The LCS Factor

[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!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Process

I posted I think on page 7!?!? Look for my name: Precious. 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!

Hi Process/Precious ,

Welcome to the forum. I read your post, ( #132 ) and you're right...there was a lot of heavy talk going on. You were brave to enter the frey. If you'd care to share your testimony at some point, there is a testimony thread that should be a kinder, gentler place.

This forum is all about sharing our experiences and not picking them apart, but some of us forget that sometimes. Spiritual abuse will never be easy to talk about. Thanks for your post.

Again, welcome to the forum.

Nell

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Process/Precious ,

Welcome to the forum. I read your post, ( #132 ) and you're right...there was a lot of heavy talk going on. You were brave to enter the frey. If you'd care to share your testimony at some point, there is a testimony thread that should be a kinder, gentler place.

This forum is all about sharing our experiences and not picking them apart, but some of us forget that sometimes. Spiritual abuse will never be easy to talk about. Thanks for your post.

Again, welcome to the forum.

Nell

Hi Process,

I also saw your post and just wanted to say hello, too. I noticed you said you were from Dallas. I had many friends there and thought we might know each other or have mutual acquaintances.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Process

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!

Process,

This issue is not about whether there were any actual problems in Dallas. It is also not about denying your issues and the pain it has caused you. I would agree that things were “off.” There is a lot that was/is off about the LC to this very day. It was complicit in the way many families operated. It was probably not responsible for all of the problems in any family, but it was responsible for creating a sense of a God-ordained way that the family should operate — mainly that the father was the head, and everyone else submitted.

That means that the LC is not the sole problem. But it was nowhere near clear of responsibility either. I did not have anything like the problems it seems you had. It still took almost 20 years to get rid of what I have, and there is probably more hiding somewhere inside. I do not diminish anyone's pain or suffering.

Unfortunately, you came along in the middle of a discussion about an invalidly broad brush being used, and when that fact is questioned, an inappropriate example being rushed out to create an image that was not supported by that example, followed by a gang trying to make it fit anyway. It is not a pretty sight. It doesn't happen very often. I've probably been on the wrong side of at least one such occurrence. Don't let it scare you off. But I would be sure that you can handle the exposure that telling your own story might bring. Everyone here is not necessarily sympathetic. Some will try to diminish it. Most will embrace you warmly and try to help if they can.

I don't think anyone was trying to diminish BlessD's issue. Instead, it would appear that some were trying to inflate it. Either way, she got hit in the cross-fire and that should not have happened.

As for the discussion happening in public, the problem is that this began as a lynching in public. It is not just one person. I was somewhat harsh with Matt because I hold him to a higher standard than some others. (I hope that no one thinks that means I think less of them. It's just that he bears the responsibility of moderating a similar forum and knows errors in argument better than I do.) Unfortunately, that means that it probably has to end here in public. That is my opinion. It is not a fact.

Don't let my demeanor scare your off. I just take time to articulate and it ends out sounding more academic than conversational. When I do it fast enough to be conversational, I sometimes end out saying things I did not intend. Drop me a PM sometime if you want to talk about anything. It is more than likely that we know each other, at least somewhat. I will not expect you to be more open than you wish and I will probably be more open than I should.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

Peter,

I do understand your comments and I may seem a bit worked up.

Can you think of any examples of kids who grew up in the LC that haven't had to overcome significant personal & family obstacles in establishing a healthy walk with the Lord? I'm not asking for names. Just curious if you can think of any of them. I think there are a few, but just a few.

The only ones I know of are:
1. Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2. Ones that still claim membership and whose eyes are still glossed over.

This is open to response from others too.

Matt

Matt:

First, if you will allow me, I would like to re-word your categories - please tell me if you think my re-wording has changed your meaning too substantially:

1)Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2) Those who still claim membership but do so out of a habituation of being raised in that culture, not necessarily due to a calling from the Lord.

Whether in response to your categories or to mine, I'm not sure I can think of any who haven't fit in some way into one of these broad categories.

