The LCS Factor

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Thankful has nailed it with the simple statement: it's none of the elders business! And if it were my daughter involved I would have told them that to their face and walked out with my wife and child. Leaving the 16 or 8 or 5 or 3 or 7 or ? self important busybodies sitting there around the table with their mouths hanging open.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Thankful has nailed it with the simple statement: it's none of the elders business! And if it were my daughter involved I would have told them that to their face and walked out with my wife and child. Leaving the 16 or 8 or 5 or 3 or 7 or ? self important busybodies sitting there around the table with their mouths hanging open.

a bit of humor... where were you when I was 16?

[OBW]

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

[blessD]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

Thanks for your viewpoint. I would not say it is a blur, but this is a minor detail. I cannot name every person nor the exact number in that room, but believe me some parts of it and the faces there are as vivid as if it happened yesterday. I make a choice not to go there so generally to just say it is hazy makes it easier. Do I make myself more clear?

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

Dear OBW,

I think BlessD's account was mentioned because Hope was coming out on this thread saying that Dallas was different. He didn't want anyone using a broad brush in the matter of spiritual abuse in the LCs. He admitted to abuse in OKC and Houston because of James B. and Ray G., but he wanted us to know Dallas was different and was not anti-family.

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.

Then Don denied he was there. I believe him. So do you and others. The fact that he wasn't there in some ways is more revealing. It showed that abuse could go on in his own backyard without him knowing about it. This says that Don is not in a good position to make a determination about what kind of brush should be used in painting this picture.

OBW, the spiritual abuse topic is not about Don. This topic turned that direction when he started using his place and his positive experiences to try to make the bad not sound so bad. For whatever reason he also decided to come down hard on djohnson and accuse him of wanting to curse us all. That worsened matters.

In my mind, Don was/is clearly a brother with a good heart towards people and is one of the few that didn't allow himself to come under the control of the abusive Texas leadership. I have and will continue to commend him for that. That took a lot. In no way is his person or character in question. What came in question is some of his behavior on this thread.

Also, BlessD was not "drug" (dragged?) anywhere. Her story is in my book because she wanted it told. She is no longer an abused person. She is an adult survivor of spiritual abuse. She is able to talk about it now if she finds it necessary or if the Lord puts it in her heart to do so.

You may not remember, but the account being discussed here is not the worst part of what she wanted told in my book.

Thankful Jane

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

And how's this for craziness? Hope was abused by the abusers for not involving himself in abuse. Not in the round table meeting per se. But from what I gather this is part of his general testimony. He was abused by Lee. He was abused by other leaders in his area.

His attempts at bringing out the positives of Lee and his LCS I believe are well-intended but in my view abuse always outweighs any positives. It is like the wife who is constantly beat up by her husband who lists the fact that he's a good provider and smart and well-dressed and handy around the house to sorta round out the analysis. Let's be balanced huh? But the bloody scratches and black and blue bruises on her face, neck and arms and frequent visits to the emergency room kinda takes away from all that positive stuff doesn't it?

[OBW]

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.

[Nell]

Mike,

This is shameful language to use on this forum and is disrespectful to each and every member...not to mention the Guests. It sounds like you're trying to start a street fight. Please take up your issues with Matt in private.

Nell

[Overflow]

I posted I think on page 7!?!? Look for my name: Process. There was a lot of heavy talk going on so it may have been missed. I was in Dallas as a child for a number of years. I testify that my father was abusive (neglectful and physically) and still is trapped by the teachings he devoted his life to for 20 years. Our family left LC about 15 years ago but continues to be a mess because of the tangled lies, arrogance, lack of confession and biblical falsehoods that were taught and continue to be tightly gripped. I'm still new here, maybe at some point I'll share more. Hopefully sharing can be something that is embraced on this forum rather then picked a part and attempted to be disproved!

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

OBW,

I'm not that easily swayed or scared off. If I haven't made myself clear yet, let me do so now.

