Print

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

[Johann]

What do you do when they also have access to unlimited financial power? How will justice prevail? Has the Lord promised that justice will prevail in this evil world?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"We must Trust and Obey, that is the only way."

Let me say that we have a very fair judge and we will be drawing a jury in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I believe that given the intellectual level of the juries in Massachusetts, particulary in Federal Court, that the results will largely become dependant upon the presentation and documentation.

I sincerely believe the jurists on the 3ABN side will overplay the drama and the truth will easilly be seen by the jury...yes they will see throught the vail of linguistics, objections, rules of evidence and will see the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I am certain this Judge will make certain that the jury will get that chance, even through the maze 3ABN will build based upon the Federal of Rules of evidence will make the task lengthy and arduous. Having been through several jury trials from the taking of the complaint to the jury verdict, I am convinced we can clarify the story and vivify the truth, by the Power of the Spirit...it is in His hands!!! 3ABN will be using surrogates to represent their effort, we will be their ourselves to represent the truth. May the Lord's Will prevail!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gregory]

 

I do have an issue with anyone being appointed as an "Honorary Elder" or an 'honorary anything'. In the Church, we should not be seeing more of "jobs for the boys". Either people are there to do a job or else they're not 'holding a position'.

There are a couple of issues present here:

1)  Should the church/denomination grant "honorary" status to someone who is not required to "perform all of the duties?"

2)  Does denominational policy allow for the issuance of such honorary status to people?

3) Should a specific individual be granted such status?

My response is as follows:

3)  Should Danny have been granted such status:  The answer to that question will depend upon the positions that people have taken on other issues.  In any case, the local congregation has the right to place in office those people whom it wishes to place in office.  Both liberals and conservatives agree to this in principle.

2) Does denominational policy allow for granting honorary status to people:  Take a look at any edition of the YEARBOOK.  The General Conference and the Union Conferences issue the following honorary credentials:

a)  Honorary Minesterial Credential
b) Honorary Commissioned Minister Credential
c) Honorary Commissioned Ministry of Teaching Credential

Folks, there is a very long denominational history of granting "honorary" status to people.

Just as the General Conference and the Union Conferences grant such credentials it is within the power of the local congregation to grant people honorary status.

1)  Should the local congregation grant honorary status to people who are not required to perform all of the duties:

Folks, in larger congregations people elected to positions such as Elder and Deacon are often not asked to perform all of the various duties of an Elder or a Deacon.  Rather the duties of that posision are divied up between the various people.  Some perform some functions and others perform other functions.  Typicallly in this situation at the time of election the person is informed as to what the required duties will be. 

To be specific, under some situations a Elder is supposed to preach the Sabbath sermon.  Yet, in larger congregations a person may be elected to the position of Elder who knows that they will never be asked to preach a sermon.  Others may be asked.  But, their duties will be  some that are not performed by others.

In acutal application there is not actual requirement that every person elected to a position be required to perform all of the duites of that office.  The duties of that office may be divided between those who hold that office.

[Daryl Fawcett]

In the case of Danny Shelton, was he actually elected to be an "Honorary Elder" or an "Elder"?

[Sister]

In the case of Danny Shelton, was he actually elected to be an "Honorary Elder" or an "Elder"?

Danny Shelton was not elected to be an "Honorary Elder". There were no honorary positions in the Thompsonville SDA church, so the arguments of Gregory are moot.

[Gregory]

Sister:

You will note from the citation that began my post, I spoke in general terms.  I made no claim as to whether there were honorary positions in the Thompsonvie chruch or not.  So, as a generality, I will suggest that my post was not moot.

Howeve, I call your attention to the following:

Why?  Because the Thompsonville SDA Church felt okay about having Danny Shelton serve as more of an Honorary Elder rather than a hands on one?

Regardless of whether or not there were honorary positions in the Thompsonville congregation, there was discussion of the Danny that was related to being an honorary Elder.  In view of that my post was much more on point.

[GrandmaNettie]

Gregory,

First, let me say that I agree that your well-reasoned post was definitely unmoot and was presented in a most respectful and dignified manner, very representative of the personality and character you have exhibited from the beginning of the public discussion of this saga.  Thanks for your continued gentle and principled input.

In the case of Danny Shelton, was he actually elected to be an "Honorary Elder" or an "Elder"?

Daryl, 

I have avoided much comment on your forum because I have not felt it was a good fit for my personal opinions and perspective.  I am happy to say that I can freely answer your query without the need to add personal comment or opinion on the matter because, in this particular story, not only do we have the observations of Sister, who says she was a witness we also have the observations of appletree, who also says he was a witness!  You might find enlightenment by weighing the input from both sides.  Up just a bit here, sister claimed

Danny Shelton was not elected to be an "Honorary Elder". There were no honorary positions in the Thompsonville SDA church...

