Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Gregory on August 21, 2008, 04:30:51 AM
-
Christian has asked whether or not that current lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have filed against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle is in accord with the teachings of the Bible. This is a complex question that I am going to respond to in parts. In this part, I am going to discuss the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In another part I will discuss the Biblical teachings, as Christian asked. In addition, I may add a section on what has happened in the past in regard to attempts to settle the issues outside of civil litigation as that has been attempted several times and without success each time.
For the denomination policy I will refer to the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHRUCH MANUAL, REVISED 2005, 17TH EDITION. This is the most authorative document available in regard to the general policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I will generally reference sections in Chapter 14 which begins on page 185.
In my references I will use “ChM” followed by a page number to reference the above Church Manual and I will use standard citations to reference EGW quotations cited in the ChM.
Some of the interesting comments:
The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . . The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .” ChM 188 and 3T 428
And
Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.” ChM 190
NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership. And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.
And
Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
# # # #
Civil litigation is often carried on is a spirit of contention that results from and reveals human selfishness. It is this kind of adversary proceedings that must be discouraged by a church that seeks to exhibit the spirit of Christ.
# # # #
While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children. While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate. (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.) ChM 191
Folks: Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve. There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority. And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.
And
Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience. (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192
Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed. There is a wish that it could be settled by other means. There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.
But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:
1) The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs. 3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination. In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church. The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.
2) Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination. E.g. One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet. That is an issue of civil law. The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue. This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.
3) Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues. Only the civil government can settle these. The denomination has no authority to do so. Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?
4) Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination. It has no authority over a non-SDA.
5) Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate. The Church has the mission to preach the gospel. God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.
Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families. Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues could have been settled outside of litigation. Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled. The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government. That is sad, but true.
NOTE: I will respond later to the Biblical teaching.
-
On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?
Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.
-
On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?
Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.
Of course they could. But, Bob, it would be the IRS that would determine whether or not they were improper business dealings. The authority to do that rests with the IRS and no one else. It is a civil matter.
If the IRS were to determine that such were improper business dealings it would be within the pervue of the local congregation to decide whether to discipline the individual for improper business dealings, or to let the IRS sanctions be the sole discipline. It would not be proper for the local congregation to determine that they were improper absent a determination of the IRS.
NOTE: I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing. You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question. The Church should not userp that right.
-
NOTE: I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing. You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question. The Church should not userp that right.
I would think it inappropriate to require convictions before the church can act in civil matters.
Adultery is a civil matter, but the church doesn't wait around until the civil courts convict on such a matter. So just because it is a civil matter doesn't mean the church can't act before the state does.
The horse donation thing is pretty clear cut. ASI would not have to wait around until the IRS said that Danny said that he had reported a donation of a horse or horses as cash on his 2003 tax return instead of getting the required appraisal(s), since we all know he said that. ASI or the church doesn't have to wait until the IRS tells us what we already know.
The 1998 real estate deal is a matter of public record, and doesn't have to involve the IRS at all. ASI could still determine that it is unacceptable for an ASI member to give away its real estate to directors for token prices.
But maybe we should back up: When the complaint says that we said that directors of 3ABN enriched themselves in violation of the Internal Revenue Code, what specific statements is it referring to?
-
"1) The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs. 3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination. In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church. The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them." - Gregory Matthews
Could you clarify which people involved in this litigation that are not members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
Since Tommy Ray Shelton is not a party to the action, I would like to know what "parties" are not members?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination. E.g. One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet. That is an issue of civil law. The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue. This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit." Gregory Matthews
Are you stating it is YOUR OPINION that trademark is an issue or are you simply parroting this misuse of process that violates the Lanham Act?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"5) Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate. The Church has the mission to preach the gospel. God has established civil government to handle civil affairs." regory Matthews
There is the implication here that 3ABN does not have a mission to preach the gospel. Are we admitting the recognition that at all time pertinent hereto that 3ABN was really just a Shelton Business Enterprise?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Thank you, Gailon!
-
Christian has asked whether or not that current lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have filed against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle is in accord with the teachings of the Bible. This is a complex question that I am going to respond to in parts. In this part, I am going to discuss the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In another part I will discuss the Biblical teachings, as Christian asked. In addition, I may add a section on what has happened in the past in regard to attempts to settle the issues outside of civil litigation as that has been attempted several times and without success each time.
For the denomination policy I will refer to the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHRUCH MANUAL, REVISED 2005, 17TH EDITION. This is the most authorative document available in regard to the general policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I will generally reference sections in Chapter 14 which begins on page 185.
In my references I will use “ChM” followed by a page number to reference the above Church Manual and I will use standard citations to reference EGW quotations cited in the ChM.
Some of the interesting comments:
The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . . The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .” ChM 188 and 3T 428
And
Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.” ChM 190
NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership. And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.
And
Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
# # # #
Civil litigation is often carried on is a spirit of contention that results from and reveals human selfishness. It is this kind of adversary proceedings that must be discouraged by a church that seeks to exhibit the spirit of Christ.
# # # #
While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children. While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate. (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.) ChM 191
Folks: Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve. There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority. And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.
And
Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience. (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192
Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed. There is a wish that it could be settled by other means. There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.
But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:
1) The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs. 3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination. In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church. The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.
2) Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination. E.g. One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet. That is an issue of civil law. The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue. This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.
3) Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues. Only the civil government can settle these. The denomination has no authority to do so. Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?
4) Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination. It has no authority over a non-SDA.
5) Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate. The Church has the mission to preach the gospel. God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.
Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families. Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues could have been settled outside of litigation. Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled. The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government. That is sad, but true.
NOTE: I will respond later to the Biblical teaching.
Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.
ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.
Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?
And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? ANd what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?
I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!
Here is a drink to luscivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"???
Yes, Mr Matthews, or is that Elder Matthews, you have just opened the floodgates of litigation...I feel a lot free-er today!!! My soul is liberated and now I must grant to Mr Pickle the Authority to counterclaim against 3ABN!!!
Go to it, BOB, after all Gregory Matthews has granted permission based upon General Conference Authority!!!
The visions of opportunity are swirling past my eyes like storm clouds over Florida!!!
Thank-you so much for clarifying all that and giving my life new meaning and purpose. Litigate, litigate, Litigate!!! Now we know that the General Conference advocates adversarial law as a primary basis for conflict resolution.
Think I will go down to the courthouse and pick up a hundred or so summons and complaints coversheets. I am going to be busy!!!
Look what thou hast unleashed, Elder Matthews!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
-
On the other hand, are not improper business dealings grounds for church discipline?
Thus, ASI or the Thompsonville Church could certainly look into such issues as the 1998 real estate deal, and the horse donations.
Of course they could. But, Bob, it would be the IRS that would determine whether or not they were improper business dealings. The authority to do that rests with the IRS and no one else. It is a civil matter.
If the IRS were to determine that such were improper business dealings it would be within the pervue of the local congregation to decide whether to discipline the individual for improper business dealings, or to let the IRS sanctions be the sole discipline. It would not be proper for the local congregation to determine that they were improper absent a determination of the IRS.
NOTE: I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing. You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question. The Church should not userp that right.
So, Mr Matthews, We now are suggesting that if I catch someone with his hands in the offering bucket, I am to turn him over to the IRS? And what if it is the pastor? Or the Conference President? And I call the IRS but they can find nothing with which to prosecute...do we ignore it and let it continue? Now that sounds like a great idea...never confront error...it is not your duty to confront clear and obvious error!!! I don't recall my Bible teaching that premise!!! Do you have a new version?
And let's see, if you caught a husband throwing his wife into the street without due process, who were you suppose to go to? Probate Court? I did not see you even on the witness list!!!
Sorry, but I think this boils down to "I See NO EVIL, I HEAR NO EVIL AND I SAY NO EVIL" or better described as put your head in the sand philosophy.
And who are you kidding? Your agenda is simply informative? A sudden urge to reform? Well, you know what they say about reformed alcoholics?
Be assured I am not a buyer!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
-
Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.
ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.
Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?
And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? ANd what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?
I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!
