The Robinsons have hurt the flock

[vernecarty]

Hi Verne

I've been there too, but I must take you to task on something.  Repentance is not painful.
Brent

 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
Isaiah 40:11
Verne

[editor]

Brent,

I hate to break your heart, but I'm old enough to be your parent.  If someone grabs a parking place in front of you, do you suspect the "kids"?  If someone calls and wakes you up at night and it's a wrong number, do you think, oh it's those robinson "kids" again? They perhaps have lives.  Do you?

   ROFL!!  Let me get this straight, you are old enough to be my parent?  Most people over sixty have better writing skills, and certainly thinks more clearly.  Also, when did I ever say anything about parking places, or being woken up with a wrong number?  

I am commenting on what the "kids" write on the BB, including the way they slandered Tony Edwards.  BTW, only one of them has made any attempt at an apology, the others are nowhere to be seen.  

I say we give them a pass, not worry about Tony, and the fact that his friends have heard all sorts of slanderous things about him, and concentrate on attacking me.  

Brent

BTW, I invite you to call me late tonite and wake me up.  Please do.  805 543 3440

[vernecarty]

Brent,

I hate to break your heart, but I'm old enough to be your parent.  If someone grabs a parking place in front of you, do you suspect the "kids"?  If someone calls and wakes you up at night and it's a wrong number, do you think, oh it's those robinson "kids" again? They perhaps have lives.  Do you?

You appear to be a well-spoken individual and I trust your coming to the BB has a constructive purpose. Would you share it with us?
Verne

[Mark Kisla]

After reading many posts is it fair to conclude that the banter displayed by some is a result of the original discussion that anyone who accepts a position of authority is responsible for how their leadership effected the lives of those entrusted them ?
 I ask 2 questions; Scripturely is leadership responsible or not responsible for the direction taken by those under their care ? and why / why not ?

[editor]

After reading many posts is it fair to conclude that the banter displayed by some is a result of the original discussion that anyone who accepts a position of authority is responsible for how their leadership effected the lives of those entrusted them ?
 I ask 2 questions; Scripturely is leadership responsible or not responsible for the direction taken by those under their care ? and why / why not ?

Hi Mark

I would answer question 1 by saying that leadership is responsible for the direction taken by those under their care with the following condition:

If a person takes themselves out from under the leader's godly example, and refuses the leader's godly entreaty, then the leader is not responsible for the direction they take.

The converse is also true, to a certain extent.  If a leader gives false counsel to those under his charge, which is followed by those he leads, then he is responsible for the harm done to those under his care, who follow his lead.  There is a condition here as well, because we are never to place ourselves solely at the disposal of any man, but must always give Christ pre-eminence over our lives.  

If a person is a novice, very young or inexperienced, and is taken in by a bad leader, then I believe the leader bears the brunt of the responsiblility.  

However, if a person under a bad leader is lax, over a period of years, or has repeatedly ignored warnings, and has violated their conscience with regard to a bad leader's example, than the follower bears proportionally more blame than the purely deceived person in the first example.

Heb 13:17  Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give  account . Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

This passage says several things:
1.) We are to "obey" our leaders.  (another topic, what does obey mean?)
2.) Leaders are supposed to have our best interests involved.  They are supposed to watch out for our souls.  That is why we should listen to them.
3.) The leaders will give account to God for those under their care.
4.)If we give them undeserved grief, it is not profitable to us.

Nothing could be clearer, leaders must give account for the results of their leadership, namely the state of our souls.  Barring the conditions I mentioned above, and perhaps others that I have overlooked, I personally don't see how anyone can suggest that leaders are not accountable.

Brent

[Matt]

Mark,
Don't you find it interesting that Brent says Doctah can't be over 60 because of his/her writing skills?

After reading many posts is it fair to conclude that the banter displayed by some is a result of the original discussion that anyone who accepts a position of authority is responsible for how their leadership effected the lives of those entrusted them ?

You need a comma after "after reading many posts." The correct word is "affected" not "effected."

Short Grammar lesson:
to affect: to have an influence on.  Ex) His studying positively affected his grades.

an effect: something brought about by a cause or an agent. Ex) Studying a lot had a positive effect on his grades.

The word "effect" can be used as a verb, but this is extremely rare.
to effect: to bring into existence. His bad grades effected a desire to study more.

In short, you're safe to use "affect" as a verb only, and "effect" as a noun only.

My main purpose in correcting you here was to show Brent that age has very little to do with writing skills.

I ask 2 questions; Scripturely is leadership responsible or not responsible for the direction taken by those under their care ? and why / why not ?

Sorry, Mark, you're a little behind. These questions have been thrown around on the "why leaders are responsible thread" for many weeks. I'd say it would behoove you to take a look at your own responsibility for once. I remember you posted something in which you blamed DG for the failed outreach that you started in the ghettos of STL. DG wasn't your boss, by the way. If you decided to continue having an outreach in the ghetto, did you think DG was going to physically prevent you from doing so? He's just a man, like you! So why did you give up on the outreach? Was DG your God and not the Lord almighty? That's a direct breach of a commandment - and you are the one responsible for that.

