem like God to many people, and there are even some who, before they come into contact with Me, harbor some fantasies, imaginings, and notions, who are careful and cautious in their actions, and then as soon as they meet Me, they think, “He’s just a person, isn’t he? There’s nothing scary about him.” After this, they let their hair down—they grow bold, and they dare to run amok doing bad things. What are they called? Disbelievers. If you only believe in God incarnate, and not in God’s Spirit, then you’re a disbeliever; and if you only believe in God’s Spirit, and not God incarnate, then you’re likewise a disbeliever. God incarnate and God’s Spirit are one—They’re one. They don’t fight with each other, much less are They separate from each other, and less still is each Their own entity. They are one—it’s just that God incarnate must approach His work and God from the perspective of the flesh. That’s the business of the flesh, and it has nothing to do with you—it’s Christ’s business, and it has nothing to do with mankind. You can’t say, “So you think you’re an ordinary person, too. Fine, we’re the same sort of people, then—we’re all the same.” Is it okay to say that? It’s a mistake. Some people say, “You seem quite easy to get along with, so let’s drop the formalities. Let’s treat each other like buddies, like friends; let’s be each other’s confidantes—let’s make friends with each other.” Is that okay? Those people do not have spiritual understanding; they are disbelievers. The more you share your feelings with them, and talk to them about the truth, the facts, and the truth reality, the more they scorn you—these people are disbelievers. The more you speak about profound mysteries, and say catchphrases, doctrines, and abstractions, and the more you assert your status, flaunt, and show off, the more they esteem you—these are disbelievers. When they see someone who’s principled and measured in their actions, whose actions accord with the truth, who can approach positive and negative things with clear boundaries and discernment—the more like that someone is, the more they look down on them, and find them beneath their notice—these are disbelievers.

When I come into contact with people and interact with them, no matter who they may be or however long the interaction may take, do any of them feel: “He’s always trying to control me, He takes charge of all the affairs of my house, He’s always trying to conquer me”? I’m not conquering you! What use would there be in that? Read God’s words on your own, and ponder on them and enter them slowly. If you’re someone who pursues the truth, the Holy Spirit will work on you, and God will have blessings and guidance for you. If you’re not someone who pursues the truth, if you’re always defiant toward everything I say, and don’t want to hear it, and don’t accept it, then in the end, you’ll always get revealed, and things will always go wrong when you act—you won’t have God’s leadership. How does that happen? (God scrutinizes all.) It’s not just that God scrutinizes all. Go through this and experience this for yourselves. When I say something, regardless of whether people agree with it or not, or whether they accept it or not, does the Holy Spirit uphold it, or does He not bother? (He upholds it.) The Holy Spirit certainly upholds it and He absolutely won’t undermine it. It would be right of you to remember this. Regardless of whether people can accept what I say or not, there will come a day when the facts are made plain, and at a glance, everyone will say, “What You said was right all along! You said this long ago—why did I have no idea about it?” No matter whether you believed at the time that My words came from My imagination, or from My mind, or from knowledge—one day, after experiencing some things, you’ll think, “What You said has been the truth all along!” And how will you have come to this understanding? From experience. If you’re able to attain this knowledge, will it be through mental analysis? Absolutely not; you’ll have been led by the Holy Spirit—it will be God’s doing. Nonbelievers go their whole lives with a bit of knowledge about some of the rules for the heavens and earth and all things, but can they gain the truth? (No.) So, what are they missing? (They don’t have the work of the Holy Spirit.) Right. They don’t have the work of the Holy Spirit—that’s what they’re missing. So, no matter how you regard Me and evaluate Me as a person, and however you treat the words I say and the things I do, this must ultimately have its result. God will act, and He will reveal whether your choice was right or wrong, whether your attitude was right or wrong, and whether something has gone wrong with your view. God upholds the work of His flesh. Why doesn’t God support other people, then? Why doesn’t He support antichrists? It’s because the Spirit and the flesh are one; They have the same source. In fact, this isn’t upholding—that is, once you’ve experienced to the end, regardless of whether they are words spoken by God incarnate or those that came to you from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, they will be consistent. They will never contradict each other; they will be in accord. Do you have confirmation of this? Some people do, while others haven’t yet gotten to this point in their experience, and do not possess confirmation of this. This means that their faith hasn’t yet reached that point; it’s still very small. In