[Boxjobox]

UntoHim, I'm amazed what you allow to be discussed, and what you don't want touched. The thing about Lee was that his trademark was "the recovery". My understanding was that it was to bring us back to the original church functioning according to the scriptures. But Lee only brought us back to the 3rd or 4th century, and then rebuilt the "one true church" based on his collecting, embellishing, and adding to the the teachings of that time. I realize most all modern Christianity comes out of that period. If we are going to have a discussion about Lee and the local church, I think it is more than fair game to question his doctrines, theology, rather than sit around and banter about Day star or his son, or LSM. If that's the only problem; well, Lee is dead, so let's all go back to the LC!

No, it is his teachings that were off-off from the scripture. I noticed you quote the Nicene Creed (4th century) and not the apostles creed. If you compare the two, you can see a great theology developed that replaced the symplicity of the scripture. The Nicene creed is one major footnote that controls the thinking of most Christianity. It was the launching point for WL's teaching.

The real benefit of a site like this is to discuss Lee's teachings in relation to the scripture. I think I have been consistent on this.
Evangelical brought up about God dying- I don't see that as the gospel, don't see the apostles teach it, but Lee did.

You bring up Isaiah 9:6 to show God died. Yet you do not quote Numbers 23:19.
If the Apostles did not preach God dying, why not "recover" back to their teaching? Lee had an entire theology that he put in footnotes to bend the meaning of scripture. It's only fair game to discuss it.

How about we take a poll-

Did the eternal, immortal, invisible God die on the cross?

YES NO NOT SURE