Print

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

[GrammieT]

Dear Friend Bob:

It pains me to say this, but your question about the Radio Bible Class 'outfit' shows your very narrow viewpoint regarding whether or not others could possibly have any biblical truth if they are not "Adventist".

Not sure where you got that idea. The quote from awhile back that got posted above merely asked the question whether they were Adventist or not. That's all.

I really appreciated John MacArthur, Jr.'s study on alcohol in the Bible. He's a Baptist. Another Baptist is Paul Washer who preached a sermon at a youth conference in Montgomery. I passed that one out in church the summer of 2006 after preaching a similar sermon.

So sorry if I misunderstood your statement.     But your referencing of the longtime Radio Bibile Class as an 'outfit' and then asking if they were Adventist, sorta sounded as if you questioned their biblical legitimacy. 

GrammieT   

[Bob Pickle]

Not sure where you got that idea. The quote from awhile back that got posted above merely asked the question whether they were Adventist or not. That's all.

I really appreciated John MacArthur, Jr.'s study on alcohol in the Bible. He's a Baptist. Another Baptist is Paul Washer who preached a sermon at a youth conference in Montgomery. I passed that one out in church the summer of 2006 after preaching a similar sermon.

So sorry if I misunderstood your statement.     But your referencing of the longtime Radio Bibile Class as an 'outfit' and then asking if they were Adventist, sorta sounded as if you questioned their biblical legitimacy. 

GrammieT   

I do not recall what exactly I was thinking at the time, and do not recall asking the question.

I also get in trouble when I refer to a dish I really like as a "concoction."

[bonnie]

Well, what else does one conclude when they appear to keep defending the cover up of child molestation allegations,  divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like?

Bob,
What in the above has previously caused great concern within the SDA hierarchy?
Defending the cover up of child molestation allegations isn't even worth a yawn. This has been going on as far back as we existed as a denomination as in others.  Not just 3ABN.
This is not sour grapes, all you have to do is read a few articles published by known SDA GC workers.
They admit it, they explain the poor reasoning behind it and piously say, "It must Stop" Stop it won't unless and if they  get hit hard enough financially. Hard enough that the insurance doesn't cover.
It will not stop because it is the right thing to do. They have known the right thing for a very long time. Conference presidents cover up sexual immorality by pastors. So how will anyone get excited that it appears DS covered for his brother?

If he claims adultery, that is all he really has to do and the divorce is not a problem. Who would you expect to say we don't believe you DS and you do not have biblical grounds for divorse.
If he is not personally audited back to 2003, that is not an issue either.

Your banging your head into a cement wall.Even if you should win, you really won't win as it will be spun as 3ABN being under attack by Satan. If they win it will be spun as a victory, another miracle granted by God to DS.

I have told you before. We won, and we won big in terms of our chances to suceed. You want to know what we won in terms of this having a impact for change in this area. ZIP,ZERO,ZILTCH,NADA.
My son had a crack attorney, one of the best in this field, we had an admission of guilt, my son was responsible for changing the law in MN and I can tell you no impact was made on the majority of the people.
Only when the financial hit is hard enough will there be any substantive change in attitude and DS is even outside the clurches of the denomination or so people seem to think.

[quaddie47]

And I guess you missed the “memo” that the use of the term “Danny Clones” is at the very least patronizing and your rationalization the last time this issue came up that you did not invent the term does not give you justification to continue using what is clearly meant to be a term implying that that who defend 3abn are unable to think and reason for themselves. 

Well, what else does one conclude when they appear to keep defending the cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like?

I think I can conclude by your answer that you want to justify continuing to use the term despite the fact it has been pointed out to you more than once that it is not appreciated, not accurate and considered offensive (notwithstanding your POV as to its applicability). 

Can you honestly say that you use the term respectfully?  If not, the ongoing use of the term  has no place on this forum IMO if respectful dialogue by both sides is really the goal of administration.

[Bob Pickle]

Well, what else does one conclude when they appear to keep defending the cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like?

Bob,
What in the above has previously caused great concern within the SDA hierarchy?
Defending the cover up of child molestation allegations isn't even worth a yawn. This has been going on as far back as we existed as a denomination as in others.  Not just 3ABN.
This is not sour grapes, all you have to do is read a few articles published by known SDA GC workers.
They admit it, they explain the poor reasoning behind it and piously say, "It must Stop" Stop it won't unless and if they  get hit hard enough financially. Hard enough that the insurance doesn't cover.
It will not stop because it is the right thing to do. They have known the right thing for a very long time. Conference presidents cover up sexual immorality by pastors. So how will anyone get excited that it appears DS covered for his brother?

