Linda's employment post 3ABN, and other miscellaneous issues Options

[sonshineonme]

You hit it on the head. PRESSURE, MORE PRESSURE, MORE PRESSURE. Like none of us will know. That is the best word to describe that time

add to this the words "you sign it today, because tomorrow it won't be here". Just a bit more pressure...

[BrotherBill]

3ABN is not the issue to me, he did not treat her as a christian should..... that is my issue....

What 3 ABN did to her is a problem for me. But I agree with you completely; how Danny treated his WIFE was a HUGE problem for me.

and thats just it Calvin... is should NOT have been business as usual... how are you going to use shaky grounds to get a questionable divorce and then cut off all means, for the woman you said you loved and had been married to for over 20 yrs, for her to make a living... did she have access to the money or the bank accounts or was she given an allowance? Did he control the money and if so then what recourse did she have save sign an agreement that would give her some money until she could get on her feet....

3ABN is not the issue to me, he did not treat her as a christian should..... that is my issue....

I will try to get a copy.

add to this the words "you sign it today, because tomorrow it won't be here". Just a bit more pressure...

You must have been there, because that is just what happened. Again, not to be redundant, but most of us just can't know the pressure she was under.

[PrincessDrRe]

Sure I can think of a reason. If Linda is in a visible place of service in the church, it will become apparent that she is not "shacking up somewhere with the doctor" but is living a chaste christian life.

Boomp/Mercilations/My LERD! (To the novices this means - *ahem* "Goodness gracious you are so correct!"

....3ABN is not the issue to me, he did not treat her as a christian should..... that is my issue....

Once again - this is the epitome of the problem.

Pernt blank!

[calvin]

and thats just it Calvin... is should NOT have been business as usual... how are you going to use shaky grounds to get a questionable divorce and then cut off all means, for the woman you said you loved and had been married to for over 20 yrs, for her to make a living... did she have access to the money or the bank accounts or was she given an allowance? Did he control the money and if so then what recourse did she have save sign an agreement that would give her some money until she could get on her feet....

3ABN is not the issue to me, he did not treat her as a christian should..... that is my issue....

That is just it, 3abn is a business. 3abn did not owe Linda any severance nor was she entitled to one. All an employer owes you is a honest days pay for a honest days work. Most states in the US operation under the doctrine of "employment at will" meaning just like you can quit a job anytime an employer terminate your employment for most any reason they want to. It's business.

[watchbird]

That is just it, 3abn is a business. 3abn did not owe Linda any severance nor was she entitled to one. All an employer owes you is a honest days pay for a honest days work. Most states in the US operation under the doctrine of "employment at will" meaning just like you can quit a job anytime an employer terminate your employment for most any reason they want to. It's business.

Are you maybe forgetting that supposedly she was joint owner of the business? And that there are laws that make it very difficult for an employer to terminate and employee without just reason? And I suspect that firing because a husband wanted to get rid of his wife would come under some gender discrimination categories that could make things rather sticky if the woman complained to the right agencies.

[BrotherBill]

That is just it, 3abn is a business. 3abn did not owe Linda any severance nor was she entitled to one. All an employer owes you is a honest days pay for a honest days work. Most states in the US operation under the doctrine of "employment at will" meaning just like you can quit a job anytime an employer terminate your employment for most any reason they want to. It's business.

Everything you said above is absolutely correct. Just as I posted to your former message, your business analogy is spot on. However, after the employer terminates someone, the relationship should be over, subject to any binding agreements, which Linda clearly has. However 3ABN has no right to further limit her ability to work in her field by spreading gossip, half-truths, and down right lies. In this case, 3ABN has no right to, once they hear of a speaking engagement Linda has, pick up the phone and arrange for it to be cancelled.

Someone said earlier that Linda could work elsewhere. That is probably true. But if Linda wants to work in Christian Service in this Church, in Broadcast Network Management, it's just not possible for her given the environment created by 3ABN.

