Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.
Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.
In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials" internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.
|
Is this correct?
1. Unrighteous Acts
2. Cover up, smear campaign
3. New teachings to justify cover up and smear campaign
4. Abuse of saints to keep them silent
5. New teachings to justify abuse of saints
6. Public Excommunication justified by bogus reasons.
So whereas a teaching may sound reasonable out of context, once the context of the unrighteous act, abuse of saints, or using it to justify excommunication is realized this was the way in which saints were roused from slumber?