- Matt

[editor]

You need a comma after "after reading many posts." The correct word is "affected" not "effected."

Short Grammar lesson:
to affect: to have an influence on.  Ex) His studying positively affected his grades.

an effect: something brought about by a cause or an agent. Ex) Studying a lot had a positive effect on his grades.

The word "effect" can be used as a verb, but this is extremely rare.
to effect: to bring into existence. His bad grades effected a desire to study more.

In short, you're safe to use "affect" as a verb only, and "effect" as a noun only.

My main purpose in correcting you here was to show Brent that age has very little to do with writing skills.

Thanks Matt.  Point well taken.  You are 100% correct.

Did you read what Tony Edwards posted?  How about Daniel Teater's most recent post.  Do you have any comments about this?

Brent

In case you haven't seen it due to it being buried on the previous page, here it is:

I unregistered a few days ago simply because I felt all of this was going no where,and that I had made matters worse by opening my big mouth.  However, I re-registered in order to tell everyone that I talked to Tony this morning over the phone, and the misunderstanding is being cleared up.  Thanks Matt for sticking up for my fam, but to a certain degree the verbal flogging I have recieved is justifiable.  I certainly think that there may have been some self-assertion in their posts but the message certainly was clear.  I am not here to defend myself, but rather to set the record straight.

TO BRENT AND VERNE:

 I haven't been able to sort through the whole mess yet but here is what I am able to tell you from my end.  I WAS WRONG.  Tony told me this morning that he never said that Paul was kicked out due to homosexual tendicies.  I want all who read this to understand that after a lot of miscommunciation and false-assumptions (on my part) things are being fixed.  I apologize for any hurt that I may have caused due to rash thinking and a fiery temper.  I now seek only to use this BB to clear up any misunderstandings I may have caused and clear any reputations that need to be cleared: namely that of Tony Edwards.

Daniel Teater

[Matt]

Yes, Brent,
I do have some comments about the most recent posts. If Daniel felt he was responsible for misrepresenting Tony, that's fine, and I commend him for apologizing. However, that does not excuse your nasty comments to him and them (the other Lb kids). They are your brothers (in Christ, of course) and you treated them like the crud under your shoe. The only reason, too, was because Mark pointed out your arrogance and pride. It's apparent that your biggest fear is losing credibility. You seem to think that's the ultimate loss - which is why I imagine you tried to discredit me by saying I had a coach?

As for Tony,
He has asked me not to publically comment on his emails and I would have to do that to comment on his posts. He has assured me that things are being worked out in STL, and I'm glad for that. If someone slandered him by saying that he said Paul was gay, well I agree that they need to repent.

Are you happy, King Brent? I have obeyed you!
- Matt

[Mark Kisla]

Matt and Brent,
Thanks to both of you.
Matt thanks for making plain the difference between affect and effect, before posting I checked affected in the dictionary and it read "afflicted" which would not communicate my thought.
As far as repenting goes in my life ? Everyday !. How about you ?
Brent,
Thank you for the time you you spent answering my questions  plainly.
 Sincerely, Mark

[vernecarty]

From Verne

I am so proud of you I could just bust...!

p.s. Brent's advice is sound although a bit painful-what makes it valuable and perhaps needful is the public nature the discussions assumed

Daniel will be sure to confess his sins to you too.  I'll make sure he suffers enough pain to appease you both.

Mark:
Why are you so extremely angry? What Daniel did was noble and I simply acknowledged and applauded it as a brother in Christ. Your unwarranted hostility and ugly portrayal of my motives in this regard is most unseemly. Too bad...
Verne

[editor]

My pleasure.  Below is an e-mail from Brent.  It doesn't slander anyone, but it does show how two faced he is: (this is a e-mail from Sat, 1 Feb 2003, it was after he publicly accused my father about things he wasn't clear on,  we cleared it up privately, and he never publicly apologized about the slanderous things he said)

You guys are not trying to hide anything.......
[then later he writes]
.........Praise God the Teater's are walking in the light!

Brent

(ask me if you want the full e-mail)

Here's the full email.  The context is after it t was said (by several people) that the leaership in St. Louis saw abuse between David and Judy.  Ken Teater wrote Judy a letter about this, in which he says that after hearing a commotion, he only saw David standing over Judy, straddling her.  Ken Teater says he did not see David smothering her.  I have no reason to doubt Ken, and I wrote this email to his son as my response.  If anyone cares, they can also find posts on the BB to that effect, but they are buried deep.

Here is the email that Mark quotes.  Please note how two-faced I am:

Hi Mark

Your brother answered very well.  I don't want to stir up trouble either,
and as far as I'm concerned, your dad was too young and inexperienced at the
time to be considered guilty.  The fact that he wrote the letter to Judy
exonerates him in my view.  The fact that your brother referenced the letter
online, exonerates your whole family.  You guys are not trying to hide
anything.  You will get no trouble from me on this issue.  I have known
about it for some time, yet I never said anything.  I have no reason to
change this policy now.

