Would you say that, if someone is doing the RELATIONSHIP SEMINAR is in a relationship with someone who is reluctant to participate and do the LF, the participant will be told to accept his/her partner "as is", which means "refuse to talk about the real problems" because after all it's a "Potentially Endearing Quality"(!?). ?
Your questions are on point -- aren't critical thinking skills great? :)
I don't know exactly what they are told; I can only go on how I was related to, and what she shared. She mentioned that the "I accept you as you are" concept (which before Landmark perverts it isn't a bad thing) is taught, and her frequent repitition of it as a script strongly supports this. Beside this is the push for enrollment we're all familiar with. Then comes the PEQ talk in RELATIONSHIPS, and I'm sure this causes cognitive dissonance for those who are in relationship with someone who refuses the LF. I'm sure Landmark doesn't stop pushing enrollment just to "accept" someone. She didn't stop recruiting me when she was in the seminar, because it would "give us something to share". But, I certainly saw the tension in my friend, even after she stopped recruiting me. To her credit she respected my wish and hasn't continued to recruit me.
One such problem will be "Landmark" of course.
This will be the bottom line for anyone with critical thinking skills and good mental boundaries who has someone in their life who becomes "transformed" in a LGAT. My own experience is that what leads to the breakdown of the relationship is the lack of common ground. An emotionally initimate relationship requires some shared territory, and with the introduction of Landmark re-wiring her belief system, we now have none. That's what led to our lack of communication -- I didn't want to hear about Landmark anymore (and since that became the foundation for her whole life there was nothing else to hear), and she didn't want to hear my philosophy anymore. What was left? The arguing is just a part of this. Bottom line is, as we all know: Someone has to convert. Either you go off to Landmark or they have to leave Landmark (or the relationship ends).
The lack of communication will then lead to a "breakdown" (could you elaborate on this ... what is the Landmarkian definition)
I don't know the exact Landmark defn. Maybe nettie or sonnie or Dynamix or someone can provide that. What it seemed to mean was a significant issue or problem which derailed the smooth flow of the relationship's growth. It appeared to be set opposite to "breakthrough."
This would be a very subtle way to say "If your partner loves you, he will do the LF..." meaning "If your partner doesn't do the LF, there is no point because there is no communication".
I would say it's not so subtle. Whether they say "there is no point" I don't know. But I think that it ends up there anyway on it's own.
Sorry I can't address your points directly, but thankfully I only have secondhand knowledge. I agree with the premise you have shared on this board -- A REAL relationship with someone in an LGAT is impossible. Casual friendship, maybe, not nothing emotionally intimate. LGATs delude people to "create their own reality", not deal with reality. Unless you share this, you're on different planets. (I guess John Gray would think that was OK.) :)