other words, when your belief reaches a certain degree, there will suddenly come a day when you feel that an ordinary phrase, spoken by this ordinary flesh, a phrase that you didn’t find to be very impressive when you heard it, has become your life. How will it have become your life? You will be relying on it, without knowing so, in your actions. It will have become a guide for your day-to-day life. And when you lack a path, that phrase will become your reality, and it will become a goal that shows you the way; when you’re in pain, that phrase will allow you to emerge from negativity and understand what your problem is. After such experience, you’ll see that as ordinary as that phrase is, there’s weight and life within its words—that it’s the truth! If you don’t focus on pursuing the truth and don’t love the truth, you may condemn God, and His incarnation, and the truths He expresses. If you’re someone who pursues the truth, then a day will come in your experience when you’ll say, “God’s quite easy to get along with. God incarnate is quite easy to get along with”—but no one will say, “I’ve been getting along with Him as though He were a person.” Why is this? Because your experience of Christ’s words, and the work that the Holy Spirit does in you when you do not see Him during your day-to-day life, are the same. What will this “same” evoke in you? You’ll say, “God has adopted an ordinary, common exterior, the image of a flesh, so people have overlooked His essence. It is precisely because people have corrupt dispositions that they can’t see the side of God that is His essence. They just see the side that man is able to see. People really do lack the truth!” Is that not how it is? (It is.) That’s how it is. With some work, for instance, if there are many aspects of it that I can’t do, a lot of people are sure to develop notions. But when I’m able to do some of each aspect of the work, everyone’s a bit calmer, and they’re somewhat comforted at heart: “Alright. He seems like God—that’s all I can say. He seems like God incarnate, He seems like Christ. He’s probably Christ.” That’s the only sort of definition people have. Yet if I were only to fellowship the truth and express some of God’s words, and did no more than that—if I gave no practical counsel about any work, and were unable to give practical counsel, then that would lessen people’s regard for this flesh and the weight they assign to Him. People believe that the flesh must be possessed of certain abilities and certain talents. Is this, in fact, talent? No. God can grant people all manner of talents, gifts, and abilities, so tell Me, does God Himself have those things? In spades! So, there are some people who can’t solve this puzzle, and say, “How can You instruct us to sing when You can’t sing Yourself? Isn’t that a layman giving instructions to pros? Doesn’t that go against the principles?” I’ll tell you, I’m the exception. Why’s that? If you can’t do something well, I have to reach out My hand to help you; if you can do something, I’m fine with being hands-off, I don’t want to intervene—doing so would tire Me out. If you can do something well, why do I need to reach out My hand to help you? I’m not showing off here, and I’m not spouting lofty ideas. I just want to teach you, in the realm of professional skills and in the realm of the truth principles alike. Once you’ve all learned the skills and grasped the principles, it’ll be a great weight off My heart, as those things are outside of the work that falls to Me to do. Some say, “If it’s not work that falls to You, why do You do it?” It has to be done, and people are far from up to the task. If I didn’t give counsel as I do, the works produced would then be nothing special, and testifying for God would yield so-so results. If I had no significant works to show, I’d be a bit remiss and ill at ease, too, so I do a bit of work, as My energy and bodily condition allow. Why? There are several considerations. When all mankind sees the things that people have made, and absorbs them, the perspectives, views, and comprehension abilities that people have only differ in terms of how long they’ve been believers, their experience, and their caliber, but their starting points are all basically the same. Their starting points are the experiences they have of the truth realities on the basis of their understanding of the truth. These are the things that mankind can make. I couldn’t do things or produce works from the perspective of an ordinary person. What perspective must I take, then? That of the flesh? I couldn’t do that, either. It would be inappropriate, don’t you think? I would, of course, adopt the perspective of God and His work from within the flesh, to say those words, do those things, and express those views. Can the value of these things be measured with money among mankind? (No.) It can’t. This is because these things, once made into finished works, are things that will endure forever for mankind. Those ordinary works will also endure forever, of course. But since these works will endure forever, and into the future, and will make a contribution to all mankind, whether they be a guide for believing in God, or provisions and aid, I ought to make a few weightier works, right? That’s why I must say words and produce works from a perspective that mankind can’t take. What do I do this for? To increase the fame of the church. Is that motive correct? (It is.) Tell Me, is