Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Ding! I understand now. Thanks.
I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader? 
Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery. |
Ok Trapped... thanks for the clarification.
Prior to this conversation, I never considered there to be a perceived contradiction between the ministry and the Lord's recovery.... because in my mind they are related but not synonyms. When I hear the ministry I think of the work of the gifts to the Body.. and when I think about the Lord's recovery I think about the actions that God has directed in various era's to recover His original purpose to establish His kingdom on earth, that is to bring the Lord back and depose the evil powers and take over the earth with His saints.
Therefore, I see your point in what appears like an obvious contradiction... the wording appears to be contradictory right on the surface. However, I see no substantive contradiction...so I'll explain my thoughts using the document itself... since that is the point of this thread.
Therefore, we have two seeming contradictory statements:
1) I'll use one from your list which should cover most of the similar statements since this one sounds most contradictory:
4. "sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lord’s recovery today."
2) And this one near the end: " The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."
The reason I labored on the point about both statements being in the letter is because if they weren't then it could easily be understood that the authors inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lee's statement and in so doing showed they would have not been expressing his thoughts on the matter... and as has been said many times in this forum the blended brothers are faithful to Brother Lee's word to them.
So, with the two statements above there are four possibilities of what the authors intended to mean by including both statements:
First, they may have intended the reader to understand that the first statement (penned by the authors) was their meaning but not the second. That is not logical.... why include the second statement at all then.
Or secondly, they may have intended the reader to understand that the second statement (by Brother Lee) was their intended meaning but not the first. That is even less sensible because they are the authors of the first statement!
Third option is that the authors did not mean either statements to be their intended meaning. That would be ridiculous.
Fourth then and lastly , the authors included both statements because they believed that both statements are the intended meaning. This really is the only logical choice. If the one publication had been penned and released by a single author then it might be reasoned that the author was out of touch ... but since it was probably at least 8, 10, or a dozen brothers reviewing and agreeing on the release of this document, its content, and its intended meaning, then it is of a surety that they meant both seemingly contradictory statements to be true... and they were perfectly comfortable juxtaposing them for public consumption.
If that is the case, and the logic favors that view, then the only question is how two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact not contradictory in the minds of the authors?
I'll pause here before providing my own point of view on that last question.
thanks
Drake