What is Chris Geer doing?

[GarthP2000]

If memory serves me (and it often does not)

Mike,

Keep that brief, but glaring, bit of honesty in mind when you are recalling the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write, ...... ya think?

;)

[Mike]

Garth,

Garth, I hear you, I agree with the legitimacy of your demand.

I fully admit to have normal leaky human memory.

That's why I refresh that memory with the IMPORTANT things, like doctrine. When it comes to this less important topic of ministry history, I'm willing to risk things a little bit and not take the time to check some things out to the most minute accuracy, well beyond my memory's accuracy capabilities.

You wrote: "Keep that brief, but glaring, bit of honesty in mind when you are recalling the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write..."

Yes, I do keep my memory's limitations in mind when I cite things VPW said or wrote. If memory serves me correctly, I almost always cite my source for such things and give exact quotes from the text, not memory. I cite page references and SNS numbers and dates most of the time. Sometimes I don't because I have already done so more than once for a particular passage.

I've admitted this memory deficiency at least four times. It's totally normal, and I've even cited modern brain science's successes in explaining how some types of forgetting works. Brain science has no idea how learning occurs, but most forgetting of long past learning is pretty well explainable. I once posted a short essay on this kind of memory deficiency we all have, and that is actually designed by God to be a good part of the brain's functioning.

I also admit to being a sucker for those extremely strong forces that have blinded all grads from Dr's final instructions and literal obedience to them.

I also admit to having been a casual student when it came to applying PFAL principles in my life in my first 27 years in the ministry, from 1971 to 1998. I was a slacker in the practical areas.

So, here's three admissions of my limitations and deficiencies. My credibility is limited with many people who knew me during those years, but I've done a lot to change since then.

What's unquestionable are the items you brought up: "...the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write...." There I do NOT rely on memory, but I find the passage, tape or print and provide the locations so that my statements do not rest on me, my memory, or my personality, but on the record.

.

.

.

So, Garth, I'll say it again: I hear you, I agree with the legitimacy of your demand, and I endeavor to comply.

.

.

.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Mike

[jardinero]

Ahhhhhhhhhh! Oldiesman wants to engage the troll???? That's what Private Topics are all about. You two thread de-railers and SD, CA troll can engage all you want!

la la la la la la la la la la la la la We don't buy it. We are not condemned, guilty, care to be accused, yada yada yada - -- take it to another site, por favor.

Rev. Two T's - - - stop the madness!!!!!!!

Raf: love the 45! lol And who said anything about you reading??? Don't you WRITE the news????

Sunesis: As usual, I agree :)

Later y'all.

J.

JK: please don't get deep; I've not bought my boots yet this season! lol

Edited December 8, 2005 by jardinero

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I leave this thread for a few days and suddenly Mike is flapping his gums about "mastering pfal" again...

...pfal (THE WRITTEN FORM) is nothing more than a scattered collection of other people's writings that Wierwille tried to pass off as his own. There is very little of value contained in this collection of plaguarized writings and in fact contains numerous HARMFUL doctrines...

...Mike...get a life

[Mike]

Groucho,

Not so. Dr claimed that the writings were NOT his own, but of God. I have tape documentation of Dr crediting some of the material as revelation given to other people.

The notion that Dr "tried to pass it off as his own" is a fiction generated by grads who were not diligent to check the facts.

******

Ok, now back to the topic.

Does anyone know anything about Geer's more recent position on God lacking specific, detailed, and total foreknowledge?

He taught this, like CES does, about 8 years ago. However, unlike CES I have heard rumors that Geer only taught it on tape and never committed it to writing.

I've also heard faint rumors that he may have even retracted it. I know of at least one clergy well connected with the Geer group who, as recent as two years ago, regarded this "no real foreknowledge" doctrine as a big mistake.

Has anyone any recent information on this situation?

Edited December 8, 2005 by Mike

[Sunesis]

Let's get back on topic. This thread was going great.

Raf, what was CG's mid nineties meltodown?

[tomtuttle1]

Jar of SpanishMoney (Jar-de-dinero), the rain falleth upon the just AND the unjust, and just, just, michael just, I just thank you lord for that rain, ooopppps, there it goes, shifting gears WITH overlap... What I meant to proclaim is that saint and sinner alike can simply reject the madness, even the same madness our own sexie Exie spoke of when describing the remarkable acumen of CG.

Don't you all remember the renewed mind class (is it also in one of the collaterals Mike??), where it was spoken, maybe even written, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"??

Thank God we know these immutable laws:

1. much learning doth make thee mad

2. he is writting FOR our learning

3. ever learning and never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth

What is CG doing ??

Class, if the Bible doesn't tell you, you do not know!!!

One can only hope he is studying the collaterals ...

Edited December 8, 2005 by tomtuttle1

[johniam]

I currently go to a CG fellowship. I suspect that CG puts forth ideas to those in leadership not as doctrine, but as 'tell me what you think of this' and then he lets those leaders do what they want with it. I've heard teaching suggesting that God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge, but no heavy emphasis.

