Print

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

[Habanero]

Yes, Artiste, interesting that this person should be outraged at the destruction of reputations "for the sheer joy of doing it." Interesting also is the taunt hurtled at Bob Pickle making fun of victims of sexual abuse, mocking actions such victims may take in prevention of abuse on others, and mocking people who are outraged at abuse of others. Why would this person mock that? Why would they make fun of people's pain and treat the addressing of it as an accusation that they had been abused, as though a victim of abuse was guilty of being abused? Is the victim of robbery guilty of being robbed? Is the victim of murder guilty of being murdered? Is the victim of rape guilty of being raped?

As you say, "psychological explainations that make no sense."

I believe that you, Mr. Pickle, are being used as a weapon by those who seek revenge against 3abn.
***********************************
You are at the point of destroying reputations just for the sheer joy of doing it.
***********************************
Your allegations against Tommy Shelton seem to be like a broken record. The same stuff over and over again.  So much so that I have wondered if you had a bad experience in your past that makes you dwell on this subject.

Interesting techniques you use, Sam, plucking allegations and motives out of thin air and trying to manufacture psychological explanations that make no sense.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

I reckon that any person who has donated to 3abn has the right to accurate and timely accountability. Is that such a strange expectation?

"A timely accountability means a record and receipt given to those who have donated.  It doesn't mean to open a ministries books to 2 men that are already spreading rumors and untruths.  I read somewhere that Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Wintley Phipps and several others, said they would never open their books to these 2 men under the same circumstances." SAM

It is funny you bring this issue of stewardship accountability up as I have been thinking that Whintley Phipps and Doug Batchelor probably should open up their books for a closer look. Yes, SAM, we have received questions regarding each in various forms and I must admit that Senator Grassley is likely correct that even religious organizations should have "open books" in the form of the revised 990's at the very least. Seventh-day Adventist should probably be the leaders in real openness and transparency. But, in fact we are among the worst in terms of disclosure. Doesn't this run contrary to biblical principles and counsel, SAM?

Gailon Arthur Joy

You know what they say about birds of a feather?

[Snoopy]

Hey Sam!  Welcome to AdventTalk!!

By the way...did you know the term "gullible" isn't in the dictionary??

So what can be done? At present the lawsuit will drag on for at least another year, not counting appeals, unless the other side starts to give. And the IRS's plans, that's a wild card.

Just a few questions to clarify.  Please provide only direct answers to the specific questions.

We all know if you are given a clearance by the IRS....YOU ARE CLEARED.  Meaning the IRS is known for finding things when their really isn't anything to find. So, if they clear you, you can be sure you are squeaky clean.  My question?

What will your reaction be if the IRS completely clears 3abn of any financial wrong doing?  That would mean, accurate tax records, no private inurment, no 3abn monies spent on anyone's personal needs, etc...etc..

IMO if that happens that would mean a large number of stories you have repeated, as well as, your own take on what constitutes private inurment, mishandling of funds and on and on would be totally incorrect. Without merit.  Down the tube.  In  other words, your opinions and your sources opinions aren't worth a dime compared to the IRS.  If your financial allegations are proven false then think how many other accusations you have made that could be in error also.  Several come to mind.

1. You have stated repeatedly that Danny ADMITTED having no biblical grounds for divorce.  I have found that to be totally false.  Because the "board" mentioned spiritual adultery does that "rule out" they had no knowledge of "actual" adultery?  I think not.  I believe the board acted respectfully by not airing the sordid details.  If and I say If, Danny referred to spriritual adultery does that also mean he doesn't have evidence of actual adultery and again, was being respectful by not going into detail?   To say that Danny ADMITTED to not having biblical grounds for divorce is so far from the truth, it is actually a lie.  I have noticed Mr. Pickle that you say what you need to where you need to, to fit the situation. For instance.  I have read numerous times where you have accused Danny of trashing his ex wife on the air and trying to ruin her reputation by saying she committed adultery.  Then, as in your more recent post, you say he ADMITS only spiritual adultery.  I'm confused.  If he ADMITS it was only spiritual adultery then how could he, at other times, trash her by accusing her of "actual" adultery?  If Danny and the board have evidence then certainly Danny had biblical grounds for remarriage, and he nor the board owe Linda or anyone else an apology for their actions.

Hi Sam/Dan/Whoever

Are you forgetting Linda's requests; no DEMANDS that Danny/3abn/Board etc publicly furnish any/all the evidence that anyone has that she committed - be that 'spiritual adultery' (whatever that means) or any other kind of adultery they can make up. Not once, has anyone come forward and provided the evidence that Linda herself has called for. That seems rather strange. 

So you are saying that because forum members or Mr. Pickle and Joy haven't seen it, it doesn't exist?  To me, that seems rather strange.

2. Your allegations against Tommy Shelton seem to be like a broken record. The same stuff over and over again. So much so that I have wondered if you had a bad experience in your past that makes you dwell on this subject.  I know this will be hard for you but, moving past that, your allegation against Danny is that he "covered up" molestation.  I have a few opinions myself on the subject.
First from what I have read and heard, your accusation of pedophilia is way out of line.  But, to get to the main point, there are other possible scenerio's besides a "cover up."  Did it ever occur to you that maybe Danny repeated to Walt Thompson the information that he had heard and believed?  Or, that Danny may have had knowledge of some mistakes (not pedophilia) made in the very distant past but knew (or thought) that the problems had been resolved and had no reason to believe that during the time of Tommy's 3abn employment that anything was amiss?  As far as I can tell that is an accurate assumption.  The employment time is all Danny would be responsible for.  I would sure hate to hold the head of any organization accountable for any mistakes or sins that their employees had made through their lifetimes.  Ha, there wouldn't be any companies left.

