- A New Start

Hello All,
This is different for me as a 'sister' to be abe to start a new topic w/o permission. Wowsers! (OK I admit that I ran the idea by my husband 1st :)'
I want to encourage other Lodge members that if you choose to leave you won't be struck down by God's wrath. GOD Loves all His people. He sent HIS SON for everyone. The Lodge does not have exclusive rights to God's protective care.
I've recently left and there is an emptiness. When the emptiness and even a sense of panic swells, I immediately turn to the Lord and worship HIm, thanking Him for His care and goodness in my life. I'm filledwith His joy and peace.
I realize now the Lodge or any place of fellowship is not what meets my needs. The lodge ppl do not meet my needs. It's the Lord Himself.
I stayed in the Lodge realizing problems but I believed there are problems everywhere. It's when I discovered and confirmed long standing abuse that was tolerated,covered up for years by the Leadership, I couldn't support the Lodge any longer.
I was tired of the responses: 'our Lodge is autonomous from GG.' Well, no it isn't. Will it ever be?
And about DG: 'Oh you know that's DG, it's been dealt with, so what's your problem?' The problem is that DG has never been effectively dealt with. His family and other ppl have suffered and some are shattered.
And I don't think it has been healthy for DG to be allowed to continue in his abusive manner.
It seems to me if ppl really loved DG more than themselves, they would have found a way to help him stop what he was doing to himself and others.
Consider this: if any lodges have sent $$ to the home base, that $$ has gone to support this long standing abuse.
These thoughts are prayerfully submitted for consideration.
My involvement in the Lodge was by faith as was leaving.I have no regrets or bitterness.

I agree with hopeful on question #1....Why isn't David Geftakys in jail? That is a great question!

But #2 Why would anyone want to go back if there was nothing to go back too.....moreover what is there to go back to now? Hypocrisy? Dictatorship? Lies? Deceit? And define safe. My dictionary defines it as : dependable, or trustworthy. The assembly has lost its trustworthiness. You lose trust when you have been lied to. Why would you go there when God has many places that He is! The Assembly is NOT the only place. As a matter of fact, its not a place to go at all if you want to find a healthy growing place where you can grow as a Christian, or where you feel accepted, or loved.

First I want to say that we deeply love our brethren in Chicago. Both Teresa and I were 18 years old when we each first came out, so they are closer than our natural families.

I also still believe that the leadership in Chicago is sincere and deeply loves the flock.

As for going back . . .

I do not know that I have enough perspective yet. It has been less than a week since I first read this BB. I am still sorting out what I believe, but this is my current perspective:

I remember DG once turning red with anger and yelling at me (he did not raise his voice, but it WAS his form of yelling) "Your problem is that your parents did not spank you enough, I need to get myself a whip, my dad use to beat me senseless"

When I read one of the articles on abuse the light suddenly flicked on that DG was the product of an abusive home, that abusers tend to produce abusers, that people that come out of abusive situations tend to seek another abusive situation (it is home), that most of the "Saints" come out of drugs or other abusive situations and have suddenly found an abusive situation that they can feel good about. That the abused move up into leadership and become abusers.....

[LD--Assembly Doctrine] You say you have power, I will show you the power of the Holy Spirit, see this picture of the Saints, this one was a Hell's Angel, this one was a prostitute, this one was a drug dealer.....

No, it is not "malicious", in the abusers' mind if no one saw it, it did not happen. [LD] Man looks on the outward appearance ... and remember that!

The outward appearance becomes everything. [LD] The way of the cross, the flags, the selfers' prayer, the hectic schedule that does not leave time for "the flesh"

Instead of the cross being just the beginning, a school master to lead us to Christ (to lead us to the joy of resurrection life), it becomes the end, a place of bondage (just like home to the abused). A way to control the outward appearance. If no one sees it, it did not happen.

The problem is, most men tend to focus on the logic of one part, women are more likely to see the broader picture [LD] the woman is deceived. She is to keep silence (doesn't that sound like the standard code of silence in abusive homes?)

[LD] And now for my final point (very loud praise the Lord), I have 7 sub-points (collective sigh)

You know despite all the calls to "take a stand", stop supporting an abusive situation. . .

And despite all the reasons I gave for leaving. . .

