Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Ok... so...
I’d like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.
Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?
I’d say the document addresses most of those questions.
To your first point Trapped about the “Lord’s recovery”... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of “Lord’s recovery” beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says “According to the practice established by Brother Nee...” and again “When we were on mainland China...” . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord’s recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn’t apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.
Drake
|
Does this make any sense? Call on Martin Luther et. al. for legitimacy, and then say "
oh by the way, we change the rules." Luther, via the printing press, opened the floodgates of diverse writings about scripture. Anybody and everybody now had a voice. And a pen. Only the money changers at LSM think this is bad.
W. Lee led us to believe many things about China under W. Nee. Today I don't believe anything he told us. To believe Lee is to negate every other author, both from within and without the Little Flock movement in China. Either W. Lee is right and all other co-workers and historians are liars, or ... You fill in the blanks.
Actually, in the early days in the US, roughly from 1962 to 1980, there were many writers and publishers within the LCM. Lee was just one of many ministers, that is until he took over and threw the rest of them under the bus. By 2010 LSM's takeover was complete when they excommunicated Titus Chu in Cleveland and Dong Yu Lan in Brazil. They have finally purged the last holdouts.
Now they claim "
we have always had only one publication, and that's why we have always been so one."
Hypocrites.
.