Tommy Shelton Vindicated!, I hope. Options

[watchbird]

Bob, you said out of the seven people supposedly molested by TS, one is under age over on Maritime. Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then six of the seven would be considered "consenting" adults. And perhaps even the one under age was consenting, who knows if any of this is true. I have my doubts not because you posted it or because Mr. Joy investigated this, but because none of the 7 prosecuted TS or took him to court. I would certainly suggest to them that they do so as soon as possible.

I believe you will find information on this in the Unauthorized History threads. Use the "guided tour" which is posted at the top and scan down through the items to find Tommy mentioned, then check out the dialogue surrounding each item you find.

It is my understanding that all of the victims in Illinois were under age at the time of the molestation, thus it was their parents who were lax in not following through with prosecution. It is also my understanding that some of these (now grown to) men are very angry about that and are seriously considering prosecution even at this late date. You can doubtless find clues as to why they did not prosecute at the time in the relevant threads posted here.

[Pickle]

Bob, you said out of the seven people supposedly molested by TS, one is under age over on Maritime. Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then six of the seven would be considered "consenting" adults. And perhaps even the one under age was consenting, who knows if any of this is true. I have my doubts not because you posted it or because Mr. Joy investigated this, but because none of the 7 prosecuted TS or took him to court. I would certainly suggest to them that they do so as soon as possible.

Lee,

You are incorrect. Out of the three or four in Virginia, one was a minor at the time.

The 2003 letter from Illinois to Dr. Thompson referred to "at least six boys."

"Perhaps even the one under age was consenting"????????? What are you trying to say? That people who commit homosexual acts with consenting children and/or consenting adults, and who to all appearances never manifest repentance, can still hold one of the highest positions at 3ABN, and have the allegations about them covered up with lies and threats?

Are you sure you want to go there?

You have identified yourself as being a female. Would you be so kind as to inform us why so many rape victims out there don't press charges?

"Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. In 2002, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials (DOJ 2003)." (Sexual Violence, Facts - NCIPC)

Then after you explain that, let's discuss why teenage boys might have trouble talking about this until long after the statute of limitations has run out.

[Aletheia]

Who cares if Lee is male or female?

The 'alleged" victims won't press charges or make a public statement? and that's an excuse why details aren't furnished? well this seems like common sense to me: If that is the case, then how can anyone else make charges and public statements?

The Mundalls made statements, and neither is here to say what the facts and evidence they gave were? Nor brave enough to repeat them in public, nor are their statements even quoted?

Then why is what they "allegedly" said even mentioned here as if it's evidence??? How do we even know this is true?

The point is Lee has said what many may think. I know I do.
There are too many questions and unexplained events and people and dates and places here.

Bob talked to 'someone' today?

Who is Bob, and how do we know he tells the truth? or even if he does, did the person who he spoke to tells him the truth? does any evidence support that?

Civil Courts need evidence and facts, and proof to convict. Do Jesus' people require less? Not the ones I know and fellowship with!


People are innocent till proven guilty.

Is their evidence to investigate? YES

Is that a conviction? NO

Does that mean people are protecting a child molestor or don't feel for the victims of child molesters ? NO

Tommy may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven, and personally?

I find this rush to judgment, and the spirit displayed in the Tommy steps down thread very much like that of a lynch mob. And I think this whole invvestigation is a joke! It's NOT a search for truth, it s a search for evidence to convict. Christians here are taking the role of the Adversary, and acting as prosecuters. The Job of Proesecuter is to convict and find fault and prove guilt, the nature of that job is biased from the start. We are NEVER called to do that as Christians, we are called to be impartial, and without hypocricy, and to examine all, righteously.

I think the document posted where Tommy's ministerial liscence was suspended pending an investigation about this a good start.

But it is not the end.

What did the investigation find and conclude, and why?

Does anybody care?