Here is a drink to luscivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"???
Yes, Mr Matthews, or is that Elder Matthews, you have just opened the floodgates of litigation...I feel a lot free-er today!!! My soul is liberated and now I must grant to Mr Pickle the Authority to counterclaim against 3ABN!!!
Go to it, BOB, after all Gregory Matthews has granted permission based upon General Conference Authority!!!
The visions of opportunity are swirling past my eyes like storm clouds over Florida!!!
Thank-you so much for clarifying all that and giving my life new meaning and purpose. Litigate, litigate, Litigate!!! Now we know that the General Conference advocates adversarial law as a primary basis for conflict resolution.
Think I will go down to the courthouse and pick up a hundred or so summons and complaints coversheets. I am going to be busy!!!
Look what thou hast unleashed, Elder Matthews!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
Gailon,
Is this what Gregory Matthews said???? If the answer is yes,can you kindly include the quotes and the date he said them
Edited to complete sentence
-
So, Mr Matthews, We now are suggesting that if I catch someone with his hands in the offering bucket, I am to turn him over to the IRS? And what if it is the pastor? Or the Conference President? And I call the IRS but they can find nothing with which to prosecute...do we ignore it and let it continue? Now that sounds like a great idea...never confront error...it is not your duty to confront clear and obvious error!!! I don't recall my Bible teaching that premise!!! Do you have a new version?
And let's see, if you caught a husband throwing his wife into the street without due process, who were you suppose to go to? Probate Court? I did not see you even on the witness list!!!
Sorry, but I think this boils down to "I See NO EVIL, I HEAR NO EVIL AND I SAY NO EVIL" or better described as put your head in the sand philosophy.
And who are you kidding? Your agenda is simply informative? A sudden urge to reform? Well, you know what they say about reformed alcoholics?
Be assured I am not a buyer!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
Once again, is this what Gregory Matthews said.? I have seen others do this. In fact just yesterday bumped a older topic back to the top, wondering if a certain type of behaviours was indeed a lie.
Exaggerating as to what someone else said,or pretending the posting was not understood so it leaves a way for attention to focus an attack on a person instead of the actual statement.
When I see stuff like this,I automatically write anything further they have as being factual. I don't have the desire or the patience to sift thru messages to try to isolate the truth from a exaggerated statment,said so as to make the other guy look the way they want them to.
Some are better at this little trick than others, but all that do so leave a bad taste
-
bonnie,
It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.
Regarding the horse donations and real estate deal we have definite claims by Danny and/or public records.
Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.
We can apply the same logic to other civil matters, such as divorce and stealing from the offering plate. Unless there is a finding of guilt by a civil government agency, the church cannot do a thing.
I disagree with that logic.
-
It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.
Regarding the horse donations and real estate deal we have definite claims by Danny and/or public records.
Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.
We can apply the same logic to other civil matters, such as divorce and stealing from the offering plate. Unless there is a finding of guilt by a civil government agency, the church cannot do a thing.
I disagree with that logic.
Bob
Can you honestly say that Gregory meant or said what Gailon said in such a "entertaining" fashion.
There is little reason to be so caustic,sarcastic and to exaggerate what someone else has said. It is also a lie in my book to stretch and strain what was said
for the sole purpose of demeaning another.
Another area where the church is almost powerless is when people lie. It would be nice if they could but that would probably be all they got done.
Show me in the following. I have included a few remarks by Gailon
ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.
Can you point me to the statement where Gregory has implied or suggested this
Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?
Please point me where permission was given to sue a pastor because you did not like his tie.
You also know the examples given here are an gross exaggeration and you are perfectly willing to play the game.
And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? And what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?
Yes, you could probably sue a member for slander, whether you would win or not would be debatable as long as the tactics shown here were part of your lawsuit. Maybe attributing exaggerated statements, being very confrontational any time you respond to someone,your lawsuit may not be decided in your favor.
I don't think you would get far filing a lawsuit dealing with the music a church chooses to have. Nor do I believe I read that in Gregory's explaination. If you did, plese show me.
I believe you knew that reading the above statements. But of course that was not the reason for saying what was did. Many will throw enough half-truths,no truth,exaggerations around , and hope that doing so enough will cause something to stick. It does frequently,but many times not on the intended.
I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!
Please point me to the quote that has anything to do with litigating against Grandma Nettie. Or personally favoring litigation over mitigate.
I know of only one that has shown a exgerrated desire and glee at the prospect of litigation.
Here is a drink to lascivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"
This is something that for those being even only slightly objective would understand.
Now if you would Bob, please provide the quotes that would show the honesty of the above statements and the need to say this
-
bonnie, here is an example:
"NOTE: I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing. You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question. The Church should not userp that right."
On any question, therefore, where a civil governmental agency has a right to determine a question, the local church cannot, according to how I read Gregory's statement, deal with the matter one way or the other until there is a finding by that agency.
And earlier he put forth the idea that there are questions that only the courts can deal with, and that if the church doesn't respond to requests for help in settling differences, or doesn't think it has authority to do so (quoting from the Church Manual), then no one can criticize litigation.
I see Gailon's posts as describing various scenarios that off the top of his head he thought could result from those ideas, such as a class action involving Hal Mayer.
If Gailon doesn't like the pastor's tie or sermon, and the church doesn't intervene or think it has authority over such issues, then based on Gregory's posts it would be up to Gailon's conscience whether he sued or not.
Same or about the same with the other issues.
-
GM
"NOTE: I am not saying that a local congregation can never look at a claimed improper business dealing. You brought up a specific case where the IRS has the civil right to determine the question. The Church should not userp that right."
This is concerning a specific topic you brought up. Concerning the IRS.
I would have hated to have you and Gailon handle our very lengthy and complicated audit based on YOUR finding I was guilty. I would have been shown the back door of the chruch with the right boot of fellowship.
There is no way that the church should be no action the church takes in IRS matters till and when the IRS has made it's ruling. Most that would be handling this "christian endeavor" of poking around in my tax situation has niether the expertise or the objectivity that is required.
On any question, therefore, where a civil governmental agency has a right to determine a question, the local church cannot, according to how I read Gregory's statement, deal with the matter one way or the other until there is a finding by that agency.
I am not asking how you chose to read this. I asked you to give me the quote where Gregory said this.
And earlier he put forth the idea that there are questions that only the courts can deal with, and that if the church doesn't respond to requests for help in settling differences, or doesn't think it has authority to do so (quoting from the Church Manual), then no one can criticize litigation.
There are many area's the church does not have the authority to deal with. They cannot decide child custody issues
If I suffer physical harm at the hans of a member, accidental or deliberate, the church cannot rule as to how my medical expenses
will be paid.
If I am accused of something illegal the church cannot define punishment. Nor would I want them defining guilt
I see Gailon's posts as describing various scenarios that off the top of his head he thought could result from those ideas, such as a class action involving Hal Mayer.
Many people can and do sue for any number of idiotic reasons,doesn't mean they will suceed in winning and does not even mean a judge won't throw out lawsuits based on idiocey.
In order for my son to proceed, he had to be able to change the law so it was allowed.
If Gailon doesn't like the pastor's tie or sermon, and the church doesn't intervene or think it has authority over such issues, then based on Gregory's posts it would be up to Gailon's conscience whether he sued or not.
Same or about the same with the other issues.
Why would a church even begin to think of intervening if Gailon didn't like the pastor's tie? How foolish can this whole thing get. Unless Gailon is forced to sit in the pew with a pastor that wears a tie he doesn't like or a sermon he doesn't,it would not have anything to do with his conscience ,he would be laughed out.
He is there of his own free will, not to impose is convoluted will on the pastor
But again, don't shortcut this. Give me the quote that deals with this ludicorus scenerio,and a statement by gregory that would allow anyone to stay this with a straight face.
Just the evidence that has led you to this conclusion
-
I am not seeing anything remotely as you and Gailon are suggesting.
The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . . The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .” ChM 188 and 3T 428
Sounds pretty logical to me
Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.” ChM 190
NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership. And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.
Still not seeing what you claim
Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.[/quote
Nothing here appearing to be the mandate of Gregory for suing anyone and everyone. I really would like you to point it out if you could
-
Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed. There is a wish that it could be settled by other means. There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.
But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:
1) The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs. 3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination. In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church. The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.
2) Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination. E.g. One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet. That is an issue of civil law. The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue. This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.
3) Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues. Only the civil government can settle these. The denomination has no authority to do so. Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?
4) Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination. It has no authority over a non-SDA.
5) Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate. The Church has the mission to preach the gospel. God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.
Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families. Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues could have been settled outside of litigation. Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled. The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government. That is sad, but true
How can the above be spun to even come close to what gailon said and what you believe Gregory said.
PLease Bob, give me the quotes,not a general that is the way I am reading it. Show me what caused you to make that very sweeping statement .
Where is the corresponding quote of Gregory's that would cause Gailon to go to these lengths in the below quote
Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.
Last paragraph added
-
Bob,
As to this statement you made in another topic and included 3ABN..... Aah! In all these topics, 3ABN or otherwise, I love specific questions about specific matters.
I hope when you find time you will respond accordingly
-
But again, don't shortcut this. Give me the quote that deals with this ludicorus scenerio,and a statement by gregory that would allow anyone to stay this with a straight face.
The way I read it, Gailon was taking the principles he saw Gregory stating, and then drawing conclusions from them.
Danny's local church would not have to wait until the IRS, the DoJ, the court in our lawsuit, or other agencies to make findings before considering disciplining him regarding his business practices. For example, Danny claimed that he falsified a figure on his 2003 tax return. John Lomacang and the elders of the Thompsonville Church could meet with Danny and talk to him about that. They could ask him how he couldn't have known that was wrong after running 3ABN for 20 years. If he didn't have a good answer about that and refused to come clean, they could then have a business meeting.
1 Jn. 1:9 is cheap and simple.
-
There was a time when religious rulers ruled over almost every aspect of the lives of people. Matters of business, family, community and social standing were governed by church officials and committees. This was the way it was whether the people liked it or not. That period of time was called "the Dark Ages." Why would any individual or group voluntarily return to the dark ages by giving any religious entity that sort of authority over them?
-
The way I read it, Gailon was taking the principles he saw Gregory stating, and then drawing conclusions from them.
Drawing his own conclusions to fit his rather caustic,sarcastic demeaning response. Taken as it was said would not have enabled this response.
Danny's local church would not have to wait until the IRS, the DoJ, the court in our lawsuit, or other agencies to make findings before considering disciplining him regarding his business practices
And done what?? It is a good thing that the local church does not make determinations about someones income tax..
Do you honestly think that the church would intervene in the middle of legal action?? Even if what you have said in this post is 100% accurate, what portion of what was said do you consider a ruling or guideline Gregory has set down?
Or are you aware as any that can read that it is not Gregory that has drawn up the statements posted? Maybe the GC had a little to do with it.
. For example, Danny claimed that he falsified a figure on his 2003 tax return. John Lomacang and the elders of the Thompsonville Church could meet with Danny and talk to him about that. They could ask him how he couldn't have known that was wrong after running 3ABN for 20 years. If he didn't have a good answer about that and refused to come clean, they could then have a business meeting.
The business meeting and then what? While I am absolutely convinced DS was not suggesting such an Acton again out of innocent ignorance,nor do I believe he was ignorant the first time, can I prove that?? NOPE Can you?? If you can prove it you should have done so by now.
The sudden silence on this issue and the one concerning the ebay store by DS supporters is rather obvious.
On these two issues they go mute. I think the reason being they are afraid where it would lead and silence is best if you don't know what the answer is or are afraid of the answer.
I can see why they would. But can I prove that?? NOPE
Would you expect 3ABN/DS that has a little closer relationship than might be healthy or wise with both the conference and his local church to act. Can you explain to me the action Gregory took or the guidelines he has written for the church that would hold him responsible.
Let's not forget Gailon's very caustic response attributing all that I could see to Gregory. So please show me where you have the guidelines written by Gregory[/quote]
1 Jn. 1:9 is cheap and simple.
Yes it is, for all of us. But tell me if you have specific sins in mind for Gregory to confess. If not then I am not sure why the bible verse '
You have sidestepped again. Can you please give me a specific quote, not one attributed to Gregory by Gailon but a quote by Gregory that has led you to this rather ridiculous spot.
I will help you in the next post and make it very easy for you.
I will post a quote and then you show me how this warrents the rather nasty attack.
-
This should help keep the focus on what was said. A little at a time and please show me where in this is what you and Gailon have made it.
Can you show me which portion Gregory is responsible for writing into the church guidelines
The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . . The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .” ChM 188 and 3T 428
And
Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.” ChM 190
NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership. And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.
And
Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
-
While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children. While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate. (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.) ChM 191
Folks: Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve. There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority. And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.
And
Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience. (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192
This doesn't really sound like a open endorsement by Gregory as in suing your pastor for the looks of his tie, does it??
And most does not seem to be written by him so please explain what your reasoning was
edited to correct formatting error
-
There was a time when religious rulers ruled over almost every aspect of the lives of people. Matters of business, family, community and social standing were governed by church officials and committees. This was the way it was whether the people liked it or not. That period of time was called "the Dark Ages." Why would any individual or group voluntarily return to the dark ages by giving any religious entity that sort of authority over them?
I don't think that's the issue.
The Church Manual gives a very specific list of only certain things that church members can be disciplined for. As I understand what Gregory was saying, the church would not be allowed to discipline Danny for items on that list unless a government agency or court of law first found him guilty of such things. That seems wrong to me.
Regarding family matters, violations of the 7th commandment are on the list. Paul in 1 Cor. did tell the church at Corinth to discipline the fellow who had his father's wife. So it is biblical for the church to deal with certain specific things.
-
1 Jn. 1:9 is cheap and simple.
Yes it is, for all of us. But tell me if you have specific sins in mind for Gregory to confess.
Not Gregory. Danny!
You have sidestepped again. Can you please give me a specific quote, not one attributed to Gregory by Gailon but a quote by Gregory that has led you to this rather ridiculous spot.
I haven't sidestepped it. I've told you my thoughts on the matter.
-
While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children. While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate. (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.) ChM 191
Folks: Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve. There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority. And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.
And
Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience. (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192
This doesn't really sound like a open endorsement by Gregory as in suing your pastor for the looks of his tie, does it??
And most does not seem to be written by him so please explain what your reasoning was
edited to correct formatting error
Maybe Gailon should be the one to respond to your question. But I don't think the average person thinks that Gailon was saying that Gregory actually said that one could sue the pastor over his tie. I would think that the average person would conclude that Gailon was saying that Gregory's sentiments carried to their logical conclusion would allow for all kinds of litigation to take place between church members, despite Bible and SoP counsel to the contrary. Yet the average person might not conclude that each of Gailon's examples was a valid one.
But recall why this thread exists. The current lawsuit: is it biblical, and was it necessary?
I appreciate the comment or quote about keeping disputes within the church and within the smallest sphere possible. I take the position based on the paper trail I've seen that there was no real, genuine effort on the part of 3ABN/Danny to settle this within the church. Now if this thread is used to justify the current lawsuit, then it would appear to open the door for all kinds of crazy, unreasonable suits.
-
Not Gregory. Danny!
We are discussing Gregory's responsibility according to Gailon and your agreement.
Either way that is not an action that you have any control over, no matter how much you would like that to be so.
I haven't sidestepped it. I've told you my thoughts on the matter.
This doesn't work that way. A very nasty,unnecessarily caustic response was given. Much of what was written is in the Church Manuel. You went so far as to conclude that gailon was right and that Gregory in effect was endorsing a absolutely ludicrous action against a pastor if Gailon so chose. His tie and or his sermons. Regardless of Gailon seeming to think he is a lawyer you know and you did when you said it exactly how untrue such such a statement was. Yet,you put your agreement behind something like that..
I was not interested in your thoughts,I politely asked you for backup of what you were saying.
Again, can you show me the comments that Gregory made that corresponded to the accusations by Gailon.
It should not be hard, it is very recent
-
Maybe Gailon should be the one to respond to your question. But I don't think the average person thinks that Gailon was saying that Gregory actually said that one could sue the pastor over his tie. I would think that the average person would conclude that Gailon was saying that Gregory's sentiments carried to their logical conclusion would allow for all kinds of litigation to take place between church members, despite Bible and SoP counsel to the contrary. Yet the average person might not conclude that each of Gailon's examples was a valid one.
Really.
This is your response a short time ago.....
.bonnie,
It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.
This was your feeling on what Gailon accused Gregory of Remember.
Regarding the horse donations and real estate deal we have definite claims by Danny and/or public records.
Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.
On certain things they can't. God help us if the SDA church gets that powerful.
But more to the point, most of what was written was from the church Manuel,with Gregory's understanding of what it said. Gailon and now you are trying every way you can figure to make this say what you wish he had said.
Maybe you don't like the church Manuel.TOUGH, Maybe you don't like what some believe it says Tough again. Get used to the idea that not everything will read the way you try to make it.
Take on the one's that wrote the church maneul.
We can apply the same logic to other civil matters, such as divorce and stealing from the offering plate. Unless there is a finding of guilt by a civil government agency, the church cannot do a thing.
You are rewritng a few things here.No one said this at all, but on the other hand,I do believe my church would report a theft by me to the authorities and not make any other move till the civil authority had it's say.
Partly I believe that my little church would do that out of compassion while still allowing me to have the discipline.
I disagree with that logic.
This explains the next quote
It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.
Gregory has suggested that the local church cannot do anything until there is first a finding of guilt by a civil agency.
We are not talking of a suggestion. We are talking of Gailon referring to Gregory's authority. And you reading it the same way
But recall why this thread exists. The current lawsuit: is it biblical, and was it necessary?
Not to you it isn't. What actually led to this I don't even know. But I have an impression that it began with what 3ABN was claiming to be slander . It also seems from what has been said that this was anticipated and looked forward to quite eagerly. When you do that, make sure the sight of your own blood doesn't scare you,both sides get bloody. Do not go into something like this and then complain 3ABN is . Especially if this was hoped for. It is just as unbiblical to poke and prod till you can get a lawsuit going.
Doesn't matter if they are completely wrong. Don't jump in the pool if you don't know how to swim. You will surely get water up your nose
Doesn't matter how right you may be.
I appreciate the comment or quote about keeping disputes within the church and within the smallest sphere possible. I take the position based on the paper trail I've seen that there was no real, genuine effort on the part of 3ABN/Danny to settle this within the church
Frankly,I don't think the authors of the church manuel are going to care one whit whether you like what is in there or not.
It does appear to me that that is what Gregory said.
Then I am confident that you can show me the rather dubious quotes where Gregory said what you have claimed
edited formatting error
-
Christian has asked whether or not that current lawsuit that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have filed against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle is in accord with the teachings of the Bible. This is a complex question that I am going to respond to in parts. In this part, I am going to discuss the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In another part I will discuss the Biblical teachings, as Christian asked. In addition, I may add a section on what has happened in the past in regard to attempts to settle the issues outside of civil litigation as that has been attempted several times and without success each time.
For the denomination policy I will refer to the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHRUCH MANUAL, REVISED 2005, 17TH EDITION. This is the most authorative document available in regard to the general policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I will generally reference sections in Chapter 14 which begins on page 185.
In my references I will use “ChM” followed by a page number to reference the above Church Manual and I will use standard citations to reference EGW quotations cited in the ChM.
Some of the interesting comments:
The worlds Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in case of trial with its members. And He has given explicit direction as to the course to be pursued, . . . . The Word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church,. . .” ChM 188 and 3T 428
And
Reconciliation of differences within the church and its membership should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the church or to civil litigation.” ChM 190
NOTE: The above quote clearly limits to disputes that are solely within the membership of the SDA Church either by organizational structure or by membership. And, it also clearly states that this is only possible in most cases but not all.
And
Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and to contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere.
# # # #
Civil litigation is often carried on is a spirit of contention that results from and reveals human selfishness. It is this kind of adversary proceedings that must be discouraged by a church that seeks to exhibit the spirit of Christ.
# # # #
While there are, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should prefer settlement within the authority of the church, and should limit the seeking of such decrees to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not within the authority of the church or for which the church agrees it has no adequate process for orderly settlement. . . . Examples of such cases may include, but are not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the issuance of decrees affecting the boundaries and ownership of real property, the deciding of some matters involving the administration of estates, and the awarding of custody of minor children. While the church should set up procedures within the constraints of legal practice to avoid the type of litigation referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, it should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate. (See Luke 12:13, 14 and TESTIMONIES, vol. 9, pp 216-218.) ChM 191
Folks: Here is a clear statement that there are areas of conflict that in our society today the Church cannot and/or should not resolve. There is an area of life in which the Civil authorities, who exist according to the Biblical teaching, exercise authority. And Christians should live within the rule to those civil authorities along as civil government does not go against the teaching of God.
And
Should the church fail to respond to a member’s request for help in reconciling a difference, or is the church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience. (See also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 6998) ChM 191-192
Folks, there is a general feeling of sorrow among denominational leadership in regard to the lawsuit that has been filed. There is a wish that it could be settled by other means. There is a feeling of pain that these issues have become so public.
But, many believe that this lawsuit is allowed by denominational policy, as I have stated it above for the following reasons:
1) The church can only exercise authority within the framework of denominational organizations and over people who at that time are SDAs. 3-ABN is not a denominational organization that is controlled by the denomination. In addition, there are people involved in this situation who are not members of the SDA Church. The denomination does not have the authority to deal with them.
2) Several of the issues involved in this litigation are clearly within the prevue of the civil authorities and outside of the authority of the denomination. E.g. One issue involves a trademark and its use on the Internet. That is an issue of civil law. The denomination has neither the expertise not the authority to rule on a trademark issue. This is true for other aspects of this lawsuit.
3) Allegations have been made in regard to IRS issues. Only the civil government can settle these. The denomination has no authority to do so. Do you really want the church to decide whether Danny Shelton (or you, or Bob Pickle) has properly paid their Income Tax?
4) Issues that involve the conduct of a person who is not a SDA cannot be resolved by the denomination. It has no authority over a non-SDA.
5) Some of the litigated issues are outside of the mission of the church and fall into the role of a civil magistrate. The Church has the mission to preach the gospel. God has established civil government to handle civil affairs.
Folks I will not minimize the pain to the people involved in this lawsuit and their families. Perhaps if all involved were fully in harmony with the will of God some issues could have been settled outside of litigation. Even so, there remain issues that could not have been so settled. The only venue for the resolution of these issues lies with civil government. That is sad, but true.
NOTE: I will respond later to the Biblical teaching.
Wow, what great news. There is no question I am going to become a whole lot more litigious in the future. Like the next time a president at AUC misdirects funds, I think I will pursue a class action case to clean it up.
ANd the next time I have a complaint regarding Hal at Hartland Institute...well let's just say CLASS ACTION HERE I COME...and I can point to Gregory Matthews as the authority that it is just fine with the General Conference.
Now, what if I have a problem with the General Conference? Do I have permission to sue them as well? ANd how about our local pastor...if he wears the wrong tie or speaks the wrong message, can I file suit against him as well? And what if I decide I do not like Mark and Tinnie Finley mailing out all that literature...can I get an injunction based on Gregory Matthews authority?
And, most importantly, what if I just don't like all that celebration music they play at the local church? Do I have permission to sue the entire church? ANd what if a member slanders me? Does this give me authority to sue him as well?
I am telling you, this is sounding just wonderful!!! I can litigate and not mitigate!!! Grandma, watch out!!! You are definitely in my litigation sites!!!
Here is a drink to luscivious litigation...the world is the limit...I HOPE. I wonder, if it rains tomorrow or a meteor comes through the roof, who is going to accept service for the Godhead? Any takers? Maybe Grandma will accept service? How about it Grandma? Or How about Gregory Matthews? Or maybe the General Conference President, after all it is "God's Highest Authority on earth"???
