Why Did Linda Buy The Pregnancy Test Kit?, Spin off from the “Thompson Respond to Abrahamsen” thread. Options

[sister]

And to get us back on topic, Danny, Walt, and others are either claiming that Linda thought she got pregnant over the telephone, or that she couldn't figure out after 15 weeks without the help of a test that she was pregnant.

Everyone who knows or has seen Linda realizes that on her slender frame, it would take no prophet, let alone a pregnancy test, to determine pregnancy. It would be possible by sight alone if she were 15 weeks pregnant.

Adultery with the Doc? There was only one woman present at the time who acted inappropriately toward the Doc and it wasn't Linda. But as Bystander would say, a chat room is not the place or is this the time to reveal the evidence. But believe me, it will come out, even if I have to write the book myself. Maybe I should approach DLS Publishing? It might be a bestseller for them.

Sister

[princessdi]

I don't know how I missed this one..........Well said!!!

Most of us live in a society where men and women, not married to each other, are expected to have relationships. Those relationships are not expected by society to be sexually focused. Most of us work in situations where males and females work closely together, and it is expected that those working together will have close friendly relationships. But, if those people develop sexual relationsips, it is believed to be counter-productive, and one of both are often either transfered, or fired.

Some SDAs live and work in a fortress, behind a moat and a draw-bridge. The expectation is that one can build defenses that will keep evil out. The reality is that such does not work. The Monks of the Middle-Ages attempted such. Alone in a cave, they discovered that they had not escaped temptation. I think of the monk, Simon Stilites (sp). He was the first so-called flag-pole-sitter, for those who remember the in-thing of a few years ago. He climbed to the top of a column, and remained there, without comming down for some 30 years! Each meal he took went up to him by rope and bucket. The same for everything that went down. (I hope that different buckets were used.)

I am reminded of a well-known SDA pastoral team--male and female, of a few years back. They became sexually involved, and their marriages ended. I was talking to a relative of one of the team, and I was informed that such is what happens when you have men and women working together. That stems from a philosophy that says: 1) Women should not be in ministry. 2) Men are helpless to remain faithfull against an attractive women. [NOTE: All women are attractive to someone.] 3) The problem stemed from the female.

I disagree with that position. I will suggest that the problem that SDAs sometimes have with inappropriate relationships, and violations of boundaries, stems from some ingrained constructs of sexuality. Some SDAs cannot admit to themselves that they are sexually attracted to someone not their spouse. To acknowledge such would be to acknowledge their sin, they think. My position is that all of us are free moral agents. If I am to make appropriate decisions in regard to the relationships that I have with another person, I must first acknowledge (to myself, I am not saying that I should tell the other person) any sexual attraction that I might have toward that person. It is only then that I can make appropriate decisions as to how I will relate to that person.

Folks, sexuality is a gift of God. It is not sinful to be attracted to one to whom you are not married. But, how one acts on that attraction may be sinful.

I will suggest that in the history of the SDA church, we can see many examples of people who got into trouble because they were unable to acknowledge their attraction to another before it was to late.

In this 3-ABN mess, both Danny and Linda have been accused of having inappropriate relationships with one or more people not their spouse. The issues regarding whether or not the relationships were inappropriate are valid questions, for both, regardless of what the answer is.

But, that does not mean that the question is whether or not either had a relationship with someone else. It is a given that both Linda and Danny did have relationships with people to whom they were not married. Danny had working relationships with females to whom he was not married. Linda had the same, with males. Both, undoubtedly spoke to a person of the other gender for more than 10 minutes on some occasions. But, that does not make either guilty of an inappropriate relationship. It is likely that each reached a point where they were frustrated with their marriage. It is highly likely that each at some time shared some aspect of that frustration with someone of another gender to whom they were not married. Again, that does not make that relationship inappropriate, and it does not indicate Biblical grounds for a divorce.

There is something to be said for the following quote: "I was saying some men have no platonic relationships because they are unable to see this other group of people (females) as worthy of respect. They may also have had no relationships that are not quid pro quo but which seek to just benefit others expecting nothing in return. So they wouldn't be able to recognize kindness but keep trying to figure out what another other person is getting out of a friendship and attributing the worst possible motives to them."

I will suggest that some people project onto others what they cannot acknowledge in themself.

[PeacefulBe]

ALETHEIA, GET A LIFE! Why do you continue baggaring PB on this topic? I do not know PB's actual age or would I reveal it if I did, but it is not uncommon for women of a certain maturity to refer to people as "dear", "hon" or "honey" on a regular basis in our society. Most reasonable people are not offended by a "grandmotherly" woman referring to them in that manner. Also, in the South it is quite common for any woman of middle age or older, or even younger, to do that.

It must be a slow news day for you to pick this up as a topic and beat our dear PB over the head with it.