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 3 2007, 09:26 PM

[inga]

And I think this whole invvestigation is a joke! It's NOT a search for truth, it s a search for evidence to convict. Christians here are taking the role of the Adversary, and acting as prosecuters. The Job of Proesecuter is to convict and find fault and prove guilt, the nature of that job is biased from the start. We are NEVER called to do that as Christians, we are called to be impartial, and without hypocricy, and to examine all, righteously.

Says who?

[awesumtenor]

Who cares if Lee is male or female?

The 'alleged" victims won't press charges or make a public statement? and that's an excuse why details aren't furnished? well this seems like common sense to me: If that is the case, then how can anyone else make charges and public statements?

The Mundalls made statements, and neither is here to say what the facts and evidence they gave were? Nor brave enough to repeat them in public, nor are their statements even quoted?

Then why is what they "allegedly" said even mentioned here as if it's evidence??? How do we even know this is true?

The point is Lee has said what many may think. I know I do.
There are too many questions and unexplained events and people and dates and places here.

Bob talked to 'someone' today?

Who is Bob, and how do we know he tells the truth? or even if he does, did the person who he spoke to tells him the truth? does any evidence support that?

Civil Courts need evidence and facts, and proof to convict. Do Jesus' people require less? Not the ones I know and fellowship with!
People are innocent till proven guilty.

Is their evidence to investigate? YES

Is that a conviction? NO

Does that mean people are protecting a child molestor or don't feel for the victims of child molesters ? NO

Tommy may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven, and personally?

I find this rush to judgment, and the spirit displayed in the Tommy steps down thread very much like that of a lynch mob. And I think this whole invvestigation is a joke! It's NOT a search for truth, it s a search for evidence to convict. Christians here are taking the role of the Adversary, and acting as prosecuters. The Job of Proesecuter is to convict and find fault and prove guilt, the nature of that job is biased from the start. We are NEVER called to do that as Christians, we are called to be impartial, and without hypocricy, and to examine all, righteously.

I think the document posted where Tommy's ministerial liscence was suspended pending an investigation about this a good start.

But it is not the end.

What did the investigation find and conclude, and why?

Does anybody care?

And when you put on your holier-than-thou to make accusations, you are emulating whom, exactly?

BTW... what you have here... is an ad hominem attack... you are not refuting anything that has been stated; you are simply attacking those stating those things... in the hope that if you attack their person long enough and loud enough, those who read what they post will be less inclined to find it credible.

Here's an idea... refute things stated as fact with evidence showing them to be errant... if you can... rather than asking for "proof" and then saying you cant accept it because you don't know the person stating it or questioning their motivation for stating it.

If you have facts... names and dates and times and places and events that incontrovertibly refute the things stated as fact... then state them... otherwise.. admit you're just talking out the side of your neck and all of what you have to say is nothing more than the gospel according to cindy and those who read it will give it the consideration it deserves as such... whatever they may deem that to be.

In His service,
Mr. J

[sister]

Who cares if Lee is male or female?

The 'alleged" victims won't press charges or make a public statement? and that's an excuse why details aren't furnished? well this seems like common sense to me: If that is the case, then how can anyone else make charges and public statements?

The Mundalls made statements, and neither is here to say what the facts and evidence they gave were? Nor brave enough to repeat them in public, nor are their statements even quoted?
Then why is what they "allegedly" said even mentioned here as if it's evidence??? How do we even know this is true?

The point is Lee has said what many may think. I know I do.
There are too many questions and unexplained events and people and dates and places here.

Bob talked to 'someone' today?

Who is Bob, and how do we know he tells the truth? or even if he does, did the person who he spoke to tells him the truth? does any evidence support that?

Civil Courts need evidence and facts, and proof to convict. Do Jesus' people require less? Not the ones I know and fellowship with!
People are innocent till proven guilty.

Is their evidence to investigate? YES

Is that a conviction? NO

Does that mean people are protecting a child molestor or don't feel for the victims of child molesters ? NO

Tommy may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven, and personally?

