Damage Control, Emails Options

[Clay]

In the sequence of communication presented (and I don't know if there was more than this) Dr. Thompson mentions twice his desire for the communications to remain private between Bob ******* and himself. It is only after his explicit request in the undated email (posted in the third section of the exchanges posted by "sister") that Mr. ****** indicates he will be passing along the emails. This was followed with a second more pointed request by Dr. Thompson on 27 November 2006.

-fhb

and? Internet Rules 101, if you don't want to see it in public don't put it in an email.....

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible, Fallible, Fallible.... When are you going to discuss the real issues, the substance of the emails? You appear to be stuck in the minors and ignoring the majors, as usual.

Actually, I think I am the only one who has actually made a comment on it other Peacefully . . .
Click

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 1 2006, 09:13 PM

[sister]

Fallible, Fallible, Fallible...

Bob posted someone's email that documents that a lie was told in order to cover the tracks of an alleged pedophile.

Let's get real. Posting an email that he said up front would be made public is worse than lying and pedophilia? How do you fit that into the commandments of God?

Isn't it time to stop playing games and get to the real issues?

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible, Fallible, Fallible...
[b]Bob posted someone's email that documents that a lie was told in order to cover the tracks of an alleged pedophile.

And exactly where is the lie? Dr. Thompson makes the admission that there was a incident thrity years ago. He indicates that restitution was made, that the DA found no merit to execute a case, that a jealous contemporary worked hard to keep the issue on the front burner for personal gain.

Here is what I see happening based on the minimal information in your series of emails.

Mr. T. Shelton is accused of behaving inappropriately with a minor (I do not know to what extend the accusations go - simply that the basic idea is that).

There is investigation and the DA determines that based on the evidence there is no case to be pursued.

Mr. Shelton makes his apologies and what ever else is needed to make the situation right.

He is out of church leadership for awhile and eventually enters it again in Virginia.

The jealous contemporary discovers this and attempts to dredge up the old accusations in hopes that it will lead to creating an aura of ill repute around Mr. Shelton and there by disrupt his life.

The church where he is working must address the issue (as one would hope they would).

The church experiences a split over this highly emotionally charged issue.

In an effort to not cause any more disruption in the church, Mr. Shelton leaves.

In other words there wasn't a secondary incident. This would be a fact readily discovered by contacting the church in VA, a task Mr. ******* could do for himself.

So then, we are back to a situation where an individual made an egregious error thirty years ago, repented, offered apology, and never again made that mistake. Yet, continues to pay for his mistake by having his life played out in public over and over.

I am not sure at what point I made any comparison of the wrong doings of either act. I wouldn't portend to put myself in a position to do so. I do unequivocablly agree that child abuse (of ANY kind) is immoral. Does the negate the fact that I think Mr. ******* acted unethically and disingenuously - absolutely not.

- fhb

[PeacefulBe]

PB,

Yes, you will. When doing research and evaluating information in the process of forming an opinion one needs to use a heuristic. I ask a series of questions and seek the answers before analyzing the content.

1. Who is the author? (meaning what is their authority to write)
2. What is the author's purpose?
3. What is the author's motivation?
4. What is the author's proximity to the situation/event?
5. What is the background and setting of the author's writing and publishing?

This is where I run into trouble here. I will not simply accept whatever is published here as reliable or believable just because it is published here. So you see that my responses to the "meat" of the thread takes time. If the individuals providing information can not provide adequate answers to what I believe are essential questions for arriving at a reasonable understanding of the truth then I have to take that into consideration. Asking, "Who said it?", while not welcomed here, is none-the-less an essential question. I contend, PB, that because I have a slightly contrarian view to the majority here, I must work twice as hard to make even the smallest point. I am dismissed out of hand because I don't agree.

Sometimes we must indeed work backward to arrive at the truth of the matter. We also must be open-minded enough to not structure our methods to exclude the contrarian views of others. We all end up losing with that approach.

