Existing Assemblies

[Lurker]

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

Matt, did you notice that a portion of Brent's post was highlighted in yellow?  I was able to discern that he has always allowed for degrees of guilt.  How can you possibly argue with him on this matter?

Do you have some emotional attachment to a leading brother?  Did you live with one while you were in the Assembly?

I know that I'll always have an easier time showing my point. I'm a moderate.

 Indeed, you have definitely made your point, and it is quite clear for all to see.

Falsely accusing people is "evil and filthy," Mark. Brent did that in the STL sister fiasco (although Brent repented, Lord bless him

I read that thread very carefully.  The way I remember the facts is that someone sent out false email/PM's saying that Paul Robinson was gay.  Luke Robinson, according to a person who claimed to have originated the false email, took these messages and spread them around, causing the family to rally round the falsely(?) accused brother.

Paul's family claimed that a blind man originated the false accusations.  Brent foolishly entered the fray with an attempt to initiate communication with Saint Louis Sister, and correctly began to defend the blind man, who was being falsely accused.

The situation resolved itself with apologies all around, especially from the people who brought the blind man's heretofore unknown name on the forum.  He never did or said any of the things he was accused of.  Brent apologized for something he "thought," not something he said.  I re-read the thread and could not see where he slandered anyone.

However, Matt, you called this blind man a liar more than once, and took the side of the people publishing a false report.  You have not apologized for this.

How can you possibly reconcile your position?

I will not make a habit of defending people who have differing views on this forum, but in this case I felt that I must, due to the overall silence in the face of a significant distortion of the truth.

Lurker

[sfortescue]

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

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.

Matt,

The two statements that you have quoted are not as contradictory as they seem.
The key phrases are "which were squelched" and "left or were forced out because of it".
What this means is that the means of squelching was to get rid of leaders who cared enough to try to do something about the problems.

[Matt]

Matt, did you notice that a portion of Brent's post was highlighted in yellow?  I was able to discern that he has always allowed for degrees of guilt.  How can you possibly argue with him on this matter?

Do you mean how can I possibly argue against all leading brothers being guilty? That's very easy, all I need to do is point out that Brent isn't omniscient.

Do you have some emotional attachment to a leading brother?  Did you live with one while you were in the Assembly?

No, I never lived with a leading brother. I have not been in contact with a leading brother in a long time.

I read that thread very carefully.  The way I remember the facts is that someone sent out false email/PM's saying that Paul Robinson was gay.  Luke Robinson, according to a person who claimed to have originated the false email, took these messages and spread them around, causing the family to rally round the falsely(?) accused brother.

Paul's family claimed that a blind man originated the false accusations.  Brent foolishly entered the fray with an attempt to initiate communication with Saint Louis Sister, and correctly began to defend the blind man, who was being falsely accused.

The situation resolved itself with apologies all around, especially from the people who brought the blind man's heretofore unknown name on the forum.  He never did or said any of the things he was accused of.  Brent apologized for something he "thought," not something he said.  I re-read the thread and could not see where he slandered anyone.

However, Matt, you called this blind man a liar more than once, and took the side of the people publishing a false report.  You have not apologized for this.

I will not apologize for calling him a liar. The only thing that Tony Edwards has been falsely accused of is calling Paul gay. He never said that. He did, however, send a slanderous email about the Robinson family as a whole. I know because he sent one to me. He has admitted that he lied in that email, and he has repented for it.

Regarding "what he was accused of." I contacted Mr. Edwards and asked if I could post his email on this BB so that we could see that he isn't innocent. He has asked me not to do that, and they are working the problem out in St. Louis. It's no longer an issue on the bb.

That was a nice try, Lurker, but you see what happens when someone who doesn't know anything about the assembly first-hand tries to get involved? =)

How can you possibly reconcile your position?

Just did.

I will not make a habit of defending people who have differing views on this forum, but in this case I felt that I must, due to the overall silence in the face of a significant distortion of the truth.

Lurker

Oh, don't you worry. Brent has enough supporters and people defending him. As for distorting the truth, I'm afraid you were guilty of that thanks to your assumptions surrounding the Tony Edwards case. Next time, be a little more careful! Lord bless.

- Matt

[Kimberley Tobin]

Matt,

As much as I have tried to stay out of the fray in these discussions, and I have had private communications with you that have remained civil, I can no longer remain quiet.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.  When the Enroth book, "Churches That Abuse" came out, I had been in the assembly for only a few years (the same amount as you had been when the assemblies dissolved.)  I defended this system staunchly.  I defended the leadership in my assembly (who I have since 15 years later come to truly see in the light of day.)  

