Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Good post here Zeek.
Very troublesome to me has been how WL and the Blendeds allegorized stories like Noah and Ham for self-serving coverups of criminal and unrighteous actions at LSM. Since WL was allegorized as today's Noah, his every failure was to be covered and not seen or made public. All the saints and workers at LSM were continually threatened with the curses of Ham lest any should open their mouth. Thus all the Recovery was gripped in fear, that even the knowledge of "death" could inflict them with God's wrath.
Warnings from scripture were coupled with TC's attitude which pervaded the GLA, basically "whether my spiritual father makes a mistake or not is none of my business." I don't believe any of the serious topics of this forum could be reduced to the level of mere "mistakes." Because of policies like this in the Recovery, one Cleveland area sister, who was never warned of the dangers of working with "The Office," ended up molested by PL. The policy of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" sounds real fine and spiritual until people start getting hurt.
|
Well let's see. That isn't really an allegorical interpretation. It's applying a story about covering Noah's nakedness as an ethical principle. The question arises, how far can you carry the principle? If Noah had committed murder would it have been a good thing to cover it up? Noah's "sin" was only against himself i.e. to his own shame. He didn't harm anybody else. The story doesn't claim that covering up Noah's offense would be ethically defensible if he had commited it against a person other then himself. Therefore, if the Noah story involves a principle, it should not be used to justify covering up a leader's sins when those sins are against someone other then himself.