If he claims adultery, that is all he really has to do and the divorce is not a problem. Who would you expect to say we don't believe you DS and you do not have biblical grounds for divorse.
If he is not personally audited back to 2003, that is not an issue either.

Your banging your head into a cement wall.Even if you should win, you really won't win as it will be spun as 3ABN being under attack by Satan. If they win it will be spun as a victory, another miracle granted by God to DS.

I have told you before. We won, and we won big in terms of our chances to suceed. You want to know what we won in terms of this having a impact for change in this area. ZIP,ZERO,ZILTCH,NADA.
My son had a crack attorney, one of the best in this field, we had an admission of guilt, my son was responsible for changing the law in MN and I can tell you no impact was made on the majority of the people.
Only when the financial hit is hard enough will there be any substantive change in attitude and DS is even outside the clurches of the denomination or so people seem to think.

Notice that my statement had to do with the Danny clones defending these kind of things, not the church or its leadership defending such.

I do not recall hearing church leaders or pastors defending the things I listed.

[Bob Pickle]

Well, what else does one conclude when they appear to keep defending the cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like?

I think I can conclude by your answer that you want to justify continuing to use the term despite the fact it has been pointed out to you more than once that it is not appreciated, not accurate and considered offensive (notwithstanding your POV as to its applicability).

Rather, I said what I said because I want to hear you denounce the cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like. Demonstrate that you are a person of principle, that you stand up for conservative, Seventh-day Adventist values, and that you think for yourself by denouncing sin.

Can you honestly say that you use the term respectfully?  If not, the ongoing use of the term  has no place on this forum IMO if respectful dialogue by both sides is really the goal of administration.

Do you have another term to suggest that would convey the same picture seen perhaps for going on two years now where those defending the indefensible use the same tactics and arguments regardless of what screen names they use?

[bonnie]

Notice that my statement had to do with the Danny clones defending these kind of things, not the church or its leadership defending such.

I do not recall hearing church leaders or pastors defending the things I listed.

Maybe tomorrow I will find the time to go back and search for an article by James Cress dealing with this issue.
 He in fact did say the leadership defending such. It was in the Ministry Magazine.
That is only one source

[bonnie]

I am not going on the hunt tonight, but will see if I can relocate some of the articles, especially by James Cress.
He speaks of the church transferring those that have been accused of molesting a child or a vulnerable adult.
Blaming the ife or the victim and how this needs to change.
It is possible you might like to speak with him and ask him if he can send you a copy online

[Echo]

When so much of the emphasis of this saga is based on behavior, on "sin in the camp", is the term "Danny Clones" appropriate for use by conservative SDAs?

And I guess you missed the “memo” that the use of the term “Danny Clones” is at the very least patronizing and your rationalization the last time this issue came up that you did not invent the term does not give you justification to continue using what is clearly meant to be a term implying that that who defend 3abn are unable to think and reason for themselves. 

Well, what else does one conclude when they appear to keep defending the cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, the reporting of a donation of a horse or horses as cash in 2003, and the like?

I think I can conclude by your answer that you want to justify continuing to use the term despite the fact it has been pointed out to you more than once that it is not appreciated, not accurate and considered offensive (notwithstanding your POV as to its applicability). 

Can you honestly say that you use the term respectfully?  If not, the ongoing use of the term  has no place on this forum IMO if respectful dialogue by both sides is really the goal of administration.

quaddie... IMO, this is a typical ad hominem expression of bigotry; of dehumanizing a group one has strong feelings against.  Denigrating labels have often been freely applied to those who are being villified, demonized. ********* ************* ************* ********** ************  ********************   ******************** ****

However, as they attempt to bring the characters of the 3abn leadership into question with allegations and innuendo, and attack with small-minded jabs those who question their strategy, what face of Adventism do you imagine Bob Pickle, Gailon Arthur Joy and others are showing to the world?  I believe it is one ********************************.  They are most certainly not reflecting the character of God.


Bob, you and your compatriots have no business sticking your snouts into this private ministry and the lives of its leadership in the manner that you are doing.  Your behavior is reducing the credibility of the denomination and its very message.  


