Asi Responds Options

[Observer]

Re: "Because ASI declined to consider issues beyond those of divorce and remarriage Art, Bob and Greg believed they were free to continue contacts with Danny, Dr. Thompson and others associated with 3ABN. Though couched in spiritual language their messages were persistent, confrontational, argumentative and harassing. Our efforts to stop their direct communications were unsuccessful."

I have made a acomment as the above pertained to me. Now, let us consider it as it pertained to Bob Pickle.


According to Bob:


Danny initiated an email exchange with hom on November 23.He did not initiate that email exchange with him. That exchange resulted in a contact with 3ABN board chairman Walt Thompson, who on November 27 requested that Bob verify the information about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations that he had given Bob.

The only possible way that Walt gave Pickle to do that was to ask Danny about those very allegations, since Danny was the only source for the information that Walt had named.
To this day Walt has never informed Bob that Harold's request countermanded his request.


Perhaps Harold Lance did not have all of the facts when he made his comment regarding Bob and I.
Well, that is probably just an inattention to detail, which can happen to all of us.

This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 24 2007, 08:46 PM

[Observer]

As many of you know, I spent 18 years of my life as a U. S. Army chaplain. During those years, I had to negotiate the religious rights of many soldiers (to include SDA) who faced problems due to military requirements. In that process, I learned much:

1) To negotiate well, I had to talk to the"enemy."
2) I had to treat the enemy respectfully.
3) I learned to attempt to identify the core issues on each side. e.g. The commander needed someone to perform certain duties on Saturday. The soldier needed Saturday off. If I could find a solution for each, I could find resolution on the other issues, and solve the problem. e.g. The solder would be willing to work two (yes two) Sundays in return for Saturday off. NOTE: duties were not the same on Saturday and Sunday, and that was fair.
4) The central issue was that I had to talk to the enemy.

Unfortunately, I did not see the process with ASI taking place in that manner. In my perception of what happened, ASI pulled out before it ever sat down and discussed certain of our core issues. I am personally disappointed that such happened.

What could have happened? I think that I suggested what could have been a basis for us and ASI to agree on some limited objectives. I clearly do not think that we could have agreed on all. I agree with ASI that some issues simply could not have been fairly resolved by us to either Danny, 3-ABN, or Linda. But, I do believe that something could have been accomplished. I would have liked for the discussion to have continued so that we could have determined if something could have been accomplished.

Unfortunately, ASI pulled out as I believe prematurely. So, Harold, I have a slightly different perspective on all of this.

By the way, Harald's message, going to a group of people, I will suggest allows us to now release, as we believe to be appropriate, more information (documentation) as to what actually happened in the process.

[inga]

By the way, Harald's message, going to a group of people, I will suggest allows us to now release, as we believe to be appropriate, more information (documentation) as to what actually happened in the process.

Please do. The Save3ABN web site needs more material too, IMO.

[Lee]

I read Pickles letters to Danny. They were harassment at its worst. Both Dr. Thompson and Danny let him know they could no longer communicate with Bob Pickle and yet Pickle just kept hounding them with emails. Read it for yourself....

That IS harassment!!

[Clay]

I read Pickles letters to Danny. They were harassment at its worst. Both Dr. Thompson and Danny let him know they could no longer communicate with Bob Pickle and yet Pickle just kept hounding them with emails. Read it for yourself....

That IS harassment!!

only harrassment when you have something to hide and have no intention on disclosing the info....

[Rosyroi]

I read Pickles letters to Danny. They were harassment at its worst. Both Dr. Thompson and Danny let him know they could no longer communicate with Bob Pickle and yet Pickle just kept hounding them with emails. Read it for yourself....

That IS harassment!!

Where may I "Read it for myself"?

[Fat Burns]

lol.... ummmmm because ummmm see what happened was errrr ummmm

You have to remember that the President of the conference was on the 3ABN Board. That closed any possibility of her getting into any white church in the Illinoise conference. Praise God for a loving Black church. They are under different leadership.

