Weird Teachings

[vernecarty]

Christ is the Anchor of the soul sure and steadfast. Not the 10 anchors / 4 anchors. See where the author most likely GG mentions the leadership will have to give an account for your soul. What leader is accounting for GG ? Also in the Ind. word section he says the word should be not only in your heart but on you like a BODY-CAST, this is horrific, with 10 anchors, and a body cast I don't see any smooth sailing going on, more like paralization.  Summer.  (You see I've been through the Desert in a church with no name, it feels good to be out of the pain)

Most excellent analysis.
Perhaps they should be called the four mill-stones? 
Verne
p.s. but seriously Summer, would to God that every former assemblyite could now look at these things with such a discerning eye...

[editor]

Christ is the Anchor of the soul sure and steadfast. Not the 10 anchors / 4 anchors. See where the author most likely GG mentions the leadership will have to give an account for your soul. What leader is accounting for GG ? Also in the Ind. word section he says the word should be not only in your heart but on you like a BODY-CAST, this is horrific, with 10 anchors, and a body cast I don't see any smooth sailing going on, more like paralization.  Summer.  (You see I've been through the Desert in a church with no name, it feels good to be out of the pain)

As a sailor, and one who does a fair amount of anchoring at the beautiful Channel Islands, I often had disagreements with people who would preach the "4anchors" thing using a marine analogy.

Boats want one anchor.  This way the vessel is allowed to swing with the wind.  One anchor, with a sandy bottom is optimal.  Only a lubberly, foolish skipper would put down an anchor on "solid rock."  The vessel would drag..terrible seamanship!  Also, lodging an an anchor into rocks is also stupid....you can't retrieve it and must cut the line. 

4 anchors would be a tangled mess and charade.

2 anchors, bow and stern, are used at times, but it is always suboptimal and only done in crowded anchorages, in order to avoid swinging into your neighbor.

The "individual" anchors were never the main emphasis.  It was the "corporate" anchors that were so important...and the only way a person could do them was to go to four meetings per week.

Worship, prayer, bible study, and some fellowship activity.

Of course, a really good member would go to a bunch of other meetings as well.

Brent

[al Hartman]

Boats want one anchor.  This way the vessel is allowed to swing with the wind.  One anchor, with a sandy bottom is optimal.  Only a lubberly, foolish skipper would put down an anchor on "solid rock."  The vessel would drag..terrible seamanship!  Also, lodging an an anchor into rocks is also stupid....you can't retrieve it and must cut the line. 

Here again is a perfect example of the assembly misuse/abuse of both scripture and fundamental language: mixed metaphors created by the ignorant to confuse the gullible.  The scriptural "Solid Rock" is good teaching, as the foundation for building a house.  Likewise the idea of a firm anchor, correctly employed.  But ancoring your vessel to rock is as senseless as constructing a house underwater.

As a result of such folderol, there are ex-assyites today who recoil at the mention of solid rock OR anchorage, in any context.

It was the "corporate" anchors that were so important...and the only way a person could do them was to go to four meetings per week.

Worship, prayer, bible study, and some fellowship activity.

Of course, a really good member would go to a bunch of other meetings as well.

The truly committed went to the pre-prayer meeting before every meeting, and LBs sometimes had a pre-pre-prayer meeting meeting, plus a post-meeting meeting more often than not.  Mentally, I think some of us had poolhall-style scorekeepers in our heads, where we reached up with our cue and slid another marker into place every time we made another "point."  It probably helped to offset the inner agony that our schedules caused us, but we didn't dare admit to ourselves.

al

[vernecarty]

Here again is a perfect example of the assembly misuse/abuse of both scripture and fundamental language: mixed metaphors created by the ignorant to confuse the gullible. al

At the risk of sounding elitist, one of the things we all have to keep in mind is that while  George Geftaky wss quite clever,  he was not really an educated man.  I remember bieng so surprised at the sloppiness of his writing and his unfamiliarity with fundamental matters of English grammar and syntax.   He would boast about his graduate courses, but he was not a deep thinker.
It is not that I think you have to be an intellectual to minister well, but ignorance does seem to exacerbate innate corruption. Remember his oft repeated idiotic "I will not leave you orphan-less", giving us the real Greek according to him?
I still fume over our inexcusable stupidity to follow a lying whoring fraud like this cretin.
I remember the first time I sat in his study and excitedly tried to talk about the philospohy of science with him and he appeared to get very uncomfortable and kept steering the conversation back to what I considered trivial platitudes.
The man was really very intellectually insecure and compensated for it by trying to make others feel inadequate.
His vicious assault of Lee Irons was totally based in this insecurity at being challenged intellectually. This is a technique commonly employed by those he influenced. He had just enough bright people around him to give him an appearance of gravitas, but many of those who did his dirty work were also simple fellows. If fact he would purposely choose weak-willled men and put them in places of responsibility since he knew he could control them. Too many folk in the assembly saw this happen again and again yet were too timid to speak out that the emperor had no clothes.
This was in fact the thing that helped me walk away from the Champaign goup, when they decided that one of the most unpleasant persons you would have the misfortune to meet was to become a "responsible brother". Looking back, it is truly amazing what people endured.
Most of what Goerge presented was not his own. He was not only morallly corrupt. He was also intellectually bankrupt.
Verne

[al Hartman]

I still fume over our inexcusable stupidity to follow a lying whoring fraud like this cretin.