Sister

Sister,

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it is due to a misperception by a few that I have broken a confidence.

Bob posted this yesterday:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry185272

Another question for you: I've gotten an email from one of the posters here claiming that you and FHB have been PM'ing them, and that there is something about the tone of your (not FHB's) PM's that concerned their spouse. Could you please explain?

While I did mention to Bob that my husband was beginning to want me to back off of my involvement here on the 3abn Forum because he was becoming increasingly concerned about the tone Bystander was taking, I did not tell Bob anything that had been written to me in the PMs by either Bystander or FHB.

I didn't tell Bob that what I had just told him was confidential because if my husband did, indeed, demand that I stop posting here I would need to explain that very thing to all on this forum. I was, however, chagrined that he brought it up as I figured it would cause suspicion by Bystander and FHB. I found out this morning that Aletheia also somehow became advised that it was me Bob was speaking of in his post.

I hope this settles everything for all involved. BTW, the oldest of my six grandchildren is 16.

PB

[Nuggie]

Why did Linda buy the pregnancy kit? Maybe because she wanted to...? After 37 pages are we any closer to the answer...?

[PeacefulBe]

Why did Linda buy the pregnancy kit? Maybe because she wanted to...? After 37 pages are we any closer to the answer...?

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=142207

It's been 37 pages and about 30 "slow Fridays" since the Boss started this. I guess you'd have to ask him!

[princessdi]

Uh Cindy, what are you doing in this situation. It is not your concern. It was not PB who had the problem with being called "My Dear" by BS. It was Sonshine. She asked him to stop and he still called her that again in another post. I then asked him to stop. Nowhere in that equation are the names Aletheia or Cindy. This, again, is what I mean about you not posting until you read or comprhend that which you have read. Get out of grown folks business!

Stop attacking individual members. If you have a complaint about another member settle it with them in PM, if your maturity level can take it. If you can't work it there, contact an Admin and/or Calvin. Now, because of the volatile nature of this forum, a certain amount of tensions is expected and tolerated. Like I said everybody is pretty much giving as good as they get, but you are taking it to a new level. Not to mention you are badgering the wrong person.

I am extending grace with this one warning. Either you have something to say about the OP or you don't, but you will not continue the supbject of this post.

I'm one of those who cringes whenever I hear, or read, the Lord's name taken in vain, I don't like it -- at all.

But hey now, repeatedly being referred to as, or called, a "demon" or a "demonic entity" is small potatos compared to "dear", donchaknow? (twice now she tried to cast demons out of me. It was just... incomprehensible to me, how not one of the members here appeared to notice, or could say even one word about it...)

IMO
PB has always been so very selective about who she addresses with endearments such as "dear" or "hon" and that's likely why members here couldn't make a big deal about how offensive it was to them before this. They probably never even saw her do it, and so how could they see how offensive it was? till you did it too?
PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Aletheia on: Mar 9 2007, 02:17 PM
Cindy, Perhaps you should check and see who the email was from and then ask that person why they edited out part of Sister White's statement [2-"f"s]. Sounds like they might have set you up, dear.

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Aletheia on: Mar 8 2007, 08:21 PM
What happened to "turn the other cheek" dear?

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Bystander on: Mar 8 2007, 04:39 PM
Well, dear Bystander, I would have to ask you why you didn't know that the state was Kansas? Did your sources forget to give you that info? ...

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Bystander on: Feb 23 2007, 04:41 PM
Hon, you might see the substance here if you would remove that large wooden denial beam from in front of your dear face. Just a suggestion.

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to wwjd on: Feb 13 2007, 01:34 AM
Yes, dear wwjd, it is my opinion that there is some denial going on in the 3abn family and desperation is setting in. I will continue to hope and pray that you will each heed the call to make things right. Of course, this is just my humble opinion.

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Aletheia on: Jan 31 2007, 07:57 PM
Dear, if you will go back and read the posts you will discover that it was Fran and Johann that had figured out it was the same computer.....Plus, there were gramatical indications all along for anyone with eyes open to see that they [bystander and wwjd]were one and the same person as well. IMO

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to FHB on: Dec 29 2006, 02:23 PM
Dear, you have been "in the club" since August 10, 2006...

PeacefullyBewildered Posted to Aletheia on: Dec 27 2006, 08:28 PM
Please, dear, maybe you should retract your nails and return to your search for truth and perhaps you won't be so sad.

Just go search for yourself. User name Peacefullybewildered , search term: dear , show results in posts
.

[erik]

Why did Linda buy the pregnancy kit? Maybe because she wanted to...? After 37 pages are we any closer to the answer...?

I think it pretty clear she bought it has a joke.

Many feel the joke was in poor taste.


