Quote:
Originally Posted by bearbear
I understand more where you guys are coming from now. I lean towards Lee living in self-deception after reading Jane's book and other accounts. It seems like he believed in deputy-authority with all his heart so he lived as he was accountable to no one, except God as he mentioned in his phone conversation with Sal. The hypocrisy is astounding considering that Lee expected Sal to make the accounts in the Church of Boston transparent to the saints there, yet he himself expected Sal to understand that the MOTA had no need to be transparent about the financial accounts of his own ministry.
Lee's error was that he was abiding in doctrines like Deputy Authority and not the plain word of God.
|
Good point.
Note how Deputy Authority proponents like to use Noah and Moses for examples. Moses took a foreign wife, and Noah like his homemade brew. And we all know what happened to those who protested.
My question is this -- why don't you use Eli the High Priest or King David as an example. Lee loved to point out how God was out to get anyone who spoke up against him, as God judged Mariam and Ham. But why didn't God judge Nathan for speaking against David? or Samuel for speaking up against Eli?
One reason is that Moses and Noah did not damage others. Obviously, ones like Lee and Nee clung to these concepts of Deputy Authority because they had things to hide, and they wanted the license to lead without accountability for their failures. They wanted all their adherents to be silenced by the fear of God's judgment. They used the oneness and the unity of the church as a smokescreen for what they really desired.