Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Honestly folks I believed the story. I used to believe a lot of things I was taught in the Recovery. Yes, I was naive. We all were. But I suppose every one who ever lived believes a bit of hagiography about their favorite sports star, movie celebrity, religious leader, or historical figure. Some folks still believe in super heroes.
But let's think about Lee's story here. Was this all smoke as in "smokescreen" to keep the faithful from knowing the truth? Notice that Lee never put this tall tale in his biography of Nee, Seer ... Does anyone really think that those Shanghai elders could be so stupid and impulsive? They were appointed by Nee and shepherded the largest church in the movement. I'm sure they had confronted all sorts of moral "irregularities" dealing with diverse saints for years. Nee was their chief minister. Would they not prayerfully, carefully, and painstakingly examine any accusation against Nee?
Of course they would! Lee's fabrication of events on its face bears no credibility to honest scrutiny. Is not it plainly obvious that his brief fictional account was a diversion from the truth, carefully designed to quell suspicions? So, when confronted with lies, we are forced to consider what was he hiding? What should we not know? Why lie unless the truth is too nasty to confront. So, for me, whether or not Dr. Lily Hsu is completely accurate in her Memories of Nee is besides the point.
|
Which is more believable Lee's biography or Hsu's biography? It's a simple question. I would say Hsu's biography makes Nee appear more 3 dimensional. More human.
Those who want to discredit Hsu, go ahead. What for? Because she very could have the accounts closer to the truth than brothers would want to believe.
If one takes the argument to discredit Hsu because she wasn't there, same can be said for ones who write biographies of long passed American presidents such as Andrew Jackson and John F Kennedy.