Print

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

[Julius Child]

5) This thread is an example of why I say that while certain critics of 3-ABN began with a high moral purpose, some of those critics have abandoned the high moral purpose that they once had.

Discussing the importance of Sabbath keeping and abstaining from the appearance of evil is abandoning a high moral purpose? Sounds like a stretch.

Bob, discussion of the importance of Sabbath can be a very moral thing to do.  On that topic, I would much rather hear about your joy in the Sabbath then how miserably you feel others are failing in their observance.

What is abandoning the high moral purpose is character assassination.  That was the purpose of this thread and anyone with a brain can see that.  People are tuning out…

Exactly!

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I had a lot stored up to say...

I have been reading and watching the progress of this discussion as well as other topics on this forum for some time.  When I read Gailon Arthur Joy's reference to Wintley Phipps as "just another evangelical publum regurgitator" I admit I saw red.   I have been personally blessed by the talents and ministry of that devoted man of God.  GAJ's "publum" comment, among other mean remarks, spurred me on to join Adventtalk.com to at least weigh in on this issue. 

What is this issue?  It comes clothed in the garb of proper Sabbath observance, attempting to portray Wintley Phipps as a Sabbath-breaking SDA pastor and member of the 3abn Board of Directors.  GAJ posted that Wintley Phipps' mininstry did not rise to "essential" and should be conducted on the other six days of the week.  I was struck by the words of the article about the event that was posted by SDAminister, and again by GrandmaNettie:

Phipps, an internationally-recognized bass-baritone, will perform Saturday and Sunday at Life Church following an invitation from Paul Lindholm, chairman and CEO of Security State Bank, last spring.
Lindholm and his wife, Ruth, were at a conference in Florida in March when they first heard Phipps perform.
“He had such a presence (with) his singing and his narrative that it just kind of gave you shivers and warmed a person’s heart,” said Lindholm, who got to know Phipps over the course of the conference, an event benefiting the children of prisoners.
“I said to him, ‘You need to come to Fergus Falls so our community can hear you sing,’ and he said, ‘When?’”

When I read this, I remembered the words found in Acts 16:
9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Is there any doubt that Wintley Phipps lifted the focus of every attendee at that event onto heavenly things, like salvation, grace and God's amazing love for His children.  Is not that the point of the Sabbath hours?


While waiting for my member registration to be approved, I began reviewing some of the posts made by the three key members attempting to make the case that Wintley Phipps' activities are not proper for the Sabbath hours.  My goal was to see how they were using their Sabbath hours here on the forum; what they viewed, in practice, as appropriate behavior during the day to be set aside from others.   For SDAminister, I found no posts made during Sabbath hours.  That is not the case for Bob Pickle and GAJ.  I am only posting links to part of the Sabbath hours posts they have made on the 3abn Forums.  I will leave it to those reading to determine if the posts were doing an "essential" work and/or lifting the focus of the writer and the reader to heavenly things.  (Note: All times listed are from Adventtalk.com's time zone and were compared against the local time difference stated in each member's profile): 

Bob Pickle:

Sabbath, July 26, 2008, 07:10:28 AM
Sabbath, July 26, 2008, 07:37:14 AM
Friday night, August 01, 2008, 08:21:55 PM
Friday night, August 01, 2008, 08:29:24 PM
Friday night, August 08, 2008, 07:26:38 PM
Friday night, August 08, 2008, 07:38:01 PM
Friday night, August 08, 2008, 07:44:02 PM
Friday night, August 08, 2008, 08:42:02 PM
Friday night, August 08, 2008, 08:46:20 PM
Sabbath, August 09, 2008, 06:18:37 AM
Sabbath, August 09, 2008, 07:12:46 AM
Friday evening, August 15, 2008, 07:20:50 PM
Friday evening, August 15, 2008, 07:30:12 PM
Sabbath, August 16, 2008, 06:13:43 AM
Sabbath, August 16, 2008, 06:17:29 AM
Sabbath, August 16, 2008, 07:19:37 AM


Gailon Arthur Joy:

Friday Night, May 23, 2008, 07:46:06 PM
Friday Night, May 23, 2008, 07:50:23 PM
Friday Night, May 23, 2008, 07:52:52 PM
Friday Night, May 23, 2008, 08:11:51 PM
Sabbath, May 24, 2008, 06:52:57 AM
Sabbath, May 24, 2008, 02:00:50 PM
Sabbath, May 24, 2008, 02:07:17 PM
Friday Night, July 04, 2008, 08:33:33 PM
Friday Night, July 04, 2008, 08:45:09 PM
Sabbath, August 09, 2008, 02:23:31 PM
Sabbath, August 09, 2008, 2:37:55PM
Sabbath, August 09, 2008, 2:46:52 PM

[Bob Pickle]

Anything you think I should not have said on the Sabbath?