I find this rush to judgment, and the spirit displayed in the Tommy steps down thread very much like that of a lynch mob. And I think this whole invvestigation is a joke! It's NOT a search for truth, it s a search for evidence to convict. Christians here are taking the role of the Adversary, and acting as prosecuters. The Job of Proesecuter is to convict and find fault and prove guilt, the nature of that job is biased from the start. We are NEVER called to do that as Christians, we are called to be impartial, and without hypocricy, and to examine all, righteously.

I think the document posted where Tommy's ministerial liscence was suspended pending an investigation about this a good start.

But it is not the end.

What did the investigation find and conclude, and why?

Does anybody care?

I have bolded your statement above in red and will answer it. Personally I know that the Mundalls wrote out a statement and signed it and it was given to the Illinois Conference President at the time. How do I know this is true? Directly from the mouth of the Mundall source. Are allegations of child molestation against Tommy Shelton included in this document, YES. How do I know, from the same Mundall source. When will the document be released? At the appropriate time and place.

Aletheia, verbally bullying witnesses by accusing them of not being brave enough to make all their statements publicly is really intolerable. Since the Illinois Conference President was also a sitting memeber of the 3ABN board, it appears that the Mundalls gave their evidence to an official whom they believed would both have influence and be above reproach since he was not controlled financially by 3ABN. Also, keep in mind that Tommy Shelton was not then, nor has he been since, a member of the SDA church. Thus SDA church has no authority over Tommy. But since Danny Shelton publically claims not to be independent, but rather a supporting ministry of the SDA church, it should have influence with him in regard to these matters.

Sister

[Johann]

I have bolded your statement above in red and will answer it. Personally I know that the Mundalls wrote out a statement and signed it and it was given to the Illinois Conference President at the time. How do I know this is true? Directly from the mouth of the Mundall source. Are allegations of child molestation against Tommy Shelton included in this document, YES. How do I know, from the same Mundall source. When will the document be released? At the appropriate time and place.

---
Sister

I have my information from the same source and can verify that what 'sister' states is corrrect.

[roxe]

sister and Johann,

God bless you both!

you are so respectful, patient, tactful and courteous...


"God, make me like that "

[PeacefulBe]

And when you put on your holier-than-thou to make accusations, you are emulating whom, exactly?

BTW... what you have here... is an ad hominem attack... you are not refuting anything that has been stated; you are simply attacking those stating those things... in the hope that if you attack their person long enough and loud enough, those who read what they post will be less inclined to find it credible.

Here's an idea... refute things stated as fact with evidence showing them to be errant... if you can... rather than asking for "proof" and then saying you cant accept it because you don't know the person stating it or questioning their motivation for stating it.

If you have facts... names and dates and times and places and events that incontrovertibly refute the things stated as fact... then state them... otherwise.. admit you're just talking out the side of your neck and all of what you have to say is nothing more than the gospel according to cindy and those who read it will give it the consideration it deserves as such... whatever they may deem that to be.

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr. J, while I agree with your assessment, IMO ad hominem attacks are so last year. I believe we have a brand new category of attacks emerging and I think it should be called The Blender Defense.
To qualify for this new category, an adversarial poster grabs many bits and pieces of other members statements, adds one part illogical interpretation, one part ludicrous assumptions, a large helping of their own self-righteous rags then purees into an incomprehensible mess.

"Does anybody care?" The answer is yes, many of us do.

[Aletheia]

You all seem to have missed my point entirely.

I was not attacking any one person. I was attacking the WAY this is being done.

Whether the Mundalls made a statement is not the argument. Tommy's guilt or innocense is.

Your testimony that the Mundalls did make a statement would only be included in a court of law, if their statement had been submitted and testimony was needed to establish the fact that yes this was made by them.

But if Tommy was in a trial, and you came in saying well i know he's guilty because the Mundalls made a statement and gave it to someone. No one would convict Tommy based on that,'

If another came in and said " I know Tommy is guilty because someone told me there were six victims and I talked to one. He won't make a statement because he's afraid or embarassed to make charges or speak publically, and I can't tell you any details but I am here to say I know that this is true" again that isn't evidence to convict anyone.