The real break thru came after saying [LD] "I have never done things based on other people's expectation"....

I asked my wife, "you never do things because it is expected of you, do you?" She said, "I have always felt guilty and pressured into doing things"

We talked for a while and I realized that her view was that Emily was being treated badly and that women in the Assemblies are always treated badly.

That is when I realized it would not be enough for the Assembly in Chicago to break away from Fullerton, rather [LD] "as a good shepherd I need to find a place where my wife and children can flourish"

   With much love,
   Bob S.
   Bob@Sturnfield.com

Dear Hopeful,

If you read Rachel's account,you'll understand why David wasn't arrested at that time. To arrest an abuser, the abused have to file a law suit against them. in this case it would be DG family. If you read about abused spouses and chldren, you'll receive greater insight into these issues and the horrors they face.

I love the ppl in the Lodge that I left. I want the very best for them. I haven't stayed in the Lodge for 28 years because of the ppl. I stayed because that's where the Lord had directed me in 1973. When I saw I could not longer support the leadership, I knew I was 'called out.' of that group. In scripture the lodge is soundly based. In practice of scripture, it is not.

: Margaret January 31, 2006, 10:51:48 AM

The West LA Assembly announced recently they are again welcoming George--an appalling development. Previous posts on this thread are insightful.

That's a shame. Has anyone heard from anyone in LA as to the rational? Do they feel George repented from his affinity for immoral relationships with young sisters? Do they somehow think one can be a spiritual leader not long after committing such a sin? Or do they just assume that it never happened?

Even if George repented (which I somehow doubt), restoration of this type is a long process and I doubt if one should ever be restored to the position that the LA church is giving George.

: Dave Sable January 31, 2006, 06:53:13 PM

It could be because GG is not being exclusive, they have decided to forgive and forget. ??? ::)

Marcia

: Dave Sable February 02, 2006, 01:38:58 AM

I'm not sure what you mean. Sorry.

i'm certain she was just joking, tongue-in-cheek. of course george is not being exclusive - he is such a great generous guy he will gladly lord it over anyone who will receive him.

is the west la group being evangelistic? if so, could someone who lives in that area get the details of their bible study, such as when they meet, and the phone numbers and addresses of their primary contacts? if they get evangelistic again they are bound to start stapling up posters, marching in parades, and generally making a spectacle of themselves, especially on university campuses. i would love to get those details if anyone in the area could procure them.

brian

: Margaret February 02, 2006, 02:58:01 AM

I think it could possibly be helpful if someone wrote a clear, well-reasoned, scriptural, objective, unemotional and brief appeal about why it is unwise and possibly unsafe (especially for parents of teens and especiallly daughters) to receive GG as a spiritual teacher and role model. GG's male enablers no doubt won't hear it, but the wives, mothers and single women might.

an excellent suggestion! i wholeheartedly 2nd this idea. unfortunately, i am incapable of writing something like this. but i would have great respect for someone who could, and i could see it doing a lot of good.

brian

Margaret,

Oh that I had the time to write such a thing as you suggest. But ultimately I don't think it would help. Remember how we twisted things while we were still in the assembly? The "Noble Inquirer" had an impact on me while I was still in--it was written as you described--but it was too easily turned away by twisted logic and lies. My stupidity is now quite embarassing. It was said of you that you were verging on New Age occultism (my utmost apologies for having ever believed that or worse, not giving it as much thought as I should have to see the vileness of the accusation) and Dave S. was just "a weak brother following you and Steve." I won't mention what was said of Lee as you know it and it was even more preposterous or of Diane S. It was all character assination. Believeing ourselves to be wise we became fools. After we left--which was after everything fell apart, to our shame--I had a discussion with a certain LBW of a group still gathering. Though she could not answer my reasoning from scripture that maintaining fellowship with George was unscriptural (I especially addressed the two or three witnesses garbage that they spew) she simply said, "Well, you'll have to talk to my husband..." And we know they will simply attack the character of whoever wrote such a piece. It's not that I'm afraid of that, but not sure the time it would take is up there on the priority list. That is not to say I'm not doing anything, just don't want to mention it here on so public a board.

