Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Johann on March 29, 2011, 03:48:08 AM
-
Is it the work of God or the work of man? How can you tell?
Some people claim there are three sides to every item, Your side, my side, and then the right side.
Then there are those who claim that I only get my information from one side. How do they know? How will they document that claim?
I have recently had close contact with a person who has been associated with Gospel Outreach, and he verifies all that I have said about Linda's adventures there. And still people claim that Linda must be my only source!
In recent months I have discussed this whole affair with a number of presidents and directors from various world divisions of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Many of them seem to be in a real dilemma.
Actually one leader summed it up like this several years back. The problem of the church is this: Many regard 3ABN as the image of the Church, and Danny Shelton is the head of this image. Although Church leaders realize that the accusations against Linda Shelton are false it seems necessary to sacrifice Linda on the altar of 3ABN's demands to avoid tarnishing the image of the Church. So the message was given to Linda from this corner: You need to be sacrificed to the unjustified demands to save the image. . .
This was the message from one particular individual who yielded great authority at that time. The same individual made it known he had pleaded Linda's case and requested the Board of Directors to re-consider, but that was all in vain. So as a last resort he pleaded with Linda to let herself be sacrificed. My source for this is not Linda, but mostly that leader himself whom I have known for many years.
Just recently I have had talks with several other presidents and leaders about this matter, some of them former presidents and leaders. They still face similar problems. On one hand they have the image of the church, and on the other hand they still face the old problems they have had with what some of them designate as the self-appointed pope of Adventism, Danny Shelton.
One president said to me that it is impossible for him to express his own conviction because the supporters of 3ABN cry out so loud and would accuse him of heresy and it would split the church. He gave this as the reason why he keeps quiet, and you can then understand why I cannot say who he is. As our conversation came to a conclusion I could even hear the smile in his voice as he admonished me to keep on doing what I think is the best.
Some claim I should be stripped of my credentials, but they - as usual - have no idea what they are saying. I came to 3ABN back in 2003 because my credentials had already expired due to my advanced age. Back then I was 70.
3ABN has been instrumental in winning many souls, according to some statistics, although one of the departmental secretaries informs me that the statistics are not telling the truth. I did not notice 3ABN mentioned among the reasons the Seventh-day Adventist Church is today the only growing church in North America. 3ABN likes to claim they are the most important, and they might cling to that claim till their last breath.
The truth is that winning souls is the work of God, regardless of the claims of man. God does use various vehicles, and 3ABN is far from the only one. With a reformation it might still be a powerful fool in His hands
-
Johann,
You are making claims here about what people have allegedly said, and then not identifying them as usual, so there is no way to verify what you claim, or to refute it. It never looks right to me because this is the same way liars spin their tales making unsubstantiated accusations, and unsupported claims about and from others. If you are telling the truth, and these people you are making claims about are ashamed or afraid to say the same things publicly or have their names used? Then imo, they shouldn't be saying it in the first place, and you shouldn't be repeating it as that is not how God calls us to work. Imo, these type of posts do you no credit, or Linda either. They in fact further undermine any credibility you may have had with those who are doing God's work. I do not believe that your continued efforts to malign and discredit Danny Shelton and the 3ABN ministry and libel them will ever be seen by any of God's people as "God's work", as he has prescribed methods and principles we are to follow which don't resemble yours at all. Nor does posting the opinions of anonymous people change anything or really prove anything. Libel, slander, public accusations and faultfinding are not how God lead men to repent. Something to think about?
Johann asked:
Is it the work of God or the work of man? How can you tell?
then answered:
3ABN has been instrumental in winning many souls, according to some statistics, although one of the departmental secretaries informs me that the statistics are not telling the truth. I did not notice 3ABN mentioned among the reasons the Seventh-day Adventist Church is today the only growing church in North America. 3ABN likes to claim they are the most important, and they might cling to that claim till their last breath.
The truth is that winning souls is the work of God, regardless of the claims of man.[Johann] God does use various vehicles, and 3ABN is far from the only one. With a reformation it might still be a powerful fool in His hands
Yes, that is God's work. No, 3ABN has never claimed they are the most important. You say they say that- bearing false witness.
