AssemblyBoard

I do not want to bury my posts on this topic, for some really good reasons which I will not go into at this time.  If someone wishes to comment on this matter, please do so here.

Brent

I do not have much to comment on this matter other than to say thanks Brent for taking the effort to share with us this detailed explanation of the truth behind these events, and also thanks for the sacrifices that you have made for all you have done.  When something needed to be done, you stood up and did it. You are genuinely an inspiration.  Your example has even helped motivate old Retread on occasion.


This could be very true.  People get so blinded by their prejudices and preconceived notions that they assume a lot of nonsense to be fact, when it couldn't even be further from the truth.  But your clear explanation should hopefully be even understandable by the soaring folks, and you should be able to get a clear answer as to where their motives lie.

All I have to say is that anybody foolish enough to pick a fight with Brent Tr0ckman of all people really needs to have their head examined. Watching this develop reminded me of a scene from "The Perfect Weapon" where Jeff Speakman walks into a local dojo and challenges one of the "dancers" there to a match in exchange for information. The fighter looks at him with contempt and Speakman looks at his partner and quips:
Both of you!
The first guys says:
Are you serious?
Speakman says:
Are you?
You can probably guess what happened...
I will tell you this much, Brent Tr0ckman is a very serious individual. But of course, we all knew that did we not?
Verne

Re. the defense of Brent against the scandalous charges raised by Sondra:

  I have never met Sondra, and after once trying to visit her site was blocked in my attempt to register.  It is tempting to want to know what your detractors are saying about you, but I encourage folks to follow the Biblical advice to avoid heretics.
   In Brent's situation it is clearly different because Sondra raised issues that are outside the realm of church doctrine and practices and has suggested that Brent may be a nefarious character, at best.  Sondra claims, in her posts, that since Brent called Assembly folks into question re. their handling of the money he deserves the same kind of treatment.
   Where to begin here?  I have known Brent for a little over a year and met him on the Rick Ross site at that time.  I left the Assembly over 12 years ago, before the big blow-up surrounding GG last year, and understood from what he wrote that he saw clearly the truth re. the Assembly.
   When Brent announced that he was going to start a website dedicated to discussion of the Assembly I was filled with doubts.  I thought, "who would read it except those who had already left; it would never reach those on the inside."  Dave Sable tried years earlier to reach the group via a newsletter called, "The Noble Inquirer," which was scornfully rejected by insiders.  In the past I was involved with different BB's that dealt with cults and abusive churches and never once saw a successful attempt to penetrate the wall the leaders built around the groups.  There were even best selling books written that mentioned the abusive nature of the Assembly and these seemed to have no effect; how would a website accomplish what these efforts could not?
   I believe that Brent was used of God in a very special way, and at just the right time, to bring about a much needed deliverance for God's little ones trapped in an aberrant group.  I can only testify to the fact that Brent spent many hours of the day and much of his own money to promote the above mentioned work.   When I went up to visit him he was so busy with dealing with Assembly issues that he didn't even have time to go out to lumch with me!
   In summation I count it a great privilege to have known Brent and to have been involved in what was always his vision to help those to see the truth re. Assembly teaching and practices via the sites he raised up.  I have always found him to be a very honest person and a very good doctor to boot!  He believed when others doubted (including myself) and he was the one to make it happen!
    Sondra may find herself in the unfortunate position of being in opposition to God's purposes in this matter, and as I have in the past, warn her to humbly consider her teaching as being heretical.  I would also now add to the list her need to apologize and repent of her scandalous personal attacks on Brent.
                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

Well I finally read a post over on the soaring site that made some sense.  Brent, you should be thankful  (and I am sure that you are) that God has given you such a wise wife (even if she does post over on the other site). :)  Her suggestion to use the time-out to spend time with your families is one that I am sure will give you much thankfulness for God's goodness.  For sure it is a lot better than spending time fighting with Sondra, no matter how much she has wronged you.  Of course there are times when standing up and fighting is necessary even when it is difficult or unpleasant, but God has been good to you Brent, and I am sure that you would gladly welcome some rejoicing in God's goodness.

