Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
So that's where rape entered this thread ; our dear brother Drake.
|
Here is my quote from 7 years ago on another thread ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I have heard others express this line of reasoning. Sure PL increased revenues at LSM, but why would WL place PL in charge and then do nothing to prevent his son from potentially destroying his entire ministry and reputation. Placing PL as the "office" contradicted thousands of WL's own teachings.
PL's vices were well known in to those related to LSM. If WL just wanted his sons to be successful via some business venture, then why not just funnel money to him? Only the accountants would then know, rather than risking scandals regarding rape and immorality.
|
awareness, note what I actually said, "
risking scandals regarding rape and immorality." Is that not what has happened? How many devoted brothers and sisters have left the LC's over the past 30 years due to "
scandals regarding rape and immorality" at LSM? Actually I never accused Philip of rape. I wasn't in the room. But ... does not workplace sexual abuse of volunteer sister-help become a "scandal of rape" when the news hits the streets? Rumors always become bigger that life. Coverups only make it even worse.
My point then and now is the same: Why didn't Witness Lee, who knew the degenerate character of his son, place him in charge at LSM over all the elders and workers? Why did he then cover up for Philip, rather than act as a man of God, act with decency, act according to the scriptures, and act according to the law?