It is time to stop beating 3ABN, and let them do their work. Let go, and let God, Johann. Let God decide who needs to reform and who doesn't. Let God lead in reformation when and if that is necessary. Let God choose his vehicle(s).
Acts 5
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.... Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison....Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not...
.... and the apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
When they heard [that], they were cut [to the heart], and took counsel to slay them.
Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
-
I was just looking at an announcement of a book published in Denmark when reading Sir Myzing's musings. The book, written by a journalist is the story of a spin doctor and the title is "Uden for citat" meaning Outside of a Quotation - or Without a Quotation.
Many reporters have to live with that as much of their reporting has to be done without them supplying the source of their information. Reporting is not a court where you prove a point, but is meant to stir the thoughts of intelligent people to make an independent investigation and decide for themselves what is the truth.
-
Johann - In the last line of your first post - was that what you meant to say or was it a "Freudian slip"? :purr:
-
Johann - In the last line of your first post - was that what you meant to say or was it a "Freudian slip"? :purr:
Depends on your perspective. . .
-
No Sir, My Zing:
Your "zings" fall on deaf ears... ears that are unwilling to believe the slander that has been heaped upon Johann for so many years by the minions of a false prophet. That sounds so dramatic, but since I am addressing a drama queen, I decided to answer in kind. When the truth about Danny Shelton becomes public to a larger audience, it will be an embarrassment to the SDA Church, but the church will overcome it. Danny was not the first or will he be the last "wolf in sheep's clothing" to bring embarrassment to the cause of God.
-
Nosir Myzing,
You have got to be kidding me here! This from the folks who got rid of Linda on less than this. Seven, count them 7!! years later, no phone records, no airlines ticket receipts, no PI pictures produced in no court of law(remember, at BSDA they weren't posting their eveidence there, but saving it for court and a slam sunk divorce settlement, or lack thereof). All if not most of the documents posted on BSDA and else where have been from the folks who here. They may not have been right all of the time, but at least you had something(actually, more than i ever want to see again in life) to look at to make your own determination. Danny only ask that we take his word.......yeah right! Until you all produce any or all of these things they claim to have against Linda, you can keep the righteous indignation about unsubstantiated claims.
As far as Johann word is concerned about the response of the church leaders, it is extremely common to sacrifice the women(usually wife) for the sake of the pastor/leaders career and the image of the church...for "sake of the message". It is a common practice. That is how we, like the RCC, transfer, philandering, thieving, child molesting pastors/leaders all over that place instead of solving their issues. Not to mention even giving some kind of support to their victims.
Johann,
You are making claims here about what people have allegedly said, and then not identifying them as usual, so there is no way to verify what you claim, or to refute it. It never looks right to me because this is the same way liars spin their tales making unsubstantiated accusations, and unsupported claims about and from others. If you are telling the truth, and these people you are making claims about are ashamed or afraid to say the same things publicly or have their names used? Then imo, they shouldn't be saying it in the first place, and you shouldn't be repeating it as that is not how God calls us to work. Imo, these type of posts do you no credit, or Linda either. They in fact further undermine any credibility you may have had with those who are doing God's work. I do not believe that your continued efforts to malign and discredit Danny Shelton and the 3ABN ministry and libel them will ever be seen by any of God's people as "God's work", as he has prescribed methods and principles we are to follow which don't resemble yours at all. Nor does posting the opinions of anonymous people change anything or really prove anything. Libel, slander, public accusations and faultfinding are not how God lead men to repent. Something to think about?
-
Nosir Myzing,
You have got to be kidding me here! This from the folks who got rid of Linda on less than this. Seven, count them 7!! years later, no phone records, no airlines ticket receipts, no PI pictures produced in no court of law(remember, at BSDA they weren't posting their eveidence there, but saving it for court and a slam sunk divorce settlement, or lack thereof)...
You need to dial it back about 5 notches. I am sorry to interupt your delusions of grandeur, and your "it is common" attempts at rationalizing, but who are you, Pickle and Joy to claim these things don't exist simply because you didn't see them and they weren't posted on an internet forum? How would you know if they have, or have not been presented in Linda's property suit against Danny? You don't, that case is under seal. Those who's business it is will see them if required. Not you, Sister, Pickle, or Joy ect...
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. The rest of you don't have a case, nor any defense for that matter...