it advantageous for testifying to God if the fame of the church is heightened? (Yes.) Does it promote this, or hold it back? (It promotes it.) That’s for sure—it definitely promotes it. When some nonbeliever and religious groups see these works, they are amazed at how well-made these films are, and always wish to meet the behind-the-scenes filmmaker. I won’t meet with these people. I don’t have the time to meet these people, and I don’t know what the purpose of them meeting Me would be. What use would there be in Me meeting them, then? If those people who see these films can accept the truth, then that’s enough, and if they’re willing to investigate the true way, that’s even better. It’s not necessary for them to meet Me. In short, I make a few weighty works, so that when mankind sees these things, it is of somewhat greater benefit to them. Is it a good thing or a bad thing, to leave these things to mankind? (A good thing.) It’s worthwhile; it’s worth doing.

This is the way I have of getting along with you. The relationship I have with you is this one that you see and feel. So, what sort of relationship does God have with you? Can it be felt? It’s the same. Don’t go thinking, “God incarnate is a person; He’s easy to get along with. But God in heaven isn’t, with His majesty and wrath—He’s terrifying!” God’s as I am. He wouldn’t conquer or control you with a remark or a method, or with force. He wouldn’t do that. He’d get along with you in the same way as you feel Me getting along with you: I teach you whatever I can, and I enable you to understand whatever I can. As for the things you can’t understand, I don’t forcibly indoctrinate you with them. Some may say, “You say that You don’t indoctrinate us by force—well then, what are You doing by preaching the truth all the time?” Is that indoctrination? That’s called providing for you—it’s not a case of forcing you to make progress, it’s watering. Watering is proper; it’s a positive thing. Some will say, “Isn’t antichrists’ conquest of people the same as God’s?” (It’s not.) In what way is it not? The same word is used for antichrists’ conquest of people and God’s conquest of people; what’s the difference in essence between those two uses of the word? Can you explain this clearly? If you can’t even do that, your understanding of the truth is just too poor. (Satan’s conquest of people is forcible control, whereas God’s is the provision of truth—it’s telling people the truth principles, which people can then practice, and thereby gain life.) So, I ask you: Satan controls and conquers people, but does it have the truth? (No.) What is Satan? On what grounds does it conquer people? In other words, what qualifies Satan to conquer people and try to gain them? Satan has nothing at all. So, what does it use to conquer people? What can it provide people with, once it’s conquered them? It can only corrupt you; it can only toy with you and ruin you, and in the end, when it’s done ruining you, it will send you down to hell. What is its sort of conquest and control? It’s simply abuse. Its goal in controlling and conquering you is to stop you from submitting to God and the truth, and make you submit to it. To Satan, it’s wrong of you to submit to God, and submitting to it is right. If you do submit to it, and are controlled and conquered by it, you’ll have left God and rejected Him utterly. How, then, does God’s conquest of people work? God is Himself the truth; He’s the reality of all positive things, the source of all positive things, the source of the truth. What, then, are people? People are of a Satan-corrupted sort. They don’t have the truth. So, God must judge and chastise people, and try and refine them, by means of expressing the truth and exposing man’s corrupt dispositions, so that people may understand the words He says, and acknowledge Him as the Creator and themselves as His created beings, and come before Him, prostrate themselves to Him, and accept His sovereignty and arrangements. Is all this not in line with the truth? (It is.) So, what is this conquest? It’s gaining people, it’s salvation; it’s a positive thing. It’s not harming you. Isn’t there a difference between that and Satan’s conquest? It’s proper for God to conquer people. He’s the truth, the source of all positive things. To say He “conquers mankind” is all too apt a way to put it! Mankind doesn’t have the truth, they have been deeply corrupted by Satan, and made into its ilk. That’s why people don’t submit to God, and deny Him, and reject Him. What’s to be done about this? God must express the truth and use the methods of chastisement and judgment to get people to understand who God is, who the Creator is, who created beings are, and who Satan is, and get them to recognize the Lord and return to Him, acknowledge the Creator, and acknowledge themselves to be His created beings in His presence. That’s what conquest signifies. Do those conquered by God understand the truth, or do they not? (They do.) And people conquered by Satan—what do they gain? They understand no truths, and they shun, betray, and reject God, have notions about Him, and even follow Satan and antichrists. They may even pass judgment on God, rebel against Him, and curse Him, refusing to acknowledge His sovereignty, much less submit to it. Are these acceptable created beings? (No.) They’re the exact opposite of people conquered by God; the effect is the reverse of God’s conquest of people.