Since you never really were discipled by a truly "christian" group, I would like to suggest to you to take a break from the BB and the defense of this system and get some discipleship from a reputable person who could educate you regarding your theology in order to look at the assembly with clear vision.  

It is interesting to me that you are constantly fighting with men and women who have been in the assembly for decades.  These same men and women know personally hundreds of the people who are being referred to here and some were in leadership positions and know firsthand the doctrine and philosophy that was rampant in the assembly.  You were just a "baby" in the "family", so to speak.  As in families, it is the elders who really understand the history and the underpinnings of the family.  I would suggest you learn from your elders in matters regarding the assembly and step back and take stock.

I am not concerned that you return to the assembly.  There is no assembly to return to.  However, those who refuse to look realistically at where they have come from are apt to repeat it.  I would hate to have you find another organization like the assembly, only to discover as many of us have 15-20 years later what we have been discussing here.  I am entrusting you into the care of our wonderful Savior, as he is ultimately in control and will pray you will find Him in the midst of your search.

I am not trying to win an argument.  Only trying to get you to look at things from a different perspective.  Please take it with that in mind.

Your sister in Christ,

Kimberley

[editor]

I will not apologize for calling him a liar. The only thing that Tony Edwards has been falsely accused of is calling Paul gay. He never said that. He did, however, send a slanderous email about the Robinson family as a whole. I know because he sent one to me. He has admitted that he lied in that email, and he has repented for it.

Ok, first read Laurie and I's conversation.  

I'd like to start out with an apology to Tony.  Tony I am truly sorry I slandered your name.  I was complaining about how this board was like a Grocery store check out line, while I was contributing to it's lies.  I based my knowledge on information passed to me from different sources I trusted.  I wish I would have doubled checked that, but I didn't.  I can't go back in time, but I can move forward.  I am really sorry that I called you a lier, and any other harsh words I used.  I ask for your forgivness for my role in this matter.

Brent I owe you an apology too.  You were defending Tony rightfully so when you didn't even know this man.  I on the other hand do, and should have know from past experiance that Tony is NOT the type of man to do this.  I ask for your forgivness in attacking your defense of Tony.

To everyone else.  If I have hurt you in any way with my speech against Tony, or if you took offense to it, please forgive me.  I was trying to reveal darkness on this board, but started to spread it further.

-Mark

So I defended a liar?  

(omniscience is not all it's cracked up to be)

Matt, I apologize to you.  I didn't realize that Tony was a liar, and so I will not continue in my dissappointment that an apology from you has not been forthcoming.  I want to confess to you that I have thought much less of your sincerity lately, since in my eyes it appeared that you were quite in the wrong with regard to Tony's exposure.  I didn't realize that he had repented of lying about the Robinson family.  No wonder he doesn't want his email read!  People who write emails, who don't want them to be publicly aired are liars, right? He is a liar!  If someone is a liar, and you truthfully point this out, you have nothing to apologize for.  Tony was never a leading brother, so telling lies is definitely NOT ok for him.  I think Lurker owes you an apology as well. My apologies, Matt.

Brent

[Mark C.]

