Quote:
|
They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly defamatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court?
|
I removed the personal reference from the quote for a reason. I am not challenging anyone. I am just speaking to the statement made.
- - - -
Not so certainly defamatory.
Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false.
And on what basis were they not permitted to go to court?
If you say "Neil Duddy" then that would be false. Neil Duddy did not deny them the right to go to court.
If you say "scripture" then it would seem that it really did not stop them, so they were still permitted.
Who didn't permit them to go to court?
Since there is a facade of Christianity surrounding this whole fiasco, isn't there some kind of requirement to attempt to reconcile prior to declaring the other party a "heathen" and therefore be free to sue them? If so, then when did the LRC try to reconcile or discuss? What gave them the freedom within their own version of the scriptural mandates to sue?
The problem that surfaces here, and in virtually every case to come after, is that there was opportunity to discuss. But they (the LRC) refused. They charged the other side with refusing to discuss, but it is clear from the actual evidence that it is Lee, the LSM, and the LRC that refused to discuss. They simply sent ultimatums and initiated lawsuits. They want to force the problem to go away. There was never to be any discussion. Any negative statements would either go away or be sued.
Funny thing is that there has only been one major trial that went through to completion. And they lost. All the others in which they claim victory were the result of the opponent not having the depth of financial resources to withstand the continuing onslaught of discovery and delay such that they did not have the wherewithal to actually appear in court once the time for trial arrived. Duddy's judgment was essentially stipulated by the trial judge without consideration. There was no consideration of the correctness of the statements made in the book or the counter-charges made by the LRC. And the publisher of the Mindbenders simply agreed to a settlement to avoid bankruptcy. It is a technical victory — they had to say that the book was defamatory. But there was no actual weighing of the facts to determine whether that was the correct result. They gave up to survive. With an endless source of funds, they could very likely have won. Same for Duddy.
Only Harvest House got to a conclusion. And the LRC lost.
The statements in the Encyclopedia of [cults] were not of the nature as were in the God Men and Mindbenders. But those victories were through suffocation of the opponent rather than consideration of the merits.
BTW. I recall that there was some concern that at least one of the accounts in [the God Men, I think] was later refuted by the person who supposedly gave the account. If someone knows what I am talking about, can they provide the specifics. I have wondered whether it is possible that after the first publication of the book, the LRC carefully went out to get that person firmly back into the fold so they would deny the story.
It has already happened at least one time more recently when someone who made an account to someone who posts here was later brought back into the LRC fold and then asked to refute the account that was given so many years earlier. Since the telling of the account was out on the internet, they needed to try to squash it. Sounds a lot like the way that account surrounding the God Men went.
And, with reference to another discussion going on here, how so many recent accounts may not clear-up situations concerning Nee, Lee, an excommunication, and a trial. Memories get foggy. People want to gain favor with certain people. Or want to punish other people.
Last, several years ago, I read one of the books. I think it was the God-Men. After 14 years in the LRC, and about 18 years out (at that time), I think it is fair to say that I had a basis for assessment and I concluded that it was fairly accurate in its comments on LRC doctrines and teachings. Just like the recent discussions on the use of the term "cult" its applicability is in the eye of the beholder. And heresy is likewise in the eye of the beholder. And those are not topics on which courts can opine.
The accounts concerning particular actions were not readily confirm-able. But they were not outside of the kind of things that I know have been done. There have been two very real and factual accounts on these forums of the LRC separating families where there was nothing abusive, just lack of desire to be in the LRC, and even hiding the "insiders" from the ones excluded. One account was from a brother who posted on the Bereans for several years. The other from a sister who was a junior-high student when she and her mother and sister were whisked away to another city. Add to that the verbal assault on Jane Anderson and the stories in the God-Men seem quite reasonable. There is autocratic control. And cultic practices.
Think about Daystar and you have financial shenanigans.
And while I have no problem with the idea of not necessarily telling everybody everything from the outset, the idea that they continually deny the link between Christians on Campus and the LRC when asked about it is deceitful recruiting practices.
What is left?
Where is the defamation?