Yes, Mr Matthews, or is that Elder Matthews, you have just opened the floodgates of litigation...I feel a lot free-er today!!! My soul is liberated and now I must grant to Mr Pickle the Authority to counterclaim against 3ABN!!!
Go to it, BOB, after all Gregory Matthews has granted permission based upon General Conference Authority!!!
The visions of opportunity are swirling past my eyes like storm clouds over Florida!!!
Thank-you so much for clarifying all that and giving my life new meaning and purpose. Litigate, litigate, Litigate!!! Now we know that the General Conference advocates adversarial law as a primary basis for conflict resolution.
Think I will go down to the courthouse and pick up a hundred or so summons and complaints coversheets. I am going to be busy!!!
Look what thou hast unleashed, Elder Matthews!!!
Gailon Arthur JOY
Bonnie, I liked it so much, I decided to make the point again!!! And if you don't get it, then stand back and let the litigation begin!!!
The point is that Gregory's summation unlocks the gates of hell within the church body politic. I rather suspect we are headed that direction anyway, because, what is good for a goose will be viewed as good for a gander.
Why mediate or arbitrate when a civil court is a viable option to correct wrongs? Besides, we have long since lost track of the "conciliation" process and if we are about adversarial process then the american civil process is the appropriate place to redress claims.
Since reconciliation is not the goal in the church today, lets just litigate!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
No one said this at all, but on the other hand,I do believe my church would report a theft by me to the authorities and not make any other move till the civil authority had it's say.
Partly I believe that my little church would do that out of compassion while still allowing me to have the discipline.
And so if you were church treasurer and got caught red-handed embezzling, your church would report you to the local authorities but refuse to take your office away until you had been convicted in a court of law? Thus you would remain church treasurer? And that is compassion? Somehow I don't think so.
-
And so if you were church treasurer and got caught red-handed embezzling, your church would report you to the local authorities but refuse to take your office away until you had been convicted in a court of law? Thus you would remain church treasurer? And that is compassion? Somehow I don't think so.
It was not said clear enough so I can see why you would think that is what I meant.
You are right as far as in remaining chruch treasurer. I had thought that would be a given and that was not included in my saying the "Church " would wait for any further action as removing my membership until the authorities were done. If it was a charge of "molestation or abuse" of a child,there are things that would be done but for any final action that would wait until a through investigation had been made by civil and the church before terminating my membership. In most cases that would involve a civil crime rather than one of church membership they would wait ti the authoriites had their investigation generally speaking.
A molestation charge would generate and immediate investigation by my church elders I would be watched, any office would be suspended. To me that is different than the direction you seemed to heading.
It was not said clear enough so I can see why you would think that.
In a private case similar to 3ABN,not they would not request my tax forms nor investigate tax fraud prior to the IRS. That is out of their field. In the divorce,I dont think much would be done. DS says she did, and LS says she did not. Again, as long as it is not clear cut as to who was the guilty party and each blaming the other of lying I really don't think they would
-
In a private case similar to 3ABN,not they would not request my tax forms nor investigate tax fraud prior to the IRS. That is out of their field. In the divorce,I dont think much would be done. DS says she did, and LS says she did not. Again, as long as it is not clear cut as to who was the guilty party and each blaming the other of lying I really don't think they would
It is VERY CLEAR who the guilty party was and who was not. Only the blind could possibly still question who is guitly. The evidence is just too great against Danny Lee Shelton and his co-conspirator, Brenda Walsh, and we will shortly put any debate to a rest as we demonstrate a truism...once a liar, always a liar.
The foundations of Faith at 3ABN are about to be shattered as the truth about Brenda Walsh rolls out...factually challenged is an understatement. It is probable she was guilty of stealing Linda Sue Shelton's legacy and defaming her into oblivion, at 3ABN and in the World Church. If this is correct, then this must be corrected and Brenda Walsh should be crucified for what she has done.
Linda did NOTHING to violate due process and get dumped. And certainly did not deserve slander and defamation by Brenda Walsh.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
It is VERY CLEAR who the guilty party was and who was not. Only the blind could possibly still question who is guilty. The evidence is just too great against Danny Lee Shelton and his co-conspirator, Brenda Walsh, and we will shortly put any debate to a rest as we demonstrate a truism...once a liar, always a liar.
Not necessarily, and not at all for those blindly backing DS,Probably for those blindly backing LS
The foundations of Faith at 3ABN are about to be shattered as the truth about Brenda Walsh rolls out...factually challenged is an understatement. It is probable she was guilty of stealing Linda Sue Shelton's legacy and defaming her into oblivion, at 3ABN and in the World Church. If this is correct, then this must be corrected and Brenda Walsh should be crucified for what she has done.
Interesting. Is someone looking forward to the Crucifixion
Linda did NOTHING to violate due process and get dumped. And certainly did not deserve slander and defamation by Brenda Walsh.
Gailon Arthur Joy
[/quote]
-
A molestation charge would generate and immediate investigation by my church elders I would be watched, any office would be suspended. To me that is different than the direction you seemed to heading.
It's possible that I said something definite somewhere, but I would think that in most places if not all I simply referred to church discipline. Such takes two forms in the Adventist Church: vote of censure, and disfellowship.
With a vote of censure one loses one's offices. So what I think you are referring to as suspension of offices would be a form of church discipline.
In my opinion, a mere accusation would not be a basis for church discipline. On the other hand, if you've got 7 fellows who claim molestation and an eye witness, I would not think that the church should refuse to consider discipline just because the authorities decline to prosecute.
-
And so if you were church treasurer and got caught red-handed embezzling, your church would report you to the local authorities but refuse to take your office away until you had been convicted in a court of law? Thus you would remain church treasurer? And that is compassion? Somehow I don't think so.
It was not said clear enough so I can see why you would think that is what I meant.
You are right as far as in remaining chruch treasurer. I had thought that would be a given and that was not included in my saying the "Church " would wait for any further action as removing my membership until the authorities were done......
...... That is out of their field. In the divorce,I dont think much would be done. DS says she did, and LS says she did not. Again, as long as it is not clear cut as to who was the guilty party and each blaming the other of lying I really don't think they would
Bonnie, You may or may not have read the following letters Between the Thompsonville Church and Linda Shelton regarding Church discipline and the choices she made. If not, here you go:
http://tiny.cc/a2BCU
A molestation charge would generate and immediate investigation by my church elders I would be watched, any office would be suspended. To me that is different than the direction you seemed to heading.
It's possible that I said something definite somewhere, but I would think that in most places if not all I simply referred to church discipline. Such takes two forms in the Adventist Church: vote of censure, and disfellowship.
With a vote of censure one loses one's offices. So what I think you are referring to as suspension of offices would be a form of church discipline.
In my opinion, a mere accusation would not be a basis for church discipline. On the other hand, if you've got 7 fellows who claim molestation and an eye witness, I would not think that the church should refuse to consider discipline just because the authorities decline to prosecute.
Mr Pickle's example is a clear reference to the allegations he has published and assisted in getting published against Tommy Shelton.
As usual it's all a bit muddy.. The discussion is seemingly about Church discipline in our Church (also known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church) but Mr Pickles example is of someone who is a member of the Church of God, (T.S.) and outside our churches jurisdiction. None of the alleged victims are members of the SDA church either.
From my own inquiries it does appear one adult married man, and employee of 3abn at the time, made a complaint against TS, but in a later meeting with TS and the 3ABN President retracted it and aplogised.
The truth is Pastor Glenn Dryden of the Church of God and one of Pickle's main informants has brought up Tommy Shelton to his Church of God board, long since, and nothing has happened...
The truth also is Pickle issued a subpoena to Glenn Dryden a while back for all information he had regarding Tommy Shelton and the allegations against him and asking for all documentation and any evidence or proof he had to support such.
That Subpoena was not objected to nor fought that I know of... yet Pickle continues to go fishing for evidence and proof, and yes, apparently obsess about this topic...
Just one example of some things that can make you go hmmm...