1. I am not pointing my guns at Hope, personally speaking. I already know he is an exception by the very fact that he is on these forums. I will point some guns at what he has to say if it is off. I expect he would do the same in my direction.

2. I am pointing my guns at the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry. Some more or less than others. The leaders/ex-leaders are more guilty of the idolatry than the commoners.

Note: Now that's a broad generalization! Keep in mind that I consider myself to have committed idolatry based on the Biblical standard of it and don't overreact just because of your ignorance on the matter.

3. If someone is going to come along and try to paint one locality more "white" because they were there then I am going to bring as many examples out of the woodwork as I am able to do to help confront the fact that no locality was "white". They were all interlinked into an idolatrous system and party to the idolatry.

I don't have to be a first-hand expert at the LC to see that it was an idolatrous system. I can prove the idolatry based on the Word of God and many aspects of the system.

You responded to a post that I deleted. Maybe you should have considered the fact that I deleted it within a few seconds after I wrote it before you went ahead and responded to it.

In closing, I am no authority. I am just one voice. I'll speak and if you want to try to call me an authority to try and put me in my place go ahead. In this case, it's not having the desired effect. It's producing the opposite effect. You should well know by now that I am not dumb and that using tactics of bullying simply won't work with me.

I'm not defending a book here. That's just plain silly (and stupid).

Matt

P.S. Please note that the examples I provided were 1st hand accounts and I restrained myself to that. Your accusation is false about the hearsay. I'm working to support one of the examples brought forth with corroboration.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Matt

You responded to a post that I deleted. Maybe you should have considered the fact that I deleted it within a few seconds after I wrote it before you went ahead and responded to it.

In closing, I am no authority. I am just one voice. I'll speak and if you want to try to call me an authority to try and put me in my place go ahead. In this case, it's not having the desired effect. It's producing the opposite effect. You should well know by now that I am not dumb and that using tactics of bullying simply won't work with me.

I'm not defending a book here. That's just plain silly (and stupid).

But that is almost the only times that you get so heated. It is hard to separate the two. You are almost entirely the voice of reason. But when something comes up where anyone says anything that even hints at negativity, you are suddenly a different person. I would not call that stupid. And you, of all people, should reconsider using that word here.

In post #115 there were no such examples. You came to say that the account of BlessD says something about Dallas. That is simply not an accurate statement. You attacked Don as if he were trying to hide a bunch of dead bodies in the lawn of the big house or something. (I know, hyperbole.) Before you accuse me...

Yes, your examples were 1st hand accounts (Post #117). They spoke volumes about the LC in general. They say volumes about what they actually say, not what someone can stretch them to say. Lest we all forget, many of the problems of the LC are Lee’s taking scripture where the do not truthfully go. I do not wish to paint an idyllic picture of Dallas. It was far from that. But you have nothing to add to the discussion. If these were added for the general discussion outside of this particular debate, then that is OK. I do not say “OK” to suggest that I have some authority in the matter. I am speaking in terms of valid facts v logical fallacy. On their own, for their own purpose, they are welcome. As kindling for the discussion about Dallas, they are fallacy because they are not on topic but are, at best straw men. Beat up someone about something and everyone else gets swept in.

You are free to ask questions that dig deeper. But you cannot suppose to say that things are any particular way in Dallas because they were that way anywhere else. Even in the absolutely aberrant system that is the LC, even here in 2008, they are not all cookie cutter mirrors of each other, no matter how strongly Benson and company try to say they are and make them so. Broad-brushing can only be taken as a general thing, not specific.

Stick to actual accounts of issues rather than innuendo concerning things you do not know anything about. I know that there are truly valid issues relating to the LC, and also to Dallas. When you said (in your now deleted post) that the incident relating to BlessD did have relevance to Dallas, you made my case that there was an attempt to take the example where it did not go because that was simply an incorrect statement.. You are correct to retreat to talking about the LC in general. There is a lot to say there. That is where we all should be. And each of us may have something to say. There is surely something worthwhile to say about Dallas. But the Dallas history does not speak to the history in Cleveland, Toronto, Houston, OKC, or Anaheim. And those do not speak directly to the experience in Dallas.

