Fallible's questions regarding 3ABN, his observations and skepticism Options

[PrincessDrRe]

I don't know who you are - but you ain't quite right....

[princessdi]

Gurl!!! OK?! Popcorn? Proppell?

I don't know who you are - but you ain't quite right....

[Clay]

Nope, sorry, I am not Fitzhume or some "Mrs. Gray" either (never been a member at CA, just did the requisite reading there) . . . I know it may be surprising that there is more than one person who does not agree with you either a little bit or even entirely, but that is the case.

Reading along - fhb

anyone can disagree... the question is what is the basis of their disagreement having read the info?

[PrincessDrRe]

Actually all of "THEM" sound the same....

not quite right....

[fallible humanbe...]

Clay,

Being a historian and approaching this from a historical method I am inclined to give much more credence to primary source documentation than information that comes from second, third, even at times fourth level sources.

Of the materials you have available for people to read here that can qualify as primary sources are the letters and articles that appear in an established publication. The materials that appear in Adventist Today, for instance, qualify. There are some other items that may qualify as primary source documentation but are not here other than they are presented by someone who may or may not be known to be a reputable source of information and may or may not have been given the comunication first hand. There are in older threads pieces of information that do qualify, but may not even be read by a new observer because they are buried so deep in the older threads - for instance a communique from Elder Folkenberg that was readily available on the web.

One of the most difficult parts of the historical analysis of an event(s) is that so much of the available information has already been processed through someones personal bias/perspective resulting not in the rendering of fact, but rather understanding - which may or may not be totally accurate.

Very simplistic example. I have a son who is in his early teens and is given to spouting general statements as fact when in truth they are his own understanding/opinion. For instance, he makes the statement, "Sweet potatoes are disgusting!" and I tell him he can't possibly make this statement because it is not even close to being accurate or fact. I tell him if he qualifies it with, "I think . . ." or "It's my opinion that . . ." or "Because of my preferences, I think . . ." then he has made a truthful statement - one which I will disagree with him on as I happen to love sweet potatoes.

Much of the material in the 3ABN threads come from these sources:

- someone who knows an individual that worked/s at 3ABN
- someone who knows someone that is close to or related to someone who worked/s at 3ABN
- and many individuals even further removed from the actual events

Now, there are individuals who claim (and that isn't intended to be inflamatory, it is merely factual as there is no evidence offered to substantiate their claims other than their own word) to have worked at 3ABN and are offering an "inside perspective." The expectation here is that they will be unquestioned and unchallenged in their claims - anyone seeking the truth (as much as that is possible in a situation like this) can not honestly do this and feel they have arrived at a solid decision whose side they will align themselves with. Only the truly gullible are going to come to this set of threads, read them, and accept them unquestioned as being the complete truth - that isn't possible because of the filtering that has already happened in the minds of many of the posters here.

Okay, let me cite an example here. I am going to use the most extreme example because I feel it makes the point most strongly. I will preface it by saying that I am a strong advocate of harsh justice for people who are found guilty of molestation. There is a young woman claiming to have been molested - the accusation has been made. But, do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is telling the truth (and again I am not saying in any way here that she isn't)? Are there scenerios one might project wherein it would be feasible that she could be lying for some form of personal gain - be that monetary, or safety from another entity not named in the situation. What we have here in this set of threads, is a least one indivudal who has presented this "as fact" without supportive evidence such as a copy of a sworn affidavit (sp?). Again, the expectation here is that I just accept the word of a second party that this is the truth. Not convincing at this point - could it be, yes with primary source documentation such as the actual legal documents, an actual unedited interview with an uninterested third party, or coroborating (sp?) testimony from another individual, this too verifiable through unbiased means.

Essentially what exists here are levels of heresay. Not that it isn't true in it's distilled form, we don't know because we were not present in person when these things happened. Now, you can't hope to be present at the events in question, but that doesn't make the requirement for substantial, documented, and verifiable evidence moot - it makes it all the more necessary.

As to the other documents here presented as evidence, The Televangalist, The Unauthorized History, The Contributor, and The Solution (not sure I got all of those correct, but I will assume you know what I am refering to), these can not be counted as more than someones understanding of the events. They are fictionalized, at times ambigous, and unsubstantiated in their claims. Therefore they can only be accepted as second or thrid source information at best. That is unless they are penned by Linda, in which case they would qualify as primary source documents and then would have to be analyzed for their veracity - because it is a fact that she could very well be lying at worst, painting a picture that skews reality in her favor at best. Her admission here that she did indeed pen this documents would cause the need to reevaluate them and instantly give them the potential for serious weight in evaluating the situation.

