Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.
Or am I misreading you?
Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.
|
And you are correct here. Lee could never have gotten the leaven past us if he did not start with some good orthodoxy.
But when it comes to the idea of simply tossing Lee and his teachings aside, the way I think of it is not to throw everything out and start over. But whenever I am faced with teaching post-LCM that does not square with something I think is right and I note that its source is in my LCM past, I start with the rejection of the Lee/LCM teaching and make it prove itself as true.
I know that I have made a lot of statements to the effect of throwing everything from Lee out. But it was really meant to imply that anytime there is a potential conflict, I presume that the non-Lee source is correct until I re-investigate and prove Lee correct.
And so far I don't think that I can remember finding Lee correct over anything that I am now learning outside the LCM.