Did the INC change its story regarding the sexual immorality of Felix Y. Manalo?

Accusations of sexual immorality plagued Felix Manalo through out His life. In a decision by the Court of Appeals, in the case of "The People vs. Rosita Trillanes" published in July 1942, (A court case initiated by Manalo) the Justices gave an extremely unfavorable estimate of Manalo's character stating:

"...Manalo, took advantage of his position as head of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and...employed religion as a cloak to cover his...immoral practices; that he pretended to be the Messias sent by God; and that to persuade his victims, he cited the example of Solomon and his many wives"

Official Gazette, Volume 1 No. 7, July 1942, pages 393-395.
Cited by Joseph Kavanagh, Philippine Studies, March 1955
One such incident that occurred during the sect's early years was addressed in two separate publications:
   
   
Fiftieth Anniversary Edition Pasugo, 1964, Page 182 Pasugo, May/June 1986, page 10
Regarding these accusations of immorality, did Manalo "not pretend to personal infallibility", or did he "defend Himself by belying the charges" — which version is correct? With the passing of time, is it convenient to leave out or reinterpret certain undesirable facts?
 
 

Comments? info@examineiglesianicristo.com

© 2000, Research and Rescue. All Rights Reserved