Hi Matt!
   I don't get the idea that Brent is suggesting that all leading bros. in all Assemblies are guilty of all the same thing.  If he were that would not be "filthy" but mistaken.  I think you go too far in your attempts to judge Brent's motives.  I have been guilty of juding motives in the past with you and Luke, and I would entreat you to consider abandoning that kind of argumentation.
   As you mentioned, Brent apologized, and has always seemed to be quick to receive correction when he has made a mistake.  I really don't understand all your rage against Brent and the BB.
   I'm sorry for using an old Assembly trigger phrase, but even after 12 years gone I too can revert to some bad Assembly habits.
   I was a former leading bro. in the Valley and was of the number of those who were forced out for daring to challenge the system.  No, I didn't preach hostile resistance to GG, nor did I want to leave.  My health was poor and I told the brothers I wanted to move closer to my work (30 mins. from the Valley).  They asked me, " are you asking us or telling us"?  My answer, " I feel the Lord wants me to do this."  After this they told me I had to step down as a leading bro. and could not speak last on Sun. morning.  I would no longer be in the afternoon preaching rotation, lead the prayer mtg., etc.  I was asked to sign a letter of resignation, which I was not willing to do.  The bros. began to shun me and when I did share a word they would cross their arms and glare at me.  The last time I spoke Mitch followed me as the 3rd speaker and contradicted the simple message I gave (nothing rebellious about my message; a simple devotional thought) and tried to make me look foolish and an enemy of God.  There are other things they did along the way as well to make it clear I was not wanted in their fellowship.  I left heart broken and totally devastated due to the treatment received by those I thought were my family, friends, and brethren.
  True, it is my experience, and not one that I can apply to all assemblies everywhere.  The Valley bros. received their instructions on how to "handle" me from GG and possibly there were bros. in other places that would have refused to go along with that.  Wherever GG held sway his abusive controlling methods would work there way into each local group.
   I think the point is not that all Assemblies and Leading bros. are equally culpable, rather that GG had at least some influence over all these groups, and it would be wise to learn just how much any particular Assembly/teacher was under the GG bewitchment.   This would take the "outside" instruction that Kimberley mentioned in her post.  I was astonished after first leaving to learn what the Bible actually taught re., the Gospel, what the Christian life was, and the proper excercise of authority in the church.
  The same leading bros. that forced me out 12 years ago, today have taken the attitude that the fall of the Valley Assembly was due to one bro. who wanted to know how they stood in light of GG.  It was this poor little sheep's questioning that brought down the work of God! (yeah -right!)
  These leading bros. do not see any problems with their past behavior, teaching or practices, nor will they even entertain the possibility that they could have erred.  None of the bros. have apologized for forcing me out.
  I guess it would be good to hear from some of these Leading bros. and to hear their side of the story.  Maybe they would tell us things we are totally unaware of and this would give us a chance to get things right with them.  I would be quick to leave my gift at the altar for any chance at reconciliation with any falsely slighted Assembly member/leader.
  Sadly Matt, you are their lone defender here.  A young bro. who only had a short time in the Assembly at a time when GG was losing his grip on "his ministry" and had to moderate some of his overt abuses.  Cult watchers had been alarmed for years from what they saw in the Assembly teaching/practices and the Assembly even made it into several best sellers on abusive churches.  It wouldn't hurt to review these books to get a bigger picture than just the local San Diego scene.
  Re. Jesus as being the only sound instructor:  This is just plain ridiculous.  Paul knew and preached the Gospel clearly and has given us his words that Christians believe were inspired by the Holy Spirit.  This Gospel is both simple and easily available for all who can understand language.  We are told to judge speakers/writers and judge if their teaching is true or false.  We are told that God has given us discernment through His word and by His Spirit.
  Teachers today are not inspired like Jesus and Paul, but understanding the grace of God in truth is right before us and our birthright as born again Christians.
   The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not some group.  The Gospel is to be defended and advanced, not some leaders of a ministry judged and found wanting.
               See you next weekend and God Bless,  Mark
 
   
   

[editor]

Hi All

I have received a couple emails taking me to task for calling Tony a liar.  Well, I won't apologize, because Matt says he has repented of lying, and apparently Matt is in contact with people in St. Louis who are working it out.  So, I guess that makes Tony a repented liar.

I was apologizing for judging Matt, because it seemed to me that he was out of line for some of his words in that whole thread.  My bad.  I didn't realize that Tony was lying.  In his communication to me, which included some of what he said to others, he didn't say anything close to a lie.  I must not have read the lies he sent to Matt, and since Matt has confirmed that he actually lied, and repented of it, I am only apologizing to Matt.

This whole thing is so stupid I can hardly stand it any longer.  Now, I am wondering what will happen if we find out that Tony didn't lie, and that he isn't repenting of lying...then what?

Email is so strange; you can send it to one person, and then to another.  All the words are the same but the people who read it come to totally different conclusions about it!  For example, the writer says, "I was dissappointed that so and so left without an explanation, they only left a short note."

One person reads it to mean the author was dissappointed, and the other reads that the author was lying through his teeth!  The person didn't leave without an explanation, they left a 4 sentence long note and explained to people that they didn't want to be contacted!  The author is obviously a liar in this case, because a note is an explanation.  How stupid can they get?

Seriously, I think someone is going crazy here.  I read things, and they seem so straightforward.  Then I hear that they are lies!  How can anyone get the truth?

I hope I am not judged for destroying George's ministry...

[MGov]

Someone gave me this promise when I got saved 20+ years ago:
...those who honor Me I will honor... 1 Sam 2:30
And my husband and I have discovered this to be true, because the Lord keeps His Word.

The whole verse:
1Sam 2:30 "Therefore the Lord God of Israel declares, 'I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord declares, 'Far be it from Me-- for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed.


