Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
When insiders and ex-members discuss concerns related to LC leaders, there is silence, a deafening silence. They will never put themselves in a position where they are forced to answer to their mistakes, they will only address matters when the discussion can take place on their own terms.
|
What I have emphasized in bold, absolutely. That's where my analogy of bunker mentality comes in. They will go in silence, until there's an opportunity to counter-attack on their own terms. Case and point with the Harvest House lawsuit. When Harvest House wanted to come to a table of fellowship, there was no response from LSM according to Harvest House representatives.
When Steve Isitt wrote An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations, RK went on the counter-offensive in Ambato, Ecuador. When Steve called out RK on it by phone and by mail, there was no reply.
Considering current members, suppose a current or former member brings up a valid concern related to LSM leaders to to another current member, what's the expected response?
Is it, "oh that's a misunderstanding. He didn't really mean that."?
Is it, "let's leave it at the Judgment Seat"?
Is it, a somber silence?