Not so very long ago, appletree made the following statement on BlackSDA.com:

...A. DS said he couldn't be an active Elder and would rather not hold that office.
B. You say that he left WF church because he couldn't control it....If he wanted to control the church why would he offer to turn down the role of Elder? Why would he say upfront, that he wouldn't be able to come to most board meetings. (The lack of presence at board meetings was one of your main points in your little story) So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't control something if you aren't there.
C. Since DS didn't want the Elder role I fail to find what controversy that you have painted. DS agreed with Mr. F. that he shouldn't have that office. But, nowhere in your story is that mentioned. Did Mr. F not mention it to you or did you accidentally on purpose leave it out as you usually do?
Again, I say, Where's the fight. DS agreed with Mr. F and caused no trouble about F's suggestion that he not be made an Elder. The pastor, Elders and the church ultimately disagreed. So...we are faulting Danny on this...how?

Here's appletree offers an idea to add to the "honorary elder" mix:

...Also amusing was the statement that Danny didn't come until after SS. The truth is Danny was rarely present at the T'vill church because of his extensive travel schedule on the weekends. On the rare weekends he was home, I certainly wouldn't blame him a bit if he did wait until the worship hour to come. He was wore out. Danny was responsible for building that church so maybe the board felt like he should be an honorary elder or something to that affect because, they knew, with his schedule he could not be an active elder. That would have been an impossibility.

[J.R. Layman]

Well, Doodle, it's fine with me if J. R. takes his diatribes elsewhere, especially since he presently is making false accusations regarding who is posting here.

Uh?  Bob what's this all about, my "diatribes?"  I don't see anything resembling anything about my "diatribes" here....much less any remarks I've made.  FWIW, I approve and have reposted many of your post on "Atomorrow.com". Indeed on "Atomorrow.com" I've linked your home page and have encouraged others to view your postings!  So what gives?  What have I done to you to generete such hostility? 

The sadness is that some in the Adventist Church are still supporting Danny Sheldon (a failed "Carpenter" who couldn't even build a wall square!) with their Tithes and Offerings contrary to both the church manual and EGW thoughts on the Tithe.

Anyway......I have no problem with you or your postings.....I just wonder as to why you seemingly wish to attack me personally on this thread?  When I totally agree with everything your saying and  are trying to do, to reform 3ABN, and make it into a true ministry of God, and NOT a financial boondoggle for Danny Sheldon's personal bank account.    Shrug…..so why are you attacking me?

[J.R. Layman]

Someone ought to read the following to Danny Sheldon....and to the McNallasis who appear to continue to support him and 3ABN unconditionally!


BC- 1888
-TI- The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials
-CN- 162
-CT- The Danger of Self-Sufficiency in God's Work
-PR- 02
-PG- 1358 & 1359
-TEXT-
How does the spirit of self-exaltation and grasping for arbitrary
authority compare with the spirit and example of Christ? Our
people, who talk of religious liberty, have lessons to learn as to
what liberty in Christ really is. The Lord has marked the oppression
that has been practiced. To the men that are working in lines that are
not in accordance with Bible principles he declares that he will not accept
the means gained in this way.

Those who know the truth are to be worked by the Holy Spirit, and not
themselves to try to work the Spirit. If the cords are drawn much tighter, if
the rules are made much finer, if men continue to bind their fellow-laborers
closer and closer to the commandments of men, many will be stirred by the
Spirit of God to break every shackle, and assert their liberty in Christ
Jesus."

[GrandmaNettie]

Well, Doodle, it's fine with me if J. R. takes his diatribes elsewhere, especially since he presently is making false accusations regarding who is posting here.

Uh?  Bob what's this all about, my "diatribes?"  I don't see anything resembling anything about my "diatribes" here....much less any remarks I've made.  FWIW, I approve and have reposted many of your post on "Atomorrow.com". Indeed on "Atomorrow.com" I've linked your home page and have encouraged others to view your postings!  So what gives?  What have I done to you to generete such hostility? 
...

Anyway......I have no problem with you or your postings.....I just wonder as to why you seemingly wish to attack me personally on this thread?  When I totally agree with everything your saying and  are trying to do, to reform 3ABN, and make it into a true ministry of God, and NOT a financial boondoggle for Danny Sheldon's personal bank account.    Shrug…..so why are you attacking me?

I'm afraid you are at a small disadvantage in this matter.  A conversaton between you and John Alfke on atomorrow was posted here on this forum for a time.  It was quite offensive to some here as there were some references to past behavior on the part of some who hold positions of leadership here, so there was a consensus by administrators to remove most of the posts relating to to that discussion, as well as the link.

You should know that the same administrators will  go through and correct spelling errors as well.  I haven't noticed administrative corrections in grammar as yet, but the site is still young.

[Snoopy]

You should know that the same administrators will  go through and correct spelling errors as well.  I haven't noticed administrative corrections in grammar as yet, but the site is still young.

GrandmaNettie,

Hopefully it is your intent to let everyone know your opinion of the administration here because it is VERY obvious!!!  I am not certain why you have developed such a dislike for AdventTalk and the way things are handled here, but I personally find it very refreshing from the administrator tirades over at BSDA.  Each to his own, I guess.  Just wanted to let you know that you are coming through loud and clear!!!

[GrandmaNettie]

You should know that the same administrators will  go through and correct spelling errors as well.  I haven't noticed administrative corrections in grammar as yet, but the site is still young.