good points, jem. many articles have been written that fit margaret's description, they just get explained away by well-trained liars and manipulators. after enough articles have been written, and the facts have been publicly available and easily verifiable for enough years, it becomes difficult to regard people who still buy into george's blatantly self-serving lies with anything but scorn. the only thing stopping me from being too judgemental is the memory of all the years that i didn't check out the facts for myself, and kept on trusting the leadership and george. i still feel a lot of scorn, but its mixed with compassion. some day the vast majority of even those who are george's most fervent supporters will realize that sometimes a lying abusive womanizer really is just a lying abusive womanizer, even if he can quote scripture. at that point they will feel even deeper humiliation and loss than i did, because of their shocking level of stubborn blindness now.

on the other hand, a fresh well-written article that says it all again in a slightly different way may click with a few people who had been successfully convinced to ignore all the earlier ones.

just hearing you describe the lbw you talked to saying something like "Well, you'll have to talk to my husband..." really reminds me vividly of just how dysfunctional most of these people are. even in the face of blatant gross corruption they refuse to believe its ok to think for themselves. not even to protect their own children will they make the effort of pulling their heads out of the sand. most of the people still meeting probably would defer to their husband or leader, right up the chain, until you get to someone who is capable of conscious lies and manipulation, who will do what they do. its the sincere codependant types that i would want to get through to. let the corrupt ones waste their lives stroking the ego of their fallen leader. its a fitting punishment.

brian

: Jem February 02, 2006, 08:43:26 PM

You're right Brian. We used to say when people who "left fellowship" talked to others that they were just "preying on the weak." Therefore if the others left we could say they were weak to begin with. It is not so much preying on the weak as appealing to those who still have a conscience, eh? There are a few, I hope. And when you said, "...not even to protect their own children.." is something to focus on. Nothing gets a mama quite like the thought that her babies may get hurt. IMHO I think the brave, mouthy teenagers--who are now in their 20s--did as much to bring down the assemblies as the internet.

Jem,

Having left many years ago, I do not know much of anything about the "brave, mouthy teenagers". Could you share at least a summary of what they did?

Thomas Maddux

Hello friends,

Reverend Burt O'Leary here. I've made a bold decision and wanted to share it
with you. I've lived in Barstow for several years. During that time I have seen
times of great increase, the tithes and offerings simply flowing in. My patented
"O Leary Miracle Prayer Cloth" sold like hotcakes, and hundreds flocked to hear
my messages. I sold many books, including "Quote Isaiah 39" for which I garnered
rave reviews from the faithful followers.

But lately the tithes and offerings have dwindled, and the number of people attending
a nightly service has fallen off considerably. This could stem from the accusations made
against me concerning embezzling funds, and becoming too close to several of the women
folk in the congregation. But it's all lies I tell you, simply lies. No witnesses have come for-
ward, only accusers, and unfortunately many have listened to this poppycock, and accept
what is purely and assuredly utter nonsense.

So, what I need is a rejuvenation of sorts. I need to be among people who don't accept
accusations, even if they seem to come from people who are upstanding and have nothing
to gain by doing so. I need to be among those who are die-hard followers to the end, and
who accept what's taught more than what is actually lived. I need people who will truly believe
in the "O Leary Miracle prayer cloth" and want to rise above what the other churches teach.

Recently it was brought to my attention that West Los Angeles might just be a place where
someone like me can start over once again. So, I have decided to pick up my roots and move
from Barstow to West Los Angeles. Of course, making a move like this will not be easy. I will
need trucks, and boxes, a downpayment on a new place, and of course, new furnishings.

Will you help me with this endeavor friends? If we all work together, we can get me moved
very quickly, and I can begin this important ministry once again. Friends, I want to thank you
ahead of time for all of your wonderful and large donations that you will send to help accomplish
this miraculous and needful task. No checks please.

Please send cash to:

Reverend Burt O'Leary
2222 W. Roundtree Ave.
Barstow, Ca., 92122

: Joe Sperling February 03, 2006, 02:02:26 AM

Mr. Burt Sir,

What kind of cash wrapper are you recommending now-a-days? Will the usual aluminum foil do?

Marcia
;D

: Joe Sperling February 03, 2006, 02:02:26 AM

Dear Burnt O'Liar,

Where are you really going, Burnt Up'Ashes? All I'm seeing are blotches of ashes along the way and the smell of recent burning. Does this mean that you escaped from a firey furnace, or that someone temporarily let you out of a burning incinerator so you could find something more to devour?