[calvin]

Everything you said above is absolutely correct. Just as I posted to your former message, your business analogy is spot on. However, after the employer terminates someone, the relationship should be over, subject to any binding agreements, which Linda clearly has. However 3ABN has no right to further limit her ability to work in her field by spreading gossip, half-truths, and down right lies. In this case, 3ABN has no right to, once they hear of a speaking engagement Linda has, pick up the phone and arrange for it to be cancelled.

Someone said earlier that Linda could work elsewhere. That is probably true. But if Linda wants to work in Christian Service in this Church, in Broadcast Network Management, it's just not possible for her given the environment created by 3ABN.

BrotherBill, if what is said about 3abn using it's influence to prevent Linda from earning a living, I agree, they are wrong.

[watchbird]

BrotherBill, if what is said about 3abn using it's influence to prevent Linda from earning a living, I agree, they are wrong.

And the beat goes on....... ........ and the brick walls are renewed regularly ......... .......
You probably recall the posts in another thread having to do with Linda doing a weekend in Oregon in connection with Polly's Place. Why don't you contact Mabel Dunbar, who is both president of Polly's Place Ministries and Women's Ministries Director for the Upper Columbia Conference, and ask her how much flack she has gotten for her association with and support of Linda? Be specific. Ask her if she has received any threats of loss of funding if she continued to support Linda.

You could also ask Max Torkelson, the President of Upper Columbia Conference, what kinds of reactions he has gotten in regard to Mabel's support and utilization of Linda.

And bring us word.

[inga]

When Linda arrived in Springfield Pastor Grady, a man of experience with both 3ABN and the SDA church, had no difficulty with Linda’s involvement in the ministry of the church. Of course one can only imagine the result this had on Danny. This resulted in the associate pastor, John Stanton, from the Thompsonville church (Danny’s 3ABN church) and also an on air personality, quickly being dispatched to replace Pastor Grady in Springfield. One of Stanton’s first duties was to remove Linda Shelton from functioning in any position in the Springfield SDA church other than pew warming. He claimed the authority to do so came directly from Ken Denslow, the Illinois Conference President.

I have a problem with this kind of thing whenever I hear of it. The members of the Springfield SDA Church are actually at fault for not knowing how the Adventist church is supposed to function -- the the local congregation in business session is the highest authority in the local church. It is not the pastor's business to dictate who can and cannot take part in local church services!

Unfortunately too many folks follow any pastor like sheep, without thinking for themselves and without acquainting themselves with such sources of information as the Church Manual.

If the Springfield church members had been aware of how their rights and responsibilities, they could have/should have overruled the new pastor hastily brought in. Local congregations must understand that if they allow mistreatment of any one person, any other person may be similarly mistreated.

Neither is the the conference president's business to dictate to the local church who shall hold offices. There is, of course, the possibility of an extreme situation in which the conference in business session (i.e. with delegates from the conference field) may actually disfellowship a whole church from the sisterhood of churches. But they normally have no say over functions of the local church. They may advise, they may counsel, but if they stay true to their mandate, they may not threaten, and they cannot force the church to do their bidding. Since the pastor is the liaison between the local church and the conference, he may advise and counsel, but he may not threaten or force the congregation to do what they don't wish to do.

If we would all learn to grasp this principle, we would, of course, have to take responsibility for our own decisions and quit belly-aching over what "the church" does. That would spoil many a whining session.

There, I've finally got that one off my chest ... been meaning to say it ever since I read of this action.

And, yes, I've sat on many a church board. And, yes, I'm not every pastor's favorite board member (nor is my DH, I may add). I've opposed a few arbitrary decrees from pastors, to the consternation of the "old faithful" yea-sayers. But the pastors backed down hastily and acknowledged that my point was correct. (Yeah ... maybe I've been lucky, or ...) All in all, though, I think pastors have and do respect us, and the church functions much better when pastors act as team members, rather than dictators. Most don't want the dictator job anyway, but have often fallen into the role because of the lack of involvement of church members.