Those LBs who have honored the Lord will GUARANTEED receive honor from the Lord.
Those LBs who 'despise' Him will GUARANTEED be lightly esteemed by Him.

I do not feel I have to defend them, nor do I feel that I have to shame them with 'put down humor'.

This is not to say that others of you should or shouldn't; it's just not 'my cup of tea'.  We each have our contribution in the whole.  I thought I might change my user name to Puddleglum.

Love and God bless,
M

[Matt]

I'm honored to have 3 people vying for my attention. I will do my best to address all of you here:

Kim Tobin,
Thank you for your post, ma'am. It reminds me about that verse - a gentle answer dispels much wrath. I know that you are genuinely concerned for my spiritual condition, and for that I'm grateful. I noticed that you compared yourself to me when you mentioned that you defended the assembly system from Enroth's book when you had been in the assembly as long as I had. I'm not defending the assembly system as whole, nor am I saying that GG or DG are qualified to lead. I think they need to repent. I'm not saying that all LB's are innocent of harming the saints. My only arguments are that there are many many Goldy good things that came from the assembly. There were also many Godly LB's that are not guilty as Brent Tr0ckman has asserted (well, sometimes he asserts they all are, sometimes he asserts that those who left the assembly a long time ago aren't - who knows, depends on the day I guess).

You also state that I've never been discipled by a "christian" group. I have only been discipled by the assembly, that is true, but I have only been discipled by a Christian group - the assembly. I thank you though for your concern and for your moderate tone. Mr. Tr0ckman and I could learn a little something from you, ma'am.

Brent:
Excuse me? I'm totally confused. Tony Edwards emailed me out of the blue.

"Email is so strange; you can send it to one person, and then to another.  All the words are the same but the people who read it come to totally different conclusions about it!" - Brent Tr0ckman

 You said that he said very gracious, kind things about the leadership in St. Louis. If that's the case, then we received completely different emails. Verne Carty, not I, chose to make part of this email public knowledge on the BB. Having received this email myself, I knew that it was not entirely true, and had to testify that Tony Edwards was lying. The matter was already laid to rest when Lurker decided to criticize me for calling Tony a liar. Your sarcastic "apologies" mean nothing:

"People who write emails, who don't want them to be publicly aired are liars, right?"

No, Brent, I'm not saying that. I didn't want you publically posting my emails and I don't feel I'm a liar. That's not the reason I said Tony Edwards lied. I said that Tony Edwards lied because he said he lied. And for the record, Brent, I didn't just randomly email someone in St. Louis (Tony) and try to get a bunch of gossip about what's going on in an assembly in which I don't know anyone personally. Tony chose to email me these things and so it became my business what was going on in STL.

MarkC and Kim,
You both have mentioned that I'm the "lone defender" of the LB's on here. That's just the point. People before me have come on here to defend the LB's and one by one they were chased off. We are horribly outnumbered. This website and bb was created for a specific group - a group that is hostile to the assembly and to the LB's. Al Hartman even asserts that this bb is a "field station" for "wounded pilgrims." Don't ask me where the doctors are though... Anyway, this site was created for your viewpoint, not mine, and that is the reason that I'm the "lone defender." Anyone who dares to say anything contrary to B. Tr0ckman will have to face a consierable opposition.. let's see..on this thread..I've faced. Verne, Kim, Lurker, Mark C, Tom Maddux, Stephen Fortesque....
In some ways, I think it's unnecessary for the sidekicks. They might as well just post "yeah what he said" after Brent posts.

Lord Bless.

- Matt

[sfortescue]

Matt,

Please pay attention to details: you misspelled my name.

[al Hartman]

     Mark Campbell brings up an interesting thought that has been on my mind for some time now:

I guess it would be good to hear from some of these Leading bros. and to hear their side of the story.  Maybe they would tell us things we are totally unaware of and this would give us a chance to get things right with them.

 

     Why haven't we heard from any of the elders, workers or LBs who stayed to the very end?  Former leaders & workers who stepped down or were "fired" are plentiful enough, but those who remained in "the work" are not posting.  Surely everyone who was there at the end must be aware of the website & BB by now.  Are all those leaders who were faithful to the Lord standing silent while one young brother (who doesn't know most of them or their histories) champion their cause?

Email is so strange; you can send it to one person, and then to another.  All the words are the same but the people who read it come to totally different conclusions about it!