There are two questions that need to be addressed in terms of the content of the emails in this thread. First, what was the nature of the situation in Virginia? If it is identical to one from thirty years ago,

OUCH! It is obvious from the dialogue between Dr. Thompson and Mr. Bob that the "thirty year" time frame has been called into question. In my own limited research on this matter that much has been made abundantly clear.

then you must consider differently the employability of Mr. Shelton. If the situation is based on an entierly different set of concerns (and by that I mean not of the nature of the early accusations) then you can not connect the two.

While Mr. ******* continues to dog Dr. Thompson, there certainly are avenues he could have persued to discover some significant information. For instance:

Perhaps he is pursuing this information.

1. Why did the DA determine there was no case to be pursued?

Have you contacted the DA to see if this is indeed what was determined? Isn't it also a possibility that you are assuming since Dr. Thompson said this it must be true? Didn't the dialogue in the emails bring this into question as well?

2. To what degree was the entire first situation exacerbated by the jealousy between the two men?

I certainly can't speak to this because this dialogue between Dr. Thompson and Mr. Bob is the first place I have heard of any feud between factions. In the limited amount of investigation I have personally done to glean further information I have met with some resistance because I am not in a position of leadership.

If, Mr. ******* wanted to access the public record to see why the DA refused to pursue the situation he needs no permission to do so, only to find out how to legally access the information. Additionally, as to the jealousy issue, he could easily contact members or former members of the congregation and build a picture for himself.

When I first heard of the conflict surrounding 3ABN, I went to as many first person (primary) sources as I could discover and sought to understand what there was to know. Initially, I was able to gain access to individuals on 3ABN's side of the situation. That is were my initial information came from. I was under the impression this (BSDA) was a dialogue about the subject so I came here as it was indicated this would be the other side of the story. I did not run into the same resistance on that side of the situation as I have on this side. Questions were welcomed, as were challenges to the information being presented.

I would just ask, are you certain you were told the truth and did you hold the information you received to the same heuristic standards you have stated above? Did you independantly check everything out for yourself?

My initial gut reaction to the question of Mr. T. Shelton is this; If his thirty-year-old situation was dealt with (and here I don't think any of us can set the expectation for what that means), and questions satisfied for entities that could have stepped in and mitigated the situation, and no further concerning occurances have taken place then I think this is all a red-herring used to try and cast a cloud over 3ABN that is unfair and unChristian.

If all of these statements are found to be true I would agree with you.

However, if there is verifiable evidence (and Dr. Thompson, nor Danny need give Mr. ******* this information since he can go out and gleen it himself) that another identical situation occured more recently, then I would agree that a concern need be raised in regards the employability of Mr. T. Shelton.

If there is verifiable evidence that other identical situation(s) occured more recently than "thirty years ago" I believe that more than "concern need be raised in regards the employability of Mr. T. Shelton". I believe concern needs to be raised about the integrity of the board and ruling parties of 3abn for if what Dr. Thompson asserts is untrue it is an unsavory cover-up at best and a crime against young people at the worst. Of course, as you might have guessed, I am quite passionate in my opinions of the abuse of the young or vulnerable by men in positions of power.

There is an additional problem here. Those seeking information (read evidence) on Linda's side of the situation automatically dismiss out of hand anyone who does not give them the answer they want to have (meaning an answer that fits their defense). I find it excedingly difficult to believe that every member of administration at 3ABN and every board memeber have, from the start, uttered nothing but untruths. This isn't even reasonable to consider. So, I choose to believe that they DID spend much time in prayer and discussion of this issue. The exchanges above are also going to be less filled with detail as they are email correspondences which tend to be shorter than a "sit-down conversation."

The flow of the email exchange between Mr. ******* and Dr. Thompson strikes me as more of an attempt to talk in circles in an effort to "catch" Dr. Thompson in a lie than it is to be a facilitator in resolution.

