Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Brothers, why do you now refer to Witness Lee as an apostle when he never referred to himself as an apostle? As a matter of fact, in a sworn deposition, under penalty of perjury, Witness Lee clearly denied that he considered himself as an apostle, and swore under oath that he asked his followers not to refer to himself as an apostle.
|
I like where this thread is going. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.
But this talk about Lee not saying he was an apostle has always been a muddy thing for me. I started in the LC (Dallas) in 73 and heard the word apostle bandied about on several occasions. It wasn't Lee speaking directly, but was from various ones there in the meetings, on in talking around the meeting hall or in homes. Were any of the ones saying this "leading ones"? I can't remember.
But later, because of the claims (as you mention) in the early lawsuits, I concluded that it was just members making uninformed statements. Yet the ink had barely dried on the verdicts in those first suits when Lee was recorded as saying that he sort of liked being exalted. Are we sure that Lee didn't ever make one of those sideways claims of being an apostle? Like Nee did when he never declared himself the top dog, but asserted that you must give difference (not those words) to the one with the most spirituality. He never said that he was immune from being excommunicated, but indirectly he declared it as so in Authority and Submission (aka Spiritual Authority). Does Lee dance around the apostle issue in a similar manner?
Maybe this deserves a separate thread. I have the question but no evidence.