     Email is the written word, no different in nature from a handwritten letter or a printed article or book:  People read (into it) what they want to believe is there, and people write what they want others to believe.
     Consider how many denominations, sects and cults can PROVE beyond a shadow of (their) doubt that their beliefs are true, ALL USING THE SAME SCRIPTURES.
     The ONLY safe way to learn the word of God is to study in humility, asking God's guidance, protection and enlightenment, and even then it takes time and great patience.  There is no reason to approach any other writing any differently, including email.  Only the Lord can sift the truth from the chaff.  Only he can unclutter our minds of all the untruths that have entered.  But we must desire this intensely, and we must ask.
     Writing is no different:  If you have an axe to grind, you will write to influence your readers to accept your views.  But if we are willing to set self-interests aside for the greater glory of God, we can ask him to use us to shed abroad his truths for the benefit of all who will read our words.  Dare we suppose that the prophets and apostles wrote with a mindset to advance their own views and not those of God?  Should we be less devoted to him than they?

I don't feel I have the capacity to debate...

     Finally, look up the scriptures that use the words debate, argue, dispute, etc., and their derivatives.  Do this humbly, asking God to teach you, not with a preconceived goal in mind.  You don't need my conclusions about the subject.  We all need God's perspective.

al Hartman

[Mark C.]

Hi Matt!
   I think that you are courageous in your attempts to defend aspects of the Assembly.  Indeed, there has not been one poster here to rise in agreement with you.   This could be a sign of good independent thinking, a desire to be a contrarian, or just one who just likes a good argument.
  The majority is not always right (usually isn't) and just going along with them is a lesson we should have learned from our Assembly days as a bad course to follow.
   Dismissing arguments as being part of a conspiracy can circumnavigate discussion of the issues.  I think the agreement you find from opponents on this topic comes from the experiences of those posting.  In some cases it also comes from a considerable amount of study re. the true nature of Christian life vs. the abberant and dangerous deceptions in the world.
   When we discuss our relationship with the Lord it is wise not to get locked into a competitive mode of verbal combat, as winning a point is not as important as arriving at the truth.
   I shared a part of my own story to help you see that I did not arrive at my thinking via Brent's direction, but from my own life and study.  I wrote a paper way back in 1990 outlining my concerns re. the Assembly, before this BB or having ever met Brent.
  I too care for your spiritual well being and it is a healthy thing to respectfully consider entreaty from those who have a testimony of careful study of the matters we are discussing.  Again, defense of a group at the expense of understanding the Gospel of grace is a bad trade.
                                         God Bless,  Mark

[Arthur]

Friends,

I remember, way back when this board first started-- here we were--refugees, so-to-speak, from a trying experience that we had in common.  This board was a place where we could get answers and talk with one another.  We could find people that we hadn't heard from in years.  Broken relationships were restored and new friends made.  It was a place where we could finally obtain resolution to things we just had to wonder about before. It was a place for healing and for truth, a place where we could once again find the joy in being saved, the joy of knowing Jesus, the joy and relief to know that we do not obtain full salvation by devout effort!  It was a place where we could begin to rebuild and live normal and good lives once again. It was a place for healing and for truth.

Why is it now that we spend so much time on petty arguments?  I wonder why you even respond to Matt or people like him.  Has he demonstrated much understanding in regards to the assembly?  Has he allowed himself to see the truth, or rather is he intent only on generating strife and keeping the hostile argument alive?  Look at his posts, esp. his first twenty or so and you'll see that he is a confused young man who needs help, but it will not come by public confrontation on the board.

There is so much to look forward to, and I feel like I'm just once again barely starting to scratch the surface of the wonders of God's love and what wisdom there is to find in the Bible.  I still have so many questions to ask.  I'm sure we all do, and I have found some good answers here.  Let's look upward and focus on these things and not on trival matters.  How about we move forward and go exploring.  It will be an adventure.

Arthur


Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Phil 4:8

Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.  Prov. 14:7
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife; but every fool will be quarreling. Prov 20:3
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words. Prov 23:9

[editor]

Thanks Arthur, I needed to hear that.

Brent

[Kimberley Tobin]

I'm honored to have 3 people vying for my attention. I will do my best to address all of you here:

Kim Tobin,
Thank you for your post, ma'am. It reminds me about that verse - a gentle answer dispels much wrath. I know that you are genuinely concerned for my spiritual condition, and for that I'm grateful. I noticed that you compared yourself to me when you mentioned that you defended the assembly system from Enroth's book when you had been in the assembly as long as I had. I'm not defending the assembly system as whole, nor am I saying that GG or DG are qualified to lead. I think they need to repent. I'm not saying that all LB's are innocent of harming the saints. My only arguments are that there are many many Goldy good things that came from the assembly. There were also many Godly LB's that are not guilty as Brent Tr0ckman has asserted (well, sometimes he asserts they all are, sometimes he asserts that those who left the assembly a long time ago aren't - who knows, depends on the day I guess).