[PrincessDrRe]

Go head Inga!

[Clay]

That is just it, 3abn is a business. 3abn did not owe Linda any severance nor was she entitled to one. All an employer owes you is a honest days pay for a honest days work. Most states in the US operation under the doctrine of "employment at will" meaning just like you can quit a job anytime an employer terminate your employment for most any reason they want to. It's business.

she was his wife.... there is no excuse.... and IF he had wanted her silence then he should have treated her more than fair... you don't hear Trump's ex's bashing him, and they didnt sign a gag order... you don't hear Will Smith's 1st wife bash him, and there was no gag order, why? Because they made sure they treated them more than fair.... I am not buying that it was a business... if anything it was "their" business, and he shafted her.... and as a christian he should have done better...

[Nuggie]

I have a problem with this kind of thing whenever I hear of it. The members of the Springfield SDA Church are actually at fault for not knowing how the Adventist church is supposed to function -- the the local congregation in business session is the highest authority in the local church. It is not the pastor's business to dictate who can and cannot take part in local church services!

Unfortunately too many folks follow any pastor like sheep, without thinking for themselves and without acquainting themselves with such sources of information as the Church Manual.

If the Springfield church members had been aware of how their rights and responsibilities, they could have/should have overruled the new pastor hastily brought in. Local congregations must understand that if they allow mistreatment of any one person, any other person may be similarly mistreated.

Neither is the the conference president's business to dictate to the local church who shall hold offices. There is, of course, the possibility of an extreme situation in which the conference in business session (i.e. with delegates from the conference field) may actually disfellowship a whole church from the sisterhood of churches. But they normally have no say over functions of the local church. They may advise, they may counsel, but if they stay true to their mandate, they may not threaten, and they cannot force the church to do their bidding. Since the pastor is the liaison between the local church and the conference, he may advise and counsel, but he may not threaten or force the congregation to do what they don't wish to do.

If we would all learn to grasp this principle, we would, of course, have to take responsibility for our own decisions and quit belly-aching over what "the church" does. That would spoil many a whining session.

There, I've finally got that one off my chest ... been meaning to say it ever since I read of this action.

And, yes, I've sat on many a church board. And, yes, I'm not every pastor's favorite board member (nor is my DH, I may add). I've opposed a few arbitrary decrees from pastors, to the consternation of the "old faithful" yea-sayers. But the pastors backed down hastily and acknowledged that my point was correct. (Yeah ... maybe I've been lucky, or ...) All in all, though, I think pastors have and do respect us, and the church functions much better when pastors act as team members, rather than dictators. Most don't want the dictator job anyway, but have often fallen into the role because of the lack of involvement of church members.

Well said and right on point!

[PrincessDrRe]

she was his wife.... there is no excuse.... and IF he had wanted her silence then he should have treated her more than fair... you don't hear Trump's ex's bashing him, and they didnt sign a gag order... you don't hear Will Smith's 1st wife bash him, and there was no gag order, why? Because they made sure they treated them more than fair.... I am not buying that it was a business... if anything it was "their" business, and he shafted her.... and as a christian he should have done better...

Dead on!

and EXCELLENT EXAMPLES I must add!

[msraccoon]

Me thinks this "infallible humanbeing" is getting way too much press. Look at the stats: He/she joined 2 days ago and has submitted 30 posts designed to stir up those who are concerned about 3ABN's leadership. Then we give this individual over 1,000 views/reads. Isn't this just what infallible wants?

msraccoon

[sonshineonme]

Me thinks this "infallible humanbeing" is getting way too much press. Look at the stats: He/she joined 2 days ago and has submitted 30 posts designed to stir up those who are concerned about 3ABN's leadership. Then we give this individual over 1,000 views/reads. Isn't this just what infallible wants?

msraccoon

in a word Y E S