deeper life and scriptural interpretation

[Oscar]

Joe,

The book he claimed to have seen in his dream was called, "The Atlas of His Apostles."

When he first made the claim in a worker's meeting, I said, "An atlas is a book of maps."  He became angry....nothing new there. 

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Thanks for the correction. I knew the title had "Apostles" in it.

--Joe

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says" mysticism 2: The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through direct experience, (as intuition or insight)."

That is the word for what I was talking about in my post to 2ram.  We were not discussing the men around George.  We were discussing how George Geftakys interpreted the scriptures. I pointed out to her that George claimed to have knowledge about the meaning of scripture that no one could obtain from the text.

I am not using the word as some kind of put-down.  It is the current name used in English for what I am trying to describe.  If you know some synonymous term that you would find less offensive, please inform me what it is.

I am not saying God cannot communicate directly to a human being.  I am saying that George used mysticism, (sorry), as an interpretive method, and that he based much of his teaching on this.  He also copied many things from other folk's mystical interpretations of the Bible as well.

So what?
That does not ever excuse anyone for allowing the man to postulate (no matter how he got it) what was clearly not there.
What kind of stupidity allows a man like this to stand up in front of a group of people and teach that man was created on the seventh day, I ask you?
Nothing mystical about the horrific malfeasance and derilection of duty on the part of those  charged with oversight. The mysticism is entirely tangential to what is of import, and that is truth!
You attribue the rise of the assembly teaching to George's mysticism.
You frequently suggest that others employ the same approach to Scripture.
I contend that such assertions are not really relevant.
Any claims that a person makes can be tested by what Scripture itself teaches.
This is the method I have used to try and resolve every disagreement we have had.
I know it makes you undomfortable to talk about the men around George.
My contention is that Geroge's mysticism was not the only or the main problem Tom.
A failure to follow Scripture was...
Verne

[vernecarty]

Marcia----

Concerning your post below---I would remind you that George often spoke of his
"experience of faith and God's goodness". He'd speak of God's great work during
his journeys abroad. He'd speak of experiences he had in his life. He spoke of a dream
he had where a book appeared called "The Acts of His Apostles"--he literally believed
he was an "apostle" in the sense of being sent by God to set up churches.

I think if there is anything we should all learn from having been in the Assembly IS to
be very careful concerning what people claim to have "experienced", or a "special
word" they have been given from the Lord. It was "not" being careful which led me into
the Assembly, and accepting someone else's "experiences" that kept me there in many
ways.

Many people are sucked into cults for the same reason. And much of the faith healing, charlatan
TV evangelists rely on "experiences", and "words from the Lord". They are fond of saying "and I
felt in my spirit", or "I saw in my spirit". I am not saying that God cannot heal, or cannot give
experiences, but I think being careful about what you believe or accept as being from the Lord
is very important. I understand what you mean about going "overbaord"(though I don't believe that
is happening)--we don't want to become so cynical or skeptical that we believe God does nothing
at all in the way of supernatural things. But we do need to be very careful.

Being careful to make sure things are in Biblical context is VERY important. For example, I could
quote "Be careful for nothing, but in all things let your requests be made known onto God..." and
say "See--the Lord says not to be careful about what we do, or what we accept, or what we hear".
But the true context is not to be "anxious about anything". On the contrary, the "Noble Bereans" studied to make sure "everything" they were hearing was coming from God and agreed with the
Scriptures. Were the Noble Bereans going "overboard" when they put even Paul to the test??  Paul
praised them for doing so.

--Joe

Some of us only heard this windbag on occasions he was granted the opportunity to toot his own spiritual horn.
We may be forgiven for not knowing the man was a liar.
The larger question though, is why would anyone accept all this hot air from someone who lived and behaved as Geftakys did?
As someone said, your actions are speaking so loudly that I cannot hear a word you're saying.
You don't have to minutely disect someone's doctrinal position to determine that something is wrong.
Try as we might to lay the blame on what George taught, the real problem was a  failure to Scripturally deal with what he did!
Verne

[2ram]

Joe, and Tom,

Please don't be offended, but I had to chuckle at your response to my comment.  All you did was prove my point.

I agree with your conclusions about George, and with Verne's as well.

I was talking of your "reaction" everytime we talk about something that reminds you of George and his ministry.

