Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.
|
Many members were forced to choose between the account of Lee and that of Ingalls, based on reputation alone. Some followed Lee siding only with the majority. Personally, i never made any decision at the time since Titus Chu kept the information from us.
When i finally read Ingalls account in 2005, and compared the facts with Lee's record in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Lee suffered an incredible loss of respect due to the way he treated John, violated righteousness, and protected his profligate son Phillip, all the while sacrificing God's people, who dared to be faithful to their conscience. Lee's actions could only be summarized by the KJV phrase "filthy lucre."