Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
As is evident in the above excerpt, it seems that brother Lee understood the implications of excommunication, and especially the possibility that an unsubstantiated case against a brother or sister could be considered as defamation. Ironically, when Lee instigated quarantines against his fellow brothers, he didn’t have any proof of sin or immorality. The only “wrong” these brothers had done was to disagree with Lee, thus there was nothing worthy of excommunication. So what did Lee do? He called their excommunication something different – a quarantine. That required no proof of anything, his own kangaroo court would be sufficient. Lee’s own son, on the other hand, was a subject of an excommunication, and I think it could be said that action would never have been taken had there not been sufficient proof of immorality.
In his effective excommunication of certain brothers, Lee didn’t want to call it an excommunication, even though it's clear that's exactly what it was. If he really had such a strong case against them, why would he be concerned with a lack of evidence? Excommunications take place in various groups, yet none of these groups are concerned about legal repercussions. Why? Most likely because there is a strong case against someone or sufficient proof to support the excommunication. This is exactly what Lee didn’t have.
|
Call it a quarantine, but treat it as an excommunication. Very deceptive. If it's a quarantine you would think there would be several brothers going to check up and see how the quarantined brothers are doing.
Not once in 25 years. How can you call that a quarantine?