The Investigator Of 3abn Options

[fallible humanbe...]

But, at this point the major issue on which we seem not to agree is whether or not GAJ attempted to obtain money that was not rightfully his. In any case, the Court has rulled that he used the wrong method to obtain it. It was for that reason that GAJ seemingly has been conviceted of a crime--a crime apparently committed 18 + years ago.

I don't think we interpret the case the same way. I see the case not as one determining GAJ's legal right to funds due him, but rather the fact that he acted in violation of the law while executing his fudiciary responsibilities - thus the embezzlement charge and conviction.

(Disclaimer: We are all making an assumption here that this is the same Gailon A. Joy who is conducting his own private investigation of the charges against 3ABN. No one has stepped up to claim otherwise and I would have expected any challenge to have come by now. If in fact it is not Mr. Joy, then I guess we have just engaged in a healthy intellectual exercise.) That being said . . . .

Yes, this case was a few years back. But, the reason for the introduction of this information is that it speaks directly to the fact that this is the individual who has taken it upon himself to vindicate Linda and convict Danny/3ABN. He has claimed a rather morally superior position in his endeavor and this information, if it is him, calls his motive, method, and the results of is work into question. I think it also makes the potential for an ASI panel review of the situation all the more significant. Much has been made of the past actions of Danny, Linda, et al as a means to portray character and there by substantiate the charges that have been laid. This should then apply in this case as well.

- fhb

[Johann]

Why should we make things easy when we can enjoy making them so thoroughly complicated and thereby find someone guilty?

[västergötland]

Gregory (observer)

I can say now that I have not bought the entire document and even if I did, I lack in training or experience to interpret the fine print of legalese. However, that is besides the point I tried to make in post 141, namely that the only things we know about Mr Joy is that he is involved in this 3abn situation as some kind of investigator and that he in 1988 was found guilty of this crime against a corporation that hired him/his company. If I was in need of help of a similar kind that Mr Joy is giving to Linda Shelton, I would be interested in the track record of said help and if all I knew about the person was of this unfavourable nature Id go look somewhere else. This is an opinion built from this here available information and might be invalidated by aditional information that I am unaware of.

Johann,

Aint that an appropriate question for this subforum?


Somehow the introduction of legal documents seemed a lot smoother when it placed Danny/3abn in a rough place...

I guess this all boils down to most of us having no idea about all this and those who know tell nothing and maybe its like Calvin says just a lot of hot air blowing around...

[Fran]

I don't think we interpret the case the same way. I see the case not as one determining GAJ's legal right to funds due him, but rather the fact that he acted in violation of the law while executing his fiduciary responsibilities - thus the embezzlement charge and conviction.

- fhb

FHB;

I see you are at it again. It seems you are "making a mountain out of an mole hill". I recommend you take as much time to read the documents about 3ABN as you have on GA Joy.

The 3ABN 2001 990 should make your hair stand on end. In fact, it is court cases such as the one GA Joy lost, that cause me to pause and wonder about our judicial process!

I see one screw up in > 18 years, whereas on the other hand, we have 3ABN screwing up for over 20 years.

Now, let me think about this a minute; GA Joy's conviction was over what, less than $2,000; Yet, we find 3ABN, just in 2001 alone was, let me see, yep, it screwed up more than $2.45 MILLION. These are repeated offences. These are taking the money of many. GA Joy’s conviction was over one transaction, with one client.

Hum; what is wrong with this picture? So, you say GA Joy did not appeal, whereas, I see 3ABN appears to appeal everything.

As I see it, GA Joy knew he was wrong in this one incident and decided not to fight the truth. On the other hand, 3ABN has not once seen the possibility that they may have been wrong in their fiduciary obligations. If the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax auditor’s reports is any indication at all of 3ABN’s fiduciary responsibilities, they do not take them seriously at all.

Time will tell. I somehow do not believe that GA Joy is not the kind of person to be intimidated by someone calling himself FHB.

I will be more interested in what will be done about 3ABN in court. I wonder how many years the appeals will take on those convictions, should there be convictions.

[Observer]

Re: "I don't think we interpret the case the same way. I see the case not as one determining GAJ's legal right to funds due him, but rather the fact that he acted in violation of the law while executing his fudiciary responsibilities - thus the embezzlement charge and conviction."