As for the deleted post, evertying of substance in it was in #115.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

OBW,

2. I am pointing my guns at the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry. Some more or less than others. The leaders/ex-leaders are more guilty of the idolatry than the commoners.

Matt, this type of statement is what started the whole conflict. There is no way I can agree with this.

I can't see why anyone needs "guns" in the first place. This sister BlessD needs the heavenly Physician, but the whole town now has a "gunfight" over "how hurt" she really is/was. Meanwhile the ones who "hurt" her were never "arrested" in the first place, nor are they "brought to trial" now. This thread has become like a western movie where the bank robbers turn the citizens against each other while they ride out of town with the loot.

You say the "LC was idolatrous" but that includes who? Every member? Every guest? How can you judge the hearts of people you never met? This is playing God.

This statement is outrageous: "every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry." I couldn't say that about all the Catholics that entered their statue-filled churches. Calling the LC's a cult pales in comparison to this claim.

What is happening here?

Your last statement touches on an important point. The leaders bear much more responsibility, if not the entire blame. The "cooperators" have a little blame, but the "perpetrators" bear the most blame. This whole story about BlessD should have addressed the ones who spoke in that "meeting." Why haven't their names been mentioned? Who called that meeting? Who humiliated her? Can't we focus on the responsible ones? They started this whole thing ... and now I (and everyone else) am being called idolatrous! What a stretch "guilt by association" this has become.

LC leaders have failed us. Some are evil workers. Let's focus on that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In my mind, Don was/is clearly a brother with a good heart towards people and is one of the few that didn't allow himself to come under the control of the abusive Texas leadership. I have and will continue to commend him for that. That took a lot. In no way is his person or character in question. What came in question is some of his behavior on this thread.

While I appreciate the conciliatory tone of this post, I must protest this highlighted statement.

I also have to thank OBW for his posts. I don't believe one conference can be used to characterize -- painting with a broad brush -- the church in Dallas, or anywhere else. Neither should the rotten behaviors of a few leaders be used to characterize the whole church. That's like condemning all Americans because you don't like the President, or all in Dallas because you don't like the Mayor.

Please note I am doing my best to reconcile things here, but have to be fair. I believe, as a rule, it is more helpful to all involved that specifics are addressed rather than generalities. This is the reason for this conflict and many others that have occurred on the forums. In my view, Hope was only protesting generalizations, and that's how things got started.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

Ok, OBW, maybe you did not mean to do it but there was more fluff around the main issue and how Dallas leadership was so different - I thought I would ask about another very common abuse of authority that hurt me much worse than this one.


Like I said on earlier posts, this was only a tiny instance in a decade of overstepped boundaries by authority figures. Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Candidate#1: The boy from the Dallas inquisition story and I wanted to marry someday, but he was branded as not "absolute". Remember, I mentioned his dad was not a meeting-goer. He was a healthy kid, played sports, and that just wasn't spiritual enough. I recognize now we had the "it" factor that few couples ever find. I thought he was perfect. I was advised our relationship was of the flesh. It died a slow death by intrusion, opinion, and other long-distance causes.

Candidate #2 - not in the church (he was the natural brother of a sister whose house I lived in at the time). Obviously, elders said no. That was ended in one day in one private meeting with the elders.

Candidate #3 - considered a "fringe" brother and the elders hadn't picked him out anyway so again, NO! To me this guy was like Prince Charming, and we had quite a bit in common. One elder threatened to chase the poor guy out of town, literally.

