Existing Assemblies

[Matt]

Brent,
He moved to Fullerton when he became a full-time worker. He was never a full-time worker in SD. You are correct about him working with Tim G in some printing business. I cannot say for sure if he ever traveled here to counsel - I was out of the assembly by then.

[Arthur]

Having an unrepentant father.
Having a brother whose initials are DG.
Having all you have labored for the last 30(?) years come crashing down.
Having sacrificed a career for the sake of 'the work'.
Assembly-lite from assembly-strong.
etc. etc. etc.

These are the humbling experiences that I was referring to.

Sorry, but I must.  If I may...

Having an unrepentant father

--Like father like son.  Tim was doing all of the same things, wasn't he?  I would venture to say that Tim's crimes were at least as bad if not worse than his father's.  At a get-together for a couple who was being sent out into "the work" in Madison, Wisconsin, a video was played of George and Tim giving their approval.  What was telling in that video is that at first the camera was focused on George.  He looked a bit old and tired, he said a few words, but then you see a hand come down on his arm.  George stops what he is saying and the camera pans up to show Tim in full view.  From then on, it was Tim's show.  Get the picture?

Having a brother whose initials are DG

--David was in some respects the scapegoat. His obvious problems were something to divert attention away from Tim and George's more heinous crimes done in secret.

Having all you have labored for the last 30(?) years come crashing down.

--Wow, did I read that right?  Oh, are you referring to the mafia-like racket, of which Tim and George were the ring-leaders--who embezzled millions of dollars from God's people under the guise that it was "for the work of the Lord"?  Yeah, I guess that would be pretty humiliating to have that come crashing down.

Having sacrificed a career for the sake of 'the work'.

--Heh, kinda like a drug-dealer makes the huge sacrifice of not taking a regular job.

Assembly-lite from assembly-strong

--After the cats out of the bag, laying low for a while, then trying to get the racket going again to squeeze a few more bucks out of whatever person who would be dumb enough to fall into the trap marked with the flashing "Don't fall into the trap" signs.  

Yes, I guess that could be seen as being humiliating.

Arthur

[Bluejay]

Arthur,

You are the man!!!

I couldn't of said it better myself.

[editor]

Here is an interesting take on the topic of Tim Geftakys's fitness to lead.

Only a few people are willing to defend George in public.  Virtually no one is willing to defend David.  He seems to be the expendable Geftakys, at least recently.

Tim has actually managed to garner the most support, with some people even suggesting that  he is innocent, while others speculate that perhaps he has repented in humility.

Here is what a true insider had to say, back in January:

"Any attempt to use David further as their “fall guy” is more than I’m willing to ignore.  They KNOW that among them, David is the least cunning and his parents and brother have used his arrogance and the fact that he is not bright to serve them his whole life. If this sounds like I think David is a victim, in only this way I do."

This person who said this was very close to the family, and had been involved in the Assembly since before David's marriage to Judy.  Their assertion is that George and Tim were fully aware of what went on, and found that David's problems were useful in a way, in order to place blame on a poor guy with diabetes.  It's not George that is the problem, it's David's poor health.  "Poor guy, he is doing the best he can, trust the Lord for him, will you?"

This strategy worked well for many years:  "Oh, no, the ministry isn't like that!  Maybe in SLO they have problems, but that is isolated."

The bigger problem is that George knew all along, and did nothing because his problems were far worse!  Not only that, he was afraid that David might still have a vestige of a spine, and perhaps could have told about George's problems."

The same person wrote:

"I don’t know what it will take, but I am not going to sit by and watch Tim & Ginger start their ministry out of their home. That is EXACTLY what George and Betty did 35 years ago. George was disgraced for having an affair at his old church, and he and Betty relocated. (David told me he met the girlfriend before his dad took off with her for close to a month. When George came back, Betty never lost the control to run things behind the scenes). They started a Bible study in their home and the rest is our history. Tim Geftakys knew first hand about the kind of physical abuse his brother practiced and his mother and father condoned. He is just hoping it doesn’t count in his case."

Here is the sticky part.  There are no doubt several quite foolish people who want Tim to lead them.   However, while Tim's character may not count with them, it most certainly does count with God.  Please understand, I am not saying that people are not free to meet in an Assembly-lite.  I am saying that they are quite foolish for asking Tim to lead them.  

"Well, the dog has only bitten the kids twice, I think it will be OK now.....it had its tail between its legs after the last bite....."