So, there you have it - why I can not and will not just accept what is here as being a completely truthful and accurate portrait of the events that occured at 3ABN. As for the larger question of the scope of influence that the station has and the work it is doing. Again, the multitude of evidence shows the amazing work it has done for the Lord. Posters can claim it is sliding into Pentacostalism, but as I read other threads here (esp in the theology sections) I see these same posters sliding away from the fundamental principles of Adventist Christianity on issues such as Sabbath observance and tithing, so I have to take their claims with a grain of salt and remember that each one works out their relationship with God in fear and trembling. Thus, their claims of Pentacostal influence at 3ABN again are drawn through their own perception and developed understanding and in truth may not be factual.

( fact - noun: something that has actual existence: a matter of objective reality. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. )

I stand firm that 3ABN has and continues to, amidst this strife, bring souls to the foot of the Cross where they can know the savior. The hue and cry here for its complete annilihation is misplaced and detrimental to the work of Christians called in the last days to do one thing - show the world the true nature of Christ, which is love, forgiveness, and filled with the ultimate hope.

Don't know if any of this raises your hackles - but then again I have been pegged by a so called "Dr" as "not quite right" . . . so take it with a grain of salt . . .

-fhb

anyone can disagree... the question is what is the basis of their disagreement having read the info?

[justme]

Clay,

Being a historian and approaching this from a historical method I am inclined to give much more credence to primary source documentation than information that comes from second, third, even at times fourth level sources.

Of the materials you have available for people to read here that can qualify as primary sources are the letters and articles that appear in an established publication. The materials that appear in Adventist Today, for instance, qualify. There are some other items that may qualify as primary source documentation but are not here other than they are presented by someone who may or may not be known to be a reputable source of information and may or may not have been given the comunication first hand. There are in older threads pieces of information that do qualify, but may not even be read by a new observer because they are buried so deep in the older threads - for instance a communique from Elder Folkenberg that was readily available on the web.

One of the most difficult parts of the historical analysis of an event(s) is that so much of the available information has already been processed through someones personal bias/perspective resulting not in the rendering of fact, but rather understanding - which may or may not be totally accurate.

Very simplistic example. I have a son who is in his early teens and is given to spouting general statements as fact when in truth they are his own understanding/opinion. For instance, he makes the statement, "Sweet potatoes are disgusting!" and I tell him he can't possibly make this statement because it is not even close to being accurate or fact. I tell him if he qualifies it with, "I think . . ." or "It's my opinion that . . ." or "Because of my preferences, I think . . ." then he has made a truthful statement - one which I will disagree with him on as I happen to love sweet potatoes.

Much of the material in the 3ABN threads come from these sources:

- someone who knows an individual that worked/s at 3ABN
- someone who knows someone that is close to or related to someone who worked/s at 3ABN
- and many individuals even further removed from the actual events

Now, there are individuals who claim (and that isn't intended to be inflamatory, it is merely factual as there is no evidence offered to substantiate their claims other than their own word) to have worked at 3ABN and are offering an "inside perspective." The expectation here is that they will be unquestioned and unchallenged in their claims - anyone seeking the truth (as much as that is possible in a situation like this) can not honestly do this and feel they have arrived at a solid decision whose side they will align themselves with. Only the truly gullible are going to come to this set of threads, read them, and accept them unquestioned as being the complete truth - that isn't possible because of the filtering that has already happened in the minds of many of the posters here.

Okay, let me cite an example here. I am going to use the most extreme example because I feel it makes the point most strongly. I will preface it by saying that I am a strong advocate of harsh justice for people who are found guilty of molestation. There is a young woman claiming to have been molested - the accusation has been made. But, do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is telling the truth (and again I am not saying in any way here that she isn't)? Are there scenerios one might project wherein it would be feasible that she could be lying for some form of personal gain - be that monetary, or safety from another entity not named in the situation. What we have here in this set of threads, is a least one indivudal who has presented this "as fact" without supportive evidence such as a copy of a sworn affidavit (sp?). Again, the expectation here is that I just accept the word of a second party that this is the truth. Not convincing at this point - could it be, yes with primary source documentation such as the actual legal documents, an actual unedited interview with an uninterested third party, or coroborating (sp?) testimony from another individual, this too verifiable through unbiased means.

Essentially what exists here are levels of heresay. Not that it isn't true in it's distilled form, we don't know because we were not present in person when these things happened. Now, you can't hope to be present at the events in question, but that doesn't make the requirement for substantial, documented, and verifiable evidence moot - it makes it all the more necessary.

