Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I think it's a combination of the two. And the two support the weakness of each other. When Lee's theology seems compelling and unique, they think, "See? He is clearly special." When the theology seems weak, they think, "Doesn't matter, because he's the MOTA."
It's circular. Why is he the MOTA? Because of his esoteric theology. Why is his theology so special, even to the point you swallow things that make no sense? Because he's the MOTA.
But, as I said, no decent theology requires the imprimatur of a special minister. The theology should stand on its own. Lee's really doesn't. So when it sags they say, "How can you question the MOTA?" I don't think they necessarily do this cynically. It's just the self-perpetuating mindset of these types of groups.
|
In a vacuum, Lee's reputation as the Recovery MOTA was certainly adequate for him to introduce all sorts of esoteric theology.
When the rebellion of the late 80's exploded on the scene, not even Lee's special MOTA status in the Recovery was adequate for survival. He needed numerous well-respected leaders to prop him up, close their eyes to criminal unrighteousness, and be willing to fabricate lies for him.
It was basically the Texas contingency who came to his rescue. Had more fair-minded leaders been willing to examine the statements made by Ingalls, Mallon, and others, the Recovery would have come crashing down under the weight of unrighteousness.