One other thing I wanted to mention is that I have read the article before. Back when I was doing some research of my own in regards to this article and the CRI, I came across an interesting article by Elliot Miller regarding many problems he had with William M. Alnor. According to Miller, there were a lot of problems with the "Turmoil in the Local Church" article. He says the following:
Quote:
In the Fall 1988 issue (Alnor’s second as news editor), the lead story, “Turmoil in the Local Church,” was so filled with problems that I had to step in and rewrite it, and my name appears before Alnor’s in the byline. Nonetheless, a misrepresentation of Local Church elder John Ingalls still made it into the article because it was based on an interview Alnor conducted with him that I had no direct way of cross-checking. Alnor reported that “Ingalls said the church [in Anaheim] has not achieved a complete break with [sect leader Witness] Lee,” and this required a clarification in the following issue that “the church in Anaheim has not broken with Witness Lee, nor does it wish to.” When I brought Ingalls’s objection to Alnor’s attention Alnor replied that he believed Ingalls’s concerns were “semantic in nature.” I pointed out to him that his use of the word achieved “could easily be read as meaning the church is pursuing or considering a complete break with Lee.”
Breaking The Silence: Alnor as News Editor
http://www.equip.org/articles/breaki...istian-books-2
|
So it appears that even back in the 80's, CRI had problems with the accuracy of their research. I find it particularly ironic that in order for the CRI to admit that they misrepresented what JI said, it contradicts the image the BB's would wish to portray of him. In my mind Alnor's misrepresentation of what JI said is the exact picture that has been portrayed of him by LC leadership. That might be why I have never heard anyone in the LC mention this article by Elliot Miller.