If someone such as an antichrist has status, and they go somewhere where people don’t know they’re a leader, will they be happy about it? No. Wherever they go, they’ll use any means at their disposal to tell everyone, “I’m the leader; make me some food. I’ve got to eat something good!” What would you say My view is on status? (You’re uninterested in it.) How does that lack of interest manifest? When I go somewhere, I tell the people there as much as I can not to freely spread word of or let people know of My identity. Why do I do this? Because when people know about it, it’s a real pain. If they don’t, they may say a bit of what’s in their hearts to Me; it’s a pain once they know—they clam up with Me. Tell Me, wouldn’t I be lonely, without anyone who’d speak their heart to Me? I try My utmost to not let people know, so that people can treat Me as if I were a common person, and say what they want to say to Me. It’s so nice for people to feel free and liberated, for Me to not always be tying them down, and for them to not always be so deferential in My presence. There’s no need for them to act like that; I don’t like that. Those who don’t understand the truth think, “Surely You like that, so that’s how I’ll treat You.” When I see people like that, I hide. When I see someone who’s always bowing and scraping, I hide, as quickly as I can. I absolutely don’t want to be in contact with such people—it’s too much of a hassle, too much trouble! Antichrists, though, are different. They hope to gain people’s respect, to receive special treatment wherever they go. And what do they hope for even more? That so long as they’re around, the people under their leadership will completely obey their orders, and obey them without compromise, to the point of absoluteness; then they think, “Look—what do you think of the soldiers I lead, the team I lead? They all do what I say, obediently.” They feel a special sense of accomplishment. They train people to be like puppets, to be like slaves, without independent thought, or opinions of their own, or views; they make each of them numb and dull-witted. Antichrists then feel joyful and pleased deep in their hearts, feeling that their work has gotten results, that their desires and ambitions have been fulfilled. If things aren’t like that, they’re saddened at heart: “Why don’t people just do what I say? What method do I have to use to get them to obey me? Fine—if you don’t know that I’m awesome, I’ll just have to show you! I have a graduate degree; I carry my diploma with me every day, so that you see it. I passed the Test for English Majors Grade Eight, and I was head of the student union. Seeing as you don’t understand me very well, I’ll show off a bit for you!” Whenever they discuss the work, they say, “Whatever thoughts you all have, say them; freely express your views—don’t be constrained by me.” And so, the people there begin to express their views. After they have, this “superior person” with a graduate degree says, “Your views are no good. They’re all ordinary, all the views of common people. I really do have to intervene—look: You can’t do the work! I don’t want to take this work on, in fact, but if I weren’t here, you really wouldn’t be able to take on this burden, so I need to lend a hand. I’ve thought this matter through. Here’s how we’ll handle it. None of the tricks you mentioned will work; I’ll give you a better one. That was what the work arrangements required us to do in the past—from now on, we won’t stick to those regulations. We won’t do it like that anymore.” Some people say, “If we don’t act according to the work arrangements, it’ll cause such a great loss to God’s house.” They respond, “Don’t think about it so much—will god’s house care about this little sum of money? Let’s focus on the results—they’re what matters. From now on, just do as I say. If something goes wrong, it’s on me!” No one can dissuade them. Are they not just spouting high-sounding ideas? What’s their goal in doing that? It is to show off, and remind every single person at all times of their existence, as well as their brilliance. In what way are they