-
Yes, Princess, those people seem to come from outer space where there is an eternal shadow. Yes, they quote us here, and do exactly like Barbara Kerr told me the other day they have done to her statements. They interpret everything according to their own dictionary and put a meaning into the words that is quite different from what is intended.
-
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. The rest of you don't have a case, nor any defense for that matter...
You must be kidding, No Sir!
You are at liberty to make all kinds of undocumented claims based on sealed documents, but you will grant nobody else that privilege? Are you really a person from "outer space"?
I have a good notion that at least two persons who knew the contents of your sealed documents are no longer members of that elite, and are neither as convinced as you seem to be what they really tell. Perhaps they saw another reality from within?
-
Johann - In the last line of your first post - was that what you meant to say or was it a "Freudian slip"? :purr:
To be more specific, some of our children have had problems distinguishing f from t. Some others might have the same problem.
-
You are confused again, or deliberately misunderstanding. I am not sure which, but it doesn't really matter. I am NOT "making undocumented claims on sealed documents", Johann. Here is what I will do. I am going to start a new thread entitled "Johann's tales". I will document anything I say or claim in that topic and I will cite and reference any quoted material so you and others can understand, and see how that works from now on.
Have a good evening.
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. The rest of you don't have a case, nor any defense for that matter...
You must be kidding, No Sir!
You are at liberty to make all kinds of undocumented claims based on sealed documents, but you will grant nobody else that privilege? Are you really a person from "outer space"?
I have a good notion that at least two persons who knew the contents of your sealed documents are no longer members of that elite, and are neither as convinced as you seem to be what they really tell. Perhaps they saw another reality from within?
-
I am nobody to know, but you kow I am only going by what I see, people's actions. Do I or any other rational person believe that Danny would go to such lengths to not just divorce his wife of 20 years, but disgrace and destroy her, and hold back such evidence if he had it? Please! He talked about her like a dog every single time he a chance, while she was under that crazy gag order(Heard him myself(and I watched 3ABN enough to count on one hand). All Danny had to say from the beginning that he would only discuss this in court, but seeing as Linda was under the gag order, it was he and the 3ABN board who brought this mess to the light, mistakenly thinking that if he put Linda's supposed business in the street, his would not go along with it. Did not work out for him that way.
Anyway, not here to argue this mess, just really irritated at you all asking for such proof, yet you supply none yourselves. Also, I know this post of yours was a deflection, and I answered you anyway.
Who are you anyway? Don't want to know your name, you just seem like somebody wh was not around all the time. Danny and his group is good at sending out "defenders" without the correct or not enough information, and there seems to be some gaps in your knowledge of the subject.
You need to dial it back about 5 notches. I am sorry to interupt your delusions of grandeur, and your "it is common" attempts at rationalizing, but who are you, Pickle and Joy to claim these things don't exist simply because you didn't see them and they weren't posted on an internet forum? How would you know if they have, or have not been presented in Linda's property suit against Danny? You don't, that case is under seal. Those who's business it is will see them if required. Not you, Sister, Pickle, or Joy ect...
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. The rest of you don't have a case, nor any defense for that matter...
-
Here is what I will do. I am going to start a new thread entitled "Johann's tales". I will document anything I say or claim in that topic and I will cite and reference any quoted material so you and others can understand, and see how that works from now on.
Have a good evening.
I salute you for your high ambition. I will count on you refraining from turning my words around to mean something else than what is intended.
-
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
I have a real problem with the above statement. It's implication is that Linda was convicetd by secret evidence taht is not open to review. Such is against what is commonly thought to be the American way of life--evidence is presented in an objective court with full opportunity for the devendent and his/her defenders/representatives to review, evaulate and to challenge. In that objective court, those who testify may be subject to criminal sanctions if they testify falselly, or doctor the evidence.
Satements such as the above, in my thinking, imply that LInda has been convicted behind the scenes, in secret, and without the opportunity for her defenders and representatives to challege the claimed evidence.
In my opinion, no one who has been given access to such secret evidence should allow such secret evidence to play a part in determining Linda's guilt. No matter how damning the evidence is, without the opportuith to challenge, in my opinion, it should not be used to convict.