Let's use an extreme example, George said, "If the shoe fits, wear it".

Is it OK for me to use that quote, or not?

In your paranoia and to prevent us from following another cult, you have made a "fear of anything Georgian" cult of your own.  So everytime we discuss valid Biblical principles, you Georgianize it and even shoo people off the board because of your perspective.

It's OK to address me as Marcia even though I use my 2ram account.

Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Marcia---

I wish I could understand where you were coming from better. All I am doing is stating
an opinion based on what I have learned from past experience. This is the "Assembly
Board" isn't it? I don't understand why you keep labeling people who disagree with you
as in a "cult". How is mentioning the "Nobel Bereans" "Georganizing"?

It is natural to remember the Assembly and what was taught there, and what we learned,
and why we exited. When someone begins to teach something that mirrors that, it is only
natural to remind what we used to hear all of the time that was way off base. You mention
discussing "valid Biblical Principles"--which one's are you referring to? If you want to talk about
salvation, justification, the Trinity, etc. etc., I'd be happy to talk about it. But when someone
implies that we don't need to be careful concerning what we hear or are taught, and should
just accept someone's "experiences" with the Lord based on what they say, I totally disagree.
That is not a valid Biblical principle. The Bible says to be very careful about what we hear, and to
be like those Nobel Bereans, and test what we hear to see if it matches with the Word of God.

I have no paranoia about your joining another cult---I think you have learned what many have
learned through their time in the Assembly. I just never forget what led me into,and kept me
entrapped in the Assembly--and I believe it affected others just the same. And it was a subjective
belief, based on one man's "experiences", and his "one on one" relationship with God. After exiting,
it took years to learn that this "subjectiveness" was not Scriptural at all. He had twisted Scriptures
to fit his own opinions, and I'm afraid to say, that there are a couple of people who enter the board
from time to time who do the same. And it is this attitude that I find myself objecting to, and standing firmly against.

You are entitled to your own opinion Marcia, and I won't label you as part of a "cult" for it. If you
want to hold to the views you hold that's fine with me. But when it comes to subjective belief,
"experiences" etc., I will say it is impossible for me not to mention the Assembly and what happened
in the past---because it is what the Lord taught me after exiting. As I said before, God can do anything he wants to do. He can give "experiences" and revelations if he wants to--he's God. But,
I'm not going to simply accept what someone says due to an "experience" or a "revelation" they claim to have without testing it first, and seeing if it is indeed Biblical. If this is a "cultish" attitude then
so be it.

And I have to say, I really don't want to "argue" with you Marcia. Your posts used to be very humorous and gracious(I'm not saying they have stopped being that way, it's just that you didn't
used to lump me into a group before, and would accept person's opinions as their own). All the best
to you and God bless.

--Joe

[2ram]

Hi Joe and Tom,

You are right.  This is AB.  I do not know what got into me.  I apologize for interfering with your discussion and sidetracking it.

2ram is a second account I started, I can't remember why.  But 2ram is not a composite, as frank was, and all posts are mine.

Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Marcia----

I'm very curious---what do you mean by "But 2Ram is not a composite as frank was,
and all posts are mine". Why do you mention frank? Do you mean that both you and
someone else were posting as frank? Or were you not involved with frank at all? Sorry,
I'm just a bit confused.

--Joe

[2ram]

Marcia----

I'm very curious---what do you mean by "But 2Ram is not a composite as frank was,
and all posts are mine". Why do you mention frank? Do you mean that both you and
someone else were posting as frank? Or were you not involved with frank at all? Sorry,
I'm just a bit confused.

--Joe

I have never posted on anyone else's account.  Admin can verify that with my IP address.

Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Marcia----

I was just curious as to why you had brought up "frank" as being a
composite. I believe you have never posted on anyone else's account--
what I was concerned about is someone else posting as if they were
you. I was just curious is all---a lot of strange things have happened on
this board in the past. And recently with all of the anonymous posters
and new names, just about anything can happen. I know I would be
very aggravated if someone was using my name and posting things
contrary to what I really believe, and I think you would be too. Thanks
for clearing it up.