I also noticed drops of blood along the same way. Could they be the blood of your "brothers" crying from the ground? Abel? Rachel crying for her children?

There are lots of "prayer cloths" dropped along side of the trail of ashes and blood. But each one has just as much blood smeared on it as the one before.

Aren't you getting tired of wiping? Are your hands raw yet? Is your entire body as seared as your conscience?

There won't be much left to look at, Burnt o' cinders, when the wind blows and the light shines; only stench.

: Margaret February 02, 2006, 02:58:01 AM

Here is my well reasoned, objective, unemotional brief appeal about why it is unwise to receive George Geftakys....

Prior to all of this, he was an absolute freak to begin with. The freak was a power monger to begin with, wanting nothing but money and sex. Anyone who believes differently should have their head examined.

He was enable by capable people like Mike Zach and Tim Geftakys, who knew if they exposed their fearless leader, that they would have to go work for a living.

With all of the information out there, mature women at this point have no one to blame but themselves if they get involved with this worthless piece of.... On the other hand, fathers - hide your daughters - Georgie's back.

"Hello, Myrtle Friedlander here. I'd like to do a simple test using these two materials"(points
to the table in front of here). "One is Saran wrap, and the other is aluminum foil. I'm now
going to take a wad of these absconded church funds" (holds a large handful of paper money)
"and wrap them in the Saran wrap. I will now shake it vigorously"(begins to shake the Saran
wrapped money, holding both ends).

"Oh my, see how the money begins to fall out of the wrapping and to flutter down onto the
table. Now, let's try the aluminum foil. Here are some more recently pilfered funds from the
collection plate"(holds another huge wad of cash). "Let's wrap this up in the aluminum foil"
(wraps the money tightly in the foil). "Now, once again, I will shake this vigorously."(begins
to shake the package violently). "My goodness, this aluminum foil really does the trick. Another
plus is that you can never tell how much money is inside, and that can be important if anyone
gets a little too curious. This aluminum foil is just perfect for wrapping and hiding money".

"Well friends, the test has proven conclusively that aluminum foil is the better wrapper when
dealing with paper money, especially the pilfered kind. It offers not only the strength you need
in a material, but the secrecy you need also. I'll see you next time friends. Bye."

Marcia--I guess it will be the aluminum foil ;D

Why would anyone welcome George to their gathering?

Unwillingness to see and face the issues at hand
expressed by:
"Everyone who reads the website leaves fellowship" (quote from WLA sister - existing assembly member)
Forbidding adherants from reading the website as recommended in WLA and elsewhere
Avoidance of open honest discussion

Unwillingness to honestly face one's own sin leads to willingness to overlook another's and a lack of clarity of vision
expressed by:
"If I have done anything wrong" type apology
"We were feeling the pressure under George" type excuse
When specifics are mentioned the other is accused of being too hard &/or not forgiving and forgetting.

George would not have lasted as long as he did if it was not for the "shepherds" who enabled him to keep the system going. It is appalling that any one would welcome George to their gathering, but I find it just as appalling that repentance would not be expected from the rest of the faithful adherants as well.

If one was to do the math, in the 3 years since George's excommunication, the remnant assemblies have not grown but are diminishing slowly. It would indicate that they are not affecting the communities they are in, but are only circulating the poison amongst themselves.

Marcia

PS. on a positive note, it is refreshing to note that some former leaders have truly repented. e.g. Margaret, Jem, MarkC etc.

MM

PPS. Jem, the brave mouthy teens business is news to me too.
MM

I don't have time to write much now, but I will try and answer the teen thing I started. And my apologies, I'm going to use a lot of Assembly speak because we all know what it means and it makes it easier to say.

As to bringing down George the teens weren't as clean as the websites, but they had a similar effect. As saints kids grew up they started asking questions. The few saints that were a bit older--and so had older kids--had to go through this alone. The Irons, Maddux, M. Millers. Most of these kids left fellowship and sometimes their parents wisely followed. But there was sort of this more mass coming of age, thus the beginning of the teen teams. The teen teams were to be a sort of corporate indoctrination, but when you get that much energy in one place things can go horribly wrong.