Candidate #4 - this was the elder’s choice. An elder approached me once, I said no - not enough in common. An elder's wife approached me again, I said no. I gave her college registration papers to give to him and say he can come talk to me after he gets his degree (he had a 10th grade education). Then, one more time, an elder's wife came and told me all the virtues of this brother. He was so given to the church, bla-bla-bla. By now I am thinking I must be fighting against God's choice so I said ok. We were married 5 weeks later. I knew his name, his age, that he had been married before and had a son, and had a 10th grade education. Our marriage was declared by yelling we were for Christ and the church.

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by blessD

...Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

BlessD,

It sounds like you were a target for some meddling old men who had the mistaken idea that their job was matchmaking. I cannot call these men elders. They in no way fit the biblical description. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us.

Did Dallas have a "hands off" policy? I have personal knowledge of a near miss. A young teenage boy in Dallas, years ago, was painfully shy. He had finally gotten up enough courage to talk to someone he liked...a sister his age who, if you can imagine the scene, was even more shy than he was! So there they were, in the meeting hall in Dallas, after a meeting, people everywhere, and they were actually talking. You could have probably counted the words they exchanged on two hands and two feet, along with a couple of silly, embarrassed grins, but they were talking. This was monumental!

One of the "elders" saw this conversation taking place and made a beeline toward them. He commented on the way, aloud, to the boy's father no less, that he was going to "put a stop to this". Dad got in his way and said "if you ever say one word to those two, I'll break every bone in your body!" Dad 1, elder 0.

The role of the parents is huge and Dad did his job. Whether this guy would have ended up in a body cast or not, we can only speculate, but he certainly had a near miss that day.

Where are these two shy young people today? They have been married for 20+ years. They gave Dad two beautiful grandchildren. They are happy.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by blessD

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

Unfortunately, I must confess that while there were not clear occurrences of such, there was in inference, and gossip about trouble in certain marriages that happened “outside of fellowship.” I have suspicions of marriages that were of the “get married or quit dating” variety. At least one of those has failed miserably. I also got my wife (eventually) because that happened to her when she first started meeting with the church. Despite her clear feeling that the ultimate result was best, she still rightfully considers the actual interference to have been far beyond the authority of the elder who did this. I have actually spoken to this in another place (maybe on the BARM). It is clear that the LC has no great track record in certain areas. It is not some “divorce free zone” and even the marriages that started within the LC are not immune and now would seem to bear no better track record than Christianity in general or even the country in general.

The problem with examples of truly arranged marriages from my perspective is that the actual involvement of the elders or other leadership in making it happen, putting two people together, etc., was not something that was heralded. If you inquired, virtually all said something about getting the “blessing” of the brothers. That does not reveal any further involvement, even if it happened. My experience is that they mostly just weren’t involved. Don has said in a previous thread that George Whittington was fairly involved in counseling in many cases. And he has mentioned his own experiences. Having been in a family that was relatively sound, I had no reason to know one way or the other about the existence of any counseling or its lack. Besides a little pre-marriage counseling from George, we moved to Irving not long after we married and he moved to West Texas. We could have used some of that a few years later.

Irving was another story. We were languishing. (And I must admit that our problems could not be simplified down to LC problems.) If you weren’t buried in the LSM operations in your off time, or eventually out knocking on doors, you might as well have been a stranger. As I said before, “know no man in the flesh” meant that only spiritual talk was acceptable. In that environment, who do you turn to? They don’t want to hear about your marital problems — or at least that was the perception given. (Don has since told me in private that staying in Dallas would not have been much of a help during the 80s.)

For us, the answer was a Bible church. 21 years ago this month. Life has not been wonderful at all times, but there are real people with real issues that care for you — all of you. We began to find the help we needed there. We weren’t “cured” overnight. But the process is moving upward.

My story is that for the most part, the most consistent problem with the LC in terms of marriage issues, family issues, etc., are concerned was that the LC mostly stayed out of things. They had no teaching, no counseling. So healthy families tended to be healthy because they had found the way(s) to be so. And unhealthy families were left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, more pray-reading, and going to more meetings was not the answer. In this way, the LC must be seen as complicit, but the extent of that complicity is not easily determined.