But you are forgetting that Tommy's employment with 3abn was supposed to be terminated back in the early 90's because of his behaviour. Another   Did you just happen to forget that? Can't accept such a lame excuse for thinking that pedophilia just doesn't matter.

No, not forgetting. You can't forget something that never happened. I understand that was just another rumor. I believe Dr. Thompson made it clear some time ago that particular accusation was false and Tommy was never fired back in the early 90's.  Did you somehow overlook that?

3. You are a broken record on private inurment also.  Yet I have read from some of the posters say that attorney's and auditors have been through the records and handled the transactions at the time, and have found everything above board.  Yet, you seem to think you have some insight that they do not.  If the IRS clears 3abn will you also claim insight that they don't have?

I reckon that any person who has donated to 3abn has the right to accurate and timely accountability. Is that such a strange expectation?

A timely accountability means a record and receipt given to those who have donated.  It doesn't mean to open a ministries books to 2 men that are already spreading rumors and untruths.  I read somewhere that Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Wintley Phipps and several others, said they would never open their books to these 2 men under the same circumstances.

4. You are constantly referring now to the "stupid" lawsuit and what a terrible thing it is that 3abn filed one against you.  This is what I get from the forums, emails you have made public and comments from both sides.

For whatever reason, you became involved in questioning some things you had heard about 3abn.  Personal things, financial things... So you and Joy, complete strangers try or do contact Danny with your very personal questions while all the time, already repeating stories and accusations that you had been told.  Danny then, began to get phone calls that you guys were trouble and couldn't be trusted and were working with Linda to try and hurt 3abn. ( I read that somewhere.)  So Danny decided 1. all you were doing was repeating tales, 2. who were you to be cross examining him or 3abn in the first place.  You and Joy began to make phone calls and send emails to people you had been told had problems with 3abn/Danny/the board and began to collect their stories.  You repeated publicly all the stories you were told. With no evidence, I might add.  Yet, all the while, you were proclaiming your desire to "save" a ministry.  To do that, IYO, most of administration would have to be wiped out.  Soon your accusations spread to anyone that has had anything to do with 3abn.  Their personal lives, their families, to you everyone was and is fair game.  I am still looking for the justification of trashing those that support 3abn, Shelton family members, family members of the board of directors, to try and "save" 3abn.  The trashing of so many other people's reputations has nothing to do with the 3abn ministry and your claim to "save it." What it does have to do with is developing hate and bitterness as you have progressed on your "unholy" mission.  You are at the point of destroying reputations just for the sheer joy of doing it.  If your "sources" told you that John Doe was involved in thievery 10 years ago, expose it. Expose them, whether they are guilty or not. If someone told it to you, then obviously you feel it your obligation to make it public.  Doesn't matter how much or how little exposure to 3abn John Doe had or how many years ago he "allegedly" stole something, broadcast it. Make it public.  Even though, you can't prove it and are doing nothing but passing along gossip around the water cooler.

Remember that Danny/3abn didn't want this all sorted out quietly with ASI or the GC. No. It was they who instigated the 'stupid' lawsuit. It is they who decided to 'sue their Christian brethren'.

No I don't remember. I remember that Danny/3abn were quite willing to allow ASI to mediate but low and behold ASI put out a public statement that Mrs. Shelton's side were not willing to follow all the rules and guidelines.  Surely you have read that statement as that is one of the many things that Mr. Pickle and Joy have published.  To read that statement and then declare that Danny/3abn didn't want to go through ASI is incomprehensible to me.
 

That isn't even mentioning the fact that you created a website called "save" 3abn so that many times when people were searching the net for the "real" 3abn ministry they accidentally fell into the black pit that you had created for public consumption.

So as time went on and your allegations and accusations became more and more serious and you continued to state these allegations as facts to anyone who would listen, 3abn finally decided to take action and file a lawsuit for defamation, copyright, and whatever else they filed for.  And...you were, shocked, offended, horrified and clueless as to why they would take action???

Somehow you expect the general Adventist public to believe your actions are trying to "save" 3abn?  That you are following biblical principal? And that big, bad scary 3abn is trying to nail 2 poor little men who were only trying to help them?

You have to be kidding.

No kidding Mate. Nothing could be more fair-dinkum than this was the way to go to expose to the 'stockholders in the pews' just the raketeering that was going on. I wonder how many dear, little, old ladies donated all their life savings to support 3abn and give DS a lifestyle of ease, while others went without? The website provoked sufficient people for them to realise that there was something very much wrong, and people needed to investigate for themselves, just what was happening at the so-called 'face of Adventism headquarters', which later stated that they were nondenominational. Would the people have known that 3abn would state that they were not affiliated with any Church or organisation, if this had not been brought to light? I think not.