==========
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content

[Habanero]

The organization that Wintley is raising money for could fall into the category of healing on the Sabbath day. IMO he is following the example of Jesus in working on the Sabbath to help people who are in need.

[Bob Pickle]

I am not going on the hunt tonight, but will see if I can relocate some of the articles, especially by James Cress.
He speaks of the church transferring those that have been accused of molesting a child or a vulnerable adult.
Blaming the ife or the victim and how this needs to change.
It is possible you might like to speak with him and ask him if he can send you a copy online

I am not saying that folks haven't been transferred rather than fired. I'm just saying that I don't recall a church leader or pastor defending that practice.

As is often the case, people sometimes do what they don't want to admit that they did, and they sometimes do what they will not defend.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, you and your compatriots have no business sticking your snouts into this private ministry and the lives of its leadership in the manner that you are doing.  Your behavior is reducing the credibility of the denomination and its very message.

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you are correct, then you need to talk to Danny and tell him that he should never have authorized us to do that by filing suit against us.

Remember some of the history of this saga:

• John Lomacang invited people to contact him if they had questions.
• John Lomacang told me that I could see the phone records.
• Walt Thompson asked me to verify what he told me about the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.
• The 3ABN Board voted to sue us in U.S. District Court, and invited us to defend ourselves against allegations.

And remember that I did not start this thread.

[GrandmaNettie]

The organization that Wintley is raising money for could fall into the category of healing on the Sabbath day. IMO he is following the example of Jesus in working on the Sabbath to help people who are in need.

Exactly.  And to represent Wintley Phipps and his ministry as SDAminister and Bob have done has the flavor of the legalistic dogma and traditions of the Pharisees at the time Jesus and His disciples walked this Earth.

 

[Bob Pickle]

The organization that Wintley is raising money for could fall into the category of healing on the Sabbath day. IMO he is following the example of Jesus in working on the Sabbath to help people who are in need.

Habanero, where do you think is the right place to draw the line?

Clearly, in biblical times, the work of the priests was the work of God, and thus was not prohibited by the fourth commandment which specifically prohibits "thy work."

In Exodus we have a lengthy description of how the tabernacle was to be constructed, after which we have the following:

"Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people" (Ex. 31:13, 14).

I confess, I got the following from a favorite author of mine: The Israelites would have been tempted to say that making the tabernacle was God's work and thus lawful to do on the Sabbath. So God ended the construction instructions with the command to keep the Sabbath. That makes sense to me.

So while preaching in the church and such is lawful on the Sabbath, building the church would not be.

My personal opinion is that taking up a freewill offering for a worthy project, probably unsecular in nature, is not a problem on the Sabbath. But selling a product or services on the Sabbath in order to raise funds, I do have difficulty with that.

A lot of people think the Sabbath is for the Jews. But if you read Ezek. 20, it sounds like they never ever kept it. Most of us could probably be more conscientious than we are about keeping it.

[Bob Pickle]

Exactly.  And to represent Wintley Phipps and his ministry as SDAminister and Bob have done has the flavor of the legalistic dogma and traditions of the Pharisees at the time Jesus and His disciples walked this Earth.

Remember, I'm not the one who represented that Wintley is working 40 hours a week for U.S. Dream Academy and getting paid $130,000 for doing so. I'm not the one who filled out the Form 990.

It is not legalistic or following traditions or being Pharisaic to question the propriety of selling tickets on the Sabbath.

I was once involved in an activity with students at a church in which we were told to park in the hospital parking lot. Before the activity began a student showed me how cars were lined up to pay to get out of that parking lot. It was dark and Friday night. I told him we were not going to pay no matter what. The rest of those in charge had no problem with that.

Rather than make a scene I confided in the pastor before leaving that we didn't feel comfortable about paying the parking fee. He didn't seem to mind. When we got up to the booth we were told that it had already been paid.

The incident bothered me for a long time, and I finally felt convicted that I should share my concern with those that could do something rather than just talk about it. So I wrote a letter to that hospital. The reply I got did not accuse me of legalism or following tradition or Pharisaism. Rather, it said that the hospital was reviewing their Sabbath keeping policy and making changes, and invited my comments as to what they had come up with. The parking lot was handled by a non-Adventist company which didn't charge on Sabbath, just Friday night, but that had ceased.

Do you think the hospital was wrong in stopping the collecting of parking fees on Friday nights? Were they wrong in not calling me a legalist or Pharisaic?