Here's the thing though: I think this is the character of being second generation in any group, particularly a Christian one. When you are raised in a strong belief system which has its way of operating and ways of practicing and thinking (which is every single group that I can think of), you come to your belief system- at the outset - without the dynamic salvation of the first generation. As such, from my personal experience, a seeking second-generation-individual will by nature be full of doubt about their beliefs. Always questioning - "do I really believe this is truth or just because this is all I've ever known?"

My personal belief: you will either end up “glossed over” (and a good little church member) by supressing that doubt without addressing it or you will go through a “personal hell” of some kind in order to seize a faith that is yours and not your parent’s or your culture’s. I am not saying everyone will have to go through craziness, but where there's a genuine wrestling, there's going to be bruised legs...

What do you think?

Peter

P.S. This is not meant to dismiss the valid inquiry into how and in what ways the LC system affected the second generation. But I want to have the broad parameters set before getting into that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here's the thing though: I think this is the character of being second generation in any group, particularly a Christian one. When you are raised in a strong belief system which has its way of operating and ways of practicing and thinking (which is every single group that I can think of), you come to your belief system- at the outset - without the dynamic salvation of the first generation. As such, from my personal experience, a seeking second-generation-individual will by nature be full of doubt about their beliefs. Always questioning - "do I really believe this is truth or just because this is all I've ever known?"

I think you have a very valid point. I have observed this in many places. Why does anyone expect a different result in the LC?

Children must ultimately come to own their own faith. Sometimes it will come without significant struggle or doubt. But it usually does not come until there is a separation from the family home (going to college, etc.) or some level of rebellion during which time the "truth" they've been taught has a chance to be come truth that they hold to.

Then, within this thread, how does the authoritarian and (semi?) abusive aspects of the LC drive those children 1) away from the faith (or at least outside of the LC fold) and/or 2) into sinful and destructive behavior. That is more what the thread is seeking to find. Those that remain and appear at least somewhat functional within the LC are not the obvious issue.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the discussion happening in public, the problem is that this began as a lynching in public.

Dear OBW,

Are you talking about the "lynching" of djohnson by Hope in post #56 (see below) or some other lynching? (I have put the rope in red.)

Originally Posted by Hope

Dear brother and sisters,

Could we step back and take a deep breath. djohnson, who is no friend, started the thread with a very spectacular charge regarding the children of dear saints who happened to have been in the local churches. “I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.” He adds, “My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits.

Then many of the forum members followed with sweeping statements which summed up the local churches and the believers who participated in them. When others such as Terry, Arizona, Peter Debelak, and OBW, Mike and myself attempted to add some moderation they were dismissed out of hand. Yet they gave their experiences and were not agents of the LCM sent here to cover up the real situation. Arizona was immediately dismissed by one of the dear forum members as a current LSM member.

Roger, I feel the above posters are being denigrated and being subjected to a kind of peer pressure.

Forum members, do not let djohnson stir up trouble and destroy the forum and fellowship as he has in other settings. He wants you all to admit you are addicts. He wants you all to admit you are terrible parents with terrible children and hopes that all that was ever any good, testimony or persons would be discredited and buried. He wants you all to disappear. If we join his kind of wild sweeping condemnation, we will self destruct.

Arizona made a very simple and true statement when he declared, “Many of us parents were just damaged people out of the Sixties scene who had no clue how to raise children so we did the best we knew how,,, and the LC helped in many ways in that endeavor.”

The Local Churches collected a lot of peculiar people who were damaged in some way or other. They applied things often in an extreme way. Some of the leaders did not practice proper leadership because they were themselves damaged and odd. The story that Roger related is a classic on authority abuse. Never should a leader use a meeting to shoot a silver bullet at a dear saint. I am all for exposing such practices.

The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing. I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

I am convinced that the original intent of this thread was to curse us all. Please take this fellowship to the Lord.

djohnson please repent from your way of seeking to discredit, belittle, condemn and destroy. I know these are strong words and I do not write them lightly.

Thankful Jane

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear OBW,

Are you talking about the "lynching" of djohnson by Hope in post #56 (see below) or some other lynching?

