Reflecting on John Ingalls' Actions

[Davis]

Hi Nell,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I realized that in my haste to post about my thoughts, I was overly and unfairly critical of John Ingalls. I apologize. I'll try to better express myself and respond to your points.

John likely wrote STTIL, as he did, on advice of counsel. Openly accusing someone of sexual assault opens the door for civil lawsuits for libel and slander. He didn't personally witness Phillip's behavior but was a 2nd party witness to the complaints of the women who came forward. Accusing the son of a litigious public figure could have opened a can of worms that we can only imagine...I don't think it was John's intention to hide facts of the matter or protect the perpetrator. Had he exposed Phillip, and if a lawsuit was filed against him, the first thing the Lee's would require is that John publicly name the sister/s who were victimized. John would never expose these sisters without their permission. They might be OK with that, but I know that one of the sisters, her husband and family, moved out of state.

This is a very good point, one which I feel silly for having overlooked, especially in the context of the LCs. I admit I don't know the legal specifics in these matters. Would it still be libel to have stated the nature of a legitimate accusation (not saying "Philip Lee did this" but that "Philip Lee was accused of this")? I'm guessing that if the sister was unwilling to testify publicly, it would be, and I respect his desire to respect her wishes and privacy.

We don't know what John actually did in private. We only know what public steps he took...I think John did as much as he could morally and legally do. As it was, STTIL pretty much blew the lid off of Phillip's criminal behavior. No one had any doubts that sexual impropriety was what John was talking about.

Taking a step back, I realize that you are completely right here. Again, I apologize that my earlier post attacked John's character, that was not my intention.

When John and Godfred went to Lee and exposed his son's crime, Lee was the one who did the hiding. It was up to Lee to clean up his son's mess. Lee hung the elders in Anaheim, John, out to dry.

This is what frustrates me the most, and my first post didn't explain that properly. I think that John did what he could; however, the expectations of behavior in the LC severely limited the effect of his good intentions. My criticism here is not of the man, but of the actions that I believe were a result of years alongside Witness Lee.

I guess what bothered me was the brothers accepting that Witness Lee would do anything less than taking immediate action to rectify the situation (removing Philip and listening and responding to the victims compassionately and justly). However, in John's position, I may very well have done the same thing. If I had worked with him for years and believed him to be the minster of the age, it probably would have taken a lot for my faith to be shaken. As someone who is now removed from the LC and never knew WL personally, it is easy to see his behavior for what it was, but I realized I could not expect the same from someone who esteemed him so highly.

I think this goes to a matter that has been central to many discussions here: covering the brothers. The well meaning brothers trusted that by covering the situation, WL would handle it properly, and the church could go on healthily, but then he didn't, left the elders to deal with the outrage, and blackballed them when they tried to explain what had actually happened.

I believe this clarifies what I wanted to say earlier, I don't wish to be unfairly negative or harsh. I hope this thread can be a site of discussion for anyone reading the book for the first time or returning to it.