Briefly, noticing a new implied trope from the apostate system. They appear to be suggesting that the apostate system acknowledges, as a matter of principle, that the more ‘suckage’ manifest, the less genuine, valid, real or sincere the thing or manifest position of the person doing so is. I’ve been noticing this in a few places now, and can have enough reasonable assurance that it's manifestly a deliberate, intended investment to imply it.
Good, then they presumably acknowledge from their own manifest history that the apostate “house” does not truly exist, and that Mine does. That ought to simplify matters.
I can see the logistical importance of wanting to have multi-leveled franchises and use them to pull in everyone in the general public at *some* level, but then you have a system that accepts and condones practically any caliber of behavior and manifest wrongdoing. And that would be setting aside Divine Will principles and True Nature for numbers, and for manifest support. Which would make Divine Will ‘a sometimes thing’ for the “house”, and the “house” itself manifestly a rationalization for ‘suckage’. [Edit: For is not 'the principal accountable for the doings of his agents'? Basic common law concept. Not upholding that manifestly leaves us with an unworthy scenario.]
Nice, that didn’t take much to displace the trope with Divine Will principles.
[Edit: If they intend to suggest that they can't manifestly uphold Divine Will and True Nature due to the way their "house" works, they'd appear to have the order of authority there the wrong way 'round. And demonstrate that their current prioritization and Choice is for a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. And if so, there's their manifest problem. That Choice, self-evidently, isn't in keeping with their True Nature or with Divine Will, and the most 'senior' among them should know that.
Indeed, the telepaths and propheciers do know that, and yet still haven't resolved the problem. We can't have the 'seniors' blaming the 'juniors' and the 'juniors' claiming innocence because the 'seniors' kept the knowledge and personal sense of agency from them. Overt parallel: The People blame their politicians, but who actively and passively enables those politicians? The People themselves. So who's accountable for it? All involved, to the extent that they had agency. The system manifestly isn't on a solid basis, and manifestly perpetuates the scenario. I'd think the solution is to supply what's manifestly lacking to provide the system with a healthy basis, or replace the system outright with something more functional.]