I appreciated Wintley's contribution to the 2006 10 Commandment Weekend.

I believe Walt Thompson has said that the board approved Danny's remarriage. Did Wintley participate in that decision?

Wintley used to work for our religious liberty department. Has he been supportive of this lawsuit that was conceived in retaliation against blowing the whistle against the cover up of child molestation allegations? Or does he think that people have a right to speak out against the cover up of child molestation allegations, as well as private inurement? Where does he stand on religious liberty now?

On the other hand, was Wintley one of the board members Nick Miller referred to that were working with him to put some accountability for Danny into the system?

[Bob Pickle]

I am only posting links to part of the Sabbath hours posts they have made on the 3abn Forums.

When you reply to my earlier question, make sure that you have your facts straight. Some of those links are to posts that were not made on Sabbath.

[Gregory]

Anything you think I should not have said on the Sabbath?

I appreciated Wintley's contribution to the 2006 10 Commandment Weekend.

I believe Walt Thompson has said that the board approved Danny's remarriage. Did Wintley participate in that decision?

Wintley used to work for our religious liberty department. Has he been supportive of this lawsuit that was conceived in retaliation against blowing the whistle against the cover up of child molestation allegations? Or does he think that people have a right to speak out against the cover up of child molestation allegations, as well as private inurement? Where does he stand on religious liberty now?

On the other hand, was Wintley one of the board members Nick Miller referred to that were working with him to put some accountability for Danny into the system?

Bob, this is the U.S.  You have the right to call it as you see it.  However, when you enter the legal arena you are bound by the law.  In the venue of the law, the issues that you have raised above are not -sconsidered to be religious liberty issues.  Perhaps as a long-shot you might claim that taking your allegations to a chruch court would allow you to claim religious liberty for that.  But, by taking your allligation to the public, in the eyes of the law you no longer can claim religious liberty protections.

Call that wrong if you will.  The law is not concerned with right and wrong, that is in pervue of the churches.  The law is simply concerned with the law, whether it is right or wrong.

[irspro]

Anything, absolutely anything wrong with discussions of moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Not for me!

Anybody have a problem discussing Abraham\David moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Anybody care to take the Sabbath School Quarterly editors to task if you do?    

[Bob Pickle]

Anything you think I should not have said on the Sabbath?

I appreciated Wintley's contribution to the 2006 10 Commandment Weekend.

I believe Walt Thompson has said that the board approved Danny's remarriage. Did Wintley participate in that decision?

Wintley used to work for our religious liberty department. Has he been supportive of this lawsuit that was conceived in retaliation against blowing the whistle against the cover up of child molestation allegations? Or does he think that people have a right to speak out against the cover up of child molestation allegations, as well as private inurement? Where does he stand on religious liberty now?

On the other hand, was Wintley one of the board members Nick Miller referred to that were working with him to put some accountability for Danny into the system?

Bob, this is the U.S.  You have the right to call it as you see it.  However, when you enter the legal arena you are bound by the law.  In the venue of the law, the issues that you have raised above are not -sconsidered to be religious liberty issues.  Perhaps as a long-shot you might claim that taking your allegations to a chruch court would allow you to claim religious liberty for that.  But, by taking your allligation to the public, in the eyes of the law you no longer can claim religious liberty protections.

Call that wrong if you will.  The law is not concerned with right and wrong, that is in pervue of the churches.  The law is simply concerned with the law, whether it is right or wrong.

I think you somewhat evaded the issue, in part due to my lack of clarity.

Danny Shelton divorced Linda without biblical grounds, as he himself in essence admitted. Seventh-day Adventists have a right to express their concerns over that in public and private, without fear of Danny retaliating by suing them.

According to the information given by Walt Thompson, Danny covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Seventh-day Adventists have a right to express their concerns over that in public and private, without fear of Danny retaliating by suing them.

To keep it simple, let's just take the above two issues. Since the above two issues are, to my knowledge, not disputed, the lawsuit in essence is an attempt to prevent one's exercise of one's constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

Of course, this is the U.S., and folks file frivolous, unconstitutional lawsuits all the time. Folks also fire Seventh-day Adventists for refusing to work on the Sabbath. Doesn't make it right. And our religious liberty leaders, including Wintley, have opposed such discrimination against Adventists.