[Johann]

- - -

Cudos Linda, I give credit where credit is due. You are crazy like a fox. The plan that you set up here is absolutely brilliant. Here is the scenerio: You know that 3ABN has solid evidence against you that gives reason for the divorce and your dismissal.
- - -

This is the strangest statement imaginable. If 3ABN has solid evidence against Linda that gives reason for the divorce and her dismissal, why have they never shown such evidence? Three years later we are still without it.

Where may I "Read it for myself"?

If you don't find his letters here on BSDA they are on MSDAOL. All Bob did was asking questions why there were discrepancies in their former letters.

[husbandoftheyear]

We confess that if we would have known how to resolve the matter we would have done it, but we don't, but God does. We urge that all who have a concern be respectful, restrained and apply the Golden Rule as you would wish it for yourself.
ASI Executive Committee

by Harold Lance

I don't know about everyone else, but I learned the the "Golden Rule" as

"He who has the gold makes the rules."

(Would Dan have entered into this had he not been 100% sure of it going in his favor?)

I KNEW IT!!! YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED THAT YOU WOULD DO. NOW ASI CAN'T BE FAIR OR IMPARTIAL. THAT IS HILARIOUS.

Huh? It's funny that you could "predict" something that has already been discussed here.

You must have "missed" it in your "thorough" perusal of the 3ABN threads.

[inga]

I am amazed at the folks who keep coming here trying to act like they are joe Blow from Dust Bowl, MidWest, who just happened upon this site with people saying horrible things about Danny. They never met him but he jes blesses they po' soul..........Then they just burst with all kinds of information!

Yup! I've been noticing that too.

[Observer]

Re: "Because ASI declined to consider issues beyond those of divorce and remarriage Art, Bob and Greg believed they were free to continue contacts with Danny, Dr. Thompson and others associated with 3ABN. Though couched in spiritual language their messages were persistent, confrontational, argumentative and harassing. Our efforts to stop their direct communications were unsuccessful."

Harold:

I remain dumbfounded by the above. NOTE: I have stated that I sent Dr. Thompson a message once in which I stated that I had prayed for him that morning that God would lead him, and that he would follow. I have st at ed that I do not remember the exact time I sent him that message, but that it might have been during the time that we were asked not to make direct contact.

Prior to the beginning of our discussions with ASI, we got into discussions with a Woman who I think was named Gloria. Perhaps my memory is faulty, and she had another name. Anyway, she attempted to propose a venue to resolve the issues. Her proposal was deeply committed to all parties spending time in prayer together. In fact, she made it a requirement that certain parties pray together, with rare exceptions for people who might not have been Christian.

ASI entered the picture after Gloria dropped out. She had claimed to have been in contact with ASI, as I recall. In our discussions with you, I perceived an element in your plan for the respective parties to pray together. My one comment to Dr. Thompson was in that spirit.

As I reflect your statement, which I regard as misleading, confusing, and false by implication about me, I am now questioning whether we could have prayed together. My one comment, to Dr. T., was sincere. Evidently you did not see it that way. So, why would I think that you sincerely would have been able to pray with us?

The Lord tells us to pray for our enemies. That seems to apply as you seem to see us as enemies. Would you have been able to pray with us? I am wondering!

Re: ". . . their messages were persistent,. . . "

That is false as it is applied to me. My message was once.

Re: ". . . their messages were . . . confrontational,. . . "

Your statement is false as it is applied to me.

Re: " . . . their messages . . . argumentative and harassing."

Your statement is false as it is applied to me.

O. K. In this small citation you have made three statements that are false as applied to me. Of course, I do not know about the others. But, if your statement about me was based in faulty information, why should I (or anyone else) assume that it was any more accurate as applied to the others?

Harold, I am not challenging your integrity. I am simply challenging your factual basis. You seem to have made some statements that were not based upon fact. I am surprised that an attorney would do such. It calls into question your understanding of the process. It calls into question your ability to have facilitated such. Faulty information, where did it come from. Clearly not from anything that I did, as you have applied it to me.