Some may say: Well, if Linda will agree not to litigate in a court of law, we will show it to her and her defenders/representatives. Sorry. In my opinion such is not fair. If the secret evidence is challenged as "doctored," those who did such should face legal sanctions.
The one side has claimed a right to litigate against Pickle and Joy. I do not have a problem with that claim. The courts are a proper place to resolve some issues. And, for those who defend the litigation against Pickle and Joy, in my opinion, they should defend the rights of Linda to litigate against those who have provided her with a legal basis to litigate. IOW, Linda should have the same right to litigate as those who have litigated against PIckle and Joy.
-
I am going to start a new thread entitled "Johann's tales"
ADMIN HAT ON
Warning: Respect for the administrator of the site is required at this forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF
-
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
I have a real problem with the above statement. It's implication is that Linda was convicetd by secret evidence taht is not open to review. Such is against what is commonly thought to be the American way of life--evidence is presented in an objective court with full opportunity for the devendent and his/her defenders/representatives to review, evaulate and to challenge. In that objective court, those who testify may be subject to criminal sanctions if they testify falselly, or doctor the evidence.
Satements such as the above, in my thinking, imply that LInda has been convicted behind the scenes, in secret, and without the opportunity for her defenders and representatives to challege the claimed evidence.
In my opinion, no one who has been given access to such secret evidence should allow such secret evidence to play a part in determining Linda's guilt. No matter how damning the evidence is, without the opportuith to challenge, in my opinion, it should not be used to convict.
And I have a real problem with your statements. You are an intelligent man, but this is not an intelligent argument, Gregory. It is not "secret evidence", but it is not "Public evidence" either. Nor is it the world's business.
Employers can and do fire employees, and it doesn't take a court case or a "conviction" to do so. Nor do they, nor should they make all public, correct? If they do, they may be sued. [ In fact Linda threatened that early on through her junkyard lawyer. That was what she called him when he litigated against her.] If the employee feels they are wrongfully terminated they may file a grievance or even a lawsuit with the proper agencies. A ex employees friends and defenders don't get to take on the Employer or it's board in the real world. If they wish to support the terminated friend, they may do so, if they have anything relevant to say in a court of law they may testify.
Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence. Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.
Some may say: Well, if Linda will agree not to litigate in a court of law, we will show it to her and her defenders/representatives. Sorry. In my opinion such is not fair. If the secret evidence is challenged as "doctored," those who did such should face legal sanctions.
The one side has claimed a right to litigate against Pickle and Joy. I do not have a problem with that claim. The courts are a proper place to resolve some issues. And, for those who defend the litigation against Pickle and Joy, in my opinion, they should defend the rights of Linda to litigate against those who have provided her with a legal basis to litigate. IOW, Linda should have the same right to litigate as those who have litigated against PIckle and Joy.
Before having a knee jerk reaction and beginning to argue it is always good to read what you are replying to.
If you had you wouldn't be whining it's not fair, and acting like I said Linda doesn't have that right to litigate. I said: "If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. " I meant it. She has that right. She should go for it if she feels she needs to do that. Alright?
But if you think she doesn't already know what the evidence is? I believe you've been snowed big time.
-
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
The reference to Chruches, Boards, Minstries, Conference Presidents, etc., takes it out of a simple termination of an employee.
If you want to cite labor law I am well prepared to match you. Federal law applies in some cases. In the majority of cases it is State law that governs and is other cases there is other law that governs and in some cases the governing document is a contract and not a statute. In a number of States in the United States the governing law is simply put that an employee may be termilnated at the will of the employer and no reason has to be given. End of discussion. The employer does not have to justify why the employee was fired.
The majority of the litigation that has taken place and the majority of the discussion has not involved the question as to whether or not 3-ABN had the legal reight to terminate the employement of Linda. The litigation and the discussion has involved other issues.
Linda has been branded (See THE SCARLET LETTER) as having an inappropriate relationshilp with a man not her husband. As I understand the posts, it has been implied that there is secret evidence of her misconduct. I will say that in my opinion, no person should be "covicted" by a secret tribunal by evidence that is secret.