I think it's about time for Wintley's voice to be heard loud and clear in opposition to unbiblical divorce, child molestation, the cover up of child molestation allegations, and the continuation of a frivolous lawsuit intended to restrict free speech concerning serious issues. By doing so Wintley will make it crystal clear where he stands on these important issues.

[Maxey]

What is abandoning the high moral purpose is character assassination.  That was the purpose of this thread and anyone with a brain can see that.

Maxey,

I'd be interested in knowing where you draw the line on such things.

• Was speaking out about concerns about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations character assassination?
• Was speaking out against Danny Shelton's cover up of those child molestation allegations character assassination?
• Was speaking out against Danny Shelton allowing his ex-step-daughter's allegations of sexual assault to be called a lie on global television character assassination?
• Was speaking out against Danny Shelton's unbiblical divorce character assassination?
• Was speaking out against Danny Shelton's 1998 real estate deal character assassination?

I'd like to hear more from you regarding your criteria for determining what is character assassination and what is not. It's not like determining that on October 2, 1998, Danny Shelton sold his house for $135,000, a house he paid $6,139 for just one week before. That's a matter of public record and is an objective fact. But I suspect we are talking about something subjective here, and would like to hear more from you regarding the criteria you use.

I see you don’t want to address the specific point I made in regard to Pastor Phipps.  Let me try again.  I maintain that the focus on Pastor Phipps by yourself and SDAMinister (smile) is solely because you feel that it somehow bolsters your case against 3ABN.  Your ill conceived attack on him is just another example of the ends justifies the means mentality.  You are attempting to sully his reputation.  I seriously doubt that it is going to work out the way you had hoped.

[Julius Child]

I am only posting links to part of the Sabbath hours posts they have made on the 3abn Forums.

When you reply to my earlier question, make sure that you have your facts straight. Some of those links are to posts that were not made on Sabbath.

I won't be specifically replying to your earlier question as I believe that one's manner of observing the Sabbath is between themselves and God.  I would only wonder if you, GAJ, Jesus, and let's include EGW, were to sit around a Sabbath table, would you say the same things?

I endeavored to link to posts that would have fallen within the Sabbath hours.  If my calculations, using the Adventtalk time zone in relation to the member's time listed in your profiles, were incorrect, I apologize and would expect you to point out the links that were made in error.

irspro posted:

Anything, absolutely anything wrong with discussions of moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Not for me!

Anybody have a problem discussing Abraham\David moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Anybody care to take the Sabbath School Quarterly editors to task if you do?

   
 

irspro, how does discussing the alleged moral terpitude of fellow sinners and throwing caustic word darts at fellow forum members honor the Creator of this world and elevate one's focus to Him?  The lessons that can be learned from the departure of God's way by those Biblical men of old is clear.  Their departure was proven and clearly described by the Spirit behind the written words of the OT.  The alleged moral terpitude you reference that is being discussed here has not been proven.  

[Bob Pickle]

I see you don’t want to address the specific point I made in regard to Pastor Phipps.  Let me try again.  I maintain that the focus on Pastor Phipps by yourself and SDAMinister (smile) is solely because you feel that it somehow bolsters your case against 3ABN.  Your ill conceived attack on him is just another example of the ends justifies the means mentality.  You are attempting to sully his reputation.  I seriously doubt that it is going to work out the way you had hoped.

I think you're wrong. I didn't start this thread, and I do not believe I'm trying to sully his reputation.

But he is a member of 3ABN as well as a member of the 3ABN Board, and he does have a responsibility to properly represent 3ABN and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the positions he takes. Thus he really needs to take a stand against unbiblical divorce, child molestation, the cover up of child molestation allegations, and frivolous lawsuits conceived in retaliation against blowing the whistle about the cover up of child molestation allegations.

Years don't have to go by before Wintley takes a stand on these issues.

[Bob Pickle]

I won't be specifically replying to your earlier question as I believe that one's manner of observing the Sabbath is between themselves and God.

Why not reply? Do you therefore think that the Church Manual should be changed so that Sabbath breaking is no longer grounds for church discipline? Or that discipline can only be administered if the alleged Sabbath breaker agrees that they did indeed break the Sabbath?

I would only wonder if you, GAJ, Jesus, and let's include EGW, were to sit around a Sabbath table, would you say the same things?

Obviously, Jesus and Ellen White would have no problem with the quotation I gave without comment from 6T.

I endeavored to link to posts that would have fallen within the Sabbath hours.  If my calculations, using the Adventtalk time zone in relation to the member's time listed in your profiles, were incorrect, I apologize and would expect you to point out the links that were made in error.