Matt:  I was trying to compare myself with you yes, but not in the way that you think.  I guess I didn't go far enough to show you the comparison.  I included in my description that I defended the head leading brother in my assembly staunchly as well.  This same man (now that I know him MUCH better) who I staunchly defended and thought he was a "godly" man (because that is the facade they put forth) has now been shown to me to be what he truly is.  1)  A false teacher; 2) A man who is unwilling to submit to the governmental authorities in his business dealings; and 3) a man who extends little grace or mercy to his flock.  It is only through years of dealing with the man that I have come to know his true character not that which he attempts to put forth.  I don't believe that you can after only three years of involvement have a real understanding of how the assembly functions (i.e. what the leading brothers were taught to preach and how to govern in the church, etc.)  Thus, you are defending the system of things by your defense of certain individuals and you aren't even aware of it.  This due to the fact that you look at these men and women as they present themselves to you, not realizing their support of a corrupt system of things (i.e. heretical teachings, controlling lives of others, etc.)  If you are defending them.....you are defending the assembly system of things.  It is only those who have clearly repented from their association with the assembly that can clearly be defended.  (And I think that is the point Brent is trying to make with you.  The "All" Brent I think is referring to is those LB's who refuse to repent and say that there was nothing wrong with the assembly.  Those who are the exception and thus fall into the category of "separate from the 'All'" are those LB's who took a stand against the assembly and it's corrupt system.)  Do you see the difference?

You also state that I've never been discipled by a "christian" group. I have only been discipled by the assembly, that is true, but I have only been discipled by a Christian group - the assembly. I thank you though for your concern and for your moderate tone. Mr. Tr0ckman and I could learn a little something from you, ma'am.

Please consider that the assembly was not a "christian group".  Again, I was trying in my post to ask that you receive from those who have been involved far longer than you and have since gone out to the mainstream evengelical community and learned one thing:  THE ASSEMBLY WAS A CULT - NOT A CHRISTIAN GROUP.  I would not suggest to a new believer who had just received Jesus as their savior to go the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormon church to be discipled.  In the same way the assembly is very similar to these groups.  Do some research.  Read some books on the subject.  It is very enlightening - not to mention massively liberating in your walk with Christ.  

And the thanks for the "moderate tone" all go to my wonderful Savior-Jesus.  Anyone who knows me will attest to "moderate tone" not defining me.  But since I have left the assembly, He is doing an incredible work of transformation in my life.  One that could not take place in the assembly under it's system of things.  Praise be to HIM.  This is the testimony of a life transformed by the liberating gospel of GRACE - not works.

MarkC and Kim,
You both have mentioned that I'm the "lone defender" of the LB's on here. That's just the point. People before me have come on here to defend the LB's and one by one they were chased off. We are horribly outnumbered. This website and bb was created for a specific group - a group that is hostile to the assembly and to the LB's. Al Hartman even asserts that this bb is a "field station" for "wounded pilgrims." Don't ask me where the doctors are though... Anyway, this site was created for your viewpoint, not mine, and that is the reason that I'm the "lone defender." Anyone who dares to say anything contrary to B. Tr0ckman will have to face a consierable opposition.. let's see..on this thread..I've faced. Verne, Kim, Lurker, Mark C, Tom Maddux, Stephen Fortesque....
In some ways, I think it's unnecessary for the sidekicks. They might as well just post "yeah what he said" after Brent posts.

Lord Bless.

- Matt

We have not chased anyone off Matt.  They left of their own accord.  If they are uncomfortable with the dialogue where we were presenting our viewpoints (something not allowed in the assembly) perhaps they should question what is making them uncomfortable.  The reason most of us former assembly members are on this site is to reach out to those who are hurting or those who have been misled by the assembly and don't understand how dangerously they have been influenced by the assembly (I put you in that category).  Unfortunately, we are human and we don't always communicate in the most loving, effective way possible.  I hope others are learning, even through involvement on this BB, to communicate with these ones with grace, compassion and love.  Strangely, I believe those were attributes that were greatly lacking in relationships in the assembly.

I look forward to future correspondence with you that might open your mind to looking at things differently.

Kimberley