Thankful Jane

Dear brothers and sisters,

I would like to give a little history of this thread. I have included several of the earlier posts. If you look at my first quotes, I expressed my concern for children and parents. I have heard from TJ and Matt that their concern is for the people, the abused. My point was to consider how to help the hurt and wounded. Simply to claim that it was the LCS does not really solve anything and I doubt if it is the best way or the Biblical way. TJ recommended the books of Neil Anderson. Tremendous work, not just for troubled Christians or substance abuse situations but for anyone. I believe I have read and closely studied all his works and have given them to troubled parents and children. I cannot recall him encouraging the counselor to find out how or what outside influence created the problem. When I began to post on the tread, I admit I did not pay any attention to the title of the thread. My attention was captured to the opening post and the presentation and description of damaged children.

I do not think that my initial posts which began with #13 were any kind of lynching of djohnson. But whenever I posted, he immediately dismissed my post with a kind of wave of the hand and cranked up the spiritual abuse charge.

I do not care what the title of a thread may or may not be, why does anyone get a free shot? What was wrong with five different posters putting up something that attempted to give a little perspective. I only brought up my experience and Dallas to say "no it was not all that way." I never claimed I or everyone in Dallas had their act completely together. In fact I declared we had a flat spot on the teaching on family etc.

When I saw the direction in which dj was leading the thread, I could not hold my peace. Posters on this forum take the actions and teachings of WL, the LSM and the BBs and come to conclussions about their motives. Are posters here under the same standard unless they are in an attack mode against all that is lc? Then do they get a free shot? From the actions and teachings of posters can a reasonable person fail to pick up on some of their motives or does that only apply to WL or an elder or an ex-elder?

Here are many of the earlier post starting at the beginning. My #56 is the post TJ references as the lynching of dj. I did not copy it but please go to it.

Originally Posted by Hope

When we consider how the children of Christian parents get into trouble in their teen age and adult years, it is important to never forget that there is an enemy. Do not forget Adam and Eve. They had the very best care from the very creator God. They had a walk and talk with Him everyday. They were not neglected and the creator did not make any mistakes. Yet look what happened! Why? Well there is an enemy.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

What is worth while is to never forget that the Lord can save the most fallen, most backslidden, most disappointing child. I love the passage in Romans chapter 4:17, “God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” NASB When someone is dead, there is no more hope. My younger brother was killed at age 16 in a hunting accident by his best friend. My parents had many plans for him, their youngest child. But after his death, there was no more hope, no more plans. But we believe in God who gives life to the dead. I have seen many seemingly hopeless "dead" children turn back to God and to their parents. I would encourage us all to focus on this rather than trying to assess blame.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

In the LCS there was a real lack of vision regarding the very crucial and critical role of the family in God's plan and purpose. Sadly, in the LCS, many parents made serious mistakes and did not receive needed healthy instruction regarding raising children for the Lord. Frankly, I absolutely love to speak of the family and how powerful the four generational wall of testimony is. (By the way the scriptures reveals the principle of four generations standing together for the Lord's testimony.)

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Originally Posted by djohnson

Hope I think the fact there is an enemy seeking whom he may devour is a given for most Christians. But this cannot be the catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting. It appears the issue with the LCS is not: we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end. But rather: our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family so it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults.

Originally Posted by Hope

Greetings djohnson,

Sorry if my post gave the impression that I was offering a "catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting."

Also, I don't think any would claim "we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end."

But I can say that in my own home and in the church in Dallas in general we were not basically anti-family."

In Dallas and in the other lc in Texas, there were many activities for the children, young people etc. I took my children to their various practices and attended the majority of their games. Others also who were involved with my children would attend their games and I went to other children's activities.

Some of the children were outstanding students and citizens. Others were big busts. I saw a few who were excellent at avoiding their responsibility in their unhappy lives and quick to blame, blame, blame.

I have witnessed some adult members who could not hold a responsible job and it was always someone else's fault. I have witnessed some terrible failures at marriage and family and it was always someone else's fault.

Just because someone who has made a mess of things starts crying LCS is to blame, do not be so quickly persuaded that there was some sort of systemic problem and "it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults."

