. . we would like to think that Dan Jackson "endorses" 3ABN, but "endorses" is a strong word, and that could only be safely determined from a direct statement by Dan Jackson himself. However, I think it is fair to say that Dan Jackson (and the GC and NAD administrations in general) are supportive of 3ABN, are friends of 3ABN.
The above statemetn, I consider to be well thought out, and a reasoned statement which is accurate, at leaset in regards to whether or no tJackson endorses 3-ABN. I agree that to say that Jackson endorses 3-ABN is not fully supported.
Bob raises questions which may be validly asked. to how "supportative" they are of 3-ABN, that could probably be questioned. But, obviously that consider it appropriate to maintain relations and to participate on some levels in 3-ABN activities. Bob raises a valid question when he asks essentally: Why 3-ABN when others were not supported inthe past? I will suggest that there is a 2-part response to tha.
1) In the past, many (not all) were openly calling the SDA denomination apostate. 3-ABN has not done that.
2) Bob asks:
Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?
The reality is: As much as Bob and others would like to believe that the above has been conclusively proven, Much of the above has not been conclusively proven and is considered to be overstateI am aware that I will probably be challenged for saying such. So be it.