Justification for One City-One Church dogma?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the Blendeds this has already happened.

How many times has the words of Lee superseded scripture?

And how many times did Lee's teaching categorise scriptural text as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And by contrast, how many times have LC members categorised Lee's writings as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And what explains this disparity in reception?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And how many times did Lee's teaching categorise scriptural text as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And by contrast, how many times have LC members categorised Lee's writings as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And what explains this disparity in reception?

You and I have repeatedly brought this point up -- How can Witness Lee be permitted to challenge and downgrade certain scriptures when no one on earth is permitted to challenge his own teachings and practices? -- under the threat of lawsuits for outsiders and quarantines for insiders.

Since I was in the LC's for so long, I know the events leading up to the quarantines in the GLA. For several years after Lee's passing, Titus Chu and his team of workers compiled reams of quotes from the writings of W.Nee and early-Lee. Titus Chu had the nerve to challenge the Blended's teachings and practices by using the books off their own printing presses. Titus Chu tried to reform the Recovery much the same way as Martin Luther did with Rome.

We know how that went. I understand that these documents and record of events were conveniently kept from rest of the Recovery.