[Cal]

Nee's guilt or innocence in regard to the allegations by Hsu and others is unclear.

However, LSM's categorical rejection of such allegations clearly indicates a lack of sobriety and willingness to objectively weight evidence and clues, and hence dismisses them as serious thinkers. They have stated plainly that anyone who questions the character of Nee has ill motives. But how would they know? None of them knew Nee. Everything they know about him is based largely on what Witness Lee said.

But given the fact that Lee displayed a clear pattern of slanting history in his favor, as evidenced by his character assassination of anyone who stood in his way, doesn't it stand to reason that he might prop up the reputation of someone if doing so would lend him credibility? If he would throw T.A. Sparks, John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon and many others under the bus, wouldn't he also place Nee on a pedestal if it fit his goals?

That doesn't mean he did that. But anyone who states categorically that Lee wouldn't do such a thing, or that those who question Lee or Nee have ill motives, does not possess a state of mind which can objectively assess reality. What they possess is a fanatical closed-mindedness.

LSMers are free to weigh evidence and come to their own conclusions. The problem is they don't do this. They categorically reject any evidence which doesn't support the conclusions they like. They should not be considered serious participants in any discussion for which they refuse to adopt the objectivity and humility requisite to be taken seriously.

Again, Nee may be guilty or innocent. Anyone who states flatly that guilt is not possible cannot be in possession of a sober mind.