As to the other documents here presented as evidence, The Televangalist, The Unauthorized History, The Contributor, and The Solution (not sure I got all of those correct, but I will assume you know what I am refering to), these can not be counted as more than someones understanding of the events. They are fictionalized, at times ambigous, and unsubstantiated in their claims. Therefore they can only be accepted as second or thrid source information at best. That is unless they are penned by Linda, in which case they would qualify as primary source documents and then would have to be analyzed for their veracity - because it is a fact that she could very well be lying at worst, painting a picture that skews reality in her favor at best. Her admission here that she did indeed pen this documents would cause the need to reevaluate them and instantly give them the potential for serious weight in evaluating the situation.

So, there you have it - why I can not and will not just accept what is here as being a completely truthful and accurate portrait of the events that occured at 3ABN. As for the larger question of the scope of influence that the station has and the work it is doing. Again, the multitude of evidence shows the amazing work it has done for the Lord. Posters can claim it is sliding into Pentacostalism, but as I read other threads here (esp in the theology sections) I see these same posters sliding away from the fundamental principles of Adventist Christianity on issues such as Sabbath observance and tithing, so I have to take their claims with a grain of salt and remember that each one works out their relationship with God in fear and trembling. Thus, their claims of Pentacostal influence at 3ABN again are drawn through their own perception and developed understanding and in truth may not be factual.

( fact - noun: something that has actual existence: a matter of objective reality. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. )

I stand firm that 3ABN has and continues to, amidst this strife, bring souls to the foot of the Cross where they can know the savior. The hue and cry here for its complete annilihation is misplaced and detrimental to the work of Christians called in the last days to do one thing - show the world the true nature of Christ, which is love, forgiveness, and filled with the ultimate hope.

Don't know if any of this raises your hackles - but then again I have been pegged by a so called "Dr" as "not quite right" . . . so take it with a grain of salt . . .

-fhb

Dear Mr."not quite right",

fact: No one wants to see 3ABN go down. No one questions the good that viewers can get from the gospel that is preached over the airways. No one wants the gospel to stop reaching the world. No one expects to swallow every fable that comes down the pike.

fact: But a lot of people would like to see 3ABN run by people who are more than "not quite right".

fact: It has been the practice at 3ABN to discredit and dismiss all who don't march in step to the great "chosen one". But the "chosen one" stands in front of millions of viewers and lies through the teeth about the Vice President of 3ABN, and expects us to swallow those fables.

What makes the 3rd party and 4th party hogwash coming out of 3ABN easier to swallow than than what is found in these forums?

[fallible humanbe...]

JM,

I would have to disagree that "no one wants to see 3ABN go down." There have been more than just subtle insinuations to that effect here. Here is one instance:

"If you are unwilling to consider the total deconstruction of 3ABN for the good of the church then you are the one who is not able to look at the situation objectively. Some things cant be repaired; they can only be replaced." - awesumetenor
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138641

This is not an isolated comment, there are others. Even your reply doesn't seem to support the idea that maintaining 3ABN is a good idea. You said, "No one questions the good that viewers can get from the gospel that is preached over the airways." Do you include the airwaves occupied by the 3ABN broadcasts?

Now, let's clear something up here - I am of sound mind and body regardless of what PDR pronounces - she has just been given to forgetting my forum moniker I think and calling me many other things.

Your claim that 3ABN seeks to discredit may be as valid as anothers claim that Linda's current exercise is to discredit 3ABN in order to bring down the house she help build so that neither her nor Danny can "have" it. Both of those are plausible - and not able to be substantiated in a significant way at this point. And, quite honestly if all the mircle stories about the rise of 3ABN are true - then it is no ones entity but Gods and if He sees a good work to be continued through it He will keep it going regardless of this ordeal.

Now, your last point. If you have actual footage of Danny standing in front of the camera and naming Linda by name and speaking against her. And you have factual, verfied truth of his lies then I don't see how you can call that third or fourth party "hogwash" from 3ABN. After all if you have videotape of Danny doing just that then you have primary source material - but again, unless he names Linda you are only interpreting his words through your perceptive point of view. Who knows maybe your POV is dead on correct - I don't know you so I have to take it with a grain of salt and not as gospel. Just as you do me.

- fallible humanbeing (fhb)

Oh yea - don't swallow anything from either side without chewing it up sufficiently first - you don't want to choke.