Now see?  Here you are, I presume, a complete stranger to 3abn/Danny/members of the board, throwing around words like "rackateering". People like you who are gullible enough to swallow every rumor, innuendo, second and third hand stories that have been thrown out, are exactly the reason that Mr. Pickle and Joy are in litigation.  Their information has made you throw out allegations of "rackateering".  You also just stated that as if it were a fact. If you look at the tax statements and the salary figures that the President has made over the last 23 years, I believe it is obvious that no President of 3abn has lived a "lifestyle of ease".  In fact, it was several years before the President made much of anything.  Danny, Jim G, or anyone else that runs 3abn have not been compensated enough for running an organization of that size.  I cannot imagine the responsibility of continually having to raise funds to support 175 workers worldwide, pay for endless satellite time, deal with an unrealistic travel schedule, deal with huge contracts for cable and UHF stations, and a million other details that I have no knowledge or comprehension of but, is part of that job.  I wouldn't do it for all the money in the world, much less for the salaries these guys have worked for.

Your comments make me think that you will be "in a pickle" if the IRS clears 3abn.

[Bob Pickle]

No I don't remember. I remember that Danny/3abn were quite willing to allow ASI to mediate but low and behold ASI put out a public statement that Mrs. Shelton's side were not willing to follow all the rules and guidelines.  Surely you have read that statement as that is one of the many things that Mr. Pickle and Joy have published.  To read that statement and then declare that Danny/3abn didn't want to go through ASI is incomprehensible to me.

Now Sam, your statement above comes across as if you are a bald face liar. How can you say such a thing?

Harold Lance was quite clear to us that both sides were to have input into the rules. Here you make it sound as if the rules were predetermined, and that we weren't to have any input into the rules.

You should have said that both sides could not agree as to what the rules were to be. That would have been accurate.

Another thing you say above that makes you look like a liar is that you refer to me as part of "Mrs. Shelton's side." I made it quite clear that that was an inappropriate label.

It is quite unfortunate that ASI leadership chose Harold Lance to be the go-between for all of this. Something is wrong there. He still has not responded to my emails of more than a year ago asking him to whom he sent the "Procedural Suggestions" that he said were sent to Linda and Danny and their representatives on October 31, 2006. Perhaps he picked up some unethical habits while working as an attorney.

One thing that can be said for sure is that ASI leadership relied heavily on his word when they unethically discriminated in the matter of refusing ASI membership to someone who had blown the whistle over Danny Shelton's cover up of the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.

[Artiste]

I read somewhere that Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Wintley Phipps and several others, said they would never open their books to these 2 men [Joy and Pickle] under the same circumstances.

Sam, interesting that you would bring up Doug Batchelor to bolster your case, who has been mentioned in another thread as being highly endorsed by Ernie Knolls, false prophet extraordinaire.

[bonnie]

I read somewhere that Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Wintley Phipps and several others, said they would never open their books to these 2 men [Joy and Pickle] under the same circumstances.

I heard or read somewhere is hardly the documentation that should be required by all. That would come under the heading of hearsy by some here.
 Could you produce that or perhaps have Doug Batchelor confirm that was his words. Surely a man in his position would not be afraid to stand by what he has said.

[Cindy]

3) Mr Pickle offered to have an ecclesiatical process and 3ABN's answer was a Federal Lawsuite, a clearly brilliant move for one concerned about keeping their sins in the closet

And so you are making progress. I see you feel that 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton should most certainly have agreed to meet with us to discuss the "evidence" man to man over a conference table rather than file suite!!!

Just to make it crystal clear to all, Danny Shelton sued us in federal court. He opted out of a more private process of an ASI tribunal.

This time around they've[GC] decided not to get actively involved. That's why ASI was supposed to set up a tribunal, not the GC.Yet ASI had no control either. I was talking with a retired church leader in late 2006, and when I pointed out to him that whatever ASI decided regarding this mess couldn't be enforced due to 3ABN's governance structure, he realized the problem and said he didn't know what to do.

My point at the time was that the 3ABN Board refused to deal with the issues, and that's why the ASI tribunal idea was being tried. But, if the 3ABN Board's refusal to deal with the issues was what led to ASI having to consider getting involved, then it could also refuse to follow ASI's recommendations. And thus the whole process would accomplish nothing....My only dilemma is whether I can honestly say that we don't tolerate corruption, when ASI discriminates in the matter of membership [FYI -- PICKLE IS TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF HERE. ASI has not, either before the 3abn dilemma and Pickle's self involvement nor since then, accepted his membership. ] against those who blow the whistle on the cover up of child molestation allegations, when ASI is scared to put into writing what the basis of their membership denial was, when McNeilus money has helped to fund a retaliatory lawsuit against those who blew the whistle on the cover up of child molestation allegations, when Garwin thinks that our sitting down with the 3ABN Board to share our concerns would be a waste of time, and such.

So I am in a real pickle to know what I can really, honestly say.

Now if ASI leadership and Garwin McNeilus would come out publicly and denounce pedophilia, the cover up of allegations of pedophilia, retaliatory lawsuits against those concerned about pedophilia, and discrimination against those concerned about pedophilia, I would feel much more comfortable in saying that the Adventist Church doesn't tolerate this kind of stuff. Particularly since ASI gets its tax exempt status from the NAD, and thus there is no way to separate ASI from the denomination.

I think it is crucial for Garwin, Denzil, and Donna to break their silence and come out solidly in opposition to the cover up of allegations of pedophilia, and to ASI discrimination and retaliatory lawsuits

when I stated that ASI discriminated in regards to membership against someone concerned about child molestation allegations, I do not believe that is an exaggeration. When I stated that McNeilus money has helped fund the retaliatory lawsuit against those concerned about allegations of pedophilia, I do not believe that is an exaggeration.

The lawsuit is over a year old now, the discrimination by ASI is nearing a year old,

Pickle said "Remember that Danny/3abn didn't want this all sorted out quietly with ASI or the GC. No. It was they who instigated the 'stupid' lawsuit. It is they who decided to 'sue their Christian brethren'."