Brent

[MGov]

Here is an interesting take on the topic of Tim Geftakys's fitness to lead.
...
 (David told me he met the girlfriend before his dad took off with her for close to a month. When George came back, Betty never lost the control to run things behind the scenes).
...
Brent

Is this verified to be true?
How is it possible that TG was unaware of his Dad's absence 'for close to a month'?
Maybe he thought that his dad had gone on a business trip, or maybe he was too young at the time, or...

M

[editor]

Is this verified to be true?
How is it possible that TG was unaware of his Dad's absence 'for close to a month'?
Maybe he thought that his dad had gone on a business trip, or maybe he was too young at the time, or...
M

Yes, this is verified, by witnesses.  If it wasn't, I would not have said it.  Tim was young at the time.  However, I don't know if during this period George was absent, or not.

I know of one family, totally unrelated to the Assembly, where this very thing is going on, and the husband returned home for the first few months to tuck the kids in bed!  I have no idea what sort of "arrangement," George and Betty had at the time, but I do what they did afterward, and it is alluded to in the letter.

Perhaps George repented of his infidelity?......oh, I forgot, he was carrying on for the last 20 years, at least.  

Well, he's the Lord's Servant, we shouldn't judge him, right?
The Lord did a mighty work through him, right?

Well, just because Tim was trained by his Dad, and has never known anything else doesn't mean Tim is not totally equipped to lead, right?

Brent

[Matt]

Dear Saints who are asking Tim G to lead you,

You are being very foolish because Brent Tr0ckman says so:

Please understand, I am not saying that people are not free to meet in an Assembly-lite.  I am saying that they are quite foolish for asking Tim to lead them.  
Brent

He bases his opinion on this:

Well, just because Tim was trained by his Dad, and has never known anything else doesn't mean Tim is not totally equipped to lead, right?
Brent

Sadly, Brent knows Tim G's heart and thus he knows that Tim has "never known anything else" but GG and not God.  It doesn't matter if Tim G. repents. It doesn't matter if he is humble. Even though the Lord changes hearts, even though the Lord forgives one's past - it doesn't matter because Brent doesn't forgive one's past and Brent doesn't change hearts. Even now, I'm giving Tim G. the worst case scenario...I could say he was an ax-murderer and say the same. I, however, have heard him preach. I have seen him labor on campuses - he's quite capable and a man of God. If the saints feel led to have Tim G. teach them, who is Brent to tell them otherwise?

Brent,
I know you are going to leap on that "Tim G is a man of God" like a Frenchie on a prostitute (sorry if that's vulgar, but this bb is a filthy place). If it were by your standards, and not the Bible's, all church leadership would be illegitimate because there would be nobody with a perfect, sinless life to lead it. Let's examine this:

1) You said all the LB's were "sharer in sins" of DG and GG's crimes because they promoted a man who commited adultery and a man who beat his wife. When you finally had to admit that the vast majority of LB's didn't know about this, you had to move on to something else.

2) So Andrea Denner came up with a handy little theory that all the LB's "allowed" GG to be arrogant, you gleefully agreed. I said that anybody could find a sin on a church leader and pin him to it. He could be prideful, envious, idle, lack of charity, etc, etc, and for those reasons be unfit for leadership. What choice did the LB's have but to "allow" GG to be a sinner? Like I said, that's like "allowing" the grass to be green or "allowing" water to freeze at 32 degrees. You're "allowing" the inevitable. Nowhere in scripture does it say that a requirement for being a church leader is to be sinless.

3) When you saw that didn't pan out, you clapped your hands when Lurker asserted that the LB's are responsible because GG taught false doctrine. I asserted that nobody has perfect doctrine but Jesus Christ. Every church leader is illegitmate then because none of them are without false doctrine.

4) Of course, you are still undecided as to if the assembly was a Christian church or a cult. You never did give me a direct answer. You've implied that assembly wasn't a christian church, in which case the LB's weren't elders of a christian church, and thus aren't accountable to anybody.

As you can see, by Brent's standards, nobody is fit for a church leadership position. If any leading brothers read this, please take comfort that Brent's standards aren't consistent with the Bible's. Praise the Lord that it doesn't say in the Bible that perfection is required to be leaders.

Now, saints in Fullerton. If you feel led to have Tim G. teach you and he feels led to teach you, then do what the Lord says, not what Brent says! To listen to Brent over the Lord, or to base standards of leadership on Brent's standards would be..um...what's the word Brent used? foolish?