Dear Mr."not quite right",

fact: No one wants to see 3ABN go down. No one questions the good that viewers can get from the gospel that is preached over the airways. No one wants the gospel to stop reaching the world. No one expects to swallow every fable that comes down the pike.

fact: But a lot of people would like to see 3ABN run by people who are more than "not quite right".

fact: It has been the practice at 3ABN to discredit and dismiss all who don't march in step to the great "chosen one". But the "chosen one" stands in front of millions of viewers and lies through the teeth about the Vice President of 3ABN, and expects us to swallow those fables.

What makes the 3rd party and 4th party hogwash coming out of 3ABN easier to swallow than than what is found in these forums?

[västergötland]

As to good sources for historians, personal writings such as diary entries or letters written close in time to the event described are also good sources. Some of the posts here qualify as such.

As to the example of the aledged abuse case. Since the person has apparently gone public to at least a number of chosen individuals with church influence, Id think the best thing would be to take the final step and bring it before a court of law. (Or does anyone here know of good reasons not to do so?) If that happends many things would be cleaned out from under that matt.

[fallible humanbe...]

JM,

Just so as not to accused of pulling one comment and being attacked for not providing a significant amount of primary source documentation myself, here are comments made within the first two pages of a thread titled:

A new Sda face for 3abn . . . . well our wishlist

sonshineonme
It's time for 3ABN to go, and if we don't make something better and sincere, someone else will.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138602

clay
can I wish it would go away?
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138114

watchbird (in response to clays comment above)
Best idea I've heard so far.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138123

missthg (also in response to clay)
sounds good to me!
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138518

4reneyonly
Pull the plug!
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138127

watchbird
As 4reneyonly put it: "Pull the plug". To live, 3ABN has to have three "lifelines"--programming, funds, and viewers. I echo her call and expand it. Pull the plugs--all of them.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138203

clay
Sometimes an "entity" cannot be saved, its gotta be discarded.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138612

awesumtenor
You asked people what changes they felt needed to be made. Shutting the whole thing down or taking it off the air *is* a programming change . . .
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=138648


- fhb

Dear Mr."not quite right",

fact: No one wants to see 3ABN go down. No one questions the good that viewers can get from the gospel that is preached over the airways. No one wants the gospel to stop reaching the world. No one expects to swallow every fable that comes down the pike.

fact: But a lot of people would like to see 3ABN run by people who are more than "not quite right".

fact: It has been the practice at 3ABN to discredit and dismiss all who don't march in step to the great "chosen one". But the "chosen one" stands in front of millions of viewers and lies through the teeth about the Vice President of 3ABN, and expects us to swallow those fables.

What makes the 3rd party and 4th party hogwash coming out of 3ABN easier to swallow than than what is found in these forums?

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Aug 22 2006, 05:50 PM

[beartrap]

In the event that Nietzche's theory, "There is no fact, only interpretation" is applied, its application is universal. It applies to both sides in the debate, and to the person who used it as an argument.


This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 22 2006, 05:52 PM

[västergötland]

JM,

V,

Very true those are strong sources - again they must be meticulously verified and corroborated (sp?) in order to hold significant weight in the finally analysis.
I am not sure I would agree that some of the sources cited as such here would stand the test. First, identification of the author is crucial. Documents such as journal tend to lose viability when there is no way to effectively connect them close to the event. This is a significant consideration for a historical analysis.

True, this kind of historical sources should have a known author. This would disqualify the posts written under pseudonym till that day when the real person is revealed. However, some of the posters have identified themselves.

Your second point bears a lot of consideration. If the accusation is in fact a supported by significant merit, then yes a court of law, I imagine, will get to have the final say. But, there is much investigation that will go on before hand and it may very well turn out that in the end - the charges were trumped up and many people rushed to judgement and will have to back track.

In either case the questions will get satisfactory answeres. If the charges against 3abn are false or greately inflated(?), even then the truth will come out during such an official investigation.

It is unimaginable that if so "many" significant individuals are aware of this, and the fact that supposedly there is an offical sworn complaint, that it will disappear. If nothing comes of it - well then, there is some proof in that pudding isn't there.

You are right. If any of this ends up in court I imagine there will not be a linen in Danny and Linda's closet left untouched - and I would dare to say both will be the worse for it.

- fhb

Whatever the truth may be, lets bring it into the light, as we know that Jesus thaught that no good thing is affraid of it.


_______________________________________

edit

It seems the part of the post I was replying to has been edited out while I was writing :|


This post has been edited by västergötland: Aug 22 2006, 06:00 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

BT,

That might be true if one had applied that theory or used it as a basis for an argument. But, that hasn't been done here. However, central to Nietzsche's philosophy was the idea of "life-affirmation," which involves "an honest questioning of all doctrines" . . . let's replace doctrines with the phrase "all posts" and then apply historical method of analysis to it.