The stupidity is indisputable, at least for many of us, but I want to clarify the use of your adjective because of the self-condemnation that the assembly instilled into so very many:  While not contesting your term "inexcusable" from the human standpoint, let me stress that God's view is that all who have confessed to wrongdoing regarding the assembly, its doctrine, practices, leadership, etc. are forgiven!  Let there be no question in the mind of any who have come along that path: although you may feel that your involvement was "inexcusable," it is by no means unpardonable...  Believe it.

The man was really very intellectually insecure and compensated for it by trying to make others feel inadequate.

In this, he became my surrogate father, as I was brought up by just such a man.  I have spoken with others who have similar testimonies.

...This is a technique commonly employed by those he influenced.
 He had just enough bright people around him to give him an appearance of gravitas, but many of those who did his dirty work were also simple fellows. If fact he would purposely choose weak-willled men and put them in places of responsibility since he knew he could control them.

Being controlable, I'm sure, was a key to my "calling" to be an LB & worker.

This was in fact the thing that helped me walk away from the Champaign goup...

Occasionally, Verne, your typos are priceless!  Retrospectively, in seeking a synonym for "assembly" I can't think of a more fitting word than "goup."

Most of what Goerge presented was not his own. He was not only morallly corrupt. He was also intellectually bankrupt.

It is important to not confuse uneducated with unitelligent (I speak not to you, Verne, but to your readers).  George apparently went to great lengths to counterfeit his having a legitimate education, but he was not stupid.  He seems to have the intelligence of a master criminal, in that he had the mental capacity to have succeeded in academia, but not the inclination nor the moral reponsibility.

The machine he created was not the work of a moron, but more befitting an evil genius.  Many men have doubtless failed in their attempts to accomplish just what George succeeded at, because  they either had the twisted vision but lacked the driving ambition, or vice versa.  But George had both the inclination and the intelligence to find, confuse, capture and enslave those who could be had.  Undoubtedly he also employed the advantage of spiritual inspiriation.  We, the willingly blinded, hailed the inspiration, utterly failing to recognize its dark source.

al

[vernecarty]

Points well taken Al. I realise what I say on the BB can appear to be condemnatory of those the man beguiled.
That is by no means my intention, believe me. The passion I express about this is driven by what I know God intends for his precious ones, and what George and his enablers did to them. I know I needed a few swift kicks in the rear to get me out of my own stupor. I think mature Christians are tough and honest enough to hear the truth about that era, rather than spinning lying fabrications to try and justify the abonminable. For those still struggling and feeling guilty over what happened, don't. The fault is not entirely your own. God's favour is evident in the fact of your found freedom. Smile!!!
Verne

[M2]

I expect that the Assemblies, like Ottawa, that weren't influenced by Fullerton are really growing?

Is God answering even 2% of their prayers?  They pray for 'new ones' and visitors at least twice a week, so 2x52=104.

That would mean about 2 "new ones" per year....if God was answering at 2%...which certainly doesn't fit the NT pattern, neither is it above all we could ask or think.

Telemarkerters shoot for 2%, but they almost always are not  a testimony of the Body of Christ, locally expressed.  They aren't special to God, like an Assembly.  Also, telemarketers have a tendency to irritate people....that's why they only get a 2% success rate.

So, how are things in Ottawa?  Are they getting a return on outreach equal to telemarketing?

Brent

Brent, they have a Contact Us page on the website.  You may be able to ask them whatever and get a response.  About 1 1/2 year ago MarkC asked them some questions but did not get any response.  Things might be different now.

God bless,
Marcia

[editor]

Brent, they have a Contact Us page on the website.  You may be able to ask them whatever and get a response.  About 1 1/2 year ago MarkC asked them some questions but did not get any response.  Things might be different now.

God bless,
Marcia

I tried contacting them a while back.  They didn't respond to me either.

They are doing a great work, and can't come down to barter with thei likes of me.

Brent

[M2]

I tried contacting them a while back.  They didn't respond to me either.

They are doing a great work, and can't come down to barter with thei likes of me.