Harold, it appears that ASI pulled our from the process, based in part upon information that you seemingly received from another source. That appears to give justification to those who have questioned the ability of ASI to be fair and impartial.

Well, at least I thank you for you openness for sharing with us more of the dynamics that went on.

By the way, can you assure us with 100 per-cent surety that during this process people from 3-ABN did not come to these Internet forums, under pen names, and post material of the type that you claim we sent and put on the Internet?

[Aletheia]

Re: "Because ASI declined to consider issues beyond those of divorce and remarriage Art, Bob and Greg believed they were free to continue contacts with Danny, Dr. Thompson and others associated with 3ABN. Though couched in spiritual language their messages were persistent, confrontational, argumentative and harassing. Our efforts to stop their direct communications were unsuccessful."

Harold:

I remain dumbfounded by the above. NOTE: I have stated that I sent Dr. Thompson a message once in which I stated that I had prayed for him that morning that God would lead him, and that he would follow. I have st at ed that I do not remember the exact time I sent him that message, but that it might have been during the time that we were asked not to make direct contact.

Prior to the beginning of our discussions with ASI, we got into discussions with a Woman who I think was named Gloria. Perhaps my memory is faulty, and she had another name. Anyway, she attempted to propose a venue to resolve the issues. Her proposal was deeply committed to all parties spending time in prayer together. In fact, she made it a requirement that certain parties pray together, with rare exceptions for people who might not have been Christian.

ASI entered the picture after Gloria dropped out. She had claimed to have been in contact with ASI, as I recall. In our discussions with you, I perceived an element in your plan for the respective parties to pray together. My one comment to Dr. Thompson was in that spirit.

As I reflect your statement, which I regard as misleading, confusing, and false by implication about me, I am now questioning whether we could have prayed together. My one comment, to Dr. T., was sincere. Evidently you did not see it that way. So, why would I think that you sincerely would have been able to pray with us?

The Lord tells us to pray for our enemies. That seems to apply as you seem to see us as enemies. Would you have been able to pray with us? I am wondering!

Re: ". . . their messages were persistent,. . . "

That is false as it is applied to me. My message was once.

Re: ". . . their messages were . . . confrontational,. . . "

Your statement is false as it is applied to me.

Re: " . . . their messages . . . argumentative and harassing."

Your statement is false as it is applied to me.

O. K. In this small citation you have made three statements that are false as applied to me. Of course, I do not know about the others. But, if your statement about me was based in faulty information, why should I (or anyone else) assume that it was any more accurate as applied to the others?

Harold, I am not challenging your integrity. I am simply challenging your factual basis. You seem to have made some statements that were not based upon fact. I am surprised that an attorney would do such. It calls into question your understanding of the process. It calls into question your ability to have facilitated such. Faulty information, where did it come from. Clearly not from anything that I did, as you have applied it to me.

Harold, it appears that ASI pulled our from the process, based in part upon information that you seemingly received from another source. That appears to give justification to those who have questioned the ability of ASI to be fair and impartial.

Well, at least I thank you for you openness for sharing with us more of the dynamics that went on.

By the way, can you assure us with 100 per-cent surety that during this process people from 3-ABN did not come to these Internet forums, under pen names, and post material of the type that you claim we sent and put on the Internet?

Greg, you, Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy were a team. You win or lose as a team. A player is not justified in saying I didn't lose, I am not part of the team and accountable, I didn't make those fouls or errors!

In this case it looks like you lost because you didn't want to play by the rules, but wanted to make your own. Nor did you want to just address Linda's and Danny's divorce and yet what are all the accusations and public exposure of Linda, that started all this about? What has everyone been so consistantly outraged about? The issue of Linda's adultery!!! And the public knowledge of that!

It seems to me if you had really been interested in that, you could have done so. It seems to me if Linda had really wanted to clear herself and could prove herself innocent, and Danny the liar and adulterer instead, then she had the perfect opportunity to do so, and instead she said nothing?