Then come the direct instances of meddling. Your story is, unfortunately, not the only one. Being worn down by person after person is a horrible experience. I can’t say that happened to me, but my wife can say that there are a couple of brothers that were mentioned to her as possibilities that she simply said no to. That was the end of it. I’m sure that whoever it was that talked to her was simply playing go-between. It is true that marriage in the LC environment of the 70s (and probably mostly since then) was a strange thing. But my testimony is that while we were in that somewhat oppressive environment where dating was strong discouraged, my wife and I began to consider that it was about time to begin to think about marriage and we eventually caught each other’s eye. It did take an elder as go-between, but no one told us what to do. I’m sure that it would have played out differently if the “brothers” had different ideas. But evidently they didn’t. Of course, in typical LC fashion, having been requested to keep our courtship out of the eyes of the LC “public,” we married quite quickly, which is probably one of the biggest problems that we ever had to overcome in all these years. We did not have a more normal courtship, followed by an engagement and then marriage. We were thrust together too quickly and much of that “get to know each other” time got skipped. To me, that was one of the more problematic issues with getting from being single to being married. It was not necessarily arranged, but the way it transpired meant that it was sociologically, psychologically, and emotionally somewhere between normal and arranged, with much leaning toward the arranged. From our first date to marriage was less than 2 months. Her parents (who despised the LC) were really scared at first. Then they realized that I was not some “hallelujah brother” that couldn’t support their daughter. That helped. Leaving the LC 8 years later helped even more.

Someone has mentioned some particular elder that seemed to relish putting himself into things. I know of one in the mid-70s that did that in at least one case (with respect to my now-wife). But he moved away by around 76 or so and left in the Max R purge. Another that could have been like that was someone who I was never fully clear was an elder or just a “leading brother.” I think Don has cleared up for me that he was actually an elder. He did several rash things that I am aware of. I do not know about getting involved in breaking up couples, but I could believe it. He went on to get run off from another locality, at least partly for money issues. (I was aware of a questionable money practice of his when he was in Dallas.) I had a couple of run ins with him and I almost punched him once. Funny thing is that he was the “go between” for me and my wife. That was before the run-ins.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by OBW

My story is that for the most part, the most consistent problem with the LC in terms of marriage issues, family issues, etc., are concerned was that the LC mostly stayed out of things. They had no teaching, no counseling. So healthy families tended to be healthy because they had found the way(s) to be so. And unhealthy families were left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, more pray-reading, and going to more meetings was not the answer. In this way, the LC must be seen as complicit, but the extent of that complicity is not easily determined.

Hello OBW,

Thank you so much for sharing your experience with me. I am very happy that your marriage has survived and grown. Great news!

My arranged marriage failed - 17 years and 3 beautiful children later. In retrospect and as you have said, I believe with strong and sound counseling we could have worked through our problems and survived. We were immature in many ways and had no idea how much help was really available to us as a Christian couple from a larger Christian community.

Everything has turned out ok, but it wasn't easy. This is when you find out God's ability to heal the deepest wounds.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by blessD

Everything has turned out OK, but it wasn't easy. This is when you find out God's ability to heal the deepest wounds.

I intentionally omitted asking about your long term outcome. It is probably in Jane's book, but it has been too long since I read it. Anyway, I chose not to pry and leave it to you.

