OBW,
I agree with your point. My point was that until people jettison the MOTA concept (and with it the Recovery concept), they will not be able to see Lee in a way where his failings even matter.
The "Recovery" was and is nothing more than Lee's private church, a subset of the Church in which he could make up certain rules and teachings which always pointed back to him as the final authority on everything. "The Recovery" is not scriptural, but he convinced enough people that it was real and he was at the helm.
Those two principles, being the Recovery and being the MOTA, are self-reinforcing. When rival publications appeared, Lee gave lip service to personal freedom while stating in no uncertain terms that any teachings which were not completely in line with his were not of the Recovery, i.e. not of God's up-to-date, unique move.
In other words, when you boil it down, it was all about him and what he thought. Period. Don't believe me, just read
www.afaithfulword.org, an astounding bundle of circular logic whose conclusions are totally based on the notion that Lee and Nee were MOTAs which must never be questioned.
I agree that if Lee were any typical Christian teacher, he would not be taken very seriously (in fact he is not) because of his arrogance and his shady dealings. But until one learns to look at him simply as one looks at any other Christian, one is going to continue grade him on a curve, the curve of him being right even when he's wrong.