Brent

Maybe if you changed your pseudonym from Brent Tr0ckman to MikeZ of TimG, you will get a response.  Whatever you do, do not choose 'bystander'  .

Marcia

P.S. re. mistaken identity on Eagles, someone with admin privileges should easily be able to verify via the IP address posted with each post, don't you think?
MM

[editor]

Maybe if you changed your pseudonym from Brent Tr0ckman to MikeZ of TimG, you will get a response.  Whatever you do, do not choose 'bystander'  .

Marcia

P.S. re. mistaken identity on Eagles, someone with admin privileges should easily be able to verify via the IP address posted with each post, don't you think?
MM

Yes, they could do so easily, in which case they could publicly humiliate me by showing it to be true.  Unless bystander is my wife or son, the IP's won't match. 

Anyway, they honor anonymous posters over there.  Bob Smith isn't his real name.  I'm sure that bystander isn't his real name either.

Brent, AKA Brent

[M2]

Yes, they could do so easily, in which case they could publicly humiliate me by showing it to be true.  Unless bystander is my wife or son, the IP's won't match. 

Anyway, they honor anonymous posters over there.  Bob Smith isn't his real name.  I'm sure that bystander isn't his real name either.

Brent, AKA Brent

Re. Bob Smith, he recently posted a number of 'memories' from his time in the assembly.  All of the events that he publicly posted were activities that happened in Estevan Canada.  We used to pray for the annual fair OR, and the parent appreciation night, and the float construction, etc.  So I can conclude that Bob Smith was closely associated with the assembly in Estevan, which is now disbanded.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Yes, they could do so easily, in which case they could publicly humiliate me by showing it to be true.  Unless bystander is my wife or son, the IP's won't match. 


Brent, AKA Brent

Do you think little snot-nose doesn't know this? If it did match, he would have thrown it in your face. That is probaby the first thing he checked.
Like his mentor, his accusation simply displays their penchant for mendacity.
Verne

[editor]

Do you think little snot-nose doesn't know this? If it did match, he would have thrown it in your face. That is probaby the first thing he checked.
Like his mentor, his accusation simply display's their penchant for mendacity.
Verne

while I won't share your language towards him...he's not here afterall, I am quiet sure they checked it, because they both stated that it wasn't the same bystander as before.  I suspect that the IP's were different.  However, that still doesn't make it me.

To be perfectly fair, I did mistake Matt for someone else at one time.  He was gracious enough to accept my apology for doing so.  I have every reason to believe that if it turns out that I am not bystander, they will apologize, at which time I will graciously accept, as Matt did. 

Ruth made quite a point here, on how we treat guests in a shoddy way.  Well, her account is still active, and she is free to post, while this bystander was deleted after two posts!  I don't suppose I'm seeing this correctly, it must be an apples to oranges comparison.

Ruth was taking you to task, while bystander suggested that Matt was rude.  Not the same thing at all, so that negates any misperception of a double standard. 

Anyhows, it is all somewhat silly and juvenile, but I can't help but be mildly flattered that they thought I was bystander.  I think he hit the nail on the head with his post.

Brent

[vernecarty]

Brent I think you are a good man.
You will get nowhere by attempting to maintain a civil posture with folk who insist on being vulgar, destructive and slanderous. I used the word snot-nosed because it is illustrative of the unconcern the typical toddler has for the goo on his face. I doubt you will get said apology. Although now that I have said this, you will probably get one for contrarian reasons. 
Verne

p.s. I am not so sure he (Bystander) entirely hit the nail on the head. He claimed to agree with statements that were provably false.
Regarding the juvenile, he was indeed correct.

[M2]

while I won't share your language towards him...he's not here afterall, I am quiet sure they checked it, because they both stated that it wasn't the same bystander as before.  I suspect that the IP's were different.  However, that still doesn't make it me.

To be perfectly fair, I did mistake Matt for someone else at one time.  He was gracious enough to accept my apology for doing so.  I have every reason to believe that if it turns out that I am not bystander, they will apologize, at which time I will graciously accept, as Matt did. 

Ruth made quite a point here, on how we treat guests in a shoddy way.  Well, her account is still active, and she is free to post, while this bystander was deleted after two posts!  I don't suppose I'm seeing this correctly, it must be an apples to oranges comparison.

Ruth was taking you to task, while bystander suggested that Matt was rude.  Not the same thing at all, so that negates any misperception of a double standard. 

Anyhows, it is all somewhat silly and juvenile, but I can't help but be mildly flattered that they thought I was bystander.  I think he hit the nail on the head with his post.

Brent

Re. mistaken identity, all dynamic information for a user is lost when the user deletes his account.  If the IP address field is a dynamic field, it will likely contain the information from the previous post or previous database entry when displayed.  Hence the confusion.  So it may not be possible to verify via IP addresses after all.

Marcia