--Joe

[Oscar]

Verne,

So what?
That does not ever excuse anyone for allowing the man to postulate (no matter how he got it) what was clearly not there.
What kind of stupidity allows a man like this to stand up in front of a group of people and teach that man was created on the seventh day, I ask you?
Nothing mystical about the horrific malfeasance and derilection of duty on the part of those  charged with oversight. The mysticism is entirely tangential to what is of import, and that is truth!
You attribue the rise of the assembly teaching to George's mysticism.
You frequently suggest that others employ the same approach to Scripture.
I contend that such assertions are not really relevant.
Any claims that a person makes can be tested by what Scripture itself teaches.
This is the method I have used to try and resolve every disagreement we have had.
I know it makes you undomfortable to talk about the men around George.
My contention is that Geroge's mysticism was not the only or the main problem Tom.
A failure to follow Scripture was...
Verne

1. There is something that you are not taking into account.  GG imbibed a large amount of Plymouth Bretheren and Deeper Life mysticism for years before starting the assembly.  He also added some of his own ideas into the mix. 

When he started working towards the assembly he collected  a few people from backgrounds similar to his, ie, Steve Irons, me, Sister Harrison, Joan Hansen and a few others.  We all had drunk from the same well, and so were ill-equipped to discern his errors.  We already believed much of what he taught.  In my case, the partial rapturism was new to me.

He focused his recruiting efforts on young college students that knew nothing of the Bible.  So, from the very beginning he taught them to think as he did.  For years they never heard any other version of Bible teaching.  His teaching of absolute loyalty to the leadership, ("God's Government"),  was considered by them to be to be the practical expression of loyalty to God.

Not a good idea...but that is what they were taught and that is what they believed.

But remember, the order was: a. mystical interpretations of scripture. b. recruitment of young men to be trained as leaders. c. inculcation of the mystically derived teachings into their understanding of the Bible.    That is why I am saying that mysticism was at the very root of what happened to the people who became involved in the assembly.

2. Although GG's weaknesses and personality quirks became evident pretty quickly, knowledge of his immoral past and the abuse problem did not. I never heard of it during my own 18 year sojourn.  In my own case, I had already left the assembly the first time I heard of past adultry, and it was some years later that I heard a third hand mention that "David slaps Judy around."  Almost all of what I know about that sorry mess I learned on this bulletin board.

It is certain that some people, at differing times, knew parts of what had gone on, but I am not in a position to judge them as individuals.  GG was/is clever and unscrupulous.  He used lies and misinformation to cover for David, and I do not know exactly what these men, (and women), knew, believed, or thought about it.

I was/am just as outraged as you about what happened to Judy and her children, but I simply do not know the answer to the question, "What did you know and when did you know it?" concerning any individual.  I am not in any way excusing any evil conduct by any individual.  I am simply saying that I do not know what they knew or thought, and so am not in a position to judge them.
God will, I am sure, do an adequate job of that.

3. As to testing GG's teachings by "what the scripture teaches", you first have to actually know what the scripture teaches.  I don't think anyone, at least in the early years, had that advantage.  Most of GG's goofy ideas I already beleived before I ever met him. I was very deep into restorationist/"Church Truth"/Deeper Life teaching myself.  Others were filled with it as soon as he could teach them.

I had many disagreements with GG during my stay.  But as I saw them at the time the issues did not rise to the level of breaking off fellowship.
What finally did it for me was the misappropration of funds.  When I saw that going on, I left the leading bro's meeting and objected openly.  Later I went to GG's house and confronted him about it.  Soon afterward, I left.

But it all flowed out of teachings based on false mysticism.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Marcia----

I was just curious as to why you had brought up "frank" as being a
composite. I believe you have never posted on anyone else's account--
what I was concerned about is someone else posting as if they were
you. I was just curious is all---a lot of strange things have happened on
this board in the past. And recently with all of the anonymous posters
and new names, just about anything can happen. I know I would be
very aggravated if someone was using my name and posting things
contrary to what I really believe, and I think you would be too. Thanks
for clearing it up.

--Joe

Joe,

Marcia identified herself as 2ram early on.  Sondra Jamison has been here, I believe, as Ruth, Sondra, Affirming, and Frank.  There is some possiblilty that more than one person was posting under the Frank account.  So, Frank might well have been a composite "person".