No I don't remember. I remember that Danny/3abn were quite willing to allow ASI to mediate but low and behold ASI put out a public statement that Mrs. Shelton's side were not willing to follow all the rules and guidelines.  Surely you have read that statement as that is one of the many things that Mr. Pickle and Joy have published.  To read that statement and then declare that Danny/3abn didn't want to go through ASI is incomprehensible to me.

Now Sam, your statement above comes across as if you are a bald face liar. How can you say such a thing?

Why ASI Chose to withdraw from Discussions


To Those It May Concern:

Answering a request last fall from Three Angels’ Broadcasting Network’s Board of Directors (afterward referred to as 3ABN), ASI agreed to explore the possibility of forming a commission “. . . to evaluate and determine Danny's legal and moral right to divorce and remarry . . .” [excerpt from 3ABN minutes].

ASI’s Executive Committee spent considerable time and effort from late September 2006 until early 2007 exploring that assignment. ASI’s Executive Committee met January 4 to review progress on establishing a commission. After a full discussion at that time, the Committee voted unanimously to withdraw from the process they had agreed to consider. A brief announcement was made by ASI, without stating any of the reasons for our withdrawal. We received questions from both ASI members and several Church leaders. All wanted to know the reasons for ASI’s action to withdraw. The Committee met again on January 9, 2007 and authorized the following explanation:


Reason for ASI’s Withdrawal

ASI’s decision to withdraw was not based on the merits of the divorce and remarriage issues or any of the other issues we were urged to consider. ASI’s decision was based solely on the barriers we encountered in attempting to reach agreement between the parties on a process whereby the commission would study the issues.


ASI’s Initial Considerations

ASI believed it could develop a process that would be fair to all parties, utilizing a panel of ASI members selected for their spirituality, fairness and intelligence. The parties would be chosen through a panel selection process. ASI proposed a process to assure a fair due process to all concerned.ASI believed it was essential that it have the active involvement of all parties in this process.


Danny and 3ABN Accept

By December 10, 2006, Danny Shelton (afterward referred to as Danny) and 3ABN had accepted the process proposed by ASI.


Unexpected Barriers



Linda [formerly Mrs. Danny Shelton] (afterward referred to as Linda) did not participate personally in discussions to develop an agreed upon process.

Linda identified Gaylon Arthur Joy (afterward referred to as Joy) as her representative. Joy, in turn, introduced Bob Pickle (afterward referred to as Pickle) and Greg Matthews (afterward referred to as Matthews) as his team members.

Linda’s team:

Did not accept that ASI was capable of providing a fair forum to decide the issues

Insisted on including issues involving allegations of mismanagement and corporate misconduct at 3ABN

Would not accept the ground rules for the panel’s procedures

Would not cease harassing e-mail contact with Danny or other 3ABN representatives

Would not cease, when requested to do so, circulating distracting comments about the process under discussion with ASI

We never learned whether Linda approved of the positions asserted by her team.At no time did Linda respond except to say that Joy would be her representative.


3ABN/ASI Relationship

ASI was open to whatever conclusion the facts would reveal, and we were disappointed that our efforts did not result in a resolution of the issues we had agreed to consider.

The ASI Executive Committee believes that 3ABN is a God-inspired and God-led instrument for the effective spread of the three angels messages to the world, and that it has been, and continues to be, a blessing to the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church.

ASI is an organization of member businesses and ministries that share a priority for the spread of the gospel in their marketplaces. 3ABN was introduced to ASI in the mid-1980's at our ASI Convention in Big Sky, Montana. At that time their television idea was just a dream. ASI was intrigued by their audacious plan of a lay-operated ministry providing a worldwide radio and television network with "straight" Seventh-day Adventist programming, 24/7. That meeting was the beginning of a mutually beneficial relationship, resulting in the growth of both 3ABN and ASI and in positive media exposure for hundreds of ASI members. Both Linda and Danny Shelton were viewed as capable leaders, deserving our respect and involvement with ASI.

In addition to great sadness for those who know them, the breakup of the Sheltons’ marriage and subsequent events brought much public comment that came to the notice of ASI, Church leadership and 3ABN’s viewers. Soon after: "The 3ABN Board of Directors voted unanimously on September 24 [2006] to request ASI to set up a commission to evaluate and determine Danny's legal and moral right to divorce and to re-marry" [excerpt from 3ABN minutes].


Attempts to Establish the Commission Panel

As ASI leadership was considering 3ABN's request, an e-mail message dated, October 3, 2006, was received by ASI’s president from Joy, hitherto unknown to ASI, saying in part:

“. . . Dr. Thompson [Walter Thompson, 3ABN Board Chair] has informed me that ASI has agreed to be the appropriate platform upon which to hear allegations regarding 3ABN. While I agree to that in theory, ASI is the appropriate platform and clearly has some jurisdiction here, and by voluntary assent would have full jurisdiction to hear the allegations and make appropriate findings, I also recognize there are some clear and serious conflicts that need to be clarified."

Joy’s memo included messages from others (unknown and unidentified to us) who seriously questioning whether ASI was an appropriate organization to be involved. As stated above, Joy himself was unknown to ASI leadership at that time. It was not known what his interest was in the matter until Linda later identified Joy as her representative. Joy then introduced Pickle and Matthews as part of Linda's team. Since that time Joy, Pickle and Matthews always were included in any correspondence sent to Linda.