- fhb

From my read I have to disagree on this point. I believed Mr. Bob truly was trying to find a resolution but then saw claims that didn't match the evidence that he had gleaned elsewhere. In trying to get clarification he has opened an important dialogue that, when all of the loose/incongruous ends are tied up should help the truth - whatever that ends up to be - become clear.
PB

I just want to add that, as egregious a crime as molestation is, everyone has the opportunity to repent and find forgiveness from God. I also believe that there are Biblical standards of restitution that must be made in situations of molestation before one can truly be forgiven by God. I'm not necessarily talking monetary, just making it right with one's victims. If this isn't done, can there be true repentance?

[Fran]

PB,

... When doing research and evaluating information in the process of forming an opinion one needs to use a heuristic. I ask a series of questions and seek the answers before analyzing the content.

1. Who is the author? (meaning what is their authority to write)
2. What is the author's purpose?
3. What is the author's motivation?
4. What is the author's proximity to the situation/event?
5. What is the background and setting of the author's writing and publishing?

This is where I run into trouble here...
- fhb

Thank you for these points! I consider these things also. Maybe you can help me as I consider your posts.

1. Just who are you? (Meaning, by what authority do you write?)
2. What is your purpose when posting?
3. What is the motivation for your posts?
4. What is your proximity to the situation/event?
5. What is your background and the setting of your writings and publishing of your posts?

As you can see, this railroad runs both ways. This is the problem I have when I read your posts. I can only assume you have zero authority and you have only the purpose of damage control for Danny and Tommy Shelton.

Your motivation must be money. Danny has lots of that.

Your proximity must be smack dab right at the heart of 3ABN in my opinion.

Well, let me see, maybe you are a lawyer and you have had much practice in intimidation.

How is that for surmising?

If Tommy “COULD” be a pedophile, he should be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. PERIOD! This is not a subject to sweep under your damage control rug.

It is time to get real and step up to the plate so to speak. If my opinion makes me un-Christ like in your eyes, so be it. It is my opinion that the outside world needs to see all this mess. I am willing to say I am sorry if my opinions are wrong. Is Danny? Are you?

[Lee]

Fran, your post does not make any sense. FHB is not being investigated--3ABN is. Just because FHB does not agree with everything makes him fair game for attack? Please, let's not forget we are Christians...

We ARE Christians, aren't we?

I do not know ANYONE on this site. So if you are going to pick on FHB, then do it to everyone!

This post has been edited by Lee: Dec 2 2006, 10:28 AM

[watchbird]

Fran, your post does not make any sense. FHB is not being investigated--3ABN is. Just because FHB does not agree with everything makes him fair game for attack? Please, let's not forget we are Christians...

We ARE Christians, aren't we?

I do not know ANYONE on this site. So if you are going to pick on FHB, then do it to everyone!

Lee.... you are the one who "does not make any sense". You have not been on here very long, but you have been here long enough to have read more than what it appears that you have read. I would suggest that you read a lot further back than merely those things that have been posted since you joined us. Especially it would be helpful if you were to read everything that Sister has posted AND everything that FHB has posted.

FHB makes himself "fair game for attack" because of the fact that he consistently goes into attack mode whenever something significant is posted on BSDA. He does NOT address the specific information that is being shared... but he instead attacks those who share the information. Those who have information to share.... whether on one side or the other, are treated respectfully and their viewpoints taken into consideration. Those who do nothing but attack the "messenger" will indeed find themselves the object of attack.

And I might add.... which of this kind are you. I just now went to your profile and read everything you have posted since you joined. It all suggests that you have not really come here for information .... or you would not be demonstrating such a lack of knowledge of what has been previously posted here as what you have and do.

Frankly, we consider these types of attacking the messenger rather than joining in the search for truth as diversionary rather than helpful. When one comes on and supports those who are the most diversionary rather than those who bring the most information.....

Well...... guess who gets classified with whom. ..... Yeah.... I'm sure you can figure that out..... ........ .........