Before I go, I just couldn't resist:

Arthur,

You are the man!!!

I couldn't of said it better myself.

couldn't of? Do you mean couldn't have? And this is the man who claims Tim G is illiterate?

MGov: Don't take this the wrong way - it's not personal. If you could wait a while until others have responded to this post, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to see some people who take stands post first - not a fence sitter. Not that there's anything wrong with sitting on the fence - peace weavers are always important. But sometimes we have to stand for something and not be wishy-washy in the face of adversity.

[editor]

Brent,
I know you are going to leap on that "Tim G is a man of God" like a Frenchie on a prostitute (sorry if that's vulgar, but this bb is a filthy place). If it were by your standards, and not the Bible's, all church leadership would be illegitimate because there would be nobody with a perfect, sinless life to lead it. Let's examine this:

Thanks for the imagry, Matt.  Am I to assume that you are not a "fence sitter?"  

I don't feel like playing tic-tac-toe today, so I am not going to re-answer your questions, unless you agree to my terms, as stated before:  quote from Brent on May 16th.

OK, Matt.  If you insist that I answer this question, then we set a precedent.  If I answer all the questions that you demand of me, than you must answer questions that I ask you.  OK?  It seems fair, yes?

Believe me, I'll answer it, but in the answering you may find yourself, and your coach pressed to answer some questions I pose to you.  Let me know if you want to play fair, and I promise I'll answer you.....So, I'll answer the question, in detail, if you agree to play fair.  You must answer all the questions I pose to you, and you give me to permission to pester you until you satisfy me.  Furthermore, if you don't answer me, or seem to ignore me, I will post the question over and over, and pretend that I have scored a point.  Fair enough?

Please ignore the coach part, since you aren't in contact with anyone who is influencing your thoughts.

So, if you are going to grandstand, you can't walkaway when someone responds to you.  I don't think anyone is fooled.

Also, I know plenty of pastors who I consider legitimate Christian leaders.  If you agree to adult rules of debate, my first question is:

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

Brent

[Mark C.]

Dear Matt and other 'non-fence sitters'.
  Please Matt, refrain from using profane language even in a place that you feel is filthy.  Besides the obvious lack of logic in the above action it is contrary to your user agreement.
   I am not saying you must change your argument or even that you must moderate your tone.  Thanks

  Re. some of your defenses of Tim G.:
    You are quite right that we have no idea concerning the condition of Tim G.'s heart or sincerity, but this is not the issue.  I have talked with some very sincere Mormons who display a very honorable character in their lives, but again this is not the issue; we're talking about "Christian" leadership here.
   The Bible teaches that if we are to be leaders we must not only have godly behavior, but must have a sound grasp on the Gospel.  The latter 'must have' would exclude the good moral Mormon above.  
   Tim G. must first unlearn the false teaching he was raised on and be instructed re. the true doctrine of the grace of God before he can adequately lead.
   There is another aspect to unlearning, and that is the authoritarian structure established by GG that Tim G supported.  If a former leader refuses to even consider their past involvement as a leader in an abusive system they are in serious denial (I don't know if he is or isn't, but it would take time for that process; more than a few months.).
   There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the road of humility and listening to the many Christian voices who have suggested that the Assembly had serious problems.  One is free to disagree and to do whatever they want, but the lack of willingness for personal scutiny is of itself a disqualification for leadership.
  I have said many times (as have others) it is not that Tim G. is a sinner, for we all are sinners.  Nor is it a witch hunt to try and smear former leaders, but a need to deal with sins that have been covered up and denied.
   The most serious problems in the Assembly were not GG's adultery/tolerance of abuse, but his lack of honestly facing what he did.  "But, Tim didn't do any of this," some may protest!  As in the church of Laodicea Christ rebuked the entire church as one, for the character of the ministry was tainted by the character of the leaders (character counts).
   The entire Assembly character must be cleared and that comes from following the 2 Cor. 7 instruction in re. to church repentance (again, the whole church).  Refusal to zealously accept the criticism of Paul to Corinth, or the rebuke of Jesus to Laodicea, would lead to only one thing: the removal of the presence of Jesus in that group.
    The above correction from Jesus and Paul was not meant to destroy individuals or ruin their families, but to rescue them from a toxic faith that was harmful to them and others.
   Again, we know not where Tim G.'s heart is and that is why Paul and Jesus called for specific acts to demonstrate where their hearts were (i.e., acceptance of comments that are critical of their behavior, agreement that they were wrong, and a zeal to make things right with those wronged.).
  If one takes the 'O.J. defense' style of approach to Christian entreaty they are attempting to subvert the very means whereby God seeks to rescue them.  I'm sure there were individuals in Corinth and Laodicea that felt Jesus'/Paul's view of their groups' was not exactly accurate in their individual case, but to resist entreaty on such grounds is not acceptable to God.
   To see those calling for clarity re. former leaders of the Assembly as being "evil and filthy" could be taking the Devil's side in the argument, and put one in danger of rejecting the knock of Jesus at our door.
                             God Bless,  Mark