Let us say for the purpose of my arguement (you would probably agree that what I say next does not exist) that someone took a vido of Linda and Dr. A having sexual intercourse on a public beach. Let us say that such a video has been shown to denominational officials who were convinced by the video that the charges against Linda were true. I would still say that no such denominational offical, in my opinon, should hold LInda to be guilty in a situaiton where Linda and her supporters/representatives were allowed to examine, evaulate and challenge the video. And, in such a situation, those who produced such a video should be subject to litigation if it could be proved that they had doctored the product--the video.
Yes, you do have a point in that those who had such a video in their possession should not simply relaease it to the general public and/or post it on a public website. However, it should be released to whomever Linda wanted to have it and if Linda or one of her representatives, or someone to whom she gave it, released it to the public, so be it.
My comment was not related to the simple issue of 3-ABN firing Linda. I addressed the larger picture.
-
Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence. Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.
1) In standard denominational practice it is NOT a Chruch Board that makes a decision as to discipline of a member. Rather it is the membership of the local congregation as a whole who makes the decision as to discipline and they should only do that on the basis of the evidence given them.
2) Previous comments which were related to "Confernce Presidents" and denominational officials suggest that the attempt to "tar" Linda has departed from that local congregation and has extended to people who did not have a need to know.
3) Yes, it is not every "Tom, Dick and Gregory" who should be given access to the evidence. I agree with you on that. Simply becasue one attemts to defend Linda does not mean that they have a right to the evidence. The right to examine and challenge the evidence belongs to Linda and all those that she authorizes to recieve it.
4) As I thilnk you know, my issue has never been 3-ABN, Danney Shelton and how evil they are. My issues has been silmply that of fairness and justice to Linda. I have not been critical of Dr. Thompson, as a person and I have publicly stated that he is a good man who has served a church that he loved for many years. I have not accused him of malice against Linda and I do not believe that he acted with malice in the decisions that he made as this mess began. But, I do believe that as this mess has unfolded Linda has not been treated with the fairness and justice that she has deserved.
5) While I do not charge you with evil intent toward Linda, you posted a comment that casued me to decide to respond, which I do not do often.
-
Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence. Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.
1) In standard denominational practice it is NOT a Chruch Board that makes a decision as to discipline of a member. Rather it is the membership of the local congregation as a whole who makes the decision as to discipline and they should only do that on the basis of the evidence given them.
You are right.
2) Previous comments which were related to "Confernce Presidents" and denominational officials suggest that the attempt to "tar" Linda has departed from that local congregation and has extended to people who did not have a need to know.
Well we may have to just disagree. I think that in a normal situation that would be true. In this particular situation it's not. It wasn't about tarring Linda. In this situation, it all was being complained about publicly by those who decided to defend Linda. Mailing were being sent to conference officials and presidents and pastors.
DS, the 3ABN board and others were being criticized and accused and it was they who were being tarred. Like it or not the SDA organization is hierarchical and 3ABN although independent has an agreement with them, so when those above others said what is the deal? It was their right to ask and be told, and when 3ABN said here's what we decided and did and here's why, it should be understood why they would attempt to explain to those who had a right to inquire to avoid the appearance of evil and show they were accountable.
3) Yes, it is not every "Tom, Dick and Gregory" who should be given access to the evidence. I agree with you on that. Simply becasue one attemts to defend Linda does not mean that they have a right to the evidence. The right to examine and challenge the evidence belongs to Linda and all those that she authorizes to recieve it.
Here again we will have to disagree I am thinking. For if someone privately threatened me that if I revealed evidence they would sue me, [evidence that normally employers don't hand out] and then demanded publicly that I reveal that same evidence? If they also claimed that me asking them to sign a promise not to sue if I did as they demanded was unfair and wouldn't sign one? Well it seems you'd want me to hand the evidence over, but I would not. I would consider that a bone headed move. I would consider that the equivalent of handing them my head on a platter.
4) As I thilnk you know, my issue has never been 3-ABN, Danney Shelton and how evil they are. My issues has been silmply that of fairness and justice to Linda. I have not been critical of Dr. Thompson, as a person and I have publicly stated that he is a good man who has served a church that he loved for many years. I have not accused him of malice against Linda and I do not believe that he acted with malice in the decisions that he made as this mess began. But, I do believe that as this mess has unfolded Linda has not been treated with the fairness and justice that she has deserved.
5) While I do not charge you with evil intent toward Linda, you posted a comment that casued me to decide to respond, which I do not do often.
I do not have a problem with you responding. You appear to know how to disagree civilly and not keep changing the topic. I understand how you feel about Linda, but I believe that Danny and 3abn have not been treated with the fairness and justice they deserve either. This internet no holds barred public bash fest is just not right.
Good-night.
-
I have decided to comment on the law, legal rights as they intersect with churches and so on. I am not an attorney. I do not practice law. I acknowledge that the law is complex enough that should the comments I make be accurate, there would be exceptions in which my comments would not apply.
There seems to be a feeling that certain aspects of a potential disciplinary action against Linda must be kept secret in order to protect the Church and/or certain people acting on behalf of or in concert with the church from adverse litigation. When church discipline is done right, this, in my opinion is not an issue. Under the provisions of the First Amendment there is a large body of case law that limits the ability of government and/or the courts to become involved in church issues. Linda was a member of the Thompsonville SDA Church. As such, I believe that the courts would resist becoming involved in a situation where the Thompsonville congregation was attempting to discipline Linda in accord with denominational procedures. I also believe that the courts would likely refuse to determine whether or not Linda was disciplined according to denominational procedures. I believe that the courts would refuse to become involved in any discipline that the Thompsonville congregation gave to Linda. In short, I do not believe that the Thompsonville congregation was in major danger as to any discipline that it might have given Linda. In general this pertains, in my opinion, to any evidence that might have been a factor in her discipline.
Of course the ability of the Thompsonville congregation to discipline Linda change once they exited her from their membership.
However, in my opinion, I do not believe that what I have said above applies 100% to alleged evidence. I can think of a hypothesis under which litigation could take place against certain people—probably not the Thompsonville congregation itself. In such a case, the evidence, even if accurate, might to said to be tainted or compromised. I have a gut level feeling that is not based upon any evidence, that this is the case—there is “secret” alleged evidence against Linda that has been tainted or compromised. That is the reason it is kept secret. Could I be wrong? Of course. I will likely never know as I expect such to be kept secret
-
Nosir:
Evidence that cannot be made available for LInda (let us say that it cannot) and/or her representative to review and challenge should not be used to convict her. It is as simple as that.
-
Nosir:
Evidence that cannot be made available for LInda (let us say that it cannot) and/or her representative to review and challenge should not be used to convict her. It is as simple as that.
She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.
Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.
It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...
IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.
If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.
-
How can you be certain your ship of arguments will not be blown out of the water? Unless you prove that Linda knows the "evidence" these secret documents contain, your discussions are futile.
She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.
Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.
It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...
IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.
If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.
-
Linda not convicted: In the legal sense, you are correct. In the court of public opinion, it is divided. In the minds of some she stands (or sits) convicted. In the minds of others, she has not been convicted.
I wonder, if Linda were to file a lawsuit requesting the evidence, to what extent would it be resisted, how long would it be fought and in what (how many) courts?
I do not know.
-
Huh?
Whether she does or not has no relevance here that I can see, but do you really believe that Danny never even mentioned the evidence to her or talked to her about it and that she remains clueless to this day? Alright... but even if that scenario is true it would still change nothing about what I said in the post you are replying to, Johann.
Did you by any chance ever watch Star Trek - the Next Generation?
Johann of Borg: " Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."
Sorry, but :ROFL:
How can you be certain your ship of arguments will not be blown out of the water? Unless you prove that Linda knows the "evidence" these secret documents contain, your discussions are futile.
She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.
Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.
It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...
IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.
If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.
-
Linda not convicted: In the legal sense, you are correct. In the court of public opinion, it is divided. In the minds of some she stands (or sits) convicted. In the minds of others, she has not been convicted.
I wonder, if Linda were to file a lawsuit requesting the evidence, to what extent would it be resisted, how long would it be fought and in what (how many) courts?
I do not know.
I do not know if it would be, or not; but, speculation is futile, you will be assimilated. ;)
We can probably agree it would be better if the court of public opinion wasn't as big or as vocal as it is, and that it would have been better had nothing been said publicly beyond what was strictly necessary, by either side, from day one.
Enjoy your day. I have things to go do.
-
Huh?