Some think she bought because she was worried about being with child so to speak, but based on danny's emails it appears that she would have to been with child the same mary of the bible was, and i do remember reading about any end time special babies being looked for.

ERik

[Nuggie]

I think it pretty clear she bought it has a joke.

Many feel the joke was in poor taste.

ERik

Erik,

Thank you for summing it up nicely.

Some think she bought because she was worried about being with child so to speak, but based on danny's emails it appears that she would have to been with child the same mary of the bible was, and i do remember reading about any end time special babies being looked for.

[erik]

And to get us back on topic, Danny, Walt, and others are either claiming that Linda thought she got pregnant over the telephone, or that she couldn't figure out after 15 weeks without the help of a test that she was pregnant.

Now if she is that much of a dingbat, what does it say about Walt and Danny that they would allow her to be vice-president for so long?

Bob,

great question

Erik

[princessdi]

Nuggie, you know I have been wanting to post this exactly thing for about 34 pages................

Why did Linda buy the pregnancy kit? Maybe because she wanted to...? After 37 pages are we any closer to the answer...?

[Aletheia]

Uh Cindy, what are you doing in this situation. It is not your concern. It was not PB who had the problem with being called "My Dear" by BS. It was Sonshine. She asked him to stop and he still called her that again in another post. I then asked him to stop. Nowhere in that equation are the names Aletheia or Cindy. This, again, is what I mean about you not posting until you read or comprhend that which you have read. Get out of grown folks business!

Stop attacking individual members. If you have a complaint about another member settle it with them in PM, if your maturity level can take it. If you can't work it there, contact an Admin and/or Calvin. Now, because of the volatile nature of this forum, a certain amount of tensions is expected and tolerated. Like I said everybody is pretty much giving as good as they get, but you are taking it to a new level. Not to mention you are badgering the wrong person.

I am extending grace with this one warning. Either you have something to say about the OP or you don't, but you will not continue the supbject of this post.

Respectfully, I was done with the subject of that post, and only replied a second time as PB posted to me and pursued it. And respectfully this does not seem to be a administrative problem. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. My name did come up, three times actually in posts #511-517, and it was post # 517 which I was replying to. And respectfully it would be nice if all those who had a problem with myself or Bystander, or complaint -- would be given the same advice.

If that uses up all my grace and you ban me for this, so be it.

[Clay]

Respectfully, I was done with the subject of that post, and only replied a second time as PB posted to me and pursued it. And respectfully this does not seem to be a administrative problem. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. My name did come up, three times actually in posts #511-517, and it was post # 517 which I was replying to. And respectfully it would be nice if all those who had a problem with myself or Bystander, or complaint -- would be given the same advice.

If that uses up all my grace and you ban me for this, so be it.

if you were done with this then you need not post that you were done with it....

[Aletheia]

Sister,

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it is due to a misperception by a few that I have broken a confidence.

Bob posted this yesterday:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry185272
While I did mention to Bob that my husband was beginning to want me to back off of my involvement here on the 3abn Forum because he was becoming increasingly concerned about the tone Bystander was taking, I did not tell Bob anything that had been written to me in the PMs by either Bystander or FHB.

I didn't tell Bob that what I had just told him was confidential because if my husband did, indeed, demand that I stop posting here I would need to explain that very thing to all on this forum. I was, however, chagrined that he brought it up as I figured it would cause suspicion by Bystander and FHB. I found out this morning that Aletheia also somehow became advised that it was me Bob was speaking of in his post.

I hope this settles everything for all involved. BTW, the oldest of my six grandchildren is 16.

PB

PB,

I don't want you to continue in a misconception, As far as I am concerned, one subject had nothing to do with the other.

While I don't agree with your actions, I am sorry Bob embarassed you.

~ Aletheia

[Aletheia]

if you were done with this then you need not post that you were done with it....

-- deleted reply

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 15 2007, 05:00 PM

[princessdi]

Your name might have been meontioned, but you had absolutely nothing to do with Bystander calling Sonshine something she didn't appreciate and her objecting to it. So you definitely had to buisness taking PB to task for soemthing she didn't do.

Because, I really honestly do consider ALL BSDA members a [cyber] family(some even more than that), then I wil extend a bit more grace to you, in spite of your funky attitude. Please dont' take my kindnessfor weakness. As you were "done' with this subject, I do not expect neither require an answer to this post. You see to want to try me, and I am not the one, Cindy.

Respectfully, I was done with the subject of that post, and only replied a second time as PB posted to me and pursued it. And respectfully this does not seem to be a administrative problem. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. My name did come up, three times actually in posts #511-517, and it was post # 517 which I was replying to. And respectfully it would be nice if all those who had a problem with myself or Bystander, or complaint -- would be given the same advice.

If that uses up all my grace and you ban me for this, so be it.