   

[Matt]

Thanks for the imagry, Matt.

Gladly.

Am I to assume that you are not a "fence sitter?"  

I
 don't know. We've seen how dangerous and wild your assumptions are. Maybe it's best for you not to assume.

Believe me, I'll answer it, but in the answering you may find yourself, and your coach pressed to answer some questions I pose to you.  Let me know if you want to play fair, and I promise I'll answer you.....So, I'll answer the question, in detail, if you agree to play fair.  You must answer all the questions I pose to you, and you give me to permission to pester you until you satisfy me.  Furthermore, if you don't answer me, or seem to ignore me, I will post the question over and over, and pretend that I have scored a point.  Fair enough?

Wait a second. Am I to believe that you are not answering my questions merely because you think I won't like the answers? Or I won't like the questions you pose to me? That's never stopped you before. What's the real reason you've avoided so many questions?

So, if you are going to grandstand, you can't walkaway when someone responds to you.  I don't think anyone is fooled.

Did I read this right? You're accusing me of walking away? When you're the one who stopped our conversation in the "why leaders are responsible thread?!" LOL because it was unprofitable lol. No, sir - that's ridiculous. I don't think anyone was fooled by that either lol.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

Brent

Sure do. It's when an opponent takes the original argument of an adversary and then provides a close imitation or "straw man"  version of the original argument. He then proceeds to knock down the straw man version of his argument. You've been guilty of that for quite a while. You use the LB's as your straw man and continually bash them down. It's like when I said that not all LB's knew about DG's wife beating. You set up the LB's as your straw man and knocked them down with "well, they should known and therefore are guilty." Yes, the LB's are guilty for not being omniscient.

I'm concerned about your comments regarding "playing fair." You have been known to manipulate situations on this bb. You told me once on this bb that you have no extra priviledges on this board than I. However, we saw that wasn't true when you posted your emails to Brian and Mark C. We see that you can just announce to Brian that you "need" administrative status at any time and you can also demand IP numbers from Mark C. at any time. Considering your abusive treatment of the younger brethren on this bb, it's kind of scary that you have the same power as the moderators. Hardly fair, I'd say. hmm, sir?
Lord bless.
- Matt

[editor]

My Ten year old was playing "guns," with a 6 year old the other day.  He was doing this more as a favor to the younger boy, although he did have a bit of fun as well.  However, after a period of time, he became weary of the game, because the younger boy would never admit being shot.  He always claimed that my son missed him, or that he was bullet proof.  At one point, he demanded that my son, the ten year-old, was dead, because he, the six year-old, had a gun that could shoot around corners, possibly some sort of smart weapon.  

No matter how superior my son's stalking and shooting skills were, he could never seem to score, even with point blank shots to the head!  Soon, his focus was on getting the other boy to play another game.

Mark, can I please hide behind your last answer to Matt?  I don't feel I have the capacity to debate Matt.

Brent

[Oscar]

I have read this thread off and on for several days now.  It seems to me that a lot of wheel spinning has been going on.  There are some folks who defend the assembly system or Tim Geftakys, and as far as I can see haven't conceded anything.  So...what's the profit in continuing?

I, as I have said, know nothing of Tim Geftakys' moral condition or intentions.  However I can say this quite confidently...anyone who supports the assembly system has some erroneous ideas about the Bible, the Church, and the Christian life in general.

1. The Bible...I attended a Wednesday night meeting in the Fullerton assembly a couple of weeks after GG's excommunication.  Tim G. got up and gave a "word of encouragement".  He read Isiah 43:19, "Behold, I will do something new, now it will spring forth...".   He made several statements about "God has raised up this work", and went on for a short while about how God was "with us" and so on.

When he did this, he was showing just how poorly he understands his Bible.  The verse is talking about God bringing back the captives from Babylon and rebuilding the city and temple.  Which He did!  What it has to do with the collapse of GG's assembly system is beyond me.  