We're looking for BIG smiles here.  :) :) :)

Your friend,
Retread

Does anybody else think that she really snookered us?
After-all she was apparently about to go "sight-less" and this latest has created quite a stir has it not? Death throes and rattles perhaps? Hmmmnnnn....!

I went to see Suzie's post. Probably my final visit. You leave feeling somewhat tainted...

Verne
p.s I quickly figured out she imagines her stature enhanced by attempting to engage, instruct and/or denigrate those viewed as having "gravitas". Pathetic creature...not too much truly original I fear...

Brent,

It's because you got involved that misunderstandings, misrepresentations, mishaps etc. happen. If you had just stayed out of it and washed your hands (that's even Biblical, because Pilate did it) then we could have remained in our assembly bliss.

Well it did give you the opportunity to clarify the matter; not that I thought that you had mishandled the money. In fact it cost you a pretty penny to set up the website etc, and not only financially, but time and effort as well. I, for one, am thankful that you did.

I did not realize that Dave Sable had attempted to warn the assemblies via a newsletter. So I thank Dave as well.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I would hope that she hasn't snookered many.  I suspect that the more that we talk about Sondra and her site here, the more she will write on her site, and hence the shutdown of her site will be further delayed.  When she was running low on fuel for her flames, we may have given her new fuel.  Perhaps we have been helping somewhat to prolong the agony.  Nothing that has been on the soaring site recently has surprised me (however I did have some initial shock when I first went there), it may have saddened, but not surprised.

Unfortunately thus far it would appear that none of what we have said has helped her, but rather just increased tensions. Not that we should give up on her, just that although we have tried, it would appear that we have not made any real progress with her.

Life has challenges and can not always be a bed of roses,  but I am really not enjoying this (not to say that I should be or shouldn't be). :(

     i once picked a fight with Brent.

     i had my head examined.

     They found nothing...      ;)

al

     This was the very bone of contention between Brent & me:
i was determined to help some BBers who, it turned out, were equally determined to not be helped.  Brent had already realized this while i had not.  What might have transpired had i listened to Brent can only be guessed at, but i can now see and admit that my efforts may well have exacerbated the problem at that time.
     And yet, Brent ventured over to the new "Eagles" BB on a mission similar to mine previous;  to attempt to win back someone who had wandered astray (in this case Sondra) and bring instruction & enlightenment to those who listened to her.  Why?  
     Because sometimes when we see the nature of another person's darkness, it resonates within us of the darkness from which the Lord has delivered us and we think with our hearts because we empathize, longing for that other's deliverance.
     Are our efforts toward the benighted destined always to fail?  Does it matter?  Paul said that he became all things to all men in order that those who could be won would be won, and that it would be to his woe to not preach the gospel.  The personal woes that we may experience as a result of failed attempts to reach others is nothing compared to the woe of which he speaks.
     Personal rejection?  Sure it hurts, but what of it?  Our Lord Jesus Christ stopped at nothing on our behalf.  The Lord of Glory bears the title Man of Sorrows for His earthly ministry.  And as we are partakers of His inheritance, shall we complain to become, in miniscule measure, partakers in His suffering?  No, because in Him we are more than conquerors.

     So then, Brent, about your defense:  
     Some know you & trust you.  To these you do not need to defend yourself.  To these your defense is understood without statement.
     Some do not know and/or trust you.  To these you need not defend yourself because they will not believe you or accept your defense on any terms.
     Then there are those who do not know you well enough to decide whether they trust or distrust you.  What these need to hear is not your vindication, nor even your explanation, but the pure and simple statement of the truth.  It is the Truth, not your or my telling of it, that liberates.  To see me or you as we see ourselves will not help them (because as yet we do not see as we should), but if we preach Christ and tell the Truth in Him, He will draw the hearers to Himself.