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Joe,

Sondra Jamison has been here, I believe, as Ruth, Sondra, Affirming, and Frank.  There is some possiblilty that more than one person was posting under the Frank account.  So, Frank might well have been a composite "person".

Thomas Maddux

Yes, sondra has admitted to her fellow barnacles that she, as well as others were posting as frank, (which is why it didn't always seem to be sondra's specials.)

She also admitted to posting as meeko, which seemed obvious to me, and has since deleted those posts, as well as the "ruth" posts, explaining that she was preventing the possibility of them being changed by someone else.

[Oscar]

Yes, sondra has admitted to her fellow barnacles that she, as well as others were posting as frank, (which is why it didn't always seem to be sondra's specials.)

She also admitted to posting as meeko, which seemed obvious to me, and has since deleted those posts, as well as the "ruth" posts, explaining that she was preventing the possibility of them being changed by someone else.

Moon,

Let's see....Affirming.....Ruth....Sondra....Frank....Meeko....

Could this be evidence for reincarnation??? 

 

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Verne,

Again, I do not think that George's "mysticism" led him to establish the assemblies.
You are being far too kind to the man.
It was his desire for absolute control.
Here was a man wiith a very serious problem with sexual sin who had been on more than one occasion  disciplined for this kind of conduct. He had been refused a position of leadership by men of discernment who knew he lacked the Biblical qualifications for such a position. No wonder the man lashed out at other groups. From the beginning it was his intention to plant the seeds of distrust of other Christians, so he would never have to be accountable to any one.
He made sure that those in his own group would never dare to question him - he had apostolic authority you see.
Here is what I think is the proper order:

1.A defiled and corrupt conscience and life exists
2. A devious plan is designed to allow such a life to be lived with seeming legtimacy.
3. Folk are recruited who are considered gullible enough to assist in the plan's implementation.
4. The assemblies are born.

This more fits the evidence than your "mysticism" thesis in my view.
I am not saying that George did not teach those things Tom:

He never bought it for a minute!

It would hardly have mattered whether George had started and Amway distributiuon cell, or an investment club Tom.
Your focus on the methods George uses worries me in that it suggests you fail to understand the kind of man we are talking about.
Isreali airline secruity forces don't waste their time looking for weapons, they look for terrorists.

I don't think you fully grasp his motives. You may not be willing to make a judgment in this area; the evidence available to us in my view forces us to.

An interesting theory, and quite plausible.  However, there are some things I know about GG that do not fit into your scenario.  For example, once when I was about to take a weekend off in Santa Barbara, GG asked me to drive by a little Assemblies of God church.  He wanted me to see if it was still there, and to see if a certain brother was the pastor.

I asked him why, and he told me that that is where he fellowshipped at one time.  I think it was sometime between his discharge from the Marines and his entrance into Biola.  Places him in the college age group.  He referred to it as the "young people's" group.  He had previously told me some things about what went on there, and now I was finding out the who and the where. 

It was a typical Pentecostal church.  I cannot imagine a better place to become misinformed about mysticism than a Pentecostal church!  He spoke of participating in "victory marches".  A victory march, in those circles, means everyone gets up and marches around the building singing rousing hymns.  He had previously told me about participating in outreach activities to young people in those days.

He spoke well of the pastor and was wondering if the "dear man" was still there. He was, btw. 

I also know that during his brief stay in the military he attended Dawson Trotman's bible studies in Pasadena.  He was once involved in evangelism among LDS people in Utah, and was working with a foreign students ministry when I first saw him.

None of this seems consistent with the idea that he designed and worked a 40 year scam.

Another factor is that when GG first began the assemblies, he did so at considerable financial sacrifice.  He and Betty were doing quite well prior to this time through his job in insurance and hers in teaching.  It was several years before the assemblies began producing any real income.  Most of the early "saints" were college students or young families.  I remember one seminar where the collection, after expenses were deducted, amounted to about $40.00. This, to me, seemed at the time to be evidence of genuine dedication and commitment to what he believed God wanted him to do.  It was a factor in convincing me he was genuine. 

So, I think my view of a man with a narcissicistic/delusional personality that became involved in mysticism, and then went on deeper and deeper into self-deception, delusion, and evil fits the evidence better.  I could be wrong.  But since I am not a strict Calvinist I think this sort of thing can happen.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux