Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Your generalized statements are covering up the extremity of the LRC's dealings in these matters.
Groups have the right to protect themselves. But the public also has the right to make assessments about a group based on how the group handles situations involving alleged problem members and dissenters.
I doubt there are many people who, being objectively informed about how the LRC has dealt with problems of dissent, would agree that the group has been reasonable in its dealings. I believe that most people would feel that the LRC's dealings have been extreme, arrogant, paranoid and abusive. I have little doubt of that.
|
1. I do not have to cover for anything as I supposed to be bothered only about my local church
2. There is no unique way of dealing with dissent. Each local church chooses its own way. There are local churches where elders overlook disagreements which are minor. I know saints who have completed the full time training and refer to books written by other authors (esp. TAS).
3. Is there an ideal way to deal with dissent? Everyone has a different opinion on how to deal with problems.
It is the similar to hitting kids. In the western countries, hitting a kid is 'abuse'. In the eastern countries, not hitting a kid is equivalent to spoiling the child.
So, how can anyone define the non-extreme, non-arrogant, non-paranoid, non-abusive way of dealing with dissent?