Whether she does or not has no relevance here that I can see, but do you really believe that Danny never even mentioned the evidence to her or talked to her about it and that she remains clueless to this day? Alright... but even if that scenario is true it would still change nothing about what I said in the post you are replying to, Johann.
Did you by any chance ever watch Star Trek - the Next Generation?
Johann of Borg: " Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."
Sorry, but :ROFL:
So is this but a Star Trek adventure to you with no regards to how Linda was treated? Are you trying to convince your adience that it should not make any difference to Linda if she is falsely accused or not? Linda still insists she has never been presented, privately or in public, with any evidence of the adultery she has been accused of because there is none. Since you are repeating that accusation here it is your duty to present the evidence for your claim before you present any other claim on this forum. Else "Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."
-
Seven, count them 7!! years later, no phone records, no airlines ticket receipts, no PI pictures produced in no court of law(remember, at BSDA they weren't posting their eveidence there, but saving it for court and a slam sunk divorce settlement, or lack thereof).
They sued us over, in part, the alleged lie that Danny was trying to hide the royalties for Ten Commandments Twice Removed from the marital property case.
But it appears to me that the strategy in that case may have evolved. If before they tried to maintain that the manuscripts for TCTR and Antichrist Agenda didn't exist before the divorce, they are instead now maintaining that these books weren't published or contracted for until after the divorce.
In other words, it appears that they are tacitly admitting that the manuscripts existed prior to the divorce. But they are still obstructing discovery in Linda's marital property case.
Sound familiar?
-
How would you know if they have, or have not been presented in Linda's property suit against Danny? You don't, that case is under seal.
Utterly false. The case is not under seal. Stop by the Franklin County Courthouse and you can look through all 5 folders of the case. You can then ask a clerk to photocopy whatever you want for $1 for the first page, and 50 cents per page thereafter.
There are some things within the case that are filed under seal. There might be 3 to 6 manila envelopes marked sealed or confidential, I don't know for sure how many. Those envelopes contain a very small amount of the paper in the case.
Further, I can't imagine why any of these envelopes would contain anything pertaining to alleged adultery. Certainly they didn't contain audio or video tapes. They likely only contain things pertaining to assets or book royalties or affidavits pertaining to Danny's books.
Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did.
Do you not recall that Illinois Conference President Ken Denslow told me on October 30, 2006, over lunch that he had never heard the audio tape that Hal Steenson told me that conference presidents had listened to was so sick?
So Evil Surmizing, please list for us the specific evidence you are referring to, and the names of those who saw it, the dates they saw it, and their positions at that time. Otherwise, your claims are as hollow as Hal Steenson's.
-
Those who's business it is will see them if required. Not you, Sister, Pickle, or Joy ect...
It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...
I wonder, if Linda were to file a lawsuit requesting the evidence, to what extent would it be resisted, how long would it be fought and in what (how many) courts?
Fact #1: We legally requested the evidence against Linda while defending ourselves against the claims Danny Shelton made in his lawsuit against us.
Fact #2: Danny (and 3ABN) refused to produce any of that evidence. They produced absolutely none of it.
Fact #3: Danny was ordered by the court to respond to our second request for such evidence by October 27, 2008.
Fact #4: Danny refused to comply with that order, and was "punished" for his contempt of court by receiving a dismissal without prejudice, and a denial of our subsequent motion for costs.
Therefore, there is every reason to believe that Danny would resist compliance in any suit with Linda.
His conduct is a reproach to the cause of Christ.
-
Is 3ABN God's work? :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: Of course it's not! Hasn't been for sometime if ever? How can you say it is....when you allow Danny the adulterer to be in charge....not only that but you employee Danny's pedophile brother TS. Then you have adulterers such as Brad Walker, Tammy Larson, Brenda Walsh, etc.
And yes I mention Brenda! Don't tell me her and Danny wasn't up to something when his truck was at her place late at night!
:caution: :caution: And GRAT I totally agree....he wanted down her panties, and I'm sure he was....... :-X :-\ :caution: :caution:
So, until change happens at the "Devils playground" then of course it isn't the work of God!