     For me, Brent, you need no defense.  You can decide why. ;)

al

It is not too often that  I feel the need to quote myself in an attempt at clarification (no snickering now!)  :). The "she" in the above quote of course never refers to Suzie Tr0ckman.
Verne

I have been on a few mats - literally, figuratively and spiritually - I really would rather be wid'  'im, than agin' im, if you know what I mean... ;D
Verne

 Brent A. Tr0ckman  812
Arthur  574
vernecarty  429
jesusfreak -=Luke S=-  415
Retread Again  400
Mark C.  373
Marcia  354
Joe Sperling  340
Emily St  310
al Hartman  296
al Harman  296
Kimberly Tobin  291
David Mauldin  271
Greg Tobin  258
FREEBIRD (Garth)  236
Total Top 15 = 5655

Isaiah 29
20   For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21   That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22   Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23   But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24   They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

Why pick on Brent Tr0ckman ?......So you can take the focus off the real issue at hand ; untangling the false doctrine George weaved with the truth.

Why pick on Brent Tr0ckman ? ...To annoy him, because he turned on the light in a dark place and some people loved the dark place.

Golden -

I would love to hear your warped interpetation of this passage.

There you go, quoting yourself again. I'm convinced that you are just attempting to get to 2nd place in a hurry. Don't worry, between Retread and myself we can come up with that complete collection in multiple copies, veeerrrryy soooon!
_________________________________________

I'll use the same post as I do not want to increase my post count too fast. To change the subject in Brent's defense. I discovered that Sondra did not reply to Brent's email attempts to settle the 'money' issue. And to quote Suzie "I think it is unjustifiable to provoke an innocent man to wrath with false accusations." Sondra's reason: "Before I could follow through and read what he had posted on AB - he had escalated the thing to a boil with several other boastful, sarcastic, threatening posts."

This is assembly tactics - frustrate an individual who attempts to resolve issues in private, and then criticize them for 'resorting' to posting on the BB.

History has shown that it is expedient to silence the messenger if the message is unpalatable.

Marcia

Who... me??!!  ;D
Verne

Hi Marcia

You didn't speak to me about this, so I'm not sure how you know about my email to her.  In email, I told her that I would talk with her privately about some of the "money" issues with Judy, but that it would be "after" she read my response to her.  

She publicly "called me out," and it required a public response.  The real issue here is not Judy, it is my reputation.  I didn't collect money, or solicit money for Judy, I mailed a money order that other people collected.  They did so in an honorable manner, for the right reasons.

So, it's not  correct that she frustrated my attempt to resolve the issue.  The manner I chose to resolve the issue was the way I did.

Those who want to love on George, excuse false teaching, forgive the unrepentant abusers, and condemn those that stand for the truth hated me before Sondra came along, and they won't hate me better even with her "help."

On the other hand, I don't think it could be clearer, judging from what she accused me of, and what actually happened.  Anyone with a shred of honesty can see through this.

Brent

Seriously, Golden, would you please elaborate on these verses?...at least enough that we can see where you're going with them.  This is the kind of passage that dishonest people may use to back up illegitimate arguments, so unless your purpose in quoting it is stated, it is hardly fair to earnest seekers to leave it dangling before them with no explanation or attempt at guidance.          i want to believe you're sincere, but the nature of your postings makes it difficult.

i also want to believe you have a sense of humor. :D  Your previous post attributes to me a total of 592 posts:

...shouldn't that put me in 2nd place instead of in 10th & 11th? ;)

al

My apologies for the assumption I made ie that Sondra frustrated Brent in his attempt to resolve the issue privately. I read about Brent's emailing Sondra on her BB.