GG used to use this technique of stringing together verses to produce FEELINGS in his followers, he called it "annointed ministry".  I'm not saying that sound teaching cannot produce emotions, but to qualify as sound it has to communicate TRUTH.  Since many people responded with "amen" to his statements, it is evident that the former state of ignorance still continues, both in preacher and hearers.

2. The Church...The assembly is founded upon the idea that God has an ideal "pattern" for the Church and it is our responsibility to figure it out and follow it.  God, it seems, spends a lot of time hoping that his people will arrange the chairs correctly and especially GOVERN the Church correctly.

Years ago, it dawned on me that the New Testament NOWHERE teaches the New Testament Pattern of Worship that they believe they are following.  They use the term "break bread" or "breaking of bread" as if it ONLY meant "to observe the Lord's Supper".   In fact, it frequently means to eat together.  Luke 24: 30-31, Acts 2:42 and 2:46, Acts 20:7, 11.  They have turned the Lord's Supper into the "Plymouth Bretheren MASS".

I mean this quite literally.  The idea is that God is pleased by a proper performance of this ritual and that he will confer his blessing (grace) on those who do it correctly in heart and form.  Of course, anyone who has sin in his life must be excluded, or God will be offended and withold his blessing, (grace), or even abandon them.

In other words, these folks are WORKING TO EARN GOD'S GRACE EVERY SUNDAY MORNING.  I don't say that lightly, but that really is what GG taught.  It is exactly what all PB's believe.  They would deny this vehemently, but only because they haven't made a logical analysis of the implications of their beliefs.

3. On how one lives the Christian life, they strongly advocate the idea of a "subjective leading".  The night I was there I was told by one brother that they were "waiting on the lord" to show them what to do.
I asked, "How will you know that God has shown you?"

The answer was that "when we are all of one mind we will know we have the mind of the Lord".  I did not remind the brother, who's sincerity I do not question, that  a few weeks earlier they were all of one mind that GG was a godly and spiritual man, in fact, he was "The Lord's Servant" and that he was the conduit of God's will into their lives.

Where the Bible tells them to do this is a mystry to me.  I find no mention of a method to "get the mind of the Lord".  I have been asking people for over 40 years where the Bible teach us to "feel led".  I am still waiting for an answer.

I could go on, and on.  Suffice it to say that this is a VERY mixed up group who really need to open up the windows and let some fresh intellectual and spiritual air into their heads.  Tim Geftakys, or anyone else, who is leading them in these paths is doing them harm.

Thomas Maddux

[Matt]

My Ten year old was playing "guns," with a 6 year old the other day.  He was doing this more as a favor to the younger boy, although he did have a bit of fun as well.  However, after a period of time, he became weary of the game, because the younger boy would never admit being shot.  He always claimed that my son missed him, or that he was bullet proof.  At one point, he demanded that my son, the ten year-old, was dead, because he, the six year-old, had a gun that could shoot around corners, possibly some sort of smart weapon.  

No matter how superior my son's stalking and shooting skills were, he could never seem to score, even with point blank shots to the head!  Soon, his focus was on getting the other boy to play another game.

Interesting straw man here. You've set up a distorted example of our debate and then proceeded to use that to attack my arguments as illegitimate. Too bad there's a lot more than a 4 year age difference between us! In the end, Brent, you're always going to have a harder time proving your point merely because it's so extreme. In order to say that every LB was responsible for harming saints, you'll have to provide evidence on EVERY LB, both past and present, in the entire assembly history. So far, you can only state the obvious: that every LB knew GG, DG, BG, TG were sinners (without knowledge of adultery or wife-beating, however). You can only state that the LB's were in a system of false doctrine (can you point to any church elder in the world that is not in a system of false doctrine - only the Lord Jesus Christ had perfect doctrine). You really cannot differentiate between the LB's of the assembly with any other church leader, no matter what denomination. As I said, you're never going to be able to say that they ALL guilty.

I know that I'll always have an easier time showing my point. I'm a moderate. I don't dare say that ALL the LB's are guilty, but I don't say that they are ALL innocent. No, sir - that's ridiculous.

Mark, can I please hide behind your last answer to Matt?  I don't feel I have the capacity to debate Matt.