brilliant? In their inscrutability to ordinary people. Even if antichrists share the same view as other people, they still reject that view when it is expressed by others, after which they start over and take the lead by restating it. The group hears them and says: “Isn’t that the same idea?” They say, “Same or not, I’m the one who said it. You’re not the ones who said it. I’m the one who took the lead with this idea.” No matter how they go back and forth with what they say, their goal is to convince everybody, to let people know: “I’m not a leader for nothing; I’m not the group leader and the person in charge for nothing. I’m not all talk—I wouldn’t be in this position without my talents, gifts, and abilities.” If something should happen while they’re not there, no one else can call the shots, and if they are there, it must be them calling the shots. Everyone must keep an eye on their expression. Everyone can only breathe a sigh of relief when they’re calling the shots; if they aren’t, then everyone feels anxious. If they’re not allowed to call the shots, then it won’t be possible to resolve the task at hand. Don’t they have a goal in doing this? They sometimes think to themselves, “Is what I’m doing right? I’d better not do this—I’m making quite a fool of myself. Isn’t this the way antichrists act? That won’t do; my pride is what matters. ‘Antichrist’? The above hasn’t condemned me, so I’m not one!” And they keep on acting as they have been. Sometimes, they know quite well that what they’re doing violates the work arrangements and the truth principles, that they’re obviously considering their own pride and status, that they have their own intentions—yet they keep on doing what they have been, without a thought for the consequences, much less a God-fearing heart. Is this not a dispositional problem? What does this sort of disposition lead them to do? To be extremely egotistical, and to run amok doing bad things. Do they truly not know in their hearts the proper way to act? Do they truly not understand that what they’re doing violates the principles? Do they really not know that what they’re doing is misleading and controlling others, that they’re doing evil? They know and understand these things. That they could keep acting in the same way, then, means that they don’t love the truth and are averse to it. They reject any view, way, method, or statement, so long as it doesn’t come from their mouth. Is this not ambition? (It is.) There’s ambition and evil intents within it. What evil intents? What’s hidden behind it? (Having people do what they say.) Having people do what they say—they absolutely cannot miss out on any such advantage or chance to stand out, or allow these to fall to anybody else. Every time, it must be them making the decisions; every time, it must be them calling the shots; every time, the fruits of the work must be theirs alone, and be credited to them alone. In the end, they make everyone develop a tendency. What tendency? The tendency to think that the work can only operate when they’re in the group—without them, it’s as if no one else can bear the load. With this, have they not accomplished their goal? Those people have fallen under their control. What’s the precursor to being controlled? Being utterly conquered and defeated—antichrists torment you into surrendering to them, such that you don’t know right from wrong, and do not try to discern them at all or link any aspect of the truth to them, and firmly believe that whatever they do is right, and no longer dare to analyze if they’re right or wrong. These are the consequences brought about after people are misled and controlled by antichrists, and right afterward, those people follow the antichrists. Is that not so? (It is.) Is this not clearly a manifestation of antichrists having others submit only to them, not the truth or God? (It is.) What are the motives and evil intents behind everything they do, and what is the source of their actions, their ways and means, and even their statements? It’s that they want to defeat you, subdue you, get you to surrender to them, and show you who’s boss, who’s