October 25, 2006: The ASI Executive Committee took an action authorizing the exploration of becoming involved in the process and asked Harold Lance, past ASI president, to represent ASI and lead out in the commission’s process.

October 31, 2006: ASI circulated a document entitled "Procedural Suggestions" [see below] to Linda, Danny, their representatives, and to 3ABN.


Basic Concepts

ASI identified several basic concepts necessary for the process to succeed:

The involvement of Linda, Danny, and 3ABN was essential in order to reach a successful agreement regarding a fair process and then to come to a resolution of the dispute.

Widespread distracting interchanges on web sites and forums led us to believe that the discussions between ASI and all parties attempting to establish an agreement on the process (Linda, Danny, their representatives, and 3ABN) needed to be conducted with confidentiality.

Both “sides” (Linda’s and Danny’s) needed to stop direct critical comment with each other.


Procedural Suggestions

ASI suggested the following procedural/process concepts:

The panel selected to hear and decide the issues should be chosen by ASI in consultation with the parties [linda and Danny].

Because of the sensitive nature of the issues, the proceedings should be private, in the manner of an "Executive Session" within a board of directors of the Church or a corporation.

Issues for consideration needed careful definition and mutual agreement.

Parties would formally state in advance of the hearing their position on each issue and their expected outcome of each issue.

Each party would, in advance of their appearance before the panel, furnish the identity of witnesses and their expected information, as well as provide copies of any documents [evidence] to be presented to the panel.

All costs connected with the proceedings would be paid by 3ABN.

Proceedings would be held at a neutral site as convenient as possible for all parties.

Input from both parties would be welcomed to establish the ground rules on the process to be followed.

Questioning would be conducted by the panel under the direction of its chairperson, with opportunity for the parties or their representatives to suggest questions.

The decision of the panel would be based upon information presented by the parties at the hearing and not from outside sources.

The proceedings would not be conducted as a trial, with a judge, lawyers, cross examination and typical court-like processes.

Within 30 days after the conclusion of the proceedings the panel would announce its written findings on the issues, the factual reasons for their findings, and recommendations to the parties, which document would be available to the parties and the interested public.


What happened? Why didn’t the process succeed?

There was significant interchange between Linda's team and ASI, and between Danny, 3ABN and ASI that lead to the creation of two additional documents presented by ASI to the parties that contained details and revisions to the proposed process that the parties had suggested.

We continued to have no contact from Linda other than a single memo to an ASI officer stating that Joy was her representative.

By December 10, 2006, Danny and 3ABN had accepted the process as proposed by ASI.

On December 13, 2006, ASI received an email from Joy advising that Linda was preparing a careful, thorough response to the process proposals, along with a list of questions that he and Linda were preparing for their own clarification. This response and list of questions never came.


Interchange between ASI and Linda's team

Discussions between ASI and Linda’s representatives centered around:

Whether the proceeding should be open to the public or private

Whether ASI could be neutral and provide a "level playing field"

Whether the proceedings should be video taped/recorded/broadcast

Whether the issues considered by the panel should extend beyond the Sheltons’ divorce and Danny’s remarriage to include, for example:That Danny and the 3ABN Board of Directors were guilty of malfeasance

That Danny should be removed as president of 3ABN

That the Board of Directors of 3ABN should be removed

That 3ABN should be restructured to create a constituency-based organization (though they knew that the existing structure is lawful)

That any person who has contributed to the support of 3ABN should be a constituent and entitled to a voice in the selection of the Board of Directors and management of the ministry (donors were referred to by Linda’s team as, "stockholders in the pews")

That the 3ABN corporate by-laws needed to be changed to allow for censure, discipline, and removal of officers or members of the Board of Directors. [NOTE: In fact the corporate by-laws already provide for those possibilities.)

At least 22 other issues were raised in Forum site references by her team and urged for inclusion in the ASI process.

From the beginning last fall, Linda was provided with all necessary telephone and e-mail contact information for involvement with the discussion. She was sent copies of all communications from ASI (as were Danny and 3ABN). In the two-plus months of ASI's attempts to reach agreement on a fundamental process for the panel, she did not respond (except to name Joy as her representative).

We do not know if Linda shares in a belief with Joy, Pickle and Matthews that the agenda should include the matters asserted by her team (above). She chose not to participate.

It became clear that Joy, Pickle and Matthews had interests far beyond the issues that ASI had agreed to consider.


The Beginning of the End of Discussions

We affirmed to the parties that even though ASI supports the ministry of 3ABN and wishes for it to succeed and prosper, ASI would be fair and objective in considering the issues related to the Sheltons’ divorce and Danny’s remarriage. We also believed that the panel selected by ASI, in consultation with the parties involved, would be people who possessed qualities of spirituality, intelligence and fairness. We affirmed to both parties that ASI had no stake in the outcome, and that ASI would be comfortable with whatever conclusions were reached by the panel. However, we never reached the point of choosing a panel.

A week or two into the process, Danny and 3ABN ceased exchanging messages with the other side. That was helpful. Because ASI declined to consider issues beyond those of the divorce and remarriage, Joy, Pickle and Matthews continued their negative contacts with Danny, Dr. Thompson (3ABN Board chair) and others associated with 3ABN. Though couched in spiritual language, their messages were persistent, confrontational, argumentative and harassing. ASI’s efforts to stop their direct communications were unsuccessful.