I am exceedingly happy that things have ultimately turned out OK. I am learning that sometimes we must go through great trials to really appreciate God and receive that comfort that He expects us to pass on to others. We always wish it could just be a bad case of indigestion, but it is never so easy. We also wish that someone else could bear the weight of our suffering. I know that Christ does just that, but he does not simply make it all go away, but instead gives us strength to make it through.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by blessD

Like I said on earlier posts, this was only a tiny instance in a decade of overstepped boundaries by authority figures. Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Candidate#1: The boy from the Dallas inquisition story and I wanted to marry someday, but he was branded as not "absolute". Remember, I mentioned his dad was not a meeting-goer. He was a healthy kid, played sports, and that just wasn't spiritual enough. I recognize now we had the "it" factor that few couples ever find. I thought he was perfect. I was advised our relationship was of the flesh. It died a slow death by intrusion, opinion, and other long-distance causes.

Candidate #2 - not in the church (he was the natural brother of a sister whose house I lived in at the time). Obviously, elders said no. That was ended in one day in one private meeting with the elders.

Candidate #3 - considered a "fringe" brother and the elders hadn't picked him out anyway so again, NO! To me this guy was like Prince Charming, and we had quite a bit in common. One elder threatened to chase the poor guy out of town, literally.

Candidate #4 - this was the elder’s choice. An elder approached me once, I said no - not enough in common. An elder's wife approached me again, I said no. I gave her college registration papers to give to him and say he can come talk to me after he gets his degree (he had a 10th grade education). Then, one more time, an elder's wife came and told me all the virtues of this brother. He was so given to the church, bla-bla-bla. By now I am thinking I must be fighting against God's choice so I said ok. We were married 5 weeks later. I knew his name, his age, that he had been married before and had a son, and had a 10th grade education. Our marriage was declared by yelling we were for Christ and the church.

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

I am curious if the experiences of blessD among others who had their marriages manipulated was a practice that dissipated over the years? In the 1990's I never encountered any such practices.

Terry

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Terry

I am curious if the experiences of blessD among others who had their marriages manipulated was a practice that dissipated over the years? In the 1990's I never encountered any such practices.

Terry

In OKC, free choice in mates, dating, and engagement is accepted. It seems, at least in this area, the lessons were learned. Of the 15+ marriages around 1980, the latest reports indicate ALL but one ended in divorce. Since I don't keep contact with many people of that time period, this report is just word of mouth.

The only marriage that survived is a couple that met each other and fell in love before they began attending meetings. Strangely enough, the elders told them not to get married saying it was "natural" and of the flesh. I am so glad they did not listen and have had one of the best marriages I have ever seen.

Someone mentioned on a post that they did not think the divorce rate was that different than any other church. At 14 out of 15 failed marriages just from this 1 year period, I beg to differ.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

14 out 15 marriages ended in divorce. Wow!

[Hope]

Now I would like to address the fruit of the LC/LSM with regard to our children. The LC/LSM did not promote or permit any of the horrible social issues and sins that dj listed. There was no more than what you might find in society and among other Christian groups. Yet it is so shocking that is was found at all much less to the extent it was found. But very big to me is the spiritual deadness and disillusionment of so many of the children. How did this happen? Why did it affect us all? (Me too.) We must look at this for God has a very high purpose for the family.

The first big problem for the children to overcome was the church split they witnessed and the low time their parents went through. I was very much under the condemnation of the devil for a few years. I was not much help or encouragement to my children during this time. What happened to me greatly discouraged them. Remember how angry you were if someone hurt or cheated your parents. The LSM/LC and its leadership turned on those who had served the saints and were often most responsible for the establishing and building of the churches. This was a great opening for the devil to come in and discourage and destroy some of the children.

The new way and the usurping of the headship of Christ by “the Apostle” were 180 degrees away from the original vision. Not only were adults confused so were the children.

The terrible teaching of “deputy authority” empowered foolish immature men who could be used by the flesh and the devil to attack and undermine the young.

The class system and unequal appreciation of the various members of the body of Christ was a great damage to the children. 1 Cor 12:25-28, "that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it." Here we see so clearly that to have preferential care creates division. These two items, the division of preferential care and the usurping of the headship of Christ opened the flood gates to the enemy, Satan.