What you failed to do was take into consideration when the sun sets in a given locale. Not a biggie. It's just that if I am going to get condemned for something I wrote, we're going to have to get that one straight.

irspro posted:

Anything, absolutely anything wrong with discussions of moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Not for me!

Anybody have a problem discussing Abraham\David moral terpitude on the Sabbath?  Anybody care to take the Sabbath School Quarterly editors to task if you do?

   
 

irspro, how does discussing the alleged moral terpitude of fellow sinners and throwing caustic word darts at fellow forum members honor the Creator of this world and elevate one's focus to Him?  The lessons that can be learned from the departure of God's way by those Biblical men of old is clear.  Their departure was proven and clearly described by the Spirit behind the written words of the OT.  The alleged moral terpitude you reference that is being discussed here has not been proven. 

I wonder what all you feel has not been proven. Are you referring to everything or just regarding the issue that started this thread?

[Gregory]

Bob:

I am going to repspond to you by putting my comments in brackets [  ] with my initials--GM.

I think you somewhat evaded the issue, in part due to my lack of clarity.

Danny Shelton divorced Linda without biblical grounds, as he himself in essence admitted. Seventh-day Adventists have a right to express their concerns over that in public and private, without fear of Danny retaliating by suing them.

[Bob, you well know that I hold the position that Linda Sheltion did not give Danny Shelton what a conservative SDA would consider to be Biblical grounds for a divorce.  However, SDAs do not agree on what constitutes Biblical grounds.  This is not a firmly settled item of SDA belief.  You talk about the rights  that SDAs have to discuss this in public.  Your reference a civil right which is defined by law.  If you were to go to the Bible, you would find that the Biblical right to discuss the alleged sins of others is clearly constrained and in no place is a Biblical right given to discuss those sins in a forum open to the public at large.  It is only due to the fact that we live in the U.S. which has granted its citizens civil rights that you can claim a right to discuss this issue in a forum open to the public at  large.  Your civil right to  do such is NOT unlimited.  It is constrained within bounds.  Anyone who carries on a discussion of such outside of those bounds places themselves in a posiiton of reeping the civil penalities of doing so. A public discussion of these alligations can not claim a religious liberty right that does not  exist under the law--GM.]

According to the information given by Walt Thompson, Danny covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Seventh-day Adventists have a right to express their concerns over that in public and private, without fear of Danny retaliating by suing them.

[Bob, my comment above applies to this paragraph, with the addition that some aspects of this issue fall in the venue of the civil courts and not a church court--GM.]

To keep it simple, let's just take the above two issues. Since the above two issues are, to my knowledge, not disputed, the lawsuit in essence is an attempt to prevent one's exercise of one's constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

[Bob, neither the Constitution of the U.S. give one the right to discuss these issues outside of the bounds that have been established and to remain free of civil punishment.  Yes, I will grant you that the courts have ruled that freedom of speech prevents prior censorship.  But, the courts have also ruled that that same freedom to speak does not prevent one from civil judgements against them in circumstances where they went outsied of the permissable bounds.  In other words Bob, say what you want to as you have the freedom to do so and if you violate the bounds freely accept judgements against you for defiamination of character and libel.  That is the price that society says you must pay if you violate the bounds--GM.]

Of course, this is the U.S., and folks file frivolous, unconstitutional lawsuits all the time. Folks also fire Seventh-day Adventists for refusing to work on the Sabbath. Doesn't make it right. And our religious liberty leaders, including Wintley, have opposed such discrimination against Adventists.


[Yes, it is true that folks may file frivolous lawsuits and when they do so there are typically laws that will impose judgements upon them.  For that reason, many attornies  refuse to take what is a frivolous lawsuit.  Now in the case in which 3-ABN and  Danny have filed a lawsuit against you, there is nothing frivolous about it.  The alligations that you have raised against 3-ABN and Danny are clearly not frivolous.  They are grave and serious.  As 3-ABN and Danny dispute the public alligations they have a civil right to have a civil court try the case.   You can defend yourself and they can attemt to prove their case.  Further, the case filed by 3-ABN and Danny involves copyright and trademark issues.  Those issues are clearly not frivolous.  It is possible that the decisions made my the courts in this case may be seminal and establish case law that is applied to other cases.  As these issues invoved esoteric apects of statute and  case law there is no where else to try them other than in a civil court--GM.]