Final Assessment

We believe that ASI has no jurisdiction to consider internal issues of 3ABN management or the changing of its corporate structure. Those issues must be left to its governing body, the 3ABN Board of Directors. We believe our inability to resolve the fundamental issue of the divorce and remarriage is disappointing to many. We felt that without agreement on the fundamental process, and with no likely agreement in sight, it was necessary for ASI to withdraw. The two parties are the losers in what could have been a healing clarification of a divisive issue for all those involved and concerned.

We confess that if we would have known how bring resolution to the matter, we would have done so. We don't, but God does. We urge that all who have a concern over these issues and over the future ministry of 3ABN (and of Linda and Danny) be respectful, restrained, and apply the Golden Rule as you would wish others to do for you. And pray for one another without ceasing.



The ASI Executive Committee
by Harold Lance
January 24, 2007

edit to fix code

[Artiste]

Thank you for publishing the viewpoint of HAROLD LANCE, Ian.

[reddogs]

No I don't remember. I remember that Danny/3abn were quite willing to allow ASI to mediate but low and behold ASI put out a public statement that Mrs. Shelton's side were not willing to follow all the rules and guidelines.  Surely you have read that statement as that is one of the many things that Mr. Pickle and Joy have published.  To read that statement and then declare that Danny/3abn didn't want to go through ASI is incomprehensible to me.

Now Sam, your statement above comes across as if you are a bald face liar. How can you say such a thing?

 

Why ASI Chose to withdraw from Discussions


To Those It May Concern:

Answering a request last fall from Three Angels’ Broadcasting Network’s Board of Directors (afterward referred to as 3ABN), ASI agreed to explore the possibility of forming a commission “. . . to evaluate and determine Danny's legal and moral right to divorce and remarry . . .” [excerpt from 3ABN minutes].

ASI’s Executive Committee spent considerable time and effort from late September 2006 until early 2007 exploring that assignment. ASI’s Executive Committee met January 4 to review progress on establishing a commission. After a full discussion at that time, the Committee voted unanimously to withdraw from the process they had agreed to consider. A brief announcement was made by ASI, without stating any of the reasons for our withdrawal. We received questions from both ASI members and several Church leaders. All wanted to know the reasons for ASI’s action to withdraw. The Committee met again on January 9, 2007 and authorized the following explanation:


Reason for ASI’s Withdrawal

ASI’s decision to withdraw was not based on the merits of the divorce and remarriage issues or any of the other issues we were urged to consider. ASI’s decision was based solely on the barriers we encountered in attempting to reach agreement between the parties on a process whereby the commission would study the issues.


ASI’s Initial Considerations

ASI believed it could develop a process that would be fair to all parties, utilizing a panel of ASI members selected for their spirituality, fairness and intelligence. The parties would be chosen through a panel selection process. ASI proposed a process to assure a fair due process to all concerned.ASI believed it was essential that it have the active involvement of all parties in this process.


Danny and 3ABN Accept

By December 10, 2006, Danny Shelton (afterward referred to as Danny) and 3ABN had accepted the process proposed by ASI.


Unexpected Barriers



Linda [formerly Mrs. Danny Shelton] (afterward referred to as Linda) did not participate personally in discussions to develop an agreed upon process.

Linda identified Gaylon Arthur Joy (afterward referred to as Joy) as her representative. Joy, in turn, introduced Bob Pickle (afterward referred to as Pickle) and Greg Matthews (afterward referred to as Matthews) as his team members.

Linda’s team:

Did not accept that ASI was capable of providing a fair forum to decide the issues

Insisted on including issues involving allegations of mismanagement and corporate misconduct at 3ABN

Would not accept the ground rules for the panel’s procedures

Would not cease harassing e-mail contact with Danny or other 3ABN representatives

Would not cease, when requested to do so, circulating distracting comments about the process under discussion with ASI

We never learned whether Linda approved of the positions asserted by her team.At no time did Linda respond except to say that Joy would be her representative.


3ABN/ASI Relationship

ASI was open to whatever conclusion the facts would reveal, and we were disappointed that our efforts did not result in a resolution of the issues we had agreed to consider.

The ASI Executive Committee believes that 3ABN is a God-inspired and God-led instrument for the effective spread of the three angels messages to the world, and that it has been, and continues to be, a blessing to the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church.

ASI is an organization of member businesses and ministries that share a priority for the spread of the gospel in their marketplaces. 3ABN was introduced to ASI in the mid-1980's at our ASI Convention in Big Sky, Montana. At that time their television idea was just a dream. ASI was intrigued by their audacious plan of a lay-operated ministry providing a worldwide radio and television network with "straight" Seventh-day Adventist programming, 24/7. That meeting was the beginning of a mutually beneficial relationship, resulting in the growth of both 3ABN and ASI and in positive media exposure for hundreds of ASI members. Both Linda and Danny Shelton were viewed as capable leaders, deserving our respect and involvement with ASI.

In addition to great sadness for those who know them, the breakup of the Sheltons’ marriage and subsequent events brought much public comment that came to the notice of ASI, Church leadership and 3ABN’s viewers. Soon after: "The 3ABN Board of Directors voted unanimously on September 24 [2006] to request ASI to set up a commission to evaluate and determine Danny's legal and moral right to divorce and to re-marry" [excerpt from 3ABN minutes].