The idolatry of promoting WL was death to the family and to the children. Why did the Lord command the Israelites to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Canaan? It was due to their idolatry. A huge part of Baal worship was the sacrifice of children in order to obtain the blessing of success. The model and agenda set up by the LSM was devastating to the children and families. How much of the training attendance was due to the desire to please WL and the elders? Same with the exhausting local meeting schedule. The average brother and sister may have scored some points but at what cost?

Finally there was no healthy teaching regarding caring for the saints in order to strengthen the family and there was nearly zero understanding on how to resist the devil. In Eph. Chapter three we find: Eph 3:18-19, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. NASB Here we see something of the vast dimensions of Christ. No one person can possibly have it all. If we only have the supply from one member we will get a limited view at best. Witness Lee was good as far as he went but he had only one dimension. Many other gifts to the Body were needed in order to fill in the picture. Sadly our children suffered greatly and the marriages suffered greatly because of his dominating the Lord’s ministry to the church.

The Lord is very angry about what happened to the families and to the children. We all should be very mad. I am mad, mad, mad. I am certainly not mad at the children or the parents. I have no desire to berate them for they are also victims of the LC/LSM system.

There is a need for prayer and fasting for the recovery of the children and for the healing of damaged marriages. It would not hurt to shed many tears for what the enemy has been allowed to do to our wonderful children.

I am calling on the members of the forum to join with me every day in prayer for the damaged and disillusioned children and for the discouraged and down trodden parents. Heb 7:25, Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. NASB

LET US JOIN WITH OUR EXALTED LORD AND SAVIOR IN DAILY INTERCESSION FOR ALL WHO HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED AND DAMAGED BY THE LC/LSM.

Thank you all,

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[OBW]

Originally Posted by blessD

In OKC, free choice in mates, dating, and engagement is accepted. It seems, at least in this area, the lessons were learned. Of the 15+ marriages around 1980, the latest reports indicate ALL but one ended in divorce. Since I don't keep contact with many people of that time period, this report is just word of mouth.

The only marriage that survived is a couple that met each other and fell in love before they began attending meetings. Strangely enough, the elders told them not to get married saying it was "natural" and of the flesh. I am so glad they did not listen and have had one of the best marriages I have ever seen.

Someone mentioned on a post that they did not think the divorce rate was that different than any other church. At 14 out of 15 failed marriages just from this 1 year period, I beg to differ.

I'm probably at least one of the people that said something about similar divorce rates. 14 of 15 is quite a failure rate.

Now, surely this was not the norm, even for OKC. But some really low divorce rate was not either. The marriages that I was most familiar with near the time of mine are still going. I can't say how strong. I know several of them that are happily in the LC somewhere in the DFW area. And in the same breath, I can point to quite a few over many years that didn't last long, up to one lasting long enough to have 2 or 3 kid before she just left and moved in with some guy. But these are mostly marriages of people whose entrance into the LC was late high school or beyond, so it was at least somewhat their own decision. I have little information concerning the true second generation.

I would hate to think that 14 of 15 was commonplace, but even if not, the fact that it happened that way once is tragic and screams for review.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by blessD

In OKC, free choice in mates, dating, and engagement is accepted. It seems, at least in this area, the lessons were learned. Of the 15+ marriages around 1980, the latest reports indicate ALL but one ended in divorce. Since I don't keep contact with many people of that time period, this report is just word of mouth.

Someone mentioned on a post that they did not think the divorce rate was that different than any other church. At 14 out of 15 failed marriages just from this 1 year period, I beg to differ.

I do believe it's fair to say that the more the leaders in a LC were "program zealots," the more their families suffered. OKC appeared to be the worst. My place also had a reputation in the GLA for being perhaps the most "absolute." That has never brought us the "promised blessing," rather much suffering to the families.

I am not so sure that "lessons were learned" in OKC, rather than the "chief zealot" has passed away.


Amen to the burden to pray for our families!