Lately, I heard a teaching that turned into a discussion (definitely not the norm) about whether or not it's possible to SIT for an individual as opposed to praying with the understanding. The purpose was to eliminate the idea that SIT is a "ray gun" which forces God to act according to our whims, but rather just prayer in the spirit which God can direct anywhere He wants to.

Also, it was to eliminate the idea that prayer with the understanding is somehow compromised without SIT attached to it, but rather that God hears prayer with the understanding just fine without SIT and that SIT has a different benefit.

The discussion got quite animated. I'm still thinking it through, but this situation strikes me as much better than LCM breathing fire on corps hookup and everybody else BETTER agree.

Raf, I, too, am curious what you mean about a mid 90s meltdown.

[Raf]

Just a view from afar:

Starting with the absolute foreknowledge teaching, Geer seemed to become more and more bitter. His tapes started containing some defensive material, and I think he realized that a lot of people were not buying his new thesis just because he said it. I don't think he was prepared for that. His ouster from Gartmore then seemed rather sudden: there was never any explanation given to us in NY. He was just gone. Perhaps meltdown was a poor choice of words.

[WordWolf]

Just a view from afar:

Starting with the absolute foreknowledge teaching, Geer seemed to become more and more bitter. His tapes started containing some defensive material, and I think he realized that a lot of people were not buying his new thesis just because he said it. I don't think he was prepared for that.

There WERE more than a few people that bought his new thesis

JUST because he said it.

My first exposure to his new thesis was the direct result of someone

who had a "duh, of course God's understanding isn't infinite!" view

of things, which surprised me more than a bit.

The documentation of his thesis was easy to refute,

and showed that he didn't expose major stuff to others to see if

it wasn't just the way he's seeing things now,

as opposed to accurate and true.

(This is where "peer review" comes in VERY handy.)

By "easy to refute",

I mean that the exact DOCTRINE was easy to refute from Scripture,

and how he GOT there was easy to refute from Scripture.

Hey, Raf,

what do you think about the idea that you and I were the penultimate

straw that broke the camel's back?

(Which was NOT the idea at ALL at the time, but still.)

[My3Cents]

CG was a divider and a manipulator. Literally, he'd come to H.Q. during corps week, read POP, then two minutes later, he's left the building, gone. He was a poser and a game player - head games. People fell for it.

I've often wondered, why didn't the clergy stand up and tell him to stuff it, and go disappear. I've never seen anyone so intimidate the clergy as he did. What were they afraid of? Why wasn't there a clergy uprising?

Speaking as someone who was there I can tell you most of the clergy didn't have those kind of balls (or brains). They were trained to follow leadership and get ahead by sucking up and being loyal. For all the talk of "having no friends when it comes to the word" most of them would have been emotional basket cases without their "father" providing them with pats on the head.

There were some who by that time had or (soon would) figure out that the thing was a mess, but people with that realization don't cause an uprising - they realize the whole bible/ministry thing is a scam so they just get on with their lives.

Of course there were others who felt that they needed to pursue and spread the word in a different format - and those didn't bother uprising either - they just went and formed splinter groups. But as I recall it took a while for most of them to come to that point.

[Mike]

My3Cents,

I agree with your assessment of the clergy. One by one, as I approached them over a ten year span, I was startled by their lack of any thinking ability and courage. Their lack of knowledge of the collaterals and even the KJV showed up in nearly every conversation I had with them.

Previously I had a huge image of their power and might, but one by one they were exposed by simple conversations that went outside their well practiced canned raps.

Regarding Geer and any thoughts of confronting or opposing him, one clergyman, in an unusual outburst of candor to my probing as to why he didn't press Geer for details and specifics (regarding Sunesis' post a few pages back) told me "Heck no! I'm AFRAID of him." This same clergyman, who I was close to for many years, had never uttered such a fear confession about ANYTHING in all the time I knew him. It blew me away how much fear he must have had to actually admit it.

******

johniam,

Thank you for your report. I've heard much the same, that Geer and his top people threw that puny-foreknowledge idea out for discussion, but it was taken by many underlings as some new sensational doctrine sure to propel them to the top. It gave me a buzz on top of my goosebumps, but I shook it off. I had stumbled into the same "Youngs Concordance" level of "evidence" that seemed to indicate this idea in the 70's, but kept quiet about it. It took years to see beyond it, but when i heard it again from the Geer people it still shook me.

Was this suggestive form (as opposed to declarative) of presenting this idea recent, or about 8 years ago? I'm just wondering how they treat it NOW.

[Raf]

Hey, Raf,

what do you think about the idea that you and I were the penultimate

straw that broke the camel's back?

(Which was NOT the idea at ALL at the time, but still.)

I suspect we were not the only ones who wrote to him on that issue, which would explain his defensiveness on the tapes. I think we were a straw on the camel's back, and I'd like to think we came up with one of the most comprehensive replies (if not THE most comprehensive).