-
Bonnie, You may or may not have read the following letters Between the Thompsonville Church and Linda Shelton regarding Church discipline and the choices she made. If not, here you go:
This means what,I have read them. I see the church acting on what DS said.
The very first thing I read on this,and I believe it was on C/A that DS accused LS of spiritual adultery. There isn't any such animal as far as I know. Then when that wasn't working well we switched to physical adultery, then oops,you will have to wait because we aren't going to provide as we "don't want to damage LS reputation", we will hint, we will promise proof if we are forced to,etc.
By now it is a moot point whether she committed adultery. I believe DS knew just what he was doing and did it well.
In the minds of many LS committed adultery.
Mr Pickle's example is a clear reference to the allegations he has published and assisted in getting published against Tommy Shelton.
Neither side gives me the warm fuzzies on this.
As usual it's all a bit muddy.. The discussion is seemingly about Church discipline in our Church (also known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church) but Mr Pickles example is of someone who is a member of the Church of God, (T.S.) and outside our churches jurisdiction. None of the alleged victims are members of the SDA church either.
I understand that. I think the point was trying to be made that because he was now working on 3ABN it had become an issue of interest. I have said before and now again for your information.
I believe what has been said based TS own letter. I have also said if the "alleged victims themselves did come forward and file charges there would be little that could be done. Had TS reoffended it would not have reflected on the Church of God but on the adventist church.
I agree however this was a ruse to bring it out in the open. To me that does not dismiss the respsonsibility that DS had in placing TS in a position of trust among potential unsuspecting .vulnerable victims.
From my own inquiries it does appear one adult married man, and employee of 3abn at the time, made a complaint against TS, but in a later meeting with TS and the 3ABN President retracted it and aplogised.
This is not unusual at all. That alone should have signalled to DS that his brother was not qualified to be in a postion of trust.
The truth is Pastor Glenn Dryden of the Church of God and one of Pickle's main informants has brought up Tommy Shelton to his Church of God board, long since, and nothing has happened.
If the alleged victims did not and can't come forward there is little anyone can do. I well understand the feeling of being the Lone Ranger in trying to do something where the person making the complaint is a 3rd party.
I have little sympathy for DS or TS in this. I do believe the "alleged victims" I also know there is little to be done as a church in this
The truth also is Pickle issued a subpoena to Glenn Dryden a while back for all information he had regarding Tommy Shelton and the allegations against him and asking for all documentation and any evidence or proof he had to support such.
SO?? In a lawsuit either side will be issuing subpoena's in hopes of finding enough to throw and hoping something sticks to the wall.
That Subpoena was not objected to nor fought that I know of... yet Pickle continues to go fishing for evidence and proof, and yes, apparently obsess about this topic...
Just one example of some things that can make you go hmmm...
Personally both sides make me go hmmm.
Many things in this I read and it sounds plausible,on the other hand I also hear a dead silence when we start discussing the IRS and personal income.
You can repeat till the second coming that the horse issue is clean and I will repeat till the second coming I do not believe DS or DS defenders and that makes me go himmmmm.
On DS stated income he could not have purchased several horses,baler,rake,mower,tractor, hay elevator,vet,farrier,grain ,hired help,to say nothing of building a barn. DS would have to have three people for hay, Paying for two of them gets mighty costly as I would believe they had to be paid.
I see other things here that make me think of silly putty as you can take what someone says and twist,pull and work it to get the shape you want.
A couple on both sides make me go hmmmm quite frequently
edited to correct formatting
-
And so if you were church treasurer and got caught red-handed embezzling, your church would report you to the local authorities but refuse to take your office away until you had been convicted in a court of law? Thus you would remain church treasurer? And that is compassion? Somehow I don't think so.
It was not said clear enough so I can see why you would think that is what I meant.
You are right as far as in remaining chruch treasurer. I had thought that would be a given and that was not included in my saying the "Church " would wait for any further action as removing my membership until the authorities were done......
...... That is out of their field. In the divorce,I dont think much would be done. DS says she did, and LS says she did not. Again, as long as it is not clear cut as to who was the guilty party and each blaming the other of lying I really don't think they would
Bonnie, You may or may not have read the following letters Between the Thompsonville Church and Linda Shelton regarding Church discipline and the choices she made. If not, here you go:
http://tiny.cc/a2BCU
A molestation charge would generate and immediate investigation by my church elders I would be watched, any office would be suspended. To me that is different than the direction you seemed to heading.
It's possible that I said something definite somewhere, but I would think that in most places if not all I simply referred to church discipline. Such takes two forms in the Adventist Church: vote of censure, and disfellowship.
With a vote of censure one loses one's offices. So what I think you are referring to as suspension of offices would be a form of church discipline.
In my opinion, a mere accusation would not be a basis for church discipline. On the other hand, if you've got 7 fellows who claim molestation and an eye witness, I would not think that the church should refuse to consider discipline just because the authorities decline to prosecute.
Mr Pickle's example is a clear reference to the allegations he has published and assisted in getting published against Tommy Shelton.
As usual it's all a bit muddy.. The discussion is seemingly about Church discipline in our Church (also known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church) but Mr Pickles example is of someone who is a member of the Church of God, (T.S.) and outside our churches jurisdiction. None of the alleged victims are members of the SDA church either.
From my own inquiries it does appear one adult married man, and employee of 3abn at the time, made a complaint against TS, but in a later meeting with TS and the 3ABN President retracted it and aplogised.
The truth is Pastor Glenn Dryden of the Church of God and one of Pickle's main informants has brought up Tommy Shelton to his Church of God board, long since, and nothing has happened...
The truth also is Pickle issued a subpoena to Glenn Dryden a while back for all information he had regarding Tommy Shelton and the allegations against him and asking for all documentation and any evidence or proof he had to support such.
That Subpoena was not objected to nor fought that I know of... yet Pickle continues to go fishing for evidence and proof, and yes, apparently obsess about this topic...
Just one example of some things that can make you go hmmm...
ROSA; my dear import from where?
Your ENGLISH is so much better of late. See how easy it is to ASSIMILATE right into American Society when you set your mind to it???
But, your grasp of the facts is VERY CHALLENGED. Just to bring you up to date, Linda belatedly faced discipline from John Lomacang, purportedly a minister of some gospel, based upon representations made to John by Danny Lee Shelton and Brenda Walsh. Almost every allegation, when properly investigated by an intelligent man of the cloth, are found to be factually challenged. In some cases, such as much of Brenda Walsh's story, they are bold faced lies!!! Yes, bold faced and the physical evidence proves it.
Linda was asked to appear and felt restrained by her "gag agreement" with 3ABN and DLS. She asked requested the "gag agreement be lifted so she could appear and give CORRECT testimony and defned herself against baseless bold faced lies. Danny, according to the Conference Prsident tried to avoid a confrontation is such a public arena by pushing the Conference President to get Lomacang to give up the disciplinary process. After all, why waken a sleeping ginat of a lie to public discussion again? Then they simply denied Linda's request to lift the gag agreement and she had no alternative but to withdraw her membership.
But, a woman so new to America and the American Legal sysytem could get pretty tangled as you muddled your way through all the "protect Danny Lee Shelton from justice" spin, couldn't you.
Put on the TRUTH glasses, test every assertion by the physical evidence and you will find what we belatedly discovered...they arer FACTUALLY CHALLENGED...that is another way to say a lie through there teeth a lot in their effort to justify the unjustifiable. Only a trial on the merits and a countercalim for mis-use of process will cure this dillemma and we intend to put them through the TRUTH GRINDER!!!
And if you wonder why we feel so strongly, why don't you ask these bold faced liars why they fear our looking at the proof that demonstrates repeatedly that what we have said is in fact the TRUTH. Time after time, even to issues in the board of directors, they claim we lie and yet when the truth is produced, such as directors minutes, VOILA, it was the TRUTH!!! Go figure..can you see why they fear producing anything else and why they fear going to trial?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Many things in this I read and it sounds plausible,on the other hand I also hear a dead silence when we start discussing the IRS and personal income.
