Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.
So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.
|
It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.
Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of
MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.
In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (
think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials"
internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.