On the other hand, maybe it is a miracle that any of us survive and become healthy adults. Thank the Lord for his never failing love and mercy toward us all.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Originally Posted by ps8602

This thread bothers me as my intention of joining the board was to have meaningful discussions based on fact. The opening post states "I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues..."

Is this a fair thread? Is the level of social issues for those in/left the 'LCS' greater than 1) that in society where the church is 2) than that in any other Christian group?

I would hope that our evaluation of the 'LCS' is fair and based on fact not on the whim of someone who has had a bad experience and is looking for to blame.

Dennis

Originally Posted by OBW

Dennis,

There are many threads that are based on fact. And this one, despite the inability to nail down specific facts, is not a factual void. It is just that there is no "one size fits all" analysis and therefore not very helpful.

I'm sure that each of us had different thoughts when the thread began. That is because this is much more complicated than blaming the LC. Of course, there is probably blame that can be leveled at the LC, but it will be difficult to isolate since they actually had little teaching on the subject. It's hard to say that it is the LC's fault that one family followed the pattern of another that turns out to have been simply dysfunctional. If everyone had turned out somewhat the same, there might be something clearer to say.

Originally Posted by djohnson

In addition to being insular the LCS engaged in behaviors that most children later working through it would find quite strange e.g. burning baby and wedding pictures in front of their children, no TV, no sports, vacations all used for Lee crazed conferences, no Christmas, migrating and the overall obsession with Lee and his group prioritized above the well being of the children.

Thankfully children are not completely stupid and know when mommy and daddy love someone i.e. Lee more than them and when mommy and daddy's behavior is being dictated by Lee and his cronies. In short they know that Lee was their shadow mommy and daddy.

Perhaps it should be said more plainly: their parents were addicted to Mr. Lee and thus they are children of parents with a chronic addiction. Some children can overcome this in their adult lives but not without tremendous difficulty. For anyone who does not believe this please just do a little research on adult children of alcoholics. Interesting stuff!

As this thread developed, it went from how may the LCS have contributed to errant behavior of some of the children to the members are like drug addicts and thus have dysfunctional families to all are idolaters to stories of gross abuses of authority and attacks and belittling of anyone who offers a different perspective. Thus my prediction seems to be coming true. Concern for abused children is way down the line from discrediting all involved in a local church.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[blessD]

Ok, I am trying to respond to a post by Process who is from Dallas. I did not see much greeting to the post, except for Nell.

[Hope]

The following is from Matt

Hope,

Please see my previous post. It was responding to your original post to this thread that you also requoted and I was posting while you were posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.


I've been thinking about these two statements more closely. It is occurring to me that neither of them are Biblically accurate. Do you agree or are you still of the same mind? If you are still of the same mind, I would like to present a reasoned argument from the Word that entreat you on the substance of these two statements.

At the same time you were reposting original portions of this thread to draw the readers attention back to what you felt was the substance of this thread, I was also looking at your original posting. Let's focus on your original intent a little closer and especially these two statements that currently seem to be anti-biblical. I didn't catch the full impact of them the first time.

Matt


Dear Matt,

ANTI-BIBLICAL !!! WOW

It would have been better if you had not isolated the sentence. Here is the entire statement.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

Of course parents should bring up their children in the principles of the scriptures. Eph 6:4, And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. NASB

Please keep in mind that my experience over the last 22 years has included interactions with a wide range of believers as well as ordinary citizens who have opened to me for help. When a parent has an erring child, they are open to help from where ever it may come. I have never met a concerned parent who was not searching for where they went wrong. Almost always they beat themselves up unmercifully. I have spoken with a mother who was in great anguish and declared that they tried to do everything right. They followed “focus on the Family,” read all the right books etc. But what went wrong??? Do you really think it comforts the parents to then say “well let us focus on all the mistakes you made and determine how you destroyed the child you loved.” Sounds like a Pharisee of the first order. I believe it is critical to bring the parents to the Lord and to His comfort and encouragement. Then to help them stop the cursing of the child and of themselves. Often I go to prayer with the parents and first thank the Lord for the true genuine care and concern for the child that is in these parents. Then I pray that the child would become all that the Father has planned. Finally I believe it is very important to join in spiritual warfare and deal with God’s enemy regarding the child. We read verses regarding God’s goal for their family and His good plans for them and for the child. We speak of never giving up. Of how the good shepherd “went until he found the lost sheep.” There are many passages regarding the parent’s role in not only raising the child but in recovering the child. It is so important to get their eyes off of themselves and what terrible parents they are as well as getting their eyes off of how terrible and hopeless the child is.

