Biased

[Ken Fuller]

Or is the proper spelling:  "Betty and the Beast" ?

[editor]

Dear Scott

No, it was not sarcasm.  He asked me why I used the word "formerly," and I answered him in a precise, direct manner.

The nature of some questions lead to answers that seem sarcastic, but in reality are not.  The nature of the question is more at fault in this case.

Here is an example:

"Why did George Keep the money secret?"

Answer, "Because he didn't want anyone to know what he did with it."

It is simple, direct, and unimpeachable logic.  It seems sarcastic, because it is a manner of speech that we are not accustomed to.  Simple, direct language is offensive to some people.  I am not trying to be humerous, I am responding to these people, using their names, and with dry, simple language.

It makes people chuckle, not because of the tone, but because of the content.

However, I am willing to be entreated.  If you sense that I am sinning, by going to far into sarcasm,  (a terrible sin) than I will repent, publicly, in front of all.

You can't go wrong with that policy.

Brent

[outdeep]

Saying that this site is biased is simply stating the obvious.  George's seminars were biased too as it reflected a certain mindset and was a result of certain assumptions.  The advantage of this bulliten board format is that, unlike communication in the Assembly, one who disagrees has the opportunity to post as well as anyone else.  You have the opportunity to change the biase if you can present your facts.

For years, there had been talk of the "vast network of disgrunteled people who left" who were out there to pick off weak ones and steal them out of the Assembly.  But that is nonsense.  The truth is is that many of us who left discovered to our surprise that there were others who left for similar reasons.  We found a commonality in the fact that what we experienced was not isolated mistakes and misunderstandings but the result of a dysfunctional system that permiated everything George and Betty touched.

This site is not the rantings of a few who wanted to spin accusations against George Geftakys.  Rather, it is a collection of many people who independently experienced the SAME KIND OF WRONG at different times and at different places and now have a place where they can discuss it.

Feel free to add your thoughts.  I will respect your opinion if you really have something to say.

[Guest2]

err uhh hmmmm

Pilau = evangelist

Kapu = small explosion

Mahalo = what some tink zgonna be on der hed in hebbin

how did I do?

[Ken Fuller]

Seriously -- I do have a sincere question and I'm hoping someone can answer it truthfully (someone still "in" the lodge)

Why are there very very few posts from people still remaining in the x-assemblies?

Sincerely, I'm curious.  Yes, on one hand it gives this website the impression of "bias".

On the other hand it gives the impression of an even now greater divide between "us" (those with the light and vision) and "them" (those who are settling for 2-nd class Chrisitianity outside of George's -- ooops, I mean God's -- work.

It APPEARS (to those of us on the outside) to be another unspoken rule.  Have the brothers instructed their wives to not reply?  Has their been instruction, whether spoken or indirect -- to stay out of the conversations?

WE KNOW YOU'RE READING !!!!   WHY DON'T YOU REPLY??

I just find it curious how 'universal' it is for current members to be so quiet.

[gues]

OK. Brent describes in several pages on Rick Ross' site about the meetings. Let us just look at the worship times.  He says that we have specific times that we meet and follow pretty much the same pattern in various assemblies throughout the US.
This is true, but what he leaves out is:
1) No one knows in advance (except the Lord)who will start the worship, any brother may lead the worship out (not just deacons or elders,)
2) No one knows in advance who will pray, what songs will be given during worship (sisters and brothers involved here)
3) No one knows in advance who will end the time of worship and partake of the Lord's Supper. Again, not necessarily deacons or elders do this either.
4) No one knows in advance who will share and what will be shared during the morning ministry.  

So in this, the Lord leads.  The meetings pretty much go like any Bible based gathering:
1) Worship
2)  Lord's Supper
3) Preaching the word

This is one example...don't have time to get into every page Brent has posted.

[gues again]

See,
Brent does it again.  The money was not secret. Tsk Tsk. Why don't you just ask the folks in Fullerton what exactly was done with the money, if it so important to you.  It is impeachable logic because you answer the question for the accused.

_______________________________________
The nature of some questions lead to answers that seem sarcastic, but in reality are not.  The nature of the question is more at fault in this case.

Here is an example:

"Why did George Keep the money secret?"

Answer, "Because he didn't want anyone to know what he did with it."

It is simple, direct, and unimpeachable logic.  It seems sarcastic, because it is a manner of speech that we are not accustomed to.  Simple, direct language is offensive to some people.  I am not trying to be humerous, I am responding to these people, using their names, and with dry, simple language.

[Scott McCumber]

Brent,

Actually, I don't think there is enough sarcasm on this board! Though I have been called to task a couple times for my share of it.

Scott

[editor]

Dear #2

Pilau= sewage
Kapu=Keep out! (Or your face stay broke!)
Mahalo=the idea of thankfulness and acknowledging a service performed.

Example:  Here is you lau-lau sir.   "Mahalo."

#2, ey brah, no go making A on da website!
Brent

[retread]

See,
Brent does it again.  The money was not secret. Tsk Tsk. Why don't you just ask the folks in Fullerton what exactly was done with the money, if it so important to you.  It is impeachable logic because you answer the question for the accused.