You can repeat till the second coming that the horse issue is clean and I will repeat till the second coming I do not believe DS or DS defenders and that makes me go himmmmm.
On DS stated income he could not have purchased several horses,baler,rake,mower,tractor, hay elevator,vet,farrier,grain ,hired help,to say nothing of building a barn. DS would have to have three people for hay, Paying for two of them gets mighty costly as I would believe they had to be paid.
I see other things here that make me think of silly putty as you can take what someone says and twist,pull and work it to get the shape you want.
A couple on both sides make me go hmmmm quite frequently
edited to correct formatting
Folks, yes on the subject of personal income and IRS there is silence because the investigation of DS and 3ABN is over and they have been found clean. The subject is moot. We could all talk about it until the end of time and it will not change a thing.
A lot of things that are brought up here can be as Bonnie states, silly putty. We could all play around with making up a story with each adding to it sentence by sentence. As to whether it is the truth or not no one seems to care.
Let me give you a couple truths that show just how silly this all has been.
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
None of what some are saying has any bearing on anything except on each of us personally when we have to answer for what we have said and done.
edited to add quotes
-
Folks, yes on the subject of personal income and IRS there is silence because the investigation of DS and 3ABN is over and they have been found clean. The subject is moot. We could all talk about it until the end of time and it will not change a thing.
PROVE IT!!!! We have requested a subpoena for the US Attorney to see just how much truth and falacy there is to this statement. If you cannot prove it, we intend to and lay it to rest once and for all. Now, if it happens the file is still open, you going to move away from the dark side?
A lot of things that are brought up here can be as Bonnie states, silly putty. We could all play around with making up a story with each adding to it sentence by sentence. As to whether it is the truth or not no one seems to care.
Let me give you a couple truths that show just how silly this all has been.
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
PROVE IT!!!!. I want the "volunteer farmers' name address and telephone number. And I need your name and address so we can get your testimony on that story. I want to make sure you make the witness list as I have a couple of rebuttal witnesses that will turn your face VERY RED, and it may lead to some hypertension as well!!!
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
PROVE IT!!!NAME ADDRESS< PHONE NUMBER for this "impressed" human being so we can speak to him and get the REAL STORY
None of what some are saying has any bearing on anything except on each of us personally when we have to answer for what we have said and done.
edited to add quotes
]
There you are DONNA, we need name address and phone numbers so we can check out your tale. Who knows, maybe we have a couple dozen 3ABN employees, past and present, that are factually challenged. You have a duty to let us know.
Oh, but I can see your face glowing red already? Hypertension? or the truth taking its toll?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Folks, yes on the subject of personal income and IRS there is silence because the investigation of DS and 3ABN is over and they have been found clean. The subject is moot. We could all talk about it until the end of time and it will not change a thing.
No, not if he is using funds from 3ABN for personal use, it is not and never will be moot.
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
This story as changed considerably, It has gone from family helping with all of this and then when they couldn't ,it was hired help. And let's not forget that we shouldn't mind if the Lord blessed DS income
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
Nope, it was family help, DS doing and then paying for hired help when they couldn't.
I think both sides are well stocked with silly putty
-
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
This story as changed considerably, It has gone from family helping with all of this and then when they couldn't ,it was hired help. And let's not forget that we shouldn't mind if the Lord blessed DS income
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
Nope, it was family help, DS doing and then paying for hired help when they couldn't.
All are correct.
-
All are correct.
Sorry Donna, do not believe what you are saying. It is possible you are repeating what you were told, but it is not the truth. When I have more time and feel so inclined I may explain to you why it is not
-
Don't waste your time Bonnie. Nothing you can say can or will change the truth.
-
Folks, yes on the subject of personal income and IRS there is silence because the investigation of DS and 3ABN is over and they have been found clean. The subject is moot. We could all talk about it until the end of time and it will not change a thing.
PROVE IT!!!! We have requested a subpoena for the US Attorney to see just how much truth and falacy there is to this statement. If you cannot prove it, we intend to and lay it to rest once and for all. Now, if it happens the file is still open, you going to move away from the dark side?
A lot of things that are brought up here can be as Bonnie states, silly putty. We could all play around with making up a story with each adding to it sentence by sentence. As to whether it is the truth or not no one seems to care.
Let me give you a couple truths that show just how silly this all has been.
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
PROVE IT!!!!. I want the "volunteer farmers' name address and telephone number. And I need your name and address so we can get your testimony on that story. I want to make sure you make the witness list as I have a couple of rebuttal witnesses that will turn your face VERY RED, and it may lead to some hypertension as well!!!
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
PROVE IT!!!NAME ADDRESS< PHONE NUMBER for this "impressed" human being so we can speak to him and get the REAL STORY
None of what some are saying has any bearing on anything except on each of us personally when we have to answer for what we have said and done.
edited to add quotes
]
There you are DONNA, we need name address and phone numbers so we can check out your tale. Who knows, maybe we have a couple dozen 3ABN employees, past and present, that are factually challenged. You have a duty to let us know.
Oh, but I can see your face glowing red already? Hypertension? or the truth taking its toll?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Sorry to disappoint you, but my face is not red, nor am I in fear. I am not afraid of the big bad wolf, so do your worst.
I do not owe you anything. My duty was to give all the truth and that is all that I need to do. If you do not want to accept it that is your choice.
-
Don't waste your time Bonnie. Nothing you can say can or will change the truth.
Your right,nor do I have any desire to change the truth. You are simply out of your area of experience
-
Thank you Bonnie for the dose of merry heart medicine. "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
-
Folks, yes on the subject of personal income and IRS there is silence because the investigation of DS and 3ABN is over and they have been found clean. The subject is moot. We could all talk about it until the end of time and it will not change a thing.
PROVE IT!!!! We have requested a subpoena for the US Attorney to see just how much truth and falacy there is to this statement. If you cannot prove it, we intend to and lay it to rest once and for all. Now, if it happens the file is still open, you going to move away from the dark side?
A lot of things that are brought up here can be as Bonnie states, silly putty. We could all play around with making up a story with each adding to it sentence by sentence. As to whether it is the truth or not no one seems to care.
Let me give you a couple truths that show just how silly this all has been.
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
PROVE IT!!!!. I want the "volunteer farmers' name address and telephone number. And I need your name and address so we can get your testimony on that story. I want to make sure you make the witness list as I have a couple of rebuttal witnesses that will turn your face VERY RED, and it may lead to some hypertension as well!!!
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
PROVE IT!!!NAME ADDRESS< PHONE NUMBER for this "impressed" human being so we can speak to him and get the REAL STORY
None of what some are saying has any bearing on anything except on each of us personally when we have to answer for what we have said and done.
edited to add quotes
]
There you are DONNA, we need name address and phone numbers so we can check out your tale. Who knows, maybe we have a couple dozen 3ABN employees, past and present, that are factually challenged. You have a duty to let us know.
Oh, but I can see your face glowing red already? Hypertension? or the truth taking its toll?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Sorry to disappoint you, but my face is not red, nor am I in fear. I am not afraid of the big bad wolf, so do your worst.
I do not owe you anything. My duty was to give all the truth and that is all that I need to do. If you do not want to accept it that is your choice.
Donna, did you give all the truth? Was that farmer there during the entire time that the 3ABN hay was going the DS barn? And were his services all free? And even then the cutting, raking and baling of the 3ABN property's hay only takes one person, but the loading onto the truck and trailer, and the unloading into the hay loft takes a minimum of four people, a driver, a stacker, and two people picking up and throwing the bales up to the stacker.
Did the person who was "impressed by God" to tend to Danny's horses at 7:30am also tend to them when the vet, breeding people, and others were there during business hours?
How about the building of the barn? Was that done by volunteers?
You are saying that what you said is the truth. Sam said that only family members and people who were not associated with 3ABN took care of Danny's horses.
-
Don't waste your time Bonnie. Nothing you can say can or will change the truth.
Your right,nor do I have any desire to change the truth. You are simply out of your area of experience
Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're" since you seem adept as an expert with influencing "thread-lockers" here just like on BSDA. You remind me of the teacher that could teach it "round or flat" at the behest of the various and sundry school boards!