-
Truth post this:
The potshots and lies seem never-ending. The assult on 3ABN and those who work there, without any kind of evidence or proof seems to be the latest popular plaything. To say evil lies over and over again does not turn them into truth. And then to have... gross "panties" comments repeated was quite nauseas
Truth hurts don't it, Mrs. Junebug. Not as nauseas as you claiming it's fine for a grown man to have sex with a minor as long as the minor consents. ??? ??? :o
Yet, you seem to think it's okay for Danny to get into those panties, huh? Just as you all defend a man who couldn't keep his hands out of young men's underwear. :oops:
Make sense? :dunno: Of course it don't!
____________________________
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.
-
So let me ask this........Gregory,are you saying that Linda hasn't even seen this "evidence", but Nosir, the list of officials you gave(that didn't include any legal entities) have seen it? What is wrong with this picture? It still infers that it was not presented in a court of law, and that is where they said they were supposed to be presenting it(and rightly so). I mean those were you all's words at the time, and I don't disagree that court was the right forum, but court should have been the forum from the beginning. You should have never thrown out just enough trash to have Linda convicted in the court of public[church] opinion.
Now you come talking about nobody ever charged her with adultery. What in the world was all that about picture, phone records, trips, hotels, PIs, gifts if not to insinuate she was having an affair? For you to say that no one accused her of adultery now is being extremely disingenuous at best.
-
My friend Adam,
Certainly some of us abhor certain expressions you are using and we wish they could be avoided.
The people over at the site you are referring to might be a lot more "cultivated" and present their wares in a more religious garb.
The big question is, What is more important, the wrapping or the contents?
Is it possible to wrap up the smut, lies and intrigues in such a sanctified garb that it makes the content acceptable as truth?
Isn't there a number of instances in Scripture where the prophets reveal what people really are doing by using vulgar expressions which reveal to the reader how abhorrent the actions in reality are?
-
Now you come talking about nobody ever charged her with adultery. What in the world was all that about picture, phone records, trips, hotels, PIs, gifts if not to insinuate she was having an affair? For you to say that no one accused her of adultery now is being extremely disingenuous at best.
If this is not official, what about the intrigues being presented ad nauseam?
-
I will assert that the Administration of Danny Lee Shelton consisted of the "spirit of anti-christ" and there are clearly elements still their in the administration and directorate that clearly have the "spirit of Anti-christ". They simply proved it the day they filed suit against Joy and Pickle, and if I have my way, when the 1st Circuit Rules, we go back to October 2008 and we get to look at a whole lot of additonal evidence. Best way to get these miscreants to producwe anything is to go right onto that campus with a subpoena duces teacum and do file by file, draw by draw, closet by closet, room by room!!!
I would bet that Manly and Anderson may well cleam them out first, but we will soon be back at it and Sir Mizer can continue to support the "SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST".
They have proven in so many ways they are LIARS only a thorough search will uncover...the SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST is alive and well at 3ABN.
THEY ARE THE COUNTERFEIT!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
My friend Adam,
Certainly some of us abhor certain expressions you are using and we wish they could be avoided.
The people over at the site you are referring to might be a lot more "cultivated" and present their wares in a more religious garb.
The big question is, What is more important, the wrapping or the contents?
Is it possible to wrap up the smut, lies and intrigues in such a sanctified garb that it makes the content acceptable as truth?
Isn't there a number of instances in Scripture where the prophets reveal what people really are doing by using vulgar expressions which reveal to the reader how abhorrent the actions in reality are?
I apologize, but sometimes you just have to call it like you see it. :)
-
I apologize, but sometimes you just have to call it like you see it. :)
Not always! :) You have been pushing it here.
By the way... Does a sincere apology require justification?
-
I apologize, but sometimes you just have to call it like you see it. :)
Not always! :) You have been pushing it here.
By the way... Does a sincere apology require justification?
Depends on who you ask ;) ;) ;)......
I would also ask if calling someone a "nut job" is fitting of a Christian? Considering that could be used in a sexual atmosphere....or wording.... Now I'm done responding to you, Snoopy.
-
Depends on who you ask ;) ;) ;)......
I would also ask if calling someone a "nut job" is fitting of a Christian? Considering that could be used in a sexual atmosphere....or wording.... Now I'm done responding to you, Snoopy.
Excellent point, my dear Adam!!
I guess if you are asking the administration of a forum you wish to continue posting on... Well, you get it!!
In the meantime...keeping an eye on you...
-
????????