The teens did what we were all trained not to do:

They didn't take pat answers. This resulted in their parents having to think. When their parents couldn't come up with logical answers they turned to leadership, who came up with new twisted responses to simple questions.

They did talk among themselves about what seemed whacked.

Marcia, you said there was an "Unwillingness to see and face the issues at hand." The teens were more than willing. While we were all ignoring that elephant in the room, they would tug on our sleeves and say, "Dude, did you notice that elephant over there? How come know one is talking about it? How come no one is cleaning up the mess?" So many of them said "I'm so outta here" in one way or another. Some physically, most all emotionally. I won't say spiritually, because we were so messed up I'm not sure if any of us really knew what that meant.

Again Marcia, you said there was/is for some an "Unwillingness to honeslty face one's own sins leads to willingness to overlook another's and a lack of clarity of vision." Again the teens were not unwilling. Some of them, saddly, were boldly sinning and more than willing to point out everybody else's sins. I believe some desperately wanted "clarity of vision," but could see that they were in a Pharisaical, hypocritical system.

By the time everything hit the fan the honest, not always innocent, questions of our children had created enough unrest that people were finally willing to see the obvious. When all this stuff about David started to become known and then was followed hard by George's bizarre response and ultimate unmasking the teens were not in the least surprised. The grown ups were shocked, but the teens sort of knew it all along. We just didn't listen for a long time because we knew so much better than they did, and besides, didn't they wear their sins all on the outside?

That is sort of the short version. It wasn't clean like I said, it wasn't pretty, but the teens were a force to be reckoned with.

Hi Everyone!

A very sad announcement, but certainly not surprising considering the half-hearted stand these WLA leaders took when GG was outed re. his scandalous behavior.

It just goes to show what many of us have warned about re. these "Geftakys Lite" groups. Those trying to continue as an Assembly, sans GG, but try to keep the group going are not really dealing with the most important issues:

1.) Open and honest discussion re. Assembly history.

2.) An understanding the culture that GG created in these groups continues, even though he is not there and is technically rejected.

3.) A willingness to accept constructive criticism re. clear violations of God's word where applicable.
(I'm not talking about speculative theological views here, but actual behavior that violates the very clear instructions of scripture; as in, accepting an unrepentant GG back into fellowship.)

4.) A recognition that there were/are strong forces that form dysfunctional thinking and acting within their group.
(This is not a "psychological" critique, but an understanding of spiritual truths--- as in the "blind, naked, etc." rebuke of Jesus to the Laodiceans.)

What to do?

" Go to this people and say, You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears and they closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." Acts. 28:26-27.

This message is a quote from the OT and was addressed to those committed to a toxic religious system. It shows the great danger of living under such false perceptions that pervert the true nature of God and his grace.

Paul at this point in Acts turned away from these as he recognized that their condition was beyond any appeal to reasonable discussion. They simply refused to have a dialogue! Whenever this happens we can be assured that the refusal is based in a very darkened state indeed.

We do, however, have a responsibility to sound the alarm and try to warn others; not just in the hope some may listen, but to help us in our own recovery to learning courage in our faith.

Here I see a wonderful opportunity for some:

Former leaders, as in Tim G., Mark M., Jim H., Roger G., Dan Notti, etc. (if any of these have a care for God's interests) could protest the action that WLA has taken and warn other groups re. the same.

I call on these to take a responsible stand for truth and justice in this matter via a direct rebuke of the WLA leaders. They could again present the facts of the GG excommunication, GG's response to it, and the present dishonest contention of GG and his promoters. It probably would fall on deaf ears, but what it could do for these former leaders would be a great step toward spiritual renewal.

God bless, Mark C.

Hi everyone--

I think it would be helpful to publish some of the good commentary on WLA over on GA.com. Rather than emailing each of you individually to ask your permission, how about if anyone does not want their BB post quoted on GA.com you can PM me or post your objection here.

There is still quite a readership over there, by the way. January averaged 184 unique visitors per day. Resources, Links and Continuing Assemblies all get a lot of hits--358, 273, 252 respectively in January alone. In January Final Weeks was read 125 times, Rachel's Story 48 times, Kristin's 44 times. Biblical Exposition articles comprised 10 of the top 30 pages for page hits, averaging among them 84 hits each in January. Another interesting facet is the number of countries represented among the visitors--the top 10, in order, are USA, Canada (go Marcia!), France, Sweden, UK, China, Singapore, Romania, South Africa, Netherlands.

