Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
It seems to be a pretty natural step for someone who remembers the account written about in my book to wonder if Don was in on that. This is just logical thought at work. That could be one reason it got brought out.
|
Thankful,
I spent 30 minutes responding to Matt’s last post to note that it has now been deleted. Unfortunately, there is some truth in that response and I will include it at the end of this.
I appreciate your reasoning. But what the totality of Dallas is cannot be examined by reference to an event orchestrated by outsiders who came to town for the purpose. If you or others actually know of events that are related to Dallas in more than a tangential way, that demonstrate problems and which can be verified by either a party to the issue or by the recollection of one or more persons here, it is welcome. We already know of Laura’s tale. It may not have been repeated in this forum, but is quite available on the BARM. I do not doubt that there are others. But someone mentioning 2 classes because leaders did one thing but the regular members toed a tighter line needs particulars. George Whittington was up-front about having a TV in the house. He did not pretend that everyone should ignore that and not have one themselves. He did point out that it was inviting temptation for wasting time.
I understand that BlessD volunteered the account for your book. That took courage. When I mention that the event has been air and opened wounds in a poor way (not exactly the words I have used, but the meaning), I mean that it put the event under a microscope in a manner that was not necessary and caused some who otherwise have no doubt about the event to question the details because they are being presented for a purpose that it does not fit. Even if it suggests that something is wrong with the system, it says nothing about the very things that everyone seemed to be going after Don about. It really says nothing of substance about Dallas. It does say a lot about certain ones like Benson and Ray.
Now for the response to Matt.
------
I am fully aware that there were things that happened all over the place in all manner of ways. But at best, this does nothing to refute anything Don had said before, or since. If a group of elders, at Benson's request, or at the request of one or more elders in Houston, got together during a conference in Dallas to shame BlessD in front of a few more unwitting "witness" elders, that does not say anything about Dallas. That those "witness" elders didn't have the gumption to stand up and question how such a thing could be happening speaks to a completely different issue — the control that outsiders had on the local leadership. That none of them felt comfortable to report on it to Don (assuming he was not actually present) is yet further evidence of the control.
You mention the event as an example that the system is corrupted. That was never in dispute. But it said nothing about Dallas, per se, yet that was the purpose of bringing it up. This is a leap in logic that is not supported by the facts. Don’t perpetuate it. This is not the “lynch everybody who was ever in Dallas because this event happened” forum. It is allegedly seeking to find and reveal the truth. This incident was not brought up in search of the truth. It was brought up to make a point that it could not make. I’m not looking at who made the original post. But the aim of the airing of the incident and the points that the incident could make do not seem to match. This should be addressed. It would seem to suggest that apologies to both Don and BlessD are in order.
You are correct that the autonomy of localities failed. That does not make every locality a cookie cutter image, or responsible for the actions of leadership from other places who happened to be in town at the time.
I am not defending Dallas as some utopia of perfection in the midst of a cesspool of LC filth. It was not so. But this incident was a poor choice of examples to bring out for the apparent purpose of saying something about Dallas. If it says anything, it is only tangentially. It was a poor example for the purpose.
It brought into renewed scrutiny the event in a manner that made BlessD wonder if we were ready to dismiss the primary accusation. Fortunately, there is enough evidence of other events of the kind to have no reason to doubt it. But it must have seemed we questioned the actual event in its totality.
Happening in Dallas without the knowledge of one of the key elders only demonstrates the power and authority that existed in some who were more regional, or even global. Your own words mention those who were building an empire. From my vantage point in Dallas, and from the history since I left, it does not appear that Don was one of those. We know who the empire builders were. Do you think they could do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted without so much as a mention to others? I surely do. I bet that the perpetrators of this little fiasco were just such persons. They would not care that Don was or was not there.
You know that I am not an LC apologist. I also am not a Don Rutledge apologist. He has done quite a bit of apologizing on his own. He has seemed forthcoming with his own shortcomings to such an extent that I would tend to accept that he does not recall this incident. He has admitted that if he were there, it would be quite evident that he had blocked it out. He has mentioned enough things privately me to me that I realize that he has carried some guilt about being present at events as vile and corrupt as this one perpetrated against BlessD. If he remembered being there, I would not expect him to run from it.
Last, in my previous post, I refrained from using a longer and more pointed version. (Hard to believe, isn't it.) But you have inserted yourself as an authority into something which you have nothing more than hearsay knowledge. Further, when it comes to anything written in The Thread of Gold, you are less than objective. I do not distrust the book. I am willing to accept that certain details of the accounts are less than perfect since they are recorded decades after they happened. I still believe them as factual accounts. Your mom is not under attack. Back off. It is not a “help” to insert yourself in such a manner. You were not in Dallas. Thankful was not in Dallas. (In fact, ignoring the fact that there could be some others who were actually in Dallas but have not identified such, it seems that Don and I are alone in this.) And BlessD may have been the only one who frequents this forum in any way that was there for the incident. You are not an authority on the subject. Back off.
It is time for this particular line of reasoning to end. It is way off logically and spiritually.