I think it's about time for Wintley's voice to be heard loud and clear in opposition to unbiblical divorce, child molestation, the cover up of child molestation allegations, and the continuation of a frivolous lawsuit intended to restrict free speech concerning serious issues. By doing so Wintley will make it crystal clear where he stands on these important issues.

[Bob, you do not know what he is doing privately as a member of the 3-ABN Board.  As to lending his voice to a public outcry, perhaps he can be more effective by being private and is that not what you have advocated on some levels--going to the Board and to church institutions.  If he were doing this privately would you criticize  him for not being public.  He is not required to take the kind of a public stand that you seem to want him to take--GM.]

[Bob Pickle]

To make it simpler, I will respond not within the quote below.

I would disagree that in no case does the Bible allow for public discussion of sin. Mat. 18 applies to private matters in particular. Dan. 7, 2 Th. 2, and Rev. 13 all provide a basis for dealing with certain sins within professed Christianity in a public manner. The Bible is full of accounts of the sins of others, and of individuals addressing those sins in public ways.

Whether biblically or civilly, there are limits. In addressing sin, ones must stick to the truth. But I don't think that is the issue here, since, based on the evidence thus far produced, it appears that we have been sued because we told the truth.

You write, "In other words Bob, say what you want to as you have the freedom to do so and if you violate the bounds freely accept judgements against you for defiamination of character and libel.  That is the price that society says you must pay if you violate the bounds." But that's not the issue I raised, and that's not the issue at stake in this litigation. It appears that we have been sued because we told the truth, based on the evidence thus far.

A specific example is where the lawsuit claims that we said that Danny didn't disclose assets and/or income in his divorce proceedings. Did we say that? Possibly. Is that true? Anyone in the world can see that Danny did not include any income or assets pertaining to D & L Publishing or DLS Publishing on his July 2006 financial affidavit. And did not Danny and 3ABN know that before they filed suit?

How is it not frivolous to sue people for telling the truth on a point like that?

You write, "Now in the case in which 3-ABN and  Danny have filed a lawsuit against you, there is nothing frivolous about it.  The alligations that you have raised against 3-ABN and Danny are clearly not frivolous.  They are grave and serious.  As 3-ABN and Danny dispute the public alligations they have a civil right to have a civil court try the case."

Gregory, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Which specific allegations that I have made has 3ABN and Danny disputed?

For example, regarding personal flights on the corporate jet, I couldn't find where I said that that had occurred, and I haven't found where Gailon said that. But I did find where you said something along those lines.

So which specific allegations are you referring to?

And you bring up copyright issues, which I think you brought up before. The lawsuit does not include a count over copyright issues, and 3ABN has claimed that none of their programming is copyrighted. What are you talking about, and why have you raised this point again?

I do think each 3ABN Board member has a responsibility to take a public stand on these public issues. They can take private ones too, but they should not be afraid to take public stands where duty demands it.

Bob:

I am going to repspond to you by putting my comments in brackets [  ] with my initials--GM.

[Gregory]

Bob:

I am not going to get into a point by point arguement with you.  Those reading this thread will read my comments and your response and decide for themselves who is accurate.

I could respond from the civil filing that began the lawsuit.  However, as you well know the 3-ABN law firm mailed January 30, 2007 a three page letter in which they laid out the basis of their charges.  They made very clear claims of copyright AND trademark issues on pages one and two. Their claims of defamatory/malicious/despicable/baseless/prurient/inflammatory/unjustified statements are stated on pages two and three.

That letter laid out in summation what became the legal filing for what began the lawsuit.

Yes, I am aware that the above letter was addressed to Gailon and not to you.  I am also aware that while both you and Gailon were named as defendents in the lawsuit one can not say that each of you were charged with doing everything that was mentioned in the lawsuit.  Therefore, I might have stated it better in my post above.

Let it be said that while the lawsuit names both Gailona and Bob as defendents, I do not claim that each is charged in the lawsuit with everything.  The charges, so to speak, are lumped into one set of charges, and the two individuals (Bob and Gailon) may not be charged with exactly the same thing.

Regardless of that the issues involved copyright, trademarks and defamatory statements.

Thank you, Bob, for allowing me to clairfy.

[Artiste]

The lawsuit does not include a count over copyright issues...

No doubt this has been expained before, but which is it...the lawsuit does or does not reference copyright issues?

And if it doesn't, why is Gregory stating that it does?

[Artiste]

Their claims of defamatory/malicious/despicable/baseless/prurient/inflammatory/unjustified statements are stated on pages two and three.

Which of the allegations that Bob and Gailon have referenced fit the above adjectives?