Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bonnie]

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

[bonnie]

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

[bonnie]

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

[bonnie]

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

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Habanero]

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?

[bonnie]

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.

[bonnie]

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.

 

[bonnie]

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

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[bonnie]

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

[bonnie]

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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