We are getting visitors who are not connected with the Assembly, it seems. But I suspect that there are also covert readers in the existing Assemblies who are secretly catching up.

Anyone can look at the stats, but the way. The URL is http://webstats.geftakysassembly.com/.

Margaret

I was in the West LA assembly for 15 years. This recent event reminds me of when the same hegemony of four in similar isolation decided how the assembly would respond to the news of George's sins and subsequent execommunication. Their response, not surprisingly, directly contradicted how God was speaking to my wife and I, but there was never an open forum to express such dissenting opinions with the current members. It was late January 2003 when we made our clean break. After all the healing, re-learning of grace, and enjoyment of my family I've had in the past three years, it blows my mind to think my former comrades are still carrying the heavy burden of how to process all this information and find God's will through all the noise coming from years of rhetoric and conditioning about what it means to "stand for God's best".

As far as welcoming George back - even though he is not preaching, I presume that he will be allowed to offer up his prayers during worship, and that it will bring back a longing to hear his message for those who are still susceptible to it. So I would not be suprised if there is fresh momentum in the movement.

This is troubling, but for people that have stuck around this long but really do want to respond as genuine Christians, these more obvious demonstrations of the movement's true colors are a neccessary wake up call.

: Margaret March 01, 2006, 04:09:14 AM

To clarify the West LA situation: According to someone in the West LA Assembly, they had George come to their meeting one time. He sat in the back and wasn’t allowed to speak. Basically he was allowed because Mike Almanzor still associates with WLA and Mike Almanzor is still taking care of George at some level. They allowed George to come so that the saints could confront him and he would have opportunities to repent.

Thanks for sharing the above Margaret.

I would love to be able to talk to the person who gave you the above update, as it stirs many questions in my mind:

1.) If Mike Almanzor has the job ("at some level") of "taking care of GG" (and I would assume that includes Mike's assistance of GG in his deplorable state of denial)--- why is Mike allowed to "associate" in WLA? If WLA leaders are so interested in providing "opportunties to repent", why allow the sleazy lawyer for the cover-up to have free access to the group?

2.) What exactly did these WLA leaders tell GG? Did they say, "sit in the back and don't say a word because_____________", you fill in the blank. I would love to hear the reason given for why GG should be instructed not to speak and to sit at the back. Just telling him to do so without any clear deliniation of charges against GG violate God's instructions on how to deal with unrepentant sinners in the church. It's not good for GG, MIke A., the WLA leaders and group, and as such is a woefully inadequate response.

3.) This opportunity for confrontation by the WLA saints that the WLA leaders provided is a wonderful twist on NT teaching re. how to deal with an unrepentant sinner in denial.

Some comical parodies did come to mind re. the above twist on church discipline, but none that included new lyrics for old Hymns, rather I thougt of such as the old means of shaming that the American Puritans used of putting moral reprobates into the stocks in the public square. 8)

Were "the Saints" supposed to give angry glares as they passed by? Did the speakers that Sunday bring subtle messages that were obviously pointed in his direction?

All this beating-around-the-bush is so typically Assemblylish and very much not like what the bible instructs us to do in such a situation. GG is clearly a former leader of a group (though he continues to lead Mike A., etc.) who refuses to admit a great deal of sinful behavior. The bible tells us to "have nothing to do" with these kind of people and to openly rebuke them! Those that support GG in his unrepentant condition are partners in his crime and share the same rejection!

The fact that the WLA leaders have come up with the above rationalization for their acceptance of GG (albeit to the back bench) shows that GG layed a strongly unbiblical foundation to the thinking of those still running the groups that GG started. GG and MIke should have been met at the door by the "door brothers" (they still use these guys don't they?) and been sent on their way!