I was hoping to trigger a discussion like this. I am sure that many of the posters have a wealth of real experience in helping parents and children and know of many helpful books. That list of terrible social problems listed by dj are rampant in our society at large and we as the Lord’s disciples need to be equipped and ready to serve these dear souls.

Regarding the second quote: The Holy Spirit always convicts very specifically and with the conviction comes light, supply, forgiveness and hope for the future. The devil’s accusation brings anger, vindictiveness, blaming, hopelessness. His accusation can be pretty much summed up with “you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you have always been wrong and you always will be wrong. The only thing you can do is just get out of the way and stop making a mess of things.”

But when the Spirit convicts and enlightens there is specific direction which gives hope and strength to act on the Spirit’s leading.

You mentioned the power of repenting to your children when you are wrong. I cannot tell you how many times I have apologized to my children. Many times I could not sleep until I made it right with the child I had offended. Poor little fellows were sometimes awakened from sleep so their father could tell them that he had been wrong and would they forgive him. This practice has been in my life and in my wife’s life since we married. First we regularly repented to each other and then to the children. When I had sinned against the kids my conscience would be killing me and I could find no peace until I humbled myself and made it right. Many times it was not an overt act on my part but a sin of omission. Perhaps I had neglected something that was important to them etc.

I can recall many talks with parents in Dallas regarding family and children. I can never remember declaring “put the church first and the family will be ok,” Or any such nonsense. Yes, I heard this said a few times or words like that from WL and from some in So. Cal. and repeated by some in Texas. Such an obviously erroneous statement should have been corrected out right. I know I corrected it in private conversations and may have said something contradictory in public. Before every marriage if possible I sought out the couple for a few times of one on one fellowship. Never did I tell them to take their marriage lightly or not to seek to love each other dearly. One of my favorite verses from the Old Testament for these sessions was Deut 24:5 "When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army, nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken. NASB I would tell the young brother that he should not be running off to every conference and service group meeting but focus on his new wife.

George Whitington had a boat load of verses he used to counsel young couples and married couples. His home was always full of church members seeking advice and help for their practical day to day life and for their family life. He always had time for them and never turned anyone away. He was a true shepherd and has much reward laid up.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope this thread is not about parents who gave 110% to their parenting responsibilities and some of their kids still went off the deep end. That's one category and they surely need help to understand they should not be beating themselves up.

This thread is about parents who did not give 110% because they were too obsessed with Lee and Lee's agenda and Lee's program and Lee's teaching and Lee's events, etc. They gave 110% to Lee. Now those parents need to get some introspection going on because it is their fault and they are to blame and they are responsible for the neglect of the children God gave them to shepherd and care for. Get it?

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Hope

The following is from Matt

It would have been better if you had not isolated the sentence. Here is the entire statement.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope,

I quoted out both items in isolation because I had already quoted the entire post just a few posts previously.

I had read the quoted portions in context.

Originally Posted by Hope

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

I just re-read the context again and I am not seeing how these are Biblical even with your added explanation.

Let me clarify. It is a primary responsibility to take care of a child's environment. Even when a parent tries to put their child in a good environment they cannot control everything. This is very true, but to realize that you did put your child in a bad environment (knowingly or unknowingly) should generate a remorseful response about the environment and not a defensive one that tries to carve out a very, very, very small section of the bad environment as being better. This is what you have done. You've basically said, "We tried to do better and Dallas wasn't as bad as Houston, OKC, etc". The fact is that the whole thing was corrupted and unhealthy for kids.

Let me go straight to the crux of my concern.