If another comes in and says " I know Tommy is guilty because a Private Investigator has checked this out and talked to everyone and documented this, I don't know what he has, but he told me he has it and I believe him, and yet none of the evidence or statements are submitted" It proves NOTHING,

If a leter from a alleged victim is submitted which includes no details of the crime, and no times dates or places, well no matter how angry that person may be at Tommy. It doesn't provee anything regarding the charges leveled against Tommy except that he's angry.

Again if a document is submitted that says an investigation was being made in the past regarding Tommy's crimes or lack therof. The only thing this shows is that an investigation was done. It does not indicate guilt.

Yet many people have done all but hang Tommy based on things like the above, I do not think this is right or godly, and I am entitled to express my views about this.

As far as the suggestion that I refute the facts if I want to argue about this, that's ridiculous, there are no facts to refute. That's my point. If facts were here. Ihen I and others could accept them.

Now if you all can't understand that, then Oh well. I am sure that there are those who will.

Toodles--

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 4 2007, 05:24 AM

[watchbird]

You all seem to have missed my point entirely.

I was not attacking any one person. I was attacking the WAY this is being done.

Not at all... we have your "point" loud and clear. And we are REJECTING your point!

You are the one who have missed the point of where you are and what we are doing and what your role is to be. First of all what this is NOT.

This is NOT a court of law. This is a bulletin board. We are not judge, we are not jury, and we are not a legal body to which anyone is submitting legal evidence. And WE includes you! YOU are not a judge nor a jury nor an independent consulting lawyer whose role is to pass judgment on those who bring information to share nor who decides the legality of who is allowed to speak and who must remain quiet and what is to be considered evidence.

What we ARE is a group of people who have a very strong committment to truth and who have information to share on a topic that is very complex and very painful and on which truth has been withheld and buried under mounds of lies, distortions, half-truths, and vicious innuendos in other venues... including world wide Television.

We also respect the laws of the land and we do not try to usurp their jurisdiction. What that means is that we not only are not pretending to be a legal tribunal when we are not.... but it also means that we are not going to bring evidence here which rightly belongs only in a court of law.... which is useful only in a court of law.... and which, if we brought it here could significantly impact its usefulness in a court of law.

Whether the Mundalls made a statement is not the argument. Tommy's guilt or innocense is.

Your testimony that the Mundalls did make a statement would only be included in a court of law, if their statement had been submitted and testimony was needed to establish the fact that yes this was made by them.

I repeat. This is not a court of law.... and it is inappropriate for a statement which should go before a court of law be brought to this venue. I repeat. We are sharing information here. And it is enough for us if a person whom we trust witnesses to their experience. When several persons whom we trust confirm that witness, we accept that as sufficient and move on. Those who do not trust their witness can either not accept it or refute it.... but just pointing the finger and saying, "That is not anything I consider to be evidence." is doing nothing but convicting YOU as being an imposter and of lying about your real reason for being here. For if you are personally seeking truth, then you would sift the evidence that is brought ... and if you don't agree with it, then you would go to the effort of finding evidence for the other side and presenting that in a convincing manner. If you are too lazy to do your own research then just shut up and quit flaunting your own judgemental attitude by the way you attack the "WAY" we are bringing our various bits of information and sharing them in a public place.

But if Tommy was in a trial, and you came in saying well i know he's guilty because the Mundalls made a statement and gave it to someone. No one would convict Tommy based on that,'

If another came in and said " I know Tommy is guilty because someone told me there were six victims and I talked to one. He won't make a statement because he's afraid or embarassed to make charges or speak publically, and I can't tell you any details but I am here to say I know that this is true" again that isn't evidence to convict anyone.

If another comes in and says " I know Tommy is guilty because a Private Investigator has checked this out and talked to everyone and documented this, I don't know what he has, but he told me he has it and I believe him, and yet none of the evidence or statements are submitted" It proves NOTHING,

If a leter from a alleged victim is submitted which includes no details of the crime, and no times dates or places, well no matter how angry that person may be at Tommy. It doesn't provee anything regarding the charges leveled against Tommy except that he's angry.