GrandmaNettie,

Hopefully it is your intent to let everyone know your opinion of the administration here because it is VERY obvious!!!  I am not certain why you have developed such a dislike for AdventTalk and the way things are handled here, but I personally find it very refreshing from the administrator tirades over at BSDA.  Each to his own, I guess.  Just wanted to let you know that you are coming through loud and clear!!!

It is a matter of taste and opinion, I suppose.  I would actually feel rather violated if an admin decided to correct my spelling errors without even asking my permission.  I can certainly understand administrative action when forum policy has been broken by a member.  But to change the spelling on a member's posts?  I read the rules here when I joined and that was not listed.

The deleted post that I was referring to when filling J.R. in on the background to the confusing comments in Bob's post was a case of going overboard with the adminstrative delete button as well, IMO.  I'm not speaking of the link to atomorrow, per se, but much of the rest of the lengthy post that the member took the time to share.  The length of the post was annoyingly long and it made a mess when others quoted it in its entirety, but how did it break the Adventtalk rules?
 

BTW, I am not the only one unhappy here:

********** Unaccepable link removed from original post and, therefore, also removed from quote here. - Daryl Fawcett, Administrator **********


From Doodle

I am not surprized you objected to the link and found it unacceptable, but I do wonder why you also deleted the material and evidence I posted in my quote box which wasn't related to that, along with Chrissy's reply to that?

but, oh well, it's your forum, but those acts by consensus or due to dire circumstances you referred to seem to be adding up.

If most of you are comfortable with the level of post altering that has been demonstrated then I suppose the few that are not comfortable with such are in the minority and, therefore, not a part of the consensus.  I would hope that the forum rules will be updated so that new members will be aware of the potential for adjustments to their posts.

[Snoopy]

It is a matter of taste and opinion, I suppose.  I would actually feel rather violated if an admin decided to correct my spelling errors without even asking my permission.  I can certainly understand administrative action when forum policy has been broken by a member.  But to change the spelling on a member's posts?  I read the rules here when I joined and that was not listed.

The deleted post that I was referring to when filling J.R. in on the background to the confusing comments in Bob's post was a case of going overboard with the adminstrative delete button as well, IMO.  I'm not speaking of the link to atomorrow, per se, but much of the rest of the lengthy post that the member took the time to share.  The length of the post was annoyingly long and it made a mess when others quoted it in its entirety, but how did it break the Adventtalk rules?
 
If most of you are comfortable with the level of post altering that has been demonstrated then I suppose the few that are not comfortable with such are in the minority and, therefore, not a part of the consensus.  I would hope that the forum rules will be updated so that new members will be aware of the potential for adjustments to their posts.

I know exactly what you are referring to, and I am glad it is gone.

As for feeling violated, how can one feel any more violated than when a BSDA admin comes along and makes a poster feel stupid or trivial for sharing their opinions??  I would much rather have someone come along and quietly fix my spelling errors than to experience someone like Clay who either beats someone down if he doesn't agree or simply closes the thread.  Talk about violated...

I personally am thankful that there is a friendly forum where I can openly but respectfully discuss what is on my mind.  As a matter of fact, I much prefer to share my thoughts here than at BSDA.  If you don't like the environment here...then why....??....never mind.

[Bob Pickle]

Uh?  Bob what's this all about, my "diatribes?"

My apologies, J.R. I was reacting to your claim that Chrissie was Claudia, and maybe the way that post wherever it was came across. In this ongoing saga it is difficult to know who is who and what side this one is on or that one is on. My apologies.

Would you like me to edit that?

[J.R. Layman]

Re: "[The deleted post that I was referring to when filling J.R. in on the background to the confusing comments in Bob's post was a case of going overboard with the administrative delete button as well, IMO.  ..............I personally am thankful that there is a friendly forum where I can openly but respectfully discuss what is on my mind."

Uh?  FWIW....the worst form of Forum Management, is the unjustified use of the "Delete" button......it demonstrates the "small man" syndrome of anyone in control of a discussion format.  In the case of "Atomorrow.com" the ONLY time that the "delete" button is used, is when someone becomes or post something vulgar (including my friend, John Alfke!  )....such as is so common of the vulgarity seen on "Club Adventist!"  And we only delete the offensive portion of the post, so there is a RECORD of the post....even though it is made clear, that "editing" has occurred! Indeed the whole reason for starting "Atomorrow.com" was because of the invasive and "Controlling" nature of other so called "Adventist" forums.   

FWIW....John Alfke was one of my sisters graduating classmates at South Lancaster Academy....and his sister was my classmate at SLA. when I attended there 1964-1965   He is  also my friend....so we josh around once  in awhile!

But back to the discussion about 3ABN......it took me personally awhile to come to a conclusion at to the matter of Danny vs. Linda. As I personally like the idea of independent ministries......and don't particularly appreciate the churches vested interested in CONTROLLING all aspects of  ministry  (remember I’m a PK!).   But I've come to realize and acknowledge that it appears that Danny Sheldon is an out of control "Control Freak." And certainly not worshiping the God of Heaven....but the god of his own self interest!