[Richard Sherwin]

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”

Addison Whithecomb

[Panama_Pete]

Fran, your post does not make any sense. FHB is not being investigated--3ABN is. Just because FHB does not agree with everything makes him fair game for attack? Please, let's not forget we are Christians...

We ARE Christians, aren't we?

I do not know ANYONE on this site. So if you are going to pick on FHB, then do it to everyone!

Lee,

I understood all of Fran's points quite well. I agree with Fran that FHB is making significant efforts at damage control. It does not take much effort to understand Fran's reference to it.


Pete

[PeacefulBe]

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”

Addison Whithecomb

Yes indeedy. Ad hominem is rarely an effective strategy.

[fallible humanbe...]

FHB makes himself "fair game for attack" because of the fact that he consistently goes into attack mode whenever something significant is posted on BSDA. He does NOT address the specific information that is being shared... but he instead attacks those who share the information. Those who have information to share.... whether on one side or the other, are treated respectfully and their viewpoints taken into consideration. Those who do nothing but attack the "messenger" will indeed find themselves the object of attack.

WB,

In the course, thus far, of this thread I think I am yet the only one to respond to the issues of "sister's" original series of posts beginning this thread. To claim I have never engaged in a discussion about "the topic" is simply disingenuous. Just prior to Thanksgiving I provided my thoughts on the tax property case that 3ABN has appealed, check it out at the end of the "Investigator of 3ABN" thread. There is simply no truth in your claim that I have -never- addressed specific information. As proof, read a few posts above where I talk about the specific point of the email exchange between Mr. *******, Mr. D. Shelton, and Dr. Thompson.

As far as attacking the messenger, well, I don't see how scrutinizing the messenger should be considered an "attack." Do you really want everyone to come here and read your material and not be discerning? If so than only the naive will accept without questioning. The messenger should always be able to withstand scrutiny - otherwise it calls into question their information (old Bill said it this way, "me thinks thou doest protest too much.")

What it seems you would like is for no one to ever question the information that you, "sister", and others from Linda's camp provide here. If what you have said is the unadulterated truth then you should welcome the inspection and let others present alternative ideas and possibilities. If your truth is solid it will withstand the reasoned exploration.

I mentioned back when I first arrived that if in the end I find I am wrong, I will not fight that reality and will admit such.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 2 2006, 01:09 PM

[sister]

The following post has been copied over from Maritime:

Two comments:

1) In my opinion, 3-ABN has potentially placed itself at grave financial risk in regard to a Shelton possibly molesting children, and whatever the other ramifications of this are.

It is clear to me that the explanations that Dr. T. has given are not satisfactory for the legal climate in which we live today. I can assure you that if any future charges came up, lawyers would make mincemeat of the defense that Dr. T. has posted.

2) Based upon the present relationship that 3-ABN has with the IL Conference, and the people who sit on the Boards of the Conference and on 3-ABN, this situation may potentially place the IL Conference at risk. In the case of a future problem, any good attorney would clearly attempt to entangle the IL Conference in liability on the basis that these charges have been currently brought to the attention of IL Conference officials and those officials, as (a) member of the 3-ABN Board failed to take effective action to re-visit them and to take steps to protect children.

3) This potential liability is enhanced due to any Conference sponsored school that is now or may later be associated with 3-ABN, should such be involved in any future problem.

E.G. I am acquainted with a case where a part-time teacher at a SDA School recruited victims of sexual molestation from that school.

4) On another point:

I have personally been involved with posting material that Dr. T. sent me. When I requested information from him, I clearly stated that I would post any answer that he made to me, or his lack of answer. I advised him not to respond if he did not want hes answer posted. But, if he did that, I would post that he had failed to respond to me.

Dr. T. responded, gave me permission to post, and then went on to say that he was telling me nothing that he had not already stated to others.