Attempts to Establish the Commission Panel

As ASI leadership was considering 3ABN's request, an e-mail message dated, October 3, 2006, was received by ASI’s president from Joy, hitherto unknown to ASI, saying in part:

“. . . Dr. Thompson [Walter Thompson, 3ABN Board Chair] has informed me that ASI has agreed to be the appropriate platform upon which to hear allegations regarding 3ABN. While I agree to that in theory, ASI is the appropriate platform and clearly has some jurisdiction here, and by voluntary assent would have full jurisdiction to hear the allegations and make appropriate findings, I also recognize there are some clear and serious conflicts that need to be clarified."

Joy’s memo included messages from others (unknown and unidentified to us) who seriously questioning whether ASI was an appropriate organization to be involved. As stated above, Joy himself was unknown to ASI leadership at that time. It was not known what his interest was in the matter until Linda later identified Joy as her representative. Joy then introduced Pickle and Matthews as part of Linda's team. Since that time Joy, Pickle and Matthews always were included in any correspondence sent to Linda.

October 25, 2006: The ASI Executive Committee took an action authorizing the exploration of becoming involved in the process and asked Harold Lance, past ASI president, to represent ASI and lead out in the commission’s process.

October 31, 2006: ASI circulated a document entitled "Procedural Suggestions" [see below] to Linda, Danny, their representatives, and to 3ABN.


Basic Concepts

ASI identified several basic concepts necessary for the process to succeed:

The involvement of Linda, Danny, and 3ABN was essential in order to reach a successful agreement regarding a fair process and then to come to a resolution of the dispute.

Widespread distracting interchanges on web sites and forums led us to believe that the discussions between ASI and all parties attempting to establish an agreement on the process (Linda, Danny, their representatives, and 3ABN) needed to be conducted with confidentiality.

Both “sides” (Linda’s and Danny’s) needed to stop direct critical comment with each other.


Procedural Suggestions

ASI suggested the following procedural/process concepts:

The panel selected to hear and decide the issues should be chosen by ASI in consultation with the parties [linda and Danny].

Because of the sensitive nature of the issues, the proceedings should be private, in the manner of an "Executive Session" within a board of directors of the Church or a corporation.

Issues for consideration needed careful definition and mutual agreement.

Parties would formally state in advance of the hearing their position on each issue and their expected outcome of each issue.

Each party would, in advance of their appearance before the panel, furnish the identity of witnesses and their expected information, as well as provide copies of any documents [evidence] to be presented to the panel.

All costs connected with the proceedings would be paid by 3ABN.

Proceedings would be held at a neutral site as convenient as possible for all parties.

Input from both parties would be welcomed to establish the ground rules on the process to be followed.

Questioning would be conducted by the panel under the direction of its chairperson, with opportunity for the parties or their representatives to suggest questions.

The decision of the panel would be based upon information presented by the parties at the hearing and not from outside sources.

The proceedings would not be conducted as a trial, with a judge, lawyers, cross examination and typical court-like processes.

Within 30 days after the conclusion of the proceedings the panel would announce its written findings on the issues, the factual reasons for their findings, and recommendations to the parties, which document would be available to the parties and the interested public.


What happened? Why didn’t the process succeed?

There was significant interchange between Linda's team and ASI, and between Danny, 3ABN and ASI that lead to the creation of two additional documents presented by ASI to the parties that contained details and revisions to the proposed process that the parties had suggested.

We continued to have no contact from Linda other than a single memo to an ASI officer stating that Joy was her representative.

By December 10, 2006, Danny and 3ABN had accepted the process as proposed by ASI.

On December 13, 2006, ASI received an email from Joy advising that Linda was preparing a careful, thorough response to the process proposals, along with a list of questions that he and Linda were preparing for their own clarification. This response and list of questions never came.


Interchange between ASI and Linda's team

Discussions between ASI and Linda’s representatives centered around:

Whether the proceeding should be open to the public or private

Whether ASI could be neutral and provide a "level playing field"

Whether the proceedings should be video taped/recorded/broadcast

Whether the issues considered by the panel should extend beyond the Sheltons’ divorce and Danny’s remarriage to include, for example:That Danny and the 3ABN Board of Directors were guilty of malfeasance

That Danny should be removed as president of 3ABN

That the Board of Directors of 3ABN should be removed

That 3ABN should be restructured to create a constituency-based organization (though they knew that the existing structure is lawful)

That any person who has contributed to the support of 3ABN should be a constituent and entitled to a voice in the selection of the Board of Directors and management of the ministry (donors were referred to by Linda’s team as, "stockholders in the pews")

That the 3ABN corporate by-laws needed to be changed to allow for censure, discipline, and removal of officers or members of the Board of Directors. [NOTE: In fact the corporate by-laws already provide for those possibilities.)

At least 22 other issues were raised in Forum site references by her team and urged for inclusion in the ASI process.

From the beginning last fall, Linda was provided with all necessary telephone and e-mail contact information for involvement with the discussion. She was sent copies of all communications from ASI (as were Danny and 3ABN). In the two-plus months of ASI's attempts to reach agreement on a fundamental process for the panel, she did not respond (except to name Joy as her representative).

We do not know if Linda shares in a belief with Joy, Pickle and Matthews that the agenda should include the matters asserted by her team (above). She chose not to participate.

It became clear that Joy, Pickle and Matthews had interests far beyond the issues that ASI had agreed to consider.


The Beginning of the End of Discussions

We affirmed to the parties that even though ASI supports the ministry of 3ABN and wishes for it to succeed and prosper, ASI would be fair and objective in considering the issues related to the Sheltons’ divorce and Danny’s remarriage. We also believed that the panel selected by ASI, in consultation with the parties involved, would be people who possessed qualities of spirituality, intelligence and fairness. We affirmed to both parties that ASI had no stake in the outcome, and that ASI would be comfortable with whatever conclusions were reached by the panel. However, we never reached the point of choosing a panel.

