[OBW]

At first I felt to just let the thread be locked without any further comment from me. But as I have been one who has challenged the direction it has taken on various occasions, I decided that a review of the value of the discussion might be in order.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion. You are free to consider me presumptuous to make any of these statements.

No matter the origins of the thread, there was probably something of value to consider, but little of hard evidence to gain because virtually everything within its topic is subjective and has many potential causes — causes which might include something of LC teachings and practice. I would be willing to accept that those prone to serious parenting errors might also be influenced by undercurrents of teachings that emphasize things like "hate father, mother, sister and brother" and other such extremes being taught as more than metaphorical devices to establish a hierarchy of love and allegiance to God first. Some who might have never acted in the manner they did may have done so because of LC teachings and practices. But how do you establish the link? It would take direct questioning of the parents/individuals in question and they would have to be willing to dig into their own issues and reveal their true motivations and drivers. We were not the perpetrators, therefore we did not have the answers, only the questions. And they were good questions, but questions without available answers.

Even to get testimony of the children affected does not establish causality. They cannot know that the temperament for such ways was not already there and might or might not have be active even without the LC and its teachings. The best we could hope for was an anecdotal link between the LC and people who did not do well at raising their children or dealing with their spouses.

Yes, the specific events in which LC leadership interjected itself where it had no business going are a different kind of issue. But those do not appear to be so widespread as to be called standard operating procedure except maybe with respect to certain individual leaders. I’m sure that BillW, Jane, and BlessD, among others, would object if we even suggested that it never happened, and rightfully so. Even if the environment had turned out more nurturing for the stories that came out, would we ever have much more than the three that were brought up? Even if we got six, would that create evidence of general problems? It seems that the whole of the events actually cataloged gives testimony to the misconduct of a few somewhat linked individuals. As such, this may have been worthy of discussion for what it was. But it never was evidence of general issues with LC doctrine and practice.

Recurring problems with BP, GD, JB, or even BB (all but one of whom were in Dallas at one time or another) do not connect enough dots to create a uniform pattern of wanton misconduct that can be laid at the feet of every LC and every LC leader in any way.

To the extent that there are things to discover and discuss, it is time to be specific rather than general. It is time to put away the broad brush and focus.