Looking backwards do you believe that having your children in the LC environment was a good one for them? I'm asking a specific and direct question to you because your responses are pointing in many other directions towards various generalized anecdotals about others. This can be evasion, so I am just asking the direct question. Your response to this question may shut me up.

As you can tell by now (and before now) this thread has really bothered me. The role I've seen you play on this thread has really bothered me. I know you probably feel the same way about me right now. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Hope

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

You used this statement to try and counter djohnson who was making an accusation. The devil's game is to accuse. However, it is also the Lord's job to accuse (or better said, convict). The Lord accuses and convicts the guilty for the purpose of repentance and mercy. The devil accuses for the purpose of condemnation and destruction. So, Biblically speaking it is not just the devil who does the accusing. God does it when it is righteous to do so. So again, I say that your statement in it's context was not Biblical. You were actually on a path towards accusation against djohnson that came a few posts later.

In this case, I think there is a level of righteousness to what djohnson has been saying that the system of the LC was very messed up and it has had a big impact on children who grew up there. Trying to paint one bad situation against the backdrop of other bad situations is evasion. If there was sin (and there was) then it should just be addressed and root causes determined. Roger said this better than I could.

Although, I do realize that there is need for balance I have no stomach for it when it is done BEFORE root causes are established as appropriate before the Lord.

I'm being very direct because to be terribly honest I am watching what appears to be a pattern of evasion in your posting. You are very, very smart and capable of moving around something like this so I am putting myself in the path (not as a pharisee), but as a little roadblock that you can move right around while others wonder what I am doing. I'm doing this in all seriousness before the Lord and not just to accuse, accuse, accuse.

Matt

[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.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Most certainly there are times I will choose to go "toe to toe" with a topic and sometimes even a person. That is what you are observing when you say I get "so heated". I'm not really mad. I'm matching the rhetoric of my verbal sparring partner. You heated up the rhetoric in your post. I'm heating up mine. You cool yours down. I'll probably cool mine down too. I'm not always reactionary, but sometimes I am. I admit to it.

Hope is matching my rhetoric to some extent and it's heated up some too. Hope's a good person and I like much of what he has to say. In this instance, he's attempted to set a precedent I simply won't support and will openly object to for the sake of the abused. If you don't know what I am talking about, I'll gladly point it out.

As for the substance of this topic, under the forum it is in (Spiritual Abuse -> LCS Factor) I think I will continue to take a pretty strong stance against anyone who wants to paint with a whiter color.

God doesn't sit around and say, "Well you built my temple, so the idolatry wasn't all that bad". God says, "Idolatry... Bad... Period... Don't defend it. Repent." He also points at the many consequences of idolatry including your enemies having sway over you and your family.

Do you have any idea how many people haven't spoken up on forums like this one? There are more than just a few. When they see an ex-leader having sway to try and encourage everyone against someone the ex-leader doesn't like, do you think they are ever going to speak up here?

Answer: No. Now you may be getting some of where I am coming from in my response(s). I'm not an authority, but I will dig in an fight on something like this for the sake of the oppressed and their ability to heal.

Matt

[aron]

The last meeting I went to, the out of town "trainers" were on hand, training the saints for the "new way". One of them mentioned, in the discussion of the "new move", that sacrifices were called for. He said, "You all have families, I know. You have jobs. There is a limited amount of time available. I know. Something has to give."

He let it sit there. Silence. Then he moved on to the next point. The unstated conclusion, to me, was that family has to be sacrificed on behalf of the latest push out of Anaheim.

All I could think of was the stories in the OT of the groups who sacrificed their children to idols. Scary stuff.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

As for the substance of this topic, under the forum it is in (Spiritual Abuse -> LCS Factor) I think I will continue to take a pretty strong stance against anyone who wants to paint with a whiter color.


Matt

I strongly agree that when we seek to create a forum in which victims of abuse can share their experiences, we have to vigilently guard the atmosphere of openness and empathy. There should be threads which are purely for this purpose, without the "balance" or whatever.

I am just not sure that it is fair to treat this particular thread as one of them. In short, what I am saying is this: this thread perhaps should not be on this "spiritual abuse" Board and insulated from "positive experiences." Perhaps "Practice what He Preached" or something.