Again if a document is submitted that says an investigation was being made in the past regarding Tommy's crimes or lack therof. The only thing this shows is that an investigation was done. It does not indicate guilt.

If.... If.... If.... If.... and if a current judge and jury convicted Tommy, that would also be nothing more than someone's opinion to you and would not "prove" a thing. So hang it up.... the facts are that you are not the judge of all the earth... what you think means nothing at all to us.... what others experience obviously means nothing to you.... and were you to suddenly have the power to turn back time and personally witness the events, you would also find some way to discount that experience as well. The facts are that multiple victims ARE telling their stories.... encouraged to come out of hiding no doubt by the fact that we are sharing here so they have a chance to learn that they are not alone in their misery. The facts are that a church DID investigate and were convinced of the truth of the allegations so that they acted to remove the offender from his position and to warn others of what he had done.

Yet many people have done all but hang Tommy based on things like the above, I do not think this is right or godly, and I am entitled to express my views about this.

You have expressed them.... multiple times. And frankly, you have come across so unkind, so unthoughtful of others, and SO ungodly, that I for one would rather be on your negative list than on your positive one.

Now if you all can't understand that, then Oh well. I am sure that there are those who will.

Toodles--

Ditto to your last sentence. It is just too bad that those coming here for information have to wade through garbage and barbed wire barricades such as those you have been throwing out on the information path!

[Aletheia]

Not at all... we have your "point" loud and clear. And we are REJECTING your point!

You are the one who have missed the point of where you are and what we are doing and what your role is to be. First of all what this is NOT.

This is NOT a court of law. This is a bulletin board. We are not judge, we are not jury, and we are not a legal body to which anyone is submitting legal evidence. And WE includes you! YOU are not a judge nor a jury nor an independent consulting lawyer whose role is to pass judgment on those who bring information to share nor who decides the legality of who is allowed to speak and who must remain quiet and what is to be considered evidence.

What we ARE is a group of people who have a very strong committment to truth and who have information to share on a topic that is very complex and very painful and on which truth has been withheld and buried under mounds of lies, distortions, half-truths, and vicious innuendos in other venues... including world wide Television.

We also respect the laws of the land and we do not try to usurp their jurisdiction. What that means is that we not only are not pretending to be a legal tribunal when we are not.... but it also means that we are not going to bring evidence here which rightly belongs only in a court of law.... which is useful only in a court of law.... and which, if we brought it here could significantly impact its usefulness in a court of law.
I repeat. This is not a court of law.... and it is inappropriate for a statement which should go before a court of law be brought to this venue. I repeat. We are sharing information here. And it is enough for us if a person whom we trust witnesses to their experience. When several persons whom we trust confirm that witness, we accept that as sufficient and move on. Those who do not trust their witness can either not accept it or refute it.... but just pointing the finger and saying, "That is not anything I consider to be evidence." is doing nothing but convicting YOU as being an imposter and of lying about your real reason for being here. For if you are personally seeking truth, then you would sift the evidence that is brought ... and if you don't agree with it, then you would go to the effort of finding evidence for the other side and presenting that in a convincing manner. If you are too lazy to do your own research then just shut up and quit flaunting your own judgemental attitude by the way you attack the "WAY" we are bringing our various bits of information and sharing them in a public place.
If.... If.... If.... If.... and if a current judge and jury convicted Tommy, that would also be nothing more than someone's opinion to you and would not "prove" a thing. So hang it up.... the facts are that you are not the judge of all the earth... what you think means nothing at all to us.... what others experience obviously means nothing to you.... and were you to suddenly have the power to turn back time and personally witness the events, you would also find some way to discount that experience as well. The facts are that multiple victims ARE telling their stories.... encouraged to come out of hiding no doubt by the fact that we are sharing here so they have a chance to learn that they are not alone in their misery. The facts are that a church DID investigate and were convinced of the truth of the allegations so that they acted to remove the offender from his position and to warn others of what he had done.
You have expressed them.... multiple times. And frankly, you have come across so unkind, so unthoughtful of others, and SO ungodly, that I for one would rather be on your negative list than on your positive one.
Ditto to your last sentence. It is just too bad that those coming here for information have to wade through garbage and barbed wire barricades such as those you have been throwing out on the information path!

