Double Standards

[Freedom]

This thread is to discuss just what the title says - double standards that exist within the LC. Maybe this is old news to those here, but how about for a change, some current LC members come join in the discussion? Is that really too much to ask? Current members and DCP: I know you are out there and are reading these forums. I have listed things that I perceive to be double standards that exist in the LC. They represent concerns of mine related to the LC that have developed over time. If there had been the environment to address these concerns within the LC, then maybe I would have never come to these forums. This shouldn't be taken as any kind of "attack". If I'm wrong, then please come tell me why I'm wrong.

Since we know current members are reading these forums, and there almost a complete silence on that front, the silence can only be taken as an agreement with what is written and posted.

Some double standards I've noticed:
1) It's okay to direct criticism at other Christians, but the minute criticism is directed at the LC, it is perceived as an "attack".

2) I have heard it said quite often in the LC that they don't pay a pastor or pay to have anyone preach like other Christians do. The reality is that the LC has FTT trainees or "full-timers" who receive support (are paid) to engage in various activities including evangelizing and speaking at conferences.

3) There is a longstanding practice where an accusation or a narrative is received as fact, with no questions asked, as long as it comes from the mouths of leaders. If a "small potato" member were to make an accusation or bring up a problem, as sure as the sun, they would be expected to have substantiation proof (witnesses), or more than likely, be downright ignored.

4) The claim that meetings in the LC are always "mutual". Meetings usually adhere to an "each one has" format until the the big leaders are involved, then they get granted a soap box to say what they want.

5) The characterization of past history being forgotten and old news. If so, then there would be no need for current members to worry about contacting those who have been "quarantined" or ousted.

6) Official responses to criticism - In certain situations LC leaders are ready for a fight in order to dispel any criticism. In other situations, the silence is deafening. What gives?

7) The simultaneous expectations that no one would express any form of "ambition", yet they want members to be actively serving, and taking initiative (not being "lukewarm").

8) The presentation of a more "inclusive" version of the LC to the younger ones, only to eventually hold them to different standards which are stricter and represent a high level of control (such as what is evident from the FTTA rules).

9) Similar to the previous point, the withholding the more questionable teachings from newcomers until they are "ready", yet expecting existing members to have no reservations about such teachings.

10) Officially claiming that LSM doesn't control any churches, but requiring churches to utilize LSM materials to be recognized as local churches.