qualified to take the lead, who has the final say there, and that it isn’t the truth that has the final say—that no one but them could be lord of these people, or call the shots, or make the decisions. You’d like to mention the truth, but there’s no way for you to. You’d like to raise differing opinions—but don’t even think about it. What disposition of antichrists is this? It’s viciousness; they want to conquer and control people. No matter whether you look at antichrists’ desires and ambitions, or at their real actions, these all demonstrate their disposition of viciousness and being averse to the truth. These ways, revelations, and manifestations that antichrists have of conquering and controlling people, as well as their essences, coincide perfectly with the main topic we’re fellowshipping on. Antichrists would have people submit only to them—the implication of this is that people must do as they say, that to do so is to submit to God. If someone should raise a differing opinion and say what they’re doing is contrary to the truth, they’ll retort, “Contrary to the truth? Tell us—what is the truth? If you can explain it clearly, I’ll yield to you—but if you can’t, then I’ll put you in an embarrassing position!” When they say that, some people really feel afraid, saying, “I really can’t explain it clearly, so I’ll just do what you say.” With that, the antichrists have accomplished their goal. Are there people who do this? (Yes.) Have you done things like this? (No.) Antichrists have this skill. An ordinary person gives up when they see that they can’t persuade others; they don’t possess that technique. In one regard, it’s that they’re not able to speak and express themselves in that way—they can’t speak and debate well. In another, it’s that they’re not ruthless enough at heart. Those who can do these things must have a wicked disposition inside them. They must be vicious and sufficiently ruthless, and not care about anyone else’s feelings. If anyone disagrees with them, they’ll torment them in an incredibly vicious manner, and no matter how cruelly they do so, their conscience will feel no reproach for it or awareness of it. Someone would say, “They are pitiful enough already; why am I making them do as I say? I’ll let them off the hook—they believe in God, not me. They can just heed whoever speaks in a way that accords with the truth—it doesn’t matter who it is. I’ll just drop it this time.” Do antichrists think in this way? No; antichrists absolutely don’t have such rationality. They’re quite unambiguous about their own ambitions and desires. They cling onto them and won’t let go, just like a wolf that’s gotten a sheep in its jaws. If you try to negotiate with a wolf, and stop it from eating a sheep—will that work? It won’t. Why not? Because that is its disposition. What does the wolf believe? “I’m hungry. I like eating sheep. This is right. Whether I want to eat the sheep or not, it’s all right.” That’s its philosophy, the standard and source of its actions. Likewise, when antichrists conquer and control people, do they think, “I’m not God. How shameless it is of me to control people. If people come to discern me, how can I show my face anywhere?” Do they have such a sense of shame? (No.) They have no sense of shame. So, what’s missing from their humanity? Shame, rationality, and conscience. These things aren’t in their humanity. Without those things, are they still human? They are not. Not all who wear human skin are human, necessarily—some are demons, some are walking corpses, and some are animals. What sort of thing are antichrists, then? They’re devils; some of them are evil demons, and others are evil spirits. In sum, they aren’t human. It’s because they aren’t possessed of the reason, conscience, and shame of normal humanity that antichrists are able to contend with God for people and people’s hearts. This shows their nature essence to be wicked. It’s not justifiable for them to contend with others for status, let alone contend with God for status and for people! This shows all the more that they’re authentic antichrists, that they’re devils and Satans.