God Bless, Mark C.

i learned a little more about this situation. apparently the west la assembly decided to invite people who used to be involved in assemblies in the area before everything fell apart, and who are having a hard time finding a new church they are comfortable with. but george was the only one who showed up. he was told he couldn't preach and had to lay low, but he was allowed to partake. he left, and that was that.

when questioned directly about it, bill bradbury reportedly responded by saying they had prayed about it, and decided that if george is welcome to be in fellowship in riverside, who are they to question it? so george is welcome to attend and partake in west la, but not preach.

the rationale behind this decision is almost more disturbing to me than the decision itself. who are they to question it?? they are men who accepted positions as leaders of gods people! if all their praying and 'seeking gods will' can't result in any greater moral and spiritual clarity than that, they need step down. a known adulturer and abuser who has still not accounted for the millions of dollars that flowed into his pockets is accepted into their midst on the basis that riverside said it was ok?? and what was riverside's justification? something like 'we don't believe george messed around with those women because it wasn't confirmed by multiple witnesses'??

but lets face it, we are dealing with a few tiny groups of people here. is it really that big of a deal? probably not. but it is important to me that, if george and others are not actually going to be held accountable and pay the consequences of their actions (yet), at least they are not allowed to repeat the same abuses again.

brian

Brian -

The very reason I finally left Chicago was because of the same response from a Midwest leading brother. I had started questioning the situation with David's abuse in the early summer of 2002, but I wasn't getting anyone to acknowledge that this was a big deal. So in August, at Sarah's wedding, I asked to talk to one of the Midwest leading brothers about my concerns. We sat & talked for quite a while. I had always seen this man as a peer, and someone who I respected. We usually problem-solved/thought things through in the same kind of way. But, after telling him of my concerns regarding David's abuse not being addressed & brought into the open, he simply responded something to the effect that SLO wasn't in his realm of accountability. I was amazed. So that's how these men in responsibility could sleep at night - they simply told themselves that George's problems, and David's problems, weren't their problems. After that meeting, which really saddened me, I knew I needed to leave.

: Uncle Buck May 10, 2006, 04:24:34 PM

Testimonies were shared. It was not a George or Leadership bashing time, but an honest time of open discussion about the error of our ways, Georges ways, Leadership ways and Assembly ways. I feel blessed to have been able to do this.

it sounds really nice. i have enjoyed a few of those sessions as well, often with my family. i wish this bb could be more like that, and occasionally it is, but i'm not sure how to keep it there. for one thing, people that have moved on may enjoy discussing these topics for an evening or a few days but not all the time. i know i can get tired of talking about it pretty quickly unless i am really in the mood. also, there is the additional element of this bb that wants to ensure that george doesn't rebuild, which requires a more aggressive approach. and sometimes people that are just angry. these things are difficult to keep in balance without being overly heavy-handed. an evening with old friends sounds much more pleasant :)

: Nancy Newswander April 14, 2006, 02:42:20 AM

So that's how these men in responsibility could sleep at night - they simply told themselves that George's problems, and David's problems, weren't their problems. After that meeting, which really saddened me, I knew I needed to leave.

yeah, thats not how i was raised, and i don't buy it as an excuse either. when you know a woman is in that kind of trouble you don't just turn a blind eye. sometimes there isn't much you can do, but often the only thing a woman in that situation needs is one person to believe them and show them how to get out of it. at least, that has been my personal experience.

brian

Brian, you are lucky. Maybe Midwestern boys were raised differently than California boys. In California the men all sucked up to the leadership, so really leadership could tell us anything and we would do it. And a lot of the leadership in California treated women as complete slaves (thanks to Betty's teaching on "Other side of the Garden"). The marriage relationships of so many leading brothers was disgusting. (Mark Miller, Jim Hayman, Jeff Lehmkuhl, Jim McAllister and on and on) You are absolutely right about the necessity to believe a woman when she claims she is in an abusive situation. They speak up at great personal cost.

Have you read the new story on GA.com from a guy who was a campus worker? He tells how Scott Testa confronted one of George's accusers at this guy's wedding and called her a liar! How absurd is that? What woman would go around ruining her own reputation and supposedly tring to protect others by telling such a ridiculous story of an affair with a man 50 years her senior? What could she possibly gain? But after years of giving up our reasoning abilities, claiming others could hear God's voice, following men who were already compromised, beilieving in the need to be subject to the authority of elders and LBs -- we no longer could respond correctly to things that would alarm most people. That is how we all slept at night, "God knows. God told George. We trust in the leadership, therefore we are protected. Blah. Blah. Blah." Sick!
Me.