Are Jesus' examples and the Ten controversial in any manner to mankind which could be deduced from his disciples standing afar off during the spectacle?
-
Donna, did you give all the truth? Was that farmer there during the entire time that the 3ABN hay was going the DS barn? And were his services all free? And even then the cutting, raking and baling of the 3ABN property's hay only takes one person, but the loading onto the truck and trailer, and the unloading into the hay loft takes a minimum of four people, a driver, a stacker, and two people picking up and throwing the bales up to the stacker.
Did the person who was "impressed by God" to tend to Danny's horses at 7:30am also tend to them when the vet, breeding people, and others were there during business hours?
How about the building of the barn? Was that done by volunteers?
You are saying that what you said is the truth. Sam said that only family members and people who were not associated with 3ABN took care of Danny's horses.
There has been a variety of stories and expainations given for the issue of horses. It has been said this is hobby only . Really not feasible. I believe it was Donna that said earlier that DS purchased his feed.
Now someone has been impressed by God. to mow,rake,bale,stack his hay for nothing.Besides that it has been said that the horses were taken to shelter at Jim Gilly's place, but then we have a barn being built. Interesting.
He only has a few horses,4 mares and a pony,yet he maintains his own stallion,which common sense would tell anyone that every couple of years you need a vew bloodline and are maintaining a hay burner for use a couple of times a year . Now that stallion is going or DS said would like to for a "donation" to a non-profit ministry. Having a few horses for pleasure allows DS to donate two horses that are relatively expensive to another minstry similar to the ministry that DS asks for donations for. Little convoluted. Donating to this ministry means that Lewis is in close proximity to 3ABN for this to take place easily. Otherwise he or DS needed to hire transport. Not cheap.
Then to maintain till sold and money goes to the non-profit. Not cheap,donation is beginning to erode. It also requires the party on the other end to have facilities and know how to care for this "donation".
On this mere pittance as compared to other evangelists DS is able to accomplish quite a bit. Not only that to be donating from a hobby a sizable amount. I don't think so.
If someone has to build a barn for their hobby,it stands to reason they also need fencing for pasture. This is another miracle?? The neighbor went good for that as well??? Or at least from what I have been told they had the acreage to pasture their "hobby" Very expensive for horses as barb wire is out. You have to buy the fencing,and intall. Maybe the farmer was impressed to do this and pay the extra help he needed to do that. What a great neighbor to not only intall fencing if he needed but to make sure DS hay was cut, raked,baled and stored 3 times every summer. DS rakes up a good many miracles and of course to question that is to question God.
Then you start dealing with the vet,farrier,hired help as was stated when family was not available. Which should have been frequently as Sam I believe, said DS was gone almost non-stop. Even the tack for a few horses is not cheap.
Also we should not forget the purchase price for DS to enjoy this little hobby. Lest we forget,property tax as well, insurance etc.
There are other things in this horse raising miracle . God gets the credit and many times the blame for men's actions and the natual consequence of their actions,good or bad.
-
[quote[
Your right,nor do I have any desire to change the truth. You are simply out of your area of experience
[/quote]
Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're" since you seem adept as an expert with influencing "thread-lockers" here just like on BSDA. You remind me of the teacher that could teach it "round or flat" at the behest of the various and sundry school boards!
Are Jesus' examples and the Ten controversial in any manner to mankind which could be deduced from his disciples standing afar off during the spectacle?
I hope this was intended for Donna as I had very little to do with BSDA. Mybe twice-3 times and neither time was it closed. Just a note so you didn't have to be corrected
And you remind me of some here that make their day in coy insults and bragging about expertise. I look at those bragging about their expertise as little boys in a school yard trying to impress those around them with words of their own choosing,the puffing of the chest gets bigger and the bragging gets more and more every day all the time
-
1. A volunteer farmer who happens to like Danny and 3ABN supplied all of the hay equipment and did nearly all the haying for free.
This story as changed considerably, It has gone from family helping with all of this and then when they couldn't ,it was hired help. And let's not forget that we shouldn't mind if the Lord blessed DS income
2. A man who helped care for the horses did so on his own time. He said the Lord impressed him to donate his time to help Danny when he was traveling and needed help. Sometimes he would even help when Danny did not travel and again on his own time. He started work at 3ABN at 8:00. He helped with Danny's horses at 7:30.
Nope, it was family help, DS doing and then paying for hired help when they couldn't.
All are correct.
Donna, PROVE IT: Name, address and phone numbers so we can confirm it, else we will have to embarass you with the facts!!! And then call your self so you can come back and confess your error.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I just want to comment on the fencing..it does not have to be expensive. My cousin pastures 20-30 horses on our property and just uses an three wire electric fence and solar powered fencer. Electric fence wire and insulators are pretty cheap and will keep horses in just fine.
daylily
-
Bonnie, to set the record straight, was not me who said that Danny paid for his feed nor was it me on BSDA that closed any threads.
Gailon, threats and intimidation are beneath anyone who considers themselves a Christian. Shame on you.
-
And Donna, making factual claims one refuses to support, and defending the covering up of child molestation allegations are beneath those who consider themselves Christians. Correct?
-
Bonnie, to set the record straight, was not me who said that Danny paid for his feed nor was it me on BSDA that closed any threads.
Gailon, threats and intimidation are beneath anyone who considers themselves a Christian. Shame on you.
Donna,
When demanding that one prove their ludicrously factually challenged statements is unchristian, we are back to rumor and innuendo being the law of Christianity. That brand of Christianity I spurn.
Now prove it or admit you have lied...that violates Christian standards!!! That is beneath you, or is it?
Prove It!!! Names, addresses and telephone numbers!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Lack of answers concerning who paid for the building materials and labor in the construction of Danny's barn is a topic that has been conspicuously avoided by Donna, Sam, Ian, Anyman, etc. Why? Are the facts too damning?
Another question: Linda Shelton's daughter made allegations of sexual molestation against Danny Shelton. Why was that never addressed by the Thompsonville church or the 3ABN Board? Why has there been no investigation? The 3ABN Board and the Thompsonville church were quick enough in persuing Danny's allegations against Linda.
-
Lack of answers concerning who paid for the building materials and labor in the construction of Danny's barn is a topic that has been conspicuously avoided by Donna, Sam, Ian, Anyman, etc. Why? Are the facts too damning?
Another question: Linda Shelton's daughter made allegations of sexual molestation against Danny Shelton. Why was that never addressed by the Thompsonville church or the 3ABN Board? Why has there been no investigation? The 3ABN Board and the Thompsonville church were quick enough in persuing Danny's allegations against Linda.
Certain targets have "immunity" to due proces and others do not "deserve" due process
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"Lack of answers concerning who paid for the building materials and labor.."
Indirect methods used by "real tax auditors" don't require the nth degree of specifics to shift the burden of proof to the taxpayer when an obvious asset shows up in taxpayer's possession in some unexplained manner. Title to personal property or fixed to real property without a taxable source of funds picks up bribes and unjust inurements.
-
"Lack of answers concerning who paid for the building materials and labor.."
Indirect methods used by "real tax auditors" don't require the nth degree of specifics to shift the burden of proof to the taxpayer when an obvious asset shows up in taxpayer's possession in some unexplained manner. Title to personal property or fixed to real property without a taxable source of funds picks up bribes and unjust inurements.
Have you had a chance to tell DLS and 3ABN this yet? Or should we leave it to the IRS, when they get ready and in their own "semi-sweet" time?
DLS and 3ABN "exonerated", is one of the biggest farces of all times, and yet Simpson Objects to our subpoena upon the US ATTORNEY that exonerated them...and oh, yes, did I tell you that the IRS is still accepting new information? In fact, I am told they were quite interested in Tammy's E-Bay Records. Oh, but don't worry everyone, the AG will certainly "exonerate" her and she can get Doug Batchelor and Gerry Duffy to write a letter and that will make it so!!! And if you believe that, I have this beautiful tropical island, mid south pacific, to sell for cash in the next three hours!!! Bids, anyone???
Gailon Athur Joy