Brent

Brent, I don't feel you do either =)  I wouldn't recommend hiding behind Mark C's post, by the way - it didn't really make a lot of sense:


"He has to unlearn the falseness." LOL Unlearn..that is such an assembly phrase. I had to "unlearn" a lot of ideas I had too when I came into the assembly. Now we have to "unlearn" things again lol. Sorry, his was an emotional post. He completely misunderstood something I said too:

"To see those calling for clarity re. former leaders of the Assembly as being "evil and filthy" could be taking the Devil's side in the argument, and put one in danger of rejecting the knock of Jesus at our door."

Mark,
Brent is not just calling for clarity re. former leaders. He is calling them ALL guilty. In doing so, he's falsely accusing many innocent brothers - as stated before, he's calling brothers guilty whom he's never before met. I'm sure there are LB's out there whose name Brent wouldn't even know -  yet Brent is calling them guilty too. Falsely accusing people is "evil and filthy," Mark. Brent did that in the STL sister fiasco (although Brent repented, Lord bless him.) So you see, it's all a matter of perspective. I do feel those who wrongly accuse innocent brothers are taking the devil's side of the argument, sir.

Lord bless.

- Matt

[editor]

New Topic, but same old misrepresentation.  Here's Matt's:

Mark,
Brent is not just calling for clarity re. former leaders. He is calling them ALL guilty. In doing so, he's falsely accusing many innocent brothers - as stated before, he's calling brothers guilty whom he's never before met. I'm sure there are LB's out there whose name Brent wouldn't even know -  yet Brent is calling them guilty too. Falsely accusing people is "evil and filthy,"

Again, this is my last word on this thread, on this very tedious line of thinking.  Matt, you are not bullet proof.

Hi Matt

The reason I didn't answer this in the past, is because I didn't think it was as important as some of the other questions in your posts.  I shall answer it now.

You give 2 possibilities here.  What parameters do you base these on?

I would like to suggest a few more:

1.)The LB's were NOT following God, and were following George, and are resposible before God for what they did, and did not do. Rom 1:18  Rom 2:1  Nowhere does it say that we are not accountable because we don't follow God.  We are all accountable and without excuse.

2.)The LB's were following God, and ARE responsible for deceiing people.  James 3:1  Nowhere can you see that if someone is "following" God, they must be non-deceivers

3.)The LB's were sincere, and did the best they could, but were deceived by George.  They were NOT biblical leaders, no matter what anyone might say, and are therefore responsible for what they did and didn't do.  

4.) Some of the LB's were just plain corrupt.  Read about the "super apostles," in the NT.
5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

Ad nauseum.

I don't see how anyone can insist that I have lumped all LB's together and assigned all of them equal guilt, corruption, ignorance, deception, and complicity.

They ALL, every single one of them, were picked and OK's by brother George.  And any single one of them could have been removed in 30 seconds, with one phone call from brother George.  They were his leading brothers, and his workers.  If they did someting George didn't like, he could fire them on the spot, and no one would have questioned his judgement.  One day they would have been clothed in authority, the next they would have been shunned and ignored.  This, in black and white, demonstrates that George had total control over the leading brothers, because he could fire them if they gave him too much difficulty.  There are people on this forum who had exactly that experience.  Others stepped down, because of conscience sake.  There can be no argument about this, but they were not all guilty to the same degree.

We are talking varying degrees of guilty, here, as I posted in many previous threads.
5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.

Can you guys see this OK?  Can you read the yellow parts, from one of my past posts?

This really is the last post I will make on this topic.  Please don't misrepresent what I have said.  (oops, second to last, sorry.  )

[Matt]

New Topic, but same old misrepresentation.  Here's Matt's:

Mark,
Brent is not just calling for clarity re. former leaders. He is calling them ALL guilty. In doing so, he's falsely accusing many innocent brothers - as stated before, he's calling brothers guilty whom he's never before met. I'm sure there are LB's out there whose name Brent wouldn't even know -  yet Brent is calling them guilty too. Falsely accusing people is "evil and filthy,"

Again, this is my last word on this thread, on this very tedious line of thinking.  Matt, you are not bullet proof.

hmmm....same topic, Brent's old inconsistencies:

Which is it, Brent? Are they ALL guilty as you've "guaranteed":

The leading brother in every Assembly had more than 2 or 3 people come to them and express problems, which were squelched.  I guarantee it.  
Brent

or not?

5.) Some of the LB's never decieved anyone, and stood for the LOrd's interests the whole time.....and left or were forced out because of it!!!  There are plenty that fit this category.