IF what you claim is true, then why isn't Tommy referred to as an "alleged child molestor" and why isn't he spoken of and regarded as innocent till proven guilty?

The fact is he has been found guilty and condemned on this board, and is considered that unless proven innocent, and this is revealed in the very way he is talked about, and what is said about him, and what he is called.

You can pretend no judgments have been made, but those who have done so, stand condemned by their own words.

So-- Sorry, I don't believe you.

[awesumtenor]

So-- Sorry, I don't believe you.

You're still missing the point.

Let me put it into terms you should understand.

1. The veracity of facts, events, names, dates and places is not contingent upon whether you choose to believe or disbelieve.

2. Your choosing to not believe, while your prerogative, is neither relevant nor significant to the ongoing discussion

3. If we were playing logical fallacy bingo based on the arguments you have presented, someone would be about ready to call "BINGO"... yes, as a matter of fact, there have been numerous logical fallacies in the things you've uttered...from argumentum ad hominem to argumentum ad ignorantiam to non sequitur to post hoc ergo propter hoc to appeals to pity, emotion, fear, ridicule and spite to wishful thinking to circumstantial ad hominem to hasty generalizations to slippery slope arguments to straw men and more...and seeing you have provided no evidence of any kind that refutes anything that has been said then how exactly does your utterance merit any serious consideration?

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Jan 4 2007, 07:36 AM

[Observer]

Aletheia you said: "Civil Courts need evidence and facts, and proof to convict. Do Jesus' people require less? Not the ones I know and fellowship with!"

It may be that you are accurate in what you say--that you do not fellowship with such people. If that is true, you must have a very limited exposure to Seventh-day Adventists.

The fact is that denominational policy (SDA) requires that action be taken to protect children from prople accused, but who have never had either a civil or a criminal trial. One example of this is the policy of the Walla Walla College chruch, and the Upper Columbia Conference. That policy, in my mind, may very well serve as a model of what should be.

As you probably know, the General Conference periodicly sponsors a major Youth Rally. At that time they need a lot of volunteers to make it happen. They refuse to allow people to be involved with those who have been accused, even if they have never had either a civil or a criminal trial.

Our society (USA) in general, requires that we protect children from the accused, even when they have never gone to trial.

As a passing thought: Your comments in regard to victims pressing charges against TS demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the issues. You would do well to become more sensitive to issues that victims of sexual assult face in going to either the civil or criminal system. Yes, I have worked with some. Do you even understand why some women refuse to press charges against someone who raped them? Do you understand the effect of "shame" on a victim of sexual assult? NOTE: I am not suggesting that such have anything to be ashamed of.

[ToB1nJC]

I am very saddened by the conduct that is displayed here many times. I would like to share something I read this morning in my devotionals and would ask all to contemplate this counsel...

"Never question the motives of your brethren; for as you judge them, God has declared you will be judged. Open your hearts to kindliness, to the cheering rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Encourage kindly thoughts and holy affections. Cultivate the habit of speaking well of your brethren. Let not pride or selfish righteousness prevent you from making a frank and full confession of your wrong-doings. If you do not love those for whom Christ has died, you have no genuine love for Christ, and your worship will be as a tainted offering before God. If you cherish unworthy thoughts, misjudging your brethren and surmising evil of them, God will not hear your self-sufficient, self-exalted prayers. When you go to those who you think are doing wrong, you must have the spirit of meekness, of kindness, and be full of mercy and good fruits. Do not show partiality to one or more, and neglect other of your brethren because they are not congenial to you. Beware lest you deal harshly with those who you think have made mistakes, while others, more guilty and more deserving of reproof, who should be severely rebuked for their unChristlike conduct, are sustained and treated as friends."--RH Mar. 12, 1895.

I hope and pray that I will never behave un-Christlike in my thoughts, words, and actions.

Have a blessed day,

ToB1nJC