Praise God the Teater's are walking in the light!

Here's the next one, where my arrogance and lies surface.  Note how I attempt to manipulate Mark.

Mark
Please pray for me.  I need it.  This thing is not over, by a long shot.
Seriously, have the saints pray for me.

Brent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Teater" <markteater@hotmail.com>
To: <Tr0ckmandc@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: The BB


> Thank you for your caring e-mail.  I am truly thankful for your care and
> concern on this issue.  We are all for exposing the darkness that has
> covered the Geftakys ministry for years.  I honestly have to say God is
> doing GREAT things here in St. Louis.  We (St. Louis) are all in the word,
> and in prayer as to what way God is leading us.  Pray for us.  Thanks
again.
> Your Brother in Christ,
> Mark Teater
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


Now you all see the way I communicate with people exposed.

[Matt]

Hey I never said you could post my e-mail on here!  Just kidding.  As you see below, Brent and I did get along before, but as I stated below, he started to dislike me when I went against the straight and brent (narrow) road.  You be the judge.  

Hey Mark,
 Brent's exposure of your email really speaks to his own foolishness - not yours. He really does manipulate into trusting him and he made you feel that he cared about you. Then he calls you such nice names as "snake" and "punkish young men" etc when you disagree with him on his handling of the BB and especially of the Tony Edwards and STL sister issue. He's not to be trusted and his handling of this thread has fortified my suspicion that he is not serving the Lord on this BB. Who are you serving Brent?

[editor]

it's the way he went around my back and said stuff to other people about me (ex. The STL Sister PM).  I didn't know he felt that way about me.  You be the judge.  

Hi Mark.

I long for the good old days.  For the record, the only thing I ever said about you, was in that PM.  I started to "dislike" you when you accused Tony Edwards.  It was actually written after you posted so vehemently about Tony Edwards.  Until then, I never mentioned you, let alone told people how I felt about you.  Others in your family were on the BB far more than you, and my comments were based more on their input, although I do view your recent activity as abusive.   I have other emails of correspondence between you and I, and others in STL.  Since you didn't refer to these, I won't share them.  I won't post your mail, or my mail to you, unless you do it first, as you have done.

As for me being manipulative, in order to get people to trust me,  I have long realized that due to the nature of what the Assembly was, I will receive mostly abuse from those i am trying to help.

It is not nearly as bad now as it was when all of you were serving GG, and were taken in by him.  Now, it feels like a birthday party, compared to then.  

Is there any other manipulative email that you would like to share?  (this is tongue in cheek, I am NOT angry.)

Matt, don't you have some?

Brent

[vernecarty]

I was Verne-bashing when I asked him to apologize for saying those nasty things about Luke and Paul on the "why leaders are responsible thread."

Verne:
I am curious too. You say you are for healing and yet you did your best to damage Paul and Luke Robinson when they were on this BB. As their elder, you surely had a responsibility to set a good example for them, and you didn't, sir. Then you start a thread trying to discredit their parents based on the observations of a blind man - a man who has sent many false rumors out there about the Robinsons to random people not even involved in the St. Louis assembly (like the both of us for example). I guess it's no surprise that you'd be one of the first to post in this thread. You're going to be held accountable for hurting God's people, Verne.

Trying hard to be gracious but pray tell...what nasty things? Please post them for all to see...
Matt do you remember accusing me of starting the thread actually started by the sister in St Louis? I did not even bother to protest that false accusation. I will ask again- what nasty things on that thread did I say about Luke and Paul?    
    Please post...
Verne

I am reposting as I am still patiently waiting for a response from Matt. If you are going to recklessly throw out these kinds of accusations, you ought to be prepared to defend them with facts. Please indicate your previous basis for the allegations regarding nasty comments about the Robinson boys. You have me wondering about your credibility Matt...
Verne

[Laurie]

At the request of Mark Teater, Im going to come foward. Im anonymous as Laurie because thats not my real name. I have no qualms about coming foward as the st. louis sister. I made that account up. I also made up the rumor about Tony saying Paul was gay. I received a forward of tonys email from someone else on this board that contained a lot of names from the leadership at the st. louis assembly, a lot of information about his health, and also mentioned the wedding. Luke believed me because I had this information about tony's health and i knew names, but I didnt know luke would spread it around. After telling luke this, it was clear that he told many people as people other than luke came on the board with this rumor. I mostly made up the comment to get Lukes goat by saying that people think his brother is gay. Luke and Mark now owe Tony an apology also for spreading the rumor before confirming with tony if its true or not. Mark also owes Brent an apology for his mistreatment. Mark Teater asked me to post this because I came "clean" so to speak with this information in an IM, and Mark wants to send the conversation to Brent. Now Brent can believe it when he gets the IM.
Love,
Laurie.