Challenging Ed Marks regarding apology letter to Phillip Lee

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think it is very difficult for many of those on these forums to put themselves into Ed's shoes. How difficult it must be to replace JI. When you are a new Christian life is simple, right is right, wrong is wrong. But when you become a "leader", especially in someplace under the microscope like Anaheim you have to weigh every single word, action, deed. It is as though your Christian walk now requires a Phd in calculus. You have to weigh the impact of every word, the unintended consequences, how will this be perceived, etc. And you need a second degree in the intricacies of the the byzantine world you now find yourself in, perhaps a Francis Ball to guide you through the mine field.

You do have a good point, that is difficult for most of us to place ourselves in Ed's shoes. To that extent, I hope what is posted doesn't come across as being overly judgmental. At the same time, current LC leaders need to be held accountable for their actions as leaders. They don't seem to feel that accountability is of any importance.

Before putting ourselves in Ed's shoes, we should put ourselves in the shoes of JI and the other elders in Anaheim. What seems pretty clear to me is that the situation in the late 80's was going to erupt from the very get-go. When the reports first came in regarding PL's behavior, there wasn't going to be an easy solution. It was either deal with PL and get on the wrong side of WL, or not deal with PL and face a divided church with a large number of members upset. Basically, JI and the other elders were confronted with a situation where it was guaranteed that there would be collateral damage. It seems that before they even had much opportunity to react to the reports of PL, saints had already started raising a ruckus. It was really a lose-lose situation for them, and it is probably fair to say, had other brothers been elders in Anaheim at the time, there would have been a different set of scapegoats. In retrospect, what is significant about everything that happened is that the elders made a decision, and stood behind it, offering plenty of explanation. Everyone knew where they stood and could act accordingly.

When the replacement elders were brought it, I'm afraid they stepped into the shoes of their predecessors without understanding what happened in the first place. Most probably had heard Lee's narrative about a global takeover plot headed by JI et al. If they were simply naive in this way, I cannot blame them for that. It seems, however, at least with Ed, his being an elder was simply a step on the ladder. What is Ed now? He's not an elder anymore. He's a top LC speaker, and a blended coworker. I wouldn't go so far as to outright accuse Ed of using Anaheim as a stepping stone, but I do think that things look that way. Anyways, my point here is that it's hard for me to believe that he was ever just an innocent brother, trying to lead the saints in Anaheim as he best knew how. With the set of replacement elders, it is unclear to what extent they had the best interest of the church in mind. I don't find enough evidence to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Moving on to the PL apology letter, things become even more interesting. Like I mentioned, the replacement elders may have been naive regarding the things that took place before their tenure. Regardless, I'm sure they at least realized that PL was a sensitive issue. After all, the context of the excommunication of PL and subsequent departure of the elders is what opened the positions that they filled. Had the replacement elders been truly opposed to the excommunication, I believe they would have reversed it right away. Many of those disgusted by PL had already left.

Because they waited at least three years to make the announcement and then another three to sign their unsigned letter, I see no indication that it was a decision they were enthusiastic about, rather it seems like they were dragging their feet. The most likely possibility in my mind is that there was external pressure, with the goal to make WL happy. If that were so, it would indicate all the elders were playing politics. Because of the implications of that, I feel they owe everyone either an affirmation or denial of that. It's hard to know exactly what Ed meant when he said he was just a monkey and that all stories have two sides. That too requires explanation on his part. I get that he and the other elders had to fix a church in disarray, and that might be the "other side" to the story. What I don't understand is why they don't come forward with their side of the story.