Actually I agree with your main thesis here. GAJ broke the law. He was convicted for doing so. I do not argue the conviction. Under my present understanding, the offense is of lesser magnitude due to my belief that it has not been shown that he attempted to obtain monies that were not not justly due him. That issue was not tried, as I understand it. No decision was made by the Court on that point.

O. K. But, let us leave that point for a minute. The issue now, as I see it is:

1) Should Linda have someone representing and advising her who has been convicted of the crime that GAJ was convicted?

2) In what way does the prior conviction of this crime relate to the investigation that GAJ is doing now in regard to Linda and 3-ABN.

My thinking on the above:

# 1: That is a decision that Linda will have to make after she is satified that she knows all the revelant facts. In an earlier post the suggestion was made that Danny and Linda had engaged in certain prior misconduct. I went on to suggest that we were not fair to either Danny or Linda in bringing that claim up. I came on strong in regard to that suggestion. I suggested that we could not automaticly assume that such, if it happened had any relationship to events of today. A prior conviction by GAJ may have an emotional impact upon people today. But, it may not be revelant in regard to what is happpening today. In any event, it is revelant to GAJ. It is not revelant to the issues regarding Linda, Danny, and 3-ABN.

Here are some of the things that we might assume for this prior conviction of GAJ:

a) Bad judgement.
'b) Sloppy business practices.
c) Lack of knowledge of what the law allowed.


Over the 18+ years that have transpired since the conviction, all of the above could have been rectified. We cannot automaticly assume that the GAJ we see today is the same as the GAJ that existed 18 years ago.

# 2: The alligations surrounding Linda, Danny, and 3-ABN will stand or fall on their own merit. They are not dependent upon the past of GAJ. However, there is a record that GAJ has that may be of some revelance to us. That is his prior record of doing "investigative" reporting. It should be noted that he has a track record that can be checked. That track record is a proven one in which he has accomplished major achievements.

His investigative reporting must be judged on its merits. It should not be judged on an event of 18 years ago.

This post has been edited by Observer: Nov 22 2006, 03:21 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

Actually I agree with your main thesis here. GAJ broke the law. He was convicted for doing so. I do not argue the conviction. Under my present understanding, the offense is of lesser magnitude due to my belief that it has not been shown that he attempted to obtain monies that were not not justly due him. That issue was not tried, as I understand it. No decision was made by the Court on that point.

Maybe the transcripts of the original trial would answer this question. But let's not belabor (though we may have already) the point.

O. K. But, let us leave that point for a minute. The issue now, as I see it is:

1) Should Linda have someone representing and advising her who has been convicted of the crime that GAJ was convicted?

# 1: That is a decision that Linda will have to make after she is satified that she knows all the revelant facts. In an earlier post the suggestion was made that Danny and Linda had engaged in certain prior misconduct. I went on to suggest that we were not fair to either Danny or Linda in bringing that claim up. I came on strong in regard to that suggestion. I suggested that we could not automaticly assume that such, if it happened had any relationship to events of today.

A prior conviction by GAJ may have an emotional impact upon people today. But, it may not be revelant in regard to what is happpening today. In any event, it is revelant to GAJ. It is not revelant to the issues regarding Linda, Danny, and 3-ABN.

You are correct that the allegation of misconduct (assuming its truth) can not be identified as causal for recent behavior. However, when attempting to establish Danny's guilt here much has been said about past behavior as indicating weaknesses in character, judgment, morals, etc. If this method applies to making a case against Danny then it should also apply to Linda, Gailon, and others as well. It is about establishing a pattern of behavior. Does one incident indicate a continuance of that behavior to the present? No. However, it should cause one to question and to intensify the microscope a bit so as not to be lead astray. After all it is this man's report that so many are waiting on pins and needles over.

Here are some of the things that we might assume for this prior conviction of GAJ:
a) Bad judgement.
.b ) Sloppy business practices.
c) Lack of knowledge of what the law allowed.
Over the 18+ years that have transpired since the conviction, all of the above could have been rectified. We cannot automaticly assume that the GAJ we see today is the same as the GAJ that existed 18 years ago.

You should also include that he may very well have intended to embezzle the money.

What effect does this have on the current state of things, one can't know at this point. But, with so many waiting for the report from this individual it seems only fair to consider that what eventually is presented may or may not be of the highest level of integrity. Obviously in the event of a hearing before a panel comprised of ASI individuals Linda will have to determine if she wants to avail herself of the work of this individual, and she may very well decide it isn't in her best interest.

2) In what way does the prior conviction of this crime relate to the investigation that GAJ is doing now in regard to Linda and 3ABN.

# 2: The alligations surrounding Linda, Danny, and 3-ABN will stand or fall on their own merit. They are not dependent upon the past of GAJ. However, there is a record that GAJ has that may be of some revelance to us. That is his prior record of doing "investigative" reporting. It should be noted that he has a track record that can be checked. That track record is a proven one in which he has accomplished major achievements.

His investigative reporting must be judged on its merits. It should not be judged on an event of 18 years ago.

This is the question I think is of primary importance in your post. Calvin and others have asked for some sort of "track record" to be made evident and none has yet been offered. Until we all have the opportunity to see some of this, we can not put much credence or faith in the work of Mr. Joy.

I agree completely with you that a resolution, conclusion to the current situation between 3ABN and Linda, et al will rest on the merits of the evidence presented by each. One would have to consider that this factor (the conviction) though, will become a point of issue if his investigation is presented as evidence.

-fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 22 2006, 03:54 PM

[Daryl Fawcett]

Another difference is that, if this is the same GAJ, then due process was done, and he already paid the penalty for what he did, therefore, that should remain in the past and not be a subject of discussion here.

[fallible humanbe...]

Hum; what is wrong with this picture? So, you say GA Joy did not appeal, whereas, I see 3ABN appears to appeal everything.

No, your statement is not correct. I did not say that Gailon Joy did not appeal. Gailon did appeal, this is what the brief is about. The points of his appeal were seen by the court as "hypertechnical" and not of consequence. What I did say was that the court found that these technicalities were issues that needed to be brought up prior to trial. They were not, there by waiving any right that Mr. Joy might have of bringing them before the court.

3ABN's appeal of the initial decision in their case v. the State of Illinois is not based on technicalities but on serious considerations of the law. These considerations have far reaching effects for all ministries in the State and ministries such as Moody Bible Institute are following this case with extreme interest. Should the courts find in favor of the State all ministries within the State will find themselves potentially with a sudden retroactive tax burden that they can not shoulder.

As I see it, GA Joy knew he was wrong in this one incident and decided not to fight the truth. On the other hand, 3ABN has not once seen the possibility that they may have been wrong in their fiduciary obligations. If the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax auditor’s reports is any indication at all of 3ABN’s fiduciary responsibilities, they do not take them seriously at all.

A blanket statement like this doesn't seem to be reasoned on your part. You seem to imply automatic malicious intent to anything that 3ABN's financial departments have done over the past 20 years. In a conversation I had a year or so ago with an individual close to the situation, there was admitance on their part that there were processes that needed refinement and needed oversight and that the necessary corrections had been made. But, they continued, the case the State brought was neither accurate, nor did they feel that on appeal it would stand.

Time will tell. I somehow do not believe that GA Joy is not the kind of person to be intimidated by someone calling himself FHB.

Quite honestly I don't think Mr. Joy would see intimidation in my postings here as that wasn't even a consideration on my part. I have no intention of trying to badger or imitimidate anyone.

I will be more interested in what will be done about 3ABN in court.

I am not surprised.

- fhb

[fallible humanbe...]

Another difference is that, if this is the same GAJ, then due process was done, and he already paid the penalty for what he did, therefore, that should remain in the past and not be a subject of discussion here.

That seems a convinient approach since what is taking place here are accusations against Danny/3ABN that have not been adjudicated. However, if one is to consider character (which is at the core of a number of the arguments against Danny/3ABN) and character is cumulative over time, then this does have to be considered when evaluating Mr. Joy's final report.

There is an old phrase that is applicable here: "consider the source."

To date we have only this upon which to determine the merit of the work of Mr. Joy. We do not yet have any other material or activities with which to gauge his veracity.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 22 2006, 04:28 PM

[Observer]

In the interests of transparency, and openness, I am making the following brief statements:

1) The GAJ who was convicted of the crime of embezzlement in the VT, is the GAJ who is presently conducting an investigation into this 3-ABN mess.

2) Mr. Joy has advised several of us, to include Linda Shelton, of the details of that conviction that have not been publicly presented before.

3) Mr. Joy was charged under Title 13, part I, Chapter 57 "Larceny and Embezzlement, Subchapter II, and Section 2531. In my mind a critical part of that statute is the following: "[One may be convicted of embezzlement] notwithstanding [that] he may have an interest in such money or property,. . ." In simple language: One may be convicted even if one had a right to that money.

4) The above statue allows one convicted of the crime to be imprisoned for up to ten years, and fined up to $500.00. It should be noted that GAJ was not sentenced to prison.

5) The charge against Mr. Joy began in 1980, and continued through the end of 1984. It was brought by an organization which was essentially VT. Legal Aid (LSCVT).

6) LSCVT first brought the claim against Mr. Joy in the Vt. Superior Court. They lost.

7) The LSCVT then attempted to file in a Federal Court. They failed.

8) At that time the LSCVT attempted to settle with Mr. Joy for the payment of $1,500.00, which would be made to them, and an agreement to change certain collection rules.

NOTE: In all of the above, the charges were made against Credit Management Services Corporation (CMSC), and not Mr. Joy, personally.

9) Mr. Joy did not want CMSC to settle. As a result, he bought out the other owners of the corporation, and became a personal defendant in the litigation.

10) During this process, Mr. Joy obtained a $40,000 judgment against the LSCVT for misuse of process. That judgment was paid.

11) In the litigation that LSCVT had brought, there were 58 named plaintiffs. The Court dismissed 57 of those plaintiffs, and trial went forward with one plaintiff.

12) During this litigation, Mr. Joy controlled five different companies. He put all five of them on the line, so to speak, in order to defend his innocence. As a result, all five closed.

13) In the final end, he was convicted. He was required to pay the sum of $1,152.15 to the plaintiff.

14) Mr. Joy acknowledges his conviction. As he was the sole owner at the time of the conviction, he accepts responsibility for that conviction. He does not challenge his conviction. At the time the charges were first brought, he was not the sole owner of CMSC, and he owned less than 50 per-cent of the stock in that company. As he bought out all of the other owners under conditions where he released them from responsibility for the charges, he at the time of the conviction became solely responsible for the crime.

15) It would have been far easier to have settled the case for the required $1,500 payment when that offer was made. However, Mr. Joy believed that he was innocent. He chose not to buckle under to the pressure, and to defend his innocence. Of the 58, he stands convicted of one.

16) Yes, he exercised his legal right to defend himself. Once a definitive decision was made, he stopped the appeals, made the payment, and went on with his life. He accepted responsibility.

Folks, as I have stated from the beginning: Yes, he has been convicted of a crime. His conviction came about due to the fact that he, at the time of the conviction, was the sole owner of the corporation. It should be remembered that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was not. To me this appears to be more a crime of lack of attention to detail, and/or sloppy bookkeeping. Further, he may very well have had a right to the monies. That issues was not determined by the Court, as VT law ruled that out as a defense.

Folks, one cannot rightfully state that Mr. Joy intended to obtain monies that were not rightfully his.

All one can state is that he was convicted of a crime that was essentially inattention to detail. He paid a very large price for that omission.

Make the best of this, folks.

We believe in transparancy, and oppeness.

Let us move on to more important issues.

NOTE: In regard to item # 12: With the purchase of CMSC, and before the litigation was completed, he controlled five companies. When the litigation began he did not control that many.


This post has been edited by Observer: Nov 23 2006, 05:33 AM

[Chez]

Thank you for that information. FHB, are you satisfied? Probably not. If a thorough investigation was conducted on all of us, I am sure that there are some "not so pretty" items/issues that one would find that we wouldn't want revealed. Everybody has a past including me. However, Mr. GA Joy paid for the problem and moved on to better things. I think that he is credible. Is Danny credible? Is Linda credible? What does that track record reveal about them? Let their record speak for them along with their willingness to admit wrong and ask forgiveness of God [and others who have been wronged by this individual(s)]. What do our records reveal about us? Let it speak of our willingness to acknowledge and rectify wrongs along with asking God [and others we have wronged] for forgiveness.

This post has been edited by Chez: Nov 23 2006, 08:25 AM

[Daryl Fawcett]

Well said Chez.

[Observer]

I often write brief explanations of complex subjects in a attempt to condense them into the major points, and from the perspective that some people prefer to read brief statements over long complex documents.

However, there are others, like I often do, who like to read the original documents.

Therefore, and due to request, I am posting here a statement that GAJ has made in regard to his conviction in 1988.

***************************

"13 V.S.A. § 2531. Embezzlement generally

[b]



[b]

TITLE 13
Crimes and Criminal Procedure
PART I
Crimes
CHAPTER 57. LARCENY AND EMBEZZLEMENT
Subchapter II. Embezzlement

§ 2531. Embezzlement generally

An officer, agent, bailee for hire, clerk or servant of a banking association or an incorporated company, or a clerk, agent, bailee for hire, officer or servant of a private person, partnership, tradesunion, joint stock company, unincorporated association, fraternal or benevolent association, except apprentices and other persons under the age of sixteen years, who embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, or takes or secretes with intent to embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, money or other property which comes into his possession or is under his care by virtue of such employment, notwithstanding he may have an interest in such money or property, shall be guilty of embezzlement and shall be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than $500.00, or both. (Amended 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 15.)

That's right, it is not a text but a statute, one which has an unusual statement rarely seen in the embezzlement statutes of the various states (in Bold type). And one which I have become very familiar with, much to my chagrin. And one so infrequently charged, that, yes, I am the singular citation in the Northeast Reports, a legal research text of precedent setting cases.

It is in fact true...I was an officer and major stockholder of Credit Management Services Corporation starting in 1978. I believe I began as a secretary to the corporation and vice president for operations. Beginning in 1980 the firm became embroiled in a series of legal battles brought by clients of Legal Services Corporation of Vermont (Legal Aide) that continued until Dec 1984. The first claims were brought in Vermont Superior court and were defeated with rather unusual, but effective, legal tactics.

In 1981 LSC of Vt brought a seperate but far more extensive action in US District Court accusing CMS of violating the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a class action case for injunctive relief and individual hearings on the merits for damages. Injunctive relief was not granted. The case was put on the docket for 58 seperate trials on the merits for damages.

Shortly after filing the action, at one of the first hearings, LSC of VT offered then corporate counsel, Atty Thomas Koch, to settle for $1500 in legal fees to LSC of Vt and a stipulated injunction for new collection rules that exceeded the US FDCPA. The management took the matter up and made a clear decision citing a standard that I fully supported, THEN and NOW: Millions for Defense, not a single farthing for tribute!!!

The President and CFO, also the other stockholders, did not have the stomach for the litigation and had wanted to accept the offer to settle. The other managers and I refused. The firm was bleeding badly financially and being a big fish in a little pond we were a constant source of news, deemed to be negative public relations associated with the process. I agreed to buy out the 60% I did not own and I also agreed to hold the sellers harmless of any and all litigation. After I bought out the other stock-holders in 1982 I was personally named a party by LSC of VT Atty's Benjamin and Sussman to intimidate and attempt to force a settlement by threatening personal assetts. I refused to negotiate and ordered interrogatories and depositons of the 58 named plaintiffs and counterclaimed one by one.

Frankly, I reveled at the opportunity to defend personally and entered an appearance "pro se" as I was not happy with the corporations lawyers. I had bought out the two other share-holders so I could have control of the entire litigation process and by being named a defendant, the insurance carrier could not over-ride my wishes and settle to avoid years of legal fees!!!

In the fall of 1982 Atty Sue Sussman became an asst AG. and shortly thereafter filed a civil suite by the AG. We also fought that action and it was settled and dismissed sometime in the Spring of 1984. In December 1984 the LSC of Vt made the very poor legal strategic decision of simply dismissing me personally in the hopes the insurance company would settle. We promptly brought an action for mis-use of process and our Atty, now Sen Vincent Illuzzi, received a settlement for $40,000 in legal fees. Touche'!!!

Sometime during the civil litigation battles, the AG's criminal division got into the fray and contacted clients we had ongoing disputes with regarding receivables for sums owed to CMS or vice versa. Several of these filed formal complaints and the AG upped the ante and brought a criminal complaint for embezzlement against myself, personally, in 1985. The basis was the highlighted portion of the statute listed above, which simply means that because we did not remit the net due to Stacey in a timely fashion and converted the sum payable to corporate use, not withstanding our interest in the sum collected, I had committed embezzlement. Legally correct!!! Even though I had not been on the payroll since 1980 and was living in Maine at the time, therefore did not personally benefit, except in the egotistical sense of keeping the firm going to defeat the legal allegations, and achieve vindication.The buck still stopped at my desk!! !

We were able to get all but one claim dismissed because they owed us more than we owed them. In Stacey Fuel's case, Stacey had accepted partial payments from the debtors and refused to pay fees for service on the direct to Stacey's payments and we did indeed withhold payment until we were properly notified of payments and they were credited to the balance. I don't recall if they ever verified reported payments to CMS, despite debtor notification to us. Stacey cancelled service before the payment arrangements were finished and CMS gave notice of intent to bill them for the entire commission due but, unfortunately, never did. Frankly, because we had with-held payment, we were in violation of 13 VSA sec 2531!!!

The AG decided to take the one claim to trial in the sum $1152.15 which we fought it all the way to the Vt Supreme Court (Decision was in 1988) and the personal conviction was affirmed on the basis that the Vt Embezzlement statute allows for a a charge against an individual rather than the corporation and could do so regardless of the charged person's interest in the balance due the offended party.

In any event, the sentence was easy enough: I was ordered to pay the account and did so. Regardless of the technicality the entire legal issue was clearly my responsibility. I did not, nor would I try, to blame another. The facts were the facts and the Vt Supreme Court affirmed the fact that it was illegal to do what was done. Therefore the buck stopped at my desk and I took responsibility.

The harsh reality is, at the beginning of 1982 I controlled five companies, National Businessmens Credit Association, the National Business Trust, Green Mountain Credit Bureau, Capital Funding Corporation, and acquired the balance of CMS mid year. I put it all on the line for what I felt were irreversible principals that I and my management would not compromise on. By 1985 I had to sell or close every single business and had to start all over again. And I did!!! Some would argue that discretion is the greater part of valor and we should have settled in 1982 and we would be here today, handcuffed and cowering to LSC of Vt...an unacceptable option. I believe in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and in the absolute right of conscience. I will not live with the alternative without a fight. SO, the question frequently comes up...would you do it all again?
Well, I would certainly handle invoicing differently and would be dis-inclined to own a collection agency today, but other than that, given the same circumstances and given hindsight, YES, I WOULD PUT IT ALL ON THE LINE AGAIN, UNQUESTIONABLY, AND BE WILLING TO LOOSE IT ALL AGAIN, UNCONDITIONALLY.

I will forever stand for principal at any cost, and believe me when I say I have paid dearly. From that experience I have only my wife and family, praise the Lord, and many, many friends and business associates that we have helped to launch careers or beat back challenges to their lives and businesses. White Knight or greivous ogre, I would suppose it would depend on which side of the battles you were on!!!

Others would argue that we won the battles but lost the war... perhaps, but I would rather fight for principals and the right of conscience and loose than live with the alternative. If that disqualifies me from offering my experience and perspective to help victims of an unfair system in the sight of some, so be it, but I will always be available to help slay dragons and I will NEVER GIVE UP!!!

In summary, I have felt the sting of Justice and the comfort of Mercy. Justice makes one more human and understand the issue of accountability. It also makes you look hard at yourself and realize just how easy it is to be a "fallible human being" and how hard it is to earn the Mercy of humanity and how little we deserve the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. And in the end, I know what it is to be willing to give up everything we have worked so hard for, to stand for principals, albeit human principals, and how much more important it is to stand for the principals of righteousness within the Church of God. May every "fallible human being" learn the same lesson, is my prayer as we move forward to clean up any stench in the nostrils of the Lord!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy"

*****************************

For those of you who prefer longer statements, here it is.

We intend to operate oppenly.

Gregory Matthews

NOTE: In this message as GAJ sent it out he used Bold type on occasion. In copying to this post, that Bolding has been lost. I am reluctant to change what he said in any manner, to include restoring the Bold type.

NOTE: I have attempted to restore the Bold and the centering.


This post has been edited by Observer: Nov 23 2006, 03:36 PM

[PeacefulBe]

I have hesitated to get involved much in this discussion but, on principle, I must put in a little comment.

All of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Sin, in any degree, separates us from God. When we repent (turn away) from that sin and reconnect with Him we can fully experience His mercy. That goes for every one of us.

My little comment is on a partial sentence at the end of G. A. Joy's statement:

"...is my prayer as we move forward to clean up any stench in the nostrils of the Lord!!!".

While I am not trying to be critical of anyone's mission, it just strikes me that it is a pretty bold conclusion to say that it falls to any of us humans to clean up any stench in the Lord's nostrils. Our filthy rags just don't have that kind of power IMO. It is our Lord and our Lord alone who has that cleansing power.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Yes, I agree, however, as the Bible shows, the Lord often uses people to clean up the stench.