: just me May 11, 2006, 10:53:03 PM

In California the men all sucked up to the leadership, so really leadership could tell us anything and we would do it.

oh there was plenty of sucking up and obediance in the midwest as well, and there is much that i was a part of that i am not proud of. but the way wives were treated sometimes really bothered me, and the first time a woman came to me for help with an abusive situation in my early twenties i knew exactly what i had to do to help, starting with believing her. how these older men in positions of leadership could so horribly mishandle such tragic situations is incomprehensible to me. i mean, i knew almost nothing about life, but that was a pretty obvious one.

You are absolutely right about the necessity to believe a woman when she claims she is in an abusive situation. They speak up at great personal cost.

this bears repeating. the percentage of false abuse accusations is miniscule. women who report physical or sexual abuse generally have much to lose and little to gain from going public. so especially when more than one woman accuses the same man of crossing sexual boundaries, such as george, all doubt is removed from my mind.

Have you read the new story on GA.com from a guy who was a campus worker? He tells how Scott Testa confronted one of George's accusers at this guy's wedding and called her a liar! How absurd is that?

you're kidding! where is this story? i couldn't find it on the ga website.

brian

Just Me--

Would it be ok to post anonymously the following quote in the comments section of the article," An Issue of Control"?

Scott Testa confronted one of George's accusers at this guy's wedding and called her a liar! How absurd is that? What woman would go around ruining her own reputation and supposedly tring to protect others by telling such a ridiculous story of an affair with a man 50 years her senior? What could she possibly gain?

Brian--

Could we also quote you from below?

Margaret

: Margaret May 16, 2006, 05:26:58 AM

Brian--
Could we also quote you from below?

sure, quote away. i consider whatever i write on here to be public domain anyway.

and here is another quote you can add to that article if you like:

this is EXACTLY how MOST relationships were managed in the assembly. i have heard about and seen this exact story over and over growing up in the assembly. so the fact that the author didn't use anyone's names (except for a few higher-ups) really strengthened its impact on me, because it comes across as a kind of everycouple's retelling of how they got together in the assembly. one common and particularly tragic deviation from this oft-repeated drama was when a reluctant sister was pressured into marrying an especially loyal brother.

i enjoyed reading about how they found happiness together anyway. love conquerors all, eh? :)

brian

ps this scott testa character sounds like quite the socially awkward bully. i mean, what kind of a person would pull a stunt like that at someone else's wedding?? ::)

"ps this scott testa character sounds like quite the socially awkward bully. i mean, what kind of a person would pull a stunt like that at someone else's wedding??"

Brian, where you went wrong with the above statement was thinking it was "someone else's wedding." Weddings were assembly meetings so fell under the domain of leadership to cooerce and control what goes on. The assembly required you to surrender your wedding, and for some who you married, your children, your money, where you lived to "the will of God" as interpreted by leadership. Scott, being a loyal, leading brother was just doing the only kind of dancing allowed at weddings.

Folks,

Many years ago I joined the USAF. Our nice uncle, Sam, sent all that day's take from the Los Angeles Induction Center down to Texas on the train. For two days we had a grand time. A bunch of 18-19 year olds out on our own w/o any supervision. We hooted and hollered, played practical jokes on each other, ordered stuff from the snack bar, (and sometimes the other bar) sent to our compartments. A teenager's dream.

When we arrived at Lackland AFB the Drill Sergeant appointed one of the guys as Barracks Chief...a sort of boot camp Sondercommando that was responsible for the guys in the barracks and had delegated authority from god, in the form of Sgt. Clark.

This kids name was Bruce (I forget his last name). Suddenly, we had a Hitler clone in our midst. Bruce was transformed by his new-found authority. A completely new personality emerged! Actually, it had been in their all the time until Sgt. Clark's "annointing" had fallen upon him.

I knew Scott Testa many years ago when he lived at Steve Iron's house. He was a very sincere Christian, but very naive. What GG said was taken as true, w/o question. Nothing new there.

I think what you see today is the same personality developed and solidified.

Regarding the Sondercommando within, in the assembly you saw this come out in almost every person place in authority. Sad, but true. Not the whole story, but definitely part of it.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

AssemblyBoard

General Discussion => Any and All Topics => : Kay December 29, 2002, 07:15:28 PM