Um, yes we were told that the money was used for the work of the Lord, not that it was used to support a wife beater.  I guess that part was a secret then, but not any more.

[Ken Fuller]

Yes, we DO know who would pray in worship -- if the LBs and doorkeepers (deacons???) didn't pray they would get "spoken to" -- so it was obvious they would pray whether it was truly on their heart or not.

How many times would gg address the LB's publically for not praying in pre-prayer?  How often at seminars would the worship get rebuked for not being 'spiritual' as GEORGE thought it should be???  That wasn't the leading of the spirit -- it was the leading of George!!!!!

How many times would we get told we're "singing too many songs and not enough prayers"??  Is that spontenaity??

At one time in St Louis we actually kept records!!  (I know because it was my future-wife who was doing it).  Every prayer, every song was recorded in a notebood along with who led it out.  I'm curious now if that was a St Louis thing, or how universal that was ??

Yes, that was the 'early days' -- but THAT is the mentality that has propigated down to a very controlled 'spontaneity'.

It's the way we think brother, it's the way we were trained.  It's the way the leaders (ie, the ones involved early -- the ones here that were hand-trained by David) are TRAINED to think.

[editor]

Ey numba 2!

Try look!
In Fullerton, dey get NO accounting for money!  Dey get no idea whea George keep it, or whea it stay!

You ask dem?  Dey can't say.  ey Brah, you talk story, wit no facts.  

You making A big time wit da last post.

Brent

[outdeep]

You are correct in that during worship there was a certain amount of freedom.  I could come and offer a hymn (out of my choice of hymnbooks) or offer a prayer or read a Psalm and I could do it any time that I had opportunity within the hour.

I could give ministry as 1st or 2nd brother (not 3rd).  And I do appreciate the fact that I could participate.

The problem in my opinion is that these freedoms were in the context of larger stringent rules.  If an Assembly in the midwest decided to, say, cancel the afternoon meeting in favor of a picnic or do chapter summary in small groups instead of in a larger group, you can be sure that if it got back to Fullerton, they would hear about it and be corrected.

Further, as it was stated by others, the freedom in worship had to line up with a series of unwritten rules as to who can preach when, who can finish last, etc.

I guess I don't understand, Gues, what you are taking exception with.  Is it that you feel that there is more freedom in the Assembly than people on this BB are giving credit for?  Are you saying that these rules are no longer utilized (I have been out for 12 years so things may have changed)?  How can you help me think more correctly about the situation?

[gues]

Hey Brent.  Ask them and then post it, they will tell you.  Sure, they have no specific accounting, but they basically know where and who received what.

Anyway, Why don't you take six weeks off of this site, it may do you some good.

[TGarisek]

Gues, somebody's confused and I know it ain't me!

1) No one knows in advance (except the Lord)who will start the worship, any brother may lead the worship out (not just deacons or elders,)


In Fullerton, it was a leading brother 90+% of the time, mostly Steve or Mark if George wasn't there and when I was in HB as a leading brother if Earl didn't start the worship then certainly I did or John or Wes or Chris - all leading brothers and if someone else did then the LB meeting at the end of the incredibly long day was just another admonition. What you're saying sounds so lovely but it ain't true! Were you a worker?

2) No one knows in advance who will pray, what songs will be given during worship (sisters and brothers involved here)


True. But songs may be interrupted and were - I remember! Also if you search this sight you'll notice some corrective guidance that was given by Betty (the old crone) about a certain hymn and how it should be sung. It was never sung the "wrong" way again! And of course, there is always the axiom that George's super sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit enabled him to stop a hymn and say, let's pray more and sing less or let's not sing that one just yet, sister or brother! Who's spirit was leading the worship?

Regarding the prayers, if you aren't a sister than you may not be aware of the "instruction" afforded to long-winded sisters. It was made all too evident where their place really was in the meetings - zip it!

3) No one knows in advance who will end the time of worship and partake of the Lord's Supper. Again, not necessarily deacons or elders do this either.


True. But if a sister were to do this - all H would break loose.  Also if anyone other than a LB ended the worship, the afore-mentioned LB meeting at the end of the incredibly long day would not be pretty - admonition, no exhortation may be more apt.

4) No one knows in advance who will share and what will be shared during the morning ministry.

Again a very lovely altruistic view. However, were you ever asked by George after pre-prayer, during the post-pre-prayer LB meeting or at the door keeper's meeting, "Are you exercised, brother?"  Like my daughter mentioned in one of her posts that she was and still can be shy because she was reserved about prarying out loud, I was deathly afraid of speaking in public (not unusual seeing that psychologists say that it's a greater fear than dying). Sorry,  not a choice brother. We want to see you get up more often, Tony!  Is that spiritual leading? I trow not!

BTW, this might be another topic but I'll throw you handfulls on purpose here! You know the LB meetings at the end of the incredibly long day?  We were told things in those meetings about people you wouldn't believe and told NOT to share with our wives!  Of course, this is just one of the directives I decided to disobey! Staying up late, regardless of the day or lateness of the hour and discussing many, many things with my wife has been my(our) salvation and it was discouraged by "This ministry".