Marcia

i don't know that my opinion on these things matters much, but i think brent could use the moral support, so here goes. and if my .02 might help clarify something to a person sincerely seeking the truth, then great. i would find it hard to believe that anyone sincere would be misled by the latest attacks on brent, judy and others.

i think that decades of dignity and courage in the face of abuse and stark fear deserves a little more than some rapidly devaluing stocks. a person can be robbed of more than money. this makes the whole issue of the exact value of the stocks david gave her quite pointless to me. given what else we know about david's character,  this single act of desperation hardly revolutionizes my perception of him, even if the stocks were worth over 100,000 at one point. after the abuse judy suffered at david's hands, she could have taken everything he had, and he knew it. she didn't because she would have had to give up some things she treasures far more deeply, such as dignity, privacy, personal freedom, a sense of safety.

it would seem that some people, such as heide and sondra, would gladly strip those hard-won priviledges from judy in order to gain a few more minutes in the spotlight for themselves, which personally makes me sick. it dosen't make any sense that sondra is unbothered by the millions of dollars people blindly gave to george during the height of his ungodliness and corruption, but she is scandalized by a theory she made up that very weakly implicates brent in the mismanagement of a few thousand dollars. yet she would have us believe that she was so outraged by the existence of the theory she made up that her conscience forced her to rush her theory and accusations straight to the only place that would publish them: her own bb. and all this after those volumes she posted about how money given out of sincerity and faith could never be given in vain. in my darker moments, i believe that anyone who could be misled by this woman deserves to be.

brent has answered her accusations directly and totally cleared himself, which was far more dignity than the spider-web thin theory sondra made up deserved. the 'soaring' bb has systematically searched for ways they could hurt someone prominent on this bb. they want to strike hard enough to get a reaction, any reaction, for the validation such reactions make them feel. they also want to hurt some people here because of personal vendattas that they have made perfectly clear in their own posts. such posters, in internet lingo, are called trolls. while our situation has further levels of complexity, much of what those on 'soaring' and others of their ilk have been engaging in is a common phenomenon described in more detail here:
http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

so i repeat what i said before: ignore them as much as possible, and be extra friendly and supportive of those at whom they decide to throw rocks. they will eventually go away. they don't have that much to say. we all know that ignoring them is not admitting to anything nor is it silent agreement. its just giving them the time and attention they deserve: none whatsoever.

if anyone can successfully sue someone on the 'soaring' bard for they reckless accusations, great. but sondra has made it clear that she has researched the legal precidents in such cases and that they are blatantly exploiting the gap that exists between the rate of technological advance and legal precident. yet in their endless thirst for attention they have gone out on some extremely slender limbs, and wouldn't it be interesting to see some landmark case come from this that would protect people's rights even on the internet? so let us continue to ignore them on this board, and see if they are actually desperate enough to drive themselves into a courtroom for attention...

brian

Brian,

I just want to say that I agree with your post below. Thank you for taking the time share your perspective with us as we are all (or almost all) benefitted by it.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Well stated Brian.  I have sat with this for a few days trying to determine what, if anything, I was going to contribute in response to Sondra and her most recent attempt at inciting those who simply want to bring to light that which has been clothed in darkness for over three decades.  More "assembly learned" tactics (whether she will admit it or not!)

I am close friends with Rachel.  I received a call from a weeping Rachel once she became aware of the false accusations that were being leveled at her and her mother (even prior to Sondra's ridiculous, malicious attempt at libeling Brent) on the "soaring" site.  Sondra had stooped to a "new" low!  After all that Judy and Rachel have been through, having to defend themselves on a dispicable BB solely used to defend GG and his "assembly" system, is nothing short of evil.  

I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!! :'(  Haven't they been through enough (SONDRA????????)  It would be nice to simply "leave them alone", "just ignore them", etc.  And of course, this kind of attack is meant to do exactly what it has incited.  Those who are enraged at the "assembly" tactics CANNOT remain silent.  We will no longer be a party to the "code of silence."  And it is convenient for them to say things like, "their silence is evidence of their guilt."  More assembly tactics that force a response (and heated at that if you have any personality!)

For those who have come out of the assembly system willingly, with their eyes opened, see Sondra and her ilk for what they are: dispicable human beings (yes, Christ died for them, I hope she repents!)  But dispicable, none the less.  We also are not swayed by her groundless, unsubstantiated accusations.  It is those who remain in the assembly (whether "meeting" or not, I am speaking of the "assembly mindset") who will support her in her endeavors.

SONDRA, YOU MAKE ME SICK!

I have to go now, but had to vent for a moment.  Haven't even touched on Brent's situation, but will do so at a later date, when I have a free moment.

The is a very clear Biblical reason for her condition. We need to pray for her... :'(
Verne

 Isaiah 29
20  For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21  That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22  Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23  But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24  They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

If you mean by sincere that their motives are pure then I would tend to agree, but if you mean by sincere only that their actions are in agreement with their beliefs, then I would say that their are some who could be deceived that they are correct and that they are believing and doing the right thing, and yet still be horribly deceived.  There are those out there who may have deceived themselves into believing that their intentions are pure when they are not.  These are the folks that are in danger of being misled by such attacks.  Folks that have been blinded by lies sometimes will take shortcuts in logic and accept more lies without questioning, regardless of how ludicrous these lies may be. :(

As for suing Sondra, I would like for Brent not to have to go through all the trouble and aggravation that this would involve.  Legal action should be avoided when possible, but sometimes it must be used at last resort.  Whether it is worth the trouble or not is Brent's call in this case.  But whatever Brent's decision is in this case, I trust that since Brent is a reasonable and rational person who trusts in the Lord, that he has made the appropriate decision.  We all are praying about this, right?

     How often have we heard George say "It is possible to be sincere, and be sincerely wrong?"  Little did we realize it was a self-fulfilling prophecy for us...
     It is vital to all of us that we remember where we have been:  In spite of the Light we have seen and responded to, and our feelings about the past we have suffered, we were subjected to a barrage of mind-numbing misteaching in which black was called white & darkness was called light.  It is natural for us to have a pavlovian response to certain terminology, not because of its true meaning, but because of what we have been brainwashed to believe it meant.  We must be constant and consistent in turning our faces toward Jesus Christ, both in our personal meditations upon God's Word and in our intercession for our brothers & sisters.  The Lord alone can & will heal & deliver us.

 

     We need not be agreed on every fine point of discussion, but the fundamentals are simple & clear:  the Truth is of God & is  blessed;  the lie is of satan & is damned.  All who recognize these things are standing with you, Brent, as you follow the Lord.


     Amen!  Right?!

al Hartman    P.S.--Brian, your opinion matters much to us!!!

Sondra if of the opinion that whatever we have experienced, she has, and therefore has the needed 'wisdom' to comment and criticize. Her commentary is primarily according to how she has or would have responded in the dilemna. Then she brings in verses to support (or so she thinks) her point of view. Though she has been "out" for 10+ years, the assembly mentality remains strong within her. She is still operating in the fog of assembly deception.

This is not to belittle the fact that Sondra has had some difficult times herself and has learned to deal with her dilemnas in some fashion or another. But that does not give Sondra the right to impose her way of dealing with dilemnas upon others.

The only proper way is God's way.

MAT 18:15 ¶ "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
MAT 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
MAT 18:17 "And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.

The Website and the BB was a last resort measure AFTER all of the above had been attempted.


Retread,

I agree with what you have stated above. Many in the assembly were sincerely deceived. It is sad that those who are yet 'assembly sympathetic'  continue to remain in a state of deception. I believe that they do so by their own choice. God has sent many warning signals and they continue to refuse the wake up calls. Truth is only discovered by the truly honest inquirer. What will it take to break through the fog of deception?

Lord bless,
Marcia

God has in His wisdom admonished us to "leave them alone".
This is paramount. Some are to be rejected not recovered.  As a child of God you will save yourself much sorrow by knowing the difference...