The thread proposed a sweeping thesis but opened up a general question about whether certain elements of the LC can and did lead to fleshly behavior in the second generation. It also implied that this was, in fact, the case.

To that end, it is entirely appropriate to present experiences from both sides of the issue. Surely, when some relay their difficult and negative experiences, those of us who had positive experiences should not share them in a dismissive way. But I don't think it is fair for this thread to be insulated from "positive experience" posts. Such posts can be challenged, called out as "rare" or whatever else. But on this thread I think they are appropriate.

In short, there should be a thread - even many threads - which provide an environment for vicitims of abuse to share their stories without their experiences being "handled" by those in the LC, ex-LC or anyone else. Their stories should stand on their own, have merit in their own right and should engender in us a vigilence to ask what is at the root of such damaging practices.

But I don't think this thread with its question and its thesis should be insulated from sharing positive experiences, which are part of - even if not indicitive of - the LC experience.

For what its worth...

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I want to add that this dialogue with Hope regarding the ways in which we converse with those who are sharing their stories of abuse is an important one. I am not writing any of this to stiffle that on-going dialogue.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The thread proposed a sweeping thesis but opened up a general question about whether certain elements of the LC can and did lead to fleshly behavior in the second generation. It also implied that this was, in fact, the case.

To that end, it is entirely appropriate to present experiences from both sides of the issue. Surely, when some relay their difficult and negative experiences, those of us who had positive experiences should not share them in a dismissive way. But I don't think it is fair for this thread to be insulated from "positive experience" posts. Such posts can be challenged, called out as "rare" or whatever else. But on this thread I think they are appropriate.

Peter

Peter,

I do understand your comments and I may seem a bit worked up.

Can you think of any examples of kids who grew up in the LC that haven't had to overcome significant personal & family obstacles in establishing a healthy walk with the Lord? I'm not asking for names. Just curious if you can think of any of them. I think there are a few, but just a few.

The only ones I know of are:
1. Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2. Ones that still claim membership and whose eyes are still glossed over.

This is open to response from others too.

Matt

P.S. I now know of quite a few of a non-LC background that have grown up and had healthy walks with the Lord without significant personal hell. Of course, there is always some struggle, but nothing like what I've seen and heard about for the 2nd generation of LCer's.

[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.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Ohio,

Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible.

In fact, in the NT age we are all leaders. We are all priests. We all bear the responsibility.

Point of Proof: Many commoners sacrificed their children for the sake of the LC system. It wasn't just the leaders.

Matt

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ohio,

Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible.

In fact, in the NT age we are all leaders. We are all priests. We all bear the responsibility.

Point of Proof: Many commoners sacrificed their children for the sake of the LC system. It wasn't just the leaders.

Matt

Matt, you are now using O.T. stories the way LSM uses lepers and quarantines. I have to disagree with both inferences.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Matt, you are now using O.T. stories the way LSM uses lepers and quarantines. I have to disagree with both inferences.

Ohio, No I am not using them the same way. I'm simply saying that idolatry is not exclusive to leadership in the LC and it had a lot of impact on families and especially the kids. This is obvious. I'm not making an inference. I'm making a statement. You've got every right to disagree, but just look around at all the kids and families you know about in the LC. How does it look?

Paul of the NT instructs us to look at the OT as an example for us and in particular on the issue of idolatry (1 Cor 10:1-14)

Matt

P.S. Some of the idolatry discussion belongs elsewhere, but the impacts on the 2nd generation of the idolatry are very much on point for this thread.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Hi Ohio,

Although I do remember some people at that meeting, I don't see much reason for them to come forward or be named. I know some people feel differently about his subject.

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.

I spent years asking myself why I let leaders manipulate my life-changing decisions.

[finallyprettyokay]

blessD:

Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Shades of Warren Jeffs.

Horrible, terrible, sad, sickening.

What an amazing thing that we survived. I guess you just gotta say God is really big.

FPO

PS -- glad to have you here.

(I just posted on the My perspective thead.) (I want everyone reading this thread to read my new post. Just humor me.)

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Terry so my post is not about your parents. Great! If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

[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.