After I posted his response, exactly as he gave it to me, Dr. T. had a change of heart, and stated that he was disappointed that I had posted it without his permission.

When I sent him a copy of his written permission, he replied that he had forgotten that he had given me permission.

Based upon the above, in my experience with Dr. T. he does not always remember what he has said in regard to permission to post. This may lead to misunderstandings. All of us may do that at times. He may change his mind, which we also do. But, I believe that Bob was clear in his intent to post Dr. T's response. From his experience with me, Dr. T. should have learned that if he does not want something posted, he should not write it, and send it to us.

[fallible humanbe...]

Fran,

You see, the process even worked for you. Now the problem is that you surmised rather than gathered the actual information. Let me help you out a little . . .

Thank you for these points! I consider these things also. Maybe you can help me as I consider your posts.

1. Just who are you? (Meaning, by what authority do you write?)
2. What is your purpose when posting?
3. What is the motivation for your posts?
4. What is your proximity to the situation/event?
5. What is your background and the setting of your writings and publishing of your posts?

As you can see, this railroad runs both ways. This is the problem I have when I read your posts. I can only assume you have zero authority and you have only the purpose of damage control for Danny and Tommy Shelton.

I am not making the accusation. Mr. ******* is and via "sister" is making his personal research public. This requires that it be evaluated. The mere fact that I say, "I am not sure that I buy that." makes me damage control? I have a job and children to raise, can't add damage control for 3ABN to my schedule.

Your motivation must be money. Danny has lots of that.

Raising children and just trying to pay the cost of fuel these days, sure money could be a motivation. However, since no one at 3ABN knows where I live it would be tough to get me a payment. I realize your obsession in this are the financial issues as you see them, but sorry you can't add payments to me to your list. Haven't gotten one, wouldn't take it.

Your proximity must be smack dab right at the heart of 3ABN in my opinion.

Sorry again, never been there . . . ever.

Well, let me see, maybe you are a lawyer and you have had much practice in intimidation.

Now, when I entered college I considered law, but as a junior I decided that I would go another route for a career. So never having attended law school it would be tough for me to practice law.

If Tommy “COULD” be a pedophile, he should be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. PERIOD! This is not a subject to sweep under your damage control rug.

So Fran, have you checked to fully understand the original accusation? Have you checked to see if the second "instance" that Mr. ****** insinuates in the emails at the start of this thread is just a rehashing of the originial complaint or a new one?

And on last wondering outloud, if there was a incident thirty years ago, and nothing since should Mr. T. Shelton be banned from doing the Lord's work? How long does it take for forgiveness and a changed heart to occur? 20 years? 25? 30? 50?

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 2 2006, 01:31 PM

[Observer]

Re: "And on last wondering outloud, if there was a incident thirty years ago, and nothing since should Mr. T. Shelton be banned from doing the Lord's work? How long does it take for forgiveness and a changed heart to occur? 20 years? 25? 30? 50? "

To set the record straight, I wrote the piece posted in MSDAOL that sister has copied here.

To respond to the item that I have quoted above: Forgiveness is not the issue. Legal liability and the protection of children is the issue. Yes, anyone involved in child molestation, as an adult, should be banned from working with children forever. That person may be able to "do the Lord's work," but I will suggest that the Lord will call that person to work somewhere that does not involve children.

NOTE: I am not making any specific charge as to what Shelton may or may not have done.

In any case, 3-ABN, and potentially the IL Conference, is subjecting themselves to grave legal liability by not putting Shelton on administrative leave, investigating it throughly, and regardless of the determination of the facts, probably relieve him of all contact with children.

Those who advise our denominational institutions are telling us that we cannot afford to ignore such charges because there was not legal trial and conviction. They are telling us that in many cases the allegation is enough to forever remove the accused from all contact with children.

As I said in the quote that Sister copied from MSDAOL, in my opinion, both 3-ABN and the IL Conference has placed themselves in grave legal liability should any future incident arise.