We’ve now fellowshipped on the manifestations of antichrists through to item eight. Can you now make links between yourselves and antichrists, as well as people who walk the path of antichrists and those who possess their disposition, to see which sort of person you are? (Yes.) You can make some of these links. Which of people’s problems can doing this resolve? (It can keep us from taking the wrong path.) It can keep you from taking the wrong path. What else? (It enables us to discern the people, events, and things around us.) It enables you to discern some of the people around you. Being discerning of others is part of it; mainly, though, you must know how to be discerning of yourself, of the antichrist’s disposition inside you and the path you walk. This will help you to not go astray in doing your duty, and to not take the path of antichrists. Once someone has set off on the path of antichrists, is it easy for them to turn back? No; once they’ve set off, it’s not easy for them to turn back. Do you know the reason for this? (The Holy Spirit doesn’t work in them.) That’s the main reason. Setting off on the wrong path is dangerous, as you have chosen to struggle against God, to contend with Him for His chosen people, and to fight against Him to the end; you are not seeking the truth, or seeking to accept God’s salvation. Set off on a path like that, and you’ll be in trouble. You’ll be standing in opposition to God—you’ll be standing in opposition to Him by your subjective will; that is, your thoughts, views, opinions, and choices will all be hostile to God. If, before you’ve set off on this path, you have some objective manifestations, dispositions, and essences that are antithetical and hostile to God, yet at all times, you’re cautious at heart about not walking the path of hostility to God, or the path of antichrists, then you have a chance of being saved. If you do set off on the path of antichrists, of hostility to God, then you’re in danger. How great is the danger? Great enough that it won’t be easy for you to turn back. Some people just now said that the Holy Spirit won’t work in you anymore—that’s so obvious! How could the Holy Spirit work in such a person? Once you’ve set off on that kind of path, once you’ve made that choice, you’re in danger. If you understand this in your heart, but still do this, go that way, and make that choice, and proceed always according to your own principles and your old, prior ways when you act, without turning around or repenting, without reversing your course, that represents your choice—you’ve made up your mind about going down this path in hostility to God. It’s not that you don’t understand what you’re doing—you’re knowingly committing a sin. It’s just like Paul, who said, “Who are you, lord? Why do you want to strike me down?” He knew quite well that the Lord Jesus was the Lord, that He was Christ, but he still opposed Him to the end. That’s knowingly committing a sin. Paul didn’t testify for the Lord, nor did he exalt Him. He thought, “Aren’t you just an ordinary person? Aren’t you just striking me down because you have the power to? You may have the power, but I still believe in the god in heaven. You, the incarnation, aren’t god; you’re unrelated to god. You’re god’s son, and you’re our equal.” Was that not his view? What was the foundation for this view of Paul’s? After he came to know that the Lord Jesus was Christ incarnate, he still upheld this view, as he did before. This was a serious problem, and with it, his outcome was decided. Given that he held onto that view the whole time, could the path he walked have changed? The path a person walks is based on their views: Whatever your views are, that’s the path you walk. And vice versa, whatever path you walk, those are the views that will arise in you, the views you’ll have, the views that will sway and direct you. As soon as you set off on the path of hostility to God, these views will take form and root inside you, and one thing is then certain: You’re bound to oppose God to the end; you’re bound to hold always onto your own mistaken views, knowledge, and attitude, raising a clamor against God until the end. You won’t reverse your course at all—not if anyone should tell you to, or if the Holy Spirit should enlighten you, or if the brothers and sisters should exhort you, or if God should illuminate you. There will not be room for it. This is your choice. You will be given a first, second, and third chance—if, after three chances to repent, you haven’t done so, you’ll have no more chances in the future. However you work and pay a price then, it won’t be moving to God—He’ll already have made up His mind about you. What will God have decided for you? That you’ll be made to render service, that you’ll be made use of; and after you’ve been used, He’ll put you somewhere where you’ll be chastised and punished, as He has decided. How does it happen, God’s making up His mind in this way? Is it because of your momentary thought? Is it based on your fleeting ideas? On your stepping for a moment onto the wrong path? No; God bases this on the views you have deep in your heart, on your long-term attitude toward the truth, and on the path you decide to walk. You’ve made up your mind to act in this way, and no matter what anyone says, it’s of no use; you’ve made up your mind to use this theory as the foundation for the path you walk in the future. And since you’ve made up your mind, doesn’t God have to determine your outcome? Your outcome has been determined long ago; there’s no need for God to wait until the very end to do this. With some people, God always looks at their manifestations—when these people finally get to the end of the road, their outcomes are ultimately determined based on their various manifestations. Some people have done more good deeds than evil ones; they’ve harbored more good and positive attitudes toward God than negative and evil-doing ones, and based on the measurement of the sum of their different behaviors and manifestations, their ultimate outcomes are determined. There are others, however, whose outcomes are determined by God after a glance at the path that they walk. Does God give people chances before determining their outcomes, then? He does. How many? There’s most likely no concrete number. It depends on a person’s nature essence, and it’s based on their pursuit, too. Some people may get three chances. Some are irredeemable, they are incredibly foolish and intransigent, and they don’t accept any truths at all—their outcomes are determined before they’ve had three chances. Yet with some people, God arranges some environments for them based on their states, and based on their age and the things they’ve been through, He may give them five chances. This is based on their nature, essence, and attitude while accepting the truth. God determines a person’s outcome and destination based on these things.