And of some have compassion, making a difference
Jude 22

Verne

I unfortunately visited SWTE(as is my custom each morning to visit all the BB's) and read the thread concerning "contributions" and the veiled accusation that Brent may have absconded with $15,000. It reminded me of those cases, like O.J., where the "accused" attempts to smear the character of the "victim", or a  trial where the "victim" suddenly becomes the focus and THEIR character becoming the issue. The trial is then manipulated to make the accused the "victim", and the victim the "criminal". We will most likely see this happen in the Kobe Bryant trial that is taking place.

I know that when I see the types of things mentioned above happen I can only say "That's evil". There's something about it that is inherently evil. And the accusations are always made to garner a lasting effect. It's like that question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether you answer "yes" or "no" it still implies guilt. It's the slander that comes from the enemy--a twisting, warping accusation that attempts to take the eyes off of those really at fault, and focus them on the victims of that person instead.

Forget about the leader, who hurt hundreds of people, compromised the morality of women, used thousands of dollars of funds for his "journeys", and instead focus on the "exposer" of this man and his ministry, and accuse him of "hurting hundreds of people" and absconding with money meant for an abuse victim.(and offer to keep confidential any iformation you can obtain from others about this "theft"). Does anyone hear a "hissing" sound? Yes--the "Accuser of the Brethren" is still alive and well, and at work.


--Joe

I dont want to squander any precious thoughtlets on this crew but isn't it interesting that the very ones who hurl invectives at others and impugn their motives completely fail to recognize the spirit of Diablos that drives them? They know not what spirit they are of...!
Verne

I leave for 25 days, finally come home and read the websites, then my computer crashes just as I want to say something. So then I have to reboot and add everything manually. JUST SO I CAN SAY SOMETHING!!!! I am OUTRAGED that implications were made using me to discredit Brent! I never said, stated or implied to ANYONE the information that is being portrayed here. The information that Brent would take money is downright untruthful. I use words to describe people, the words I use for Brent are integrity and honorable.

Last week while out in the field and away from civilization (thank God for cell phones!) I was called from a mutual friend who let me know what was going on and it started me thinking...

Here's where it led.......".......It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcomings;but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achivement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat......"
Theodore Roosevelt  April 1910

In my mind, Brent is the man in the arena. For someone to use my name to discredit Brent is so outrageous to me, I cannot even define the anger it brings to me. Brent is a man of honor, there is no place in him that would lie or steal. To even imply such a thing tells me that your character is so rotten that  I don't want anything to do with you.

Heide C. Johnson

Brent, can we not do hunter safety? Let's get the kids in the water and diving!

Thanks Heide:

Again, as I have stated many times, I am happy to receive criticism, and I will reap what I have sown, same as any other man.  However, I have never taken money, or done any of the things that were said about me on the Seagull's.

Heide was Sondra's one "witness," and I think it is pretty clear where she stands.  I think it also sheds some light on the Seagull's version of "moderation," "courtesy," and "trooth."

The reason I reacted so violently to this particular thing is that I do not want my name associated with Geftakys finance, in this particular manner at the present time.  There are plenty of other things that can be said about me in order to make me look bad without making up lies.  

I hope that we can put this thread to bed, and forget about it.

     OK-- nitey-night, sleep tight, little thread.

     (Sorry, Brent, but i need the post-- still trying to break back into the top 10, ya know! ) ;)

     Oh, yeah...  while on THAT subject, isn't it about time that the "Leading Postrix" title should go to Marcia?  Emily St is still credited with it, but she hasn't posted in nearly 10 months, and Marcia surpassed her long ago.  (Let's see you mount a defense for THAT, Mr. Administrator! ) ;D

Tongue-in-cheekily,
al

If truth be known (oh, when does the truth matter? ;D) our "Miss Emily" obtained the majority of her posts through an "All Night of Posting" we held, almost at the beginning of this board.  It was a hilarious night of fun (and we went into the wee hours of the morning,  :D), but it wasn't through the normal course of posting ones and twos a day.  I think Marcia most assuradely deserves the title for her contributions to the board.