-fhb

In the event that Nietzche's theory, "There is no fact, only interpretation" is applied, its application is universal. It applies to both sides in the debate, and to the person who used it as an argument.

True, this kind of historical sources should have a known author. This would disqualify the posts written under pseudonym till that day when the real person is revealed. However, some of the posters have identified themselves.In either case the questions will get satisfactory answeres. If the charges against 3abn are false or greately inflated(?), even then the truth will come out during such an official investigation.
Whatever the truth may be, lets bring it into the light, as we know that Jesus thaught that no good thing is affraid of it.
_______________________________________

edit

It seems the part of the post I was replying to has been edited out while I was writing :|

My apoligies V,

I posted to consecutive items and they ended up in the same box so I wanted to seperated them - didn't expect you to respond so quickly. Here is the entirety of the post I sent to you:

V,

Very true those are strong sources - again they must be meticulously verified and corroborated (sp?) in order to hold significant weight in the finally analysis.

I am not sure I would agree that some of the sources cited as such here would stand the test. First, identification of the author is crucial. Documents such as journal tend to lose viability when there is no way to effectively connect them close to the event. This is a significant consideration for a historical analysis.

Your second point bears a lot of consideration. If the accusation is in fact a supported by significant merit, then yes a court of law, I imagine, will get to have the final say. But, there is much investigation that will go on before hand and it may very well turn out that in the end - the charges were trumped up and many people rushed to judgement and will have to back track. It is unimaginable that if so "many" significant individuals are aware of this, and the fact that supposedly there is an offical sworn complaint, that it will disappear. If nothing comes of it - well then, there is some proof in that pudding isn't there.

You are right. If any of this ends up in court I imagine there will not be a linen in Danny and Linda's closet left untouched - and I would dare to say both will be the worse for it.

- fhb

As to good sources for historians, personal writings such as diary entries or letters written close in time to the event described are also good sources. Some of the posts here qualify as such.

As to the example of the aledged abuse case. Since the person has apparently gone public to at least a number of chosen individuals with church influence, Id think the best thing would be to take the final step and bring it before a court of law. (Or does anyone here know of good reasons not to do so?) If that happends many things would be cleaned out from under that matt.

[Clay]

Fallible.... in all fairness to 3abn you should not use one isolated statement I made about it "going away..." in fact if you would scan through some of my comments about the church you would find that I have advocated that the adventist church be dismantled and everything rebuilt from scratch....3abn is an independent ministry that I really don't care about one way or the other...

[fallible humanbe...]

Evenin' Clay,

Yes, I have seen those comments by you. I provided a number of comments that indicated a feeling that 3ABN should be wiped out. Here is the post:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=147340

How was my post unfair to 3ABN? I was merely stating that I had seen a sentiment and was supporting with actual comments.

I don't know if I can buy your claim to "not care either way" about 3ABN. You have been ardent in your posts about what you think should happen. But, if that is the way you feel fine. You did say you would like to see it go away, right?

Don't know if I can go with you all the way with deconstruction - but the Unions seem to be an unecessary strata in the orgizational structure.

-fhb

Fallible.... in all fairness to 3abn you should not use one isolated statement I made about it "going away..." in fact if you would scan through some of my comments about the church you would find that I have advocated that the adventist church be dismantled and everything rebuilt from scratch....3abn is an independent ministry that I really don't care about one way or the other...

[Clay]

Evenin' Clay,

Yes, I have seen those comments by you. I provided a number of comments that indicated a feeling that 3ABN should be wiped out. Here is the post:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=147340

How was my post unfair to 3ABN? I was merely stating that I had seen a sentiment and was supporting with actual comments.

I don't know if I can buy your claim to "not care either way" about 3ABN. You have been ardent in your posts about what you think should happen. But, if that is the way you feel fine. You did say you would like to see it go away, right?

Don't know if I can go with you all the way with deconstruction - but the Unions seem to be an unecessary strata in the orgizational structure.

-fhb

3abn can go or stay... my initial interest in this was the treatment of Linda... if you remember during our last ummmm "discussion" the point I emphasized was simply even IF Linda had done everything she was accused of doing, she should not have been treated as she was.....

I don't necessarily believe 3abn was raised up by God, I mean I don't know that.... it is a business and that's how I see it... obviously its meeting the needs of someone..... but my concern was how Linda was treated...