All sorts of things happen to people, and they often don’t know how to face them; would it be alright if they didn’t strive to understand the truth? It’s easy for people to take the wrong path when they don’t understand the truth. Why do I say this? People live by Satan’s corrupt dispositions, and the things that come out from within them are things that they naturally reveal, and not one of them accords with the truth, or isn’t traitorous against God. So, why should they always listen to sermons, then? Always listening to sermons, pondering them, and taking them to heart; always praying and seeking; coming before God with a God-fearing heart, with a heart of piety, with a heart that longs for the truth; having set times each day for devotionals, prayer, and eating and drinking God’s words; and fellowshipping with others, and cooperating in harmony with others to do work; acting each day according to these principles, and holding to them each day—God looks at whether these detailed elements of people’s practice achieve results. Some may ask, “Aren’t those just processes?” What’s a process? These are not external things—you can only hold to these things if you have the heart to do so. Without that heart, how many days could you hold to them? You’d be unable to hold to them. Some leaders never eat and drink God’s words and never engage in devotionals. What does this mean? That they’re not true believers. If they’re not, then how’d they get to be leaders? In some places, there’s no one fit for the job, so the church has to make do with using these people. They wrongly think, “I’ve been chosen as leader. I can do this work all the same without eating and drinking God’s words—so long as people have legs and mouths, they can do this work.” This is foolishness. God doesn’t look at whether you can do the work—He looks at what you have done. The work you can do, someone else can do, too. Anyone with a bit of normal intelligence can do it. Don’t go thinking that because you’ve been chosen as leader, and you can do that work, that your success is guaranteed, that you’ve then been made perfect, that you then have a chance to survive. That’s not how it works. God never looks at how much you do; He looks at what you’ve done, at the path you walk. Don’t fool yourself about this. You may think, “There are so many people who weren’t picked, yet I was. It seems that I’m outstanding, that I’m of greater caliber and better than others.” What’s good about you? Even if you’re good, surely you aren’t entitled to not practice the truth, and to act in violation of the truth? Even if you’re good, surely you aren’t entitled to not engage in devotionals or prayer, and to not seek the truth when you act? You’re not entitled to those things. No status or title is your capital. Those are fleeting things, external things. God looks at your loyalty; He looks at your practice of the truth, your pursuit of it, and your attitude toward it; He looks at your submission; He looks at your attitude toward your duty and your mission. Some people may put a lot of effort into doing their duty, but they don’t do it in line with the truth principles. If you tell them that they should act according to the truth principles, they resist, they get mad and don’t accept it. Just like that, they’re revealed. What’s been revealed? That they don’t accept the truth. What sort of people are they, those who don’t accept the truth? Disbelievers. What do disbelievers blindly busy themselves with? Why are they so energized in their busyness? They have a goal—they see that, “There’s a chance for me to become an official here, and if I do, I can profit from the church, and be worshiped by all. This place is great! This meal-ticket is all too easy to come by, and so is this prestige and profit; this status is just so easy to attain—it’s just so easy to be an official here!” They never thought they’d get to be an “official” in this lifetime. But once they lose their “office,” they show their true colors. They don’t make any more efforts for God’s house. Will they still be able to suffer and pay a price? No. Aren’t they then revealed? Some people go all-out once they have status, making efforts and sweating, not complaining no matter how much they suffer—yet as soon as they don’t have status anymore, they become negative, to the point that their negativity overwhelms them. Aren’t they then revealed? Status has revealed them. Is there any need to put them through trials? No. Alright, we’ll wrap up today’s fellowship here.

October 1, 2019