You still have it?

[Raf]

I currently go to a CG fellowship. I suspect that CG puts forth ideas to those in leadership not as doctrine, but as 'tell me what you think of this' and then he lets those leaders do what they want with it. I've heard teaching suggesting that God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge, but no heavy emphasis.

John,

Glad to see that he's taken himself a little less seriously. Perhaps I had the wrong impression, but back when he put out "A Pivot Point in History" and in the time period that followed, he seemed to be declaring these things by fiat and belittling people who disagreed with him. I said "seemed to be." I could have misinterpreted. When you say "If God knew the things you claim He knew and still did the things the Bible says He did, then God is evil," (a paraphrase, but not far off the mark), that doesn't strike me as a "tell me what you think of this" kind of statement. More like, agree with me or you think God is evil.

If he still believes in God as having limited foreknowledge, but has placed less emphasis on it, hey, more power to him. CES does the same (and it drives me bananas).

[Belle]

You still have it?

I'd be interested in seeing it if you do. I don't know jack about CG, but I love the way you two write and respect you both immensely. Anything that you may have collaborated on must be pretty darn awesome in my book.

[WordWolf]

Still got the draft version handy,

and the more final one is around here SOMEWHERE.

The substance was about the same in both.

I might imagine 40 pages of refutation,

covering ALL points, implications,

and things that were muttered behind

closed doors and later claimed by others

(like the "Sarah" thing), I think,

WOULD get someone's attention.

I think the hit-and-a-half was not that it

was so comprehensive,

not that it answered EVERYTHING,

not that it included the conclusions he SHOULD have drawn,

not that it showed where the mistake was....

but that a couple of relative ciphers,

guys with NO titles, whom he would view as

relatively low on the scale with way corps 20-year

longtimers around,

produced that where HE did not.

That HAD to sting, no matter HOW we tried

to soften the blow.

============

Repeat after me:

The phrase

"What the Bible says God knows, He knows;

what the Bible says God doesn't know, He doesn't know"

conveys NO information,

is an evasion,

and is a NON-ANSWER

meant to PREVENT discussion.

[Raf]

Any ego that would be so strongly affected by what we wrote is an ego that would not have given any weight to what we wrote in the first place. It's almost self-contradictory.

[WordWolf]

I beg to differ.

Granted,

he received it graciously,

sent a very polite thank-you note,

and, apparently, thought fairly highly of what we sent.

I think it took a certain amount of maturity to do that.

(He could have just lit a match and pretended we

never sent it.)

On the other hand,

considering yourself a seasoned professional

(like a PhD with a decade or more under his belt)

and seeing some relative youngster unknowns

(like undergrad college students)

put together a refutation of one of your publications

that exceeded the quality OF that publication

can be quite a blow.

It's human, and fallible, and I'd really be surprised

if that didn't happen.

I mean, he's not the ONLY experienced person who

thought we couldn't have had the right of it at the

time.....

I'm thinking of the catchphrases we were presented

with when we asked questions before sending it.

(On the other hand, there were a few who knew we

had something of substance from early on,

and our ages did NOT refute that...)

[Raf]

Maybe I'm a pessimist. I don't think it rattled him all that much.

[themex]

Okey, Chris Geer is in the U.S.A., he has his own vertion of PFAL, the groups thah follow him have a frachise, He is trying to introduce new doctrine. But Why he left Gatmore? What happened whit the Corps program in Europe?

[Raf]

I never was clear on why he left Gartmore. My best guess is there was a power struggle and TWI won. But I haven't the slightest idea.

[WordWolf]

My guess-

and this is only a guess-

is that he wished to return to the United States.

He may have moved to a place he liked better,

where he was "plugged in" to people and places

better.

After all, Gartmore House was a beautiful place

to visit,

but-as he complained in his POP paper,

it was NOT their first choice and was in the middle

of NOWHERE, transit-wise.

[johniam]

Mike:

quote: Was this suggestive form (as opposed to declarative) of presenting this idea recent, or about 8 years ago? I'm just wondering how they treat it NOW.

I've been going to this fellowship since February, and to be honest, I'm not even sure if I heard it in discussion or teaching. These people are definitely not afraid to re examine even the most fundamental TWI beliefs,which I think is healthy to a point.

I've never met CG. Everything I know is based on the people who go to the fellowship.

[johniam]

Raf: Like I just told Mike, I'm probably not the best person to ask about CG. I don't know if the leaders of the fellowship I attend are like those elsewhere, and I don't yet receive any tapes or written materials from CG, but the fellowship has been a pleasant surprise.

[excathedra]

i think the collaterals are boring and written like to babies

oh should i talk about how insane geer was/is and how horribly mean he and veepee were to his wife ? it made my hair stand on end. oh and also how he destroyed another few dear friends of mine. no reason really to destroy them, i guess it was just for the fun of it, oops i mean god told him to do it....