[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Neither the Andersons nor Nell have posted much here in years. What's your beef with them? (don't answer that, your personal problems with other posters should be kept personal) Nobody gets endless audience or unlimited bandwidth...I couldn't possibly afford it!

What am I missing here?

Apparently you've missed the main point I was driving at.
OBW and Igzy answered better than I could (as usual)

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

PS: My "Much (to do) ado about nothing" smack talk was just that....smack talk. All it really did was expose my lack of knowledge of Shakespeare.