Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
First, I have said it many times.... if there is criminal behavior it should be reported to the police.
Yet, this whole conversation begs the questions....
Why did John Ingalls, or Godfred who knew before John mentioned it to him, not report the criminal behavior to the police? Did John or Godfred not consider the behavior criminal but rather immoral?
If immoral then why was it so and not criminal?
If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?
This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?
Drake
|
Hey Drake, I think you are right ... if there's a crime committed, like rape.
But the goings-on in the LSM office wasn't a crime, that I know of. From what I understand, it was consenting adults. And adultery isn't a crime.
As usual, the cover up is as bad as the infraction. Why keep it hush-hush?
That's obvious. To protect the integrity and reputation of the church.
Take John Ingalls. Did he follow Matthew 18:15-17? Yes. But he didn't "
tell it to the church." (He did write a book, however).
My question is then, were there crimes committed? If so, it/they should have been reported to the authorities.
I still support the 'MeToo' movement, and think those abused in the LC should be included in it.