One more thing, in getting to read everyones post I see where I came into the picture. Your post Brian lists me with Sondra as wanting more limelight.....

Maybe you can answer this, Brian. In the SLO assembly there was money gathered for Judy, Judy had already rec'd the stock portfolio which the SLO saints were not told about. Some of these people dug deep into their pockets, they didn't have alot to give but they did. Then they find out about the stocks and they feel betrayed. They are angry. They ask me why they weren't told about it. It is one thing to gather for someone who has nothing, it is another to gather for someone under false pretenses. The word that keeps coming up is censorship. The information was not made public about the stocks. It was withheld.

My question to you is, if you gave money to Judy thinking she was in dire need and then found out she had been given money from David, how would you feel?

If you can give me a satisfactory answer Brian, I will drop it. But the people that I talk to feel betrayed....

Heide C. Johnson

I will give you my perspective on this, while holding my nose.

First of all, it is rude, unseemly and very base to discuss a third party's private financial life in public like this.  It is even worse when the context is divorce.

Heide,  your timetable is off.  However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that she received 172,000.00 in stocks.  (I know the symbols, the broker and the source of the money, but it is none of anyone's business.)

Judy had a broken foot, that required surgery and made it impossible for her to work.  She was landscaping at the time, and doing massage.  This is pre-law firm.

At the same time, Rebecca received third degree burn and required hospitilazation and plastic surgery.  They had no insurance, as all their previous (and considerable) medical bills were always paid in cash from the Lord's Treasury.  In Southern California, a day in the hospital costs about thirty thousand dollars.  Plastic and Orthopedic surgery is very /i] expensive as well.  I guarantee that even if the value was 172,000.00 it would scarcely have covered the medical expenses, if that.

However, for the sake of discussion, let us assume that Judy's entire net worth should have been disclosed, along with her personal budget, prior to telling people they can give money to her.  (Of course this is ridiculous, but let's just assume that it is proper.)

Given the above, where is the outrage that these "betrayed," people have regarding David's handling of their tithes for all those decades?  How about George's secrecy with the money from the entire ministry?  If someone is going to get bent out of shape after giving to Judy, and say they feel betrayed, but they are going to basically remain silent about everything else that went on, I can only conclude that they are still in the fog of deception and they are straining at gnats while swallowing camels.  I know this to be true----if what you say is true.  I have heard of no such outrage from anyone in SLO.

The total amount of money Judy revceived was 3500.00 dollars, and two thousand of that was from two individuals,  NOT from the "betrayed" people that Heide is talking about.  I didn't give Judy a penny of my money, although it certainly would have been easier to do that than what I did do for her, and all of you.  

Bottom line:

1.  It's none of your business what money she received from David.
2.  If you gave her money, and want it back, ask her for it.  Remember Matt 18?  What is it about you people that makes you think you can act rudely towards someone in public when you haven't even talked to them about getting your money back?
3.  Judy's bills far exceeded her income at the time, stocks or not.
4.  People who were involved in the ministry have the poorest discernment skills of anyone I have ever met.

DROP IT!  It's none of your business how much stock she got.  Very few of you did a dam# thing to help her, with a few notable exceptions.  Is Judy Mother Teresa?  Nope.  Is she Joan of Arc?  Definitely not.   Is she innocent?  No, she isn't.  Is she a victim of the Geftakys's------yes, the biggest.

If you want your money back, call her up and ask her.  Then bring two or three others, and only then put it on the BB----that is if you are totally lacking in social grace.  

BTW, one of the two people who gave her one thousand dollars has kept his/her mouth shut about it.  The other hasn't. (on edit, I'm not talking about Heide)

Drop it.  Stop it.  Leave it alone.  

Brent