Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
If we operate on facts, where are the facts to support the LSM narrative?
Never have been any. Rather I suggest the LSM narrative is projection how they feel.
|
Right - the LSM narrative "This is so" actually means, "I wish this were so". Or, "If this were so, that would feel good. But if it wasn't so, that wouldn't feel good." Voila! Pseudo-reality. Something is summarily declared to be so. There's no independent or objective corroboration given. Just a statement that something is so. The oracle has spoken. End of discussion.
From
The Spokesman-Review Dec 17 1978
Quote:
Although Grueller [sic] denies the Local Church is making a concerted effort to discredit Rapoport, ex-members say Rapoport is being represented as a Judas and one who tried to achieve more authority.
Rapoport said his disenchantment with the movement began about 18 months ago when Lee refused to act on his demand that Lee's son, Philip, be removed as head of the Living Stream Ministry after a church member accused Philip of an immoral act.
Attempts to reach Philip Lee for comment were unsuccessful. Witness Lee said his son does not like to answer such charges.
|
Witness Lee refused to act on Max Rapoport's demand. Why? Because he didn't want to, that's why. He's Witness Lee, the voice of God. That's the sum total of reality in the LC: if the oracle wants to do something he does, and if he doesn't want to, then he refuses. And by extension, "Philip Lee doesn't like to answer such charges" - I mean, who would? Certainly Philip didn't want to face the music. But that's apparently sufficient in the LC -- the oracle's son doesn't want to answer such charges. End of conversation. Kind of like Dad was with Sal Benoît.
"So subjective is my Christ in me..." Yes indeed, so subjective.... Christ is whatever you want Christ to be - how very convenient. And ten years later, someone else found the oracle's son in the same office doing the same "immoral act". Surprised?