A week or two into the process, Danny and 3ABN ceased exchanging messages with the other side. That was helpful. Because ASI declined to consider issues beyond those of the divorce and remarriage, Joy, Pickle and Matthews continued their negative contacts with Danny, Dr. Thompson (3ABN Board chair) and others associated with 3ABN. Though couched in spiritual language, their messages were persistent, confrontational, argumentative and harassing. ASI’s efforts to stop their direct communications were unsuccessful.


Final Assessment

We believe that ASI has no jurisdiction to consider internal issues of 3ABN management or the changing of its corporate structure. Those issues must be left to its governing body, the 3ABN Board of Directors. We believe our inability to resolve the fundamental issue of the divorce and remarriage is disappointing to many. We felt that without agreement on the fundamental process, and with no likely agreement in sight, it was necessary for ASI to withdraw. The two parties are the losers in what could have been a healing clarification of a divisive issue for all those involved and concerned.

We confess that if we would have known how bring resolution to the matter, we would have done so. We don't, but God does. We urge that all who have a concern over these issues and over the future ministry of 3ABN (and of Linda and Danny) be respectful, restrained, and apply the Golden Rule as you would wish others to do for you. And pray for one another without ceasing.



The ASI Executive Committee
by Harold Lance
January 24, 2007

Now this is what is considered hard information, not just hearsay...

[Mary Sue Smith]

Thank you Sam for your posts. You have helped to make this issue more transparent and clear. Others try to muddy up the waters but your post was honest and transparent, full of truthful facts.  

Those in the pews value your input and find it credible.

[Mary Sue Smith]

Ian, your posts are admirable also. I appreciate the facts being presented by you. 

I believe between you and Sam, those in the pews are receiving the truth.

[Bob Pickle]

Yes, Ian, that wasn't too bright, was it? Publish Harold Lance's statement as to what took place when his statement has already been proven to contain false information? And you republished it immediately after I pointed out a major discrepancy, that he falsely stated that "Procedural Suggestions" had gotten sent to Linda and her representative on Oct. 31, 2006, when Linda hadn't yet been contacted by Gloria at that point, when she hadn't chosen her representative by that point, when Linda and the rest of us have TO THIS DATE never received "Procedural Suggestions" document, even though I specifically requested it more than a year ago, and even though we did not know of its existence until January 24, 2007?

Another thing that really bothers me about Lance's statement and makes me wonder about his commitment to conservative, Adventist, self-supporting, ASI, Christian principles is his solely blaming Linda for a lack of communication when I asked him a question on two different occasions and he never answered it. After he sent out his statement I called him and pointed out that discrepancy to him, and he told me, "I ignored that question." So he ignored my question though I asked it twice, and then has the nerve and gall and lack of ethics to solely blame Linda for a lack of communication?

Not to mention the lack of communication on 3ABN's part in not telling us for 10 weeks that 3ABN had voted to restrict the ASI investigation to just the Linda question.

And then Harold refused to rectify his errors after he had released his statement. He came across to me in our phone call as if he didn't care. And more than a year has gone by and he has yet to do anything to rectify the matter.

Let me be more pointed yet. In Harold's statement you posted he said:

It became clear that Joy, Pickle and Matthews had interests far beyond the issues that ASI had agreed to consider.

So what is he talking about? Church leaders expected the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations to be part of the investigation. We had that understanding as well. Walt Thompson rudely never let us know that the 3ABN Board had voted otherwise.

Now why wasn't Harold straightforward and transparent in his January 24 statement and why didn't he just come out and say that ASI didn't want to touch the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations? I submit to you that his total failure to explicitly mention what issues we and church leaders understood would be investigated is evidence that he was trying to hide what those issues were from the readers of his statement, and that we thus have evidence that he himself tried to hide the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.

So what sort of disciplinary action will ASI hand down upon Harold Lance for his role in this debacle? Or does ASI feel that the cover up of child molestation allegations is just fine and dandy? I am certain that ASI membership finds such things abominable, but I don't know if they really have any say.

Have we come to the point in this earth's history where It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a lawyer to enter into the kingdom of God?

Jesus could not have been plainer: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Mat. 5:23, 24). Lance has a Christian duty to attempt to make things right, if he wants God to accept his gifts and service.

[Bob Pickle]

Ian, your posts are admirable also. I appreciate the facts being presented by you. 

I believe between you and Sam, those in the pews are receiving the truth.

How can you say such a thing when they aren't presenting facts?

Seriously, in what way was Sam being truthful when he said that we wouldn't agree to the rules when we were still in the process of deciding what the rules would be? How was it honest to lump me in with Linda's side when Harold tried to get rid of me after I said I wasn't on Linda's side?

Please take a moment and answer these questions.

[Cindy]

Thank you for publishing the viewpoint of HAROLD LANCE, Ian.

No problem, but right or wrong I immediately edited it to include quotes of relevant posts from this thread, not realizing so many were already replying....



Also I do think it worth mentioning the letter was from ASI and only drafted by Harold lance as their representative and with their vote and approval, so not his viewpoint alone.

[Dillon]

Now this is what is considered hard information, not just hearsay...

But what parts of it are true, reddogs? There are parts of it that are demonstrably false and slanted.