Leaders of the Lord's Recovery

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Our brother Lin claims to have written his book under the anointing, guidance and constraint of the Holy Spirit. Our brother Lee also claims to have been before the Lord before writing his slanderous book; Fermentation Of The Present Rebellion. I personally would be under great tembling and fear of ever dragging the Spirit Of TRUTH into an endless pit of self-serving LIES. They may speak about High Truth, but they do not practice the Truth

A lot of what Lee did could have been 'fixed' a long time ago by a simple admission on his part that he had made a mistake or had a large lapse in judgement. Did he do that? Nope. He instead proceeded to put a spin on so many things.

It's not my place to judge anyone for their mistakes. But what I do know is that the Spirit of TRUTH does not lead people to LIE or engage in deception. Lies stem from only one source. That source is the father of lies, the devil himself. That is serious, and as Christians we don't want anything to do with such blatant deception.

[SteVee]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A lot of what Lee did could have been 'fixed' a long time ago by a simple admission on his part that he had made a mistake or had a large lapse in judgement. Did he do that? Nope. He instead proceeded to put a spin on so many things.

It makes me think of the difference between Saul and David.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A lot of what Lee did could have been 'fixed' a long time ago by a simple admission on his part that he had made a mistake or had a large lapse in judgement.

Originally Posted by SteVee

It makes me think of the difference between Saul and David.

David saw the light before he murdered Nathan, and made things worse. But like Saul, WL and his Blendeds piled mistake upon mistake. The reason for this is that WL built a system predicated upon infallibility, and to admit mistake might cut the underpinnings of the whole enterprise. Admitting one lapse in judgement would lead to questioning other decisions, and then the whole thing might have no validity whatsoever! Terrible! Unthinkable!

This can not only be seen in morality, where unethical behavior got waved off with, "We don't care about right and wrong", but even in scriptural interpretation leading to a kind of "system of error", per Eph 4:14 (see RecV; esp fn 5). The Ascended Master's (AM) interpretation of the Bible must be held as infallible, and wherever the Bible seemed at variance with the AM's High Peak Teachings, then the Bible itself had to be of little account.

Consider that David was a sinner: he murdered Uriah, numbered Israel in his pride, etc. Therefore when he wrote "God rescued me because He delighted in me" then according to the AM this is false. No, WL said, David rescued himself (no consideration that the text might point to the promised Son of David, the coming Messiah, as NT usage suggests).

Yet the AM can't ever be seen to have had any lapse of judgment, or his entire teaching corpus might be questioned; instead of being the sole mediator between God and man, the Seer of the Divine Revelation, and God's Present Oracle, WL would be another Christian with thoughts and opinions. Sometimes insightful, sometimes maybe not so much. Can't have that!! What would happen to book sales and conference attendance?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

David saw the light before he murdered Nathan, and made things worse. But like Saul, WL and his Blendeds piled mistake upon mistake. The reason for this is that WL built a system predicated upon infallibility, and to admit mistake might cut the underpinnings of the whole enterprise. Admitting one lapse in judgement would lead to questioning other decisions, and then the whole thing might have no validity whatsoever! Terrible! Unthinkable!

Did David murder Nathan?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did David murder Nathan?

Maybe I didn't word it clearly. What I meant was, "Instead of compounding his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah by murdering the accusing Nathan, David did not; instead he saw the light and repented." But my terse wording may have opened the door to understanding the opposite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe I didn't word it clearly. What I meant was, "Instead of compounding his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah by murdering the accusing Nathan, David did not; instead he saw the light and repented." But my terse wording may have opened the door to understanding the opposite.

You made some very good points. In his outrage, King David was ready to pull the trigger again, and he would have done so, either to Nathan (who, I'm sure, was scared for his own life) or the antagonist in Nathan's fable. (II Samuel 11.1-9)

To say that "David saw the light and repented," was a very kind characterization of the King.