Have you considered that you may have been played? For it very much looks like she is the puppetmaster, and instigator behind all of the accusations against 3ABN, and yet she alone doesn't fall with those here, or you Bob and Gailon. She says nothing publically and so doesn't have to be accountable for what's said. And as long as you all continue to speak for her, protect her, and accuse others for her?

She'll never have to in this life...

I think you are not doing her any favors.

[Observer]

Re: "* Linda’s team – - did not accept that ASI was capable of providing a fair forum to decide the issues."

Let us look at this a little more:

I recieved my graduate training in counseling psychology from a graduate school connected to a religious denomination, but it was not SDA. Their course work required training is ethics. Part of that was specific class instruction. In addition, in our clinical work we were challenged to consider the ethical implications of what we did. The instructor who taught the fundamental class in ethics was a Phd. who specialized in working with psychologists who had committed ethical laspes of judgement and behaviour. I believe that I was trained well.

Two of the fundamental ethical issues that are commonly proplems for people relate to either conflict of interest, or dual role/relationships. Of course there are many other issues. But, in my mind these are two of the more common ones that result in problems.

I assume that Harold Lance has had training equal to mine. As such, he should be clearly aware that when one raises an ethical question, it must be considered. Consideration does not imply what the decision will be. But, it must be considered. The ethical questions raised in regard to ASI were clearly of the confllict of interest and dual role/relationsip nature. It is not appropriate when such are raised to simplly affirm that there is no problem. They must be discussed, and the respective parties must agree on the answer to the question.

Unfortunately, it appars to me that there are some who simply expect us to accept ASIs affirmation that there was no problem, and then expected us to accept that without any further in-depth discussion. That was ethically inappropriate.

I will point out that I personally have stated that I beleive that it might have been possilbe for ASI to have played a limited role in resolving this mess. But, they pulled out and chose not to fill that role. In any case, regardless of my belief that they could have played a limited role, the ethical issues raised should have been discussed in detail with full disclosure of the relationships to all parties.

NOTE: There is another ethical issue that is important here. When one is accused, either privately or publicly, of misconduct, confidentiality goes out the window, so to speak. One can not make an accusation, and then claim confidentiality for material that the accused needs to defend. Harold has, in my opinion, made charges of misconduct against GAJ, Bob Pickle, and myself that we are entitled to defend against. By doing so, I believe that we are released from all constraints of confidentiality in regard to what went on. I believe that GAJ, Bob Pickle, and myself may properly defend ourselves with material that might otherwise have been considered confidential.

As a professional, as an attorney, I assume that Harold Lance knew such when he sent his version of events, that contained false comments about me, to a group of people.

NOTE: I have stated that Harold has made false comments about me. I do not challenge his honesty in any way. Rather I believe that he posted false information that came from others. e.g. His comments regarding messages that I am implied to have sent to others.

[Observer]

Re: "In this case it looks like you lost because you didn't want to play by the rules, but wanted to make your own. Nor did you want to just address Linda's and Danny's divorce . . . "

Alethia, you were not directly part of this discussion. Your statement misrepresents the reality.

1) Harold Lance came to us from quite a formal background. He came as a representative of ASI. He came from formal votes of the ASI Board. Her formally spoke for ASI. Alethia, if I am wrong in this please correct me. But, Harold represented ASI, not himself, not anyone else.

2) None of the three of us came from that background. We simply came to the table as three independent people who advised Linda. Yes we worked together. But, we also advised Linda independently.

3) I proposed to Harold, and the others (GAJ & Bob Pickle), in a joint communication, that ASI could properly fill a role that was limited to the marital issues. In my proposal, I stated that I agreed with Harold that there were other issues that needed to be resolved, but that ASI could not fill that role. In my proposal, I asked that ASI issue a statement that such issues existed, and that as these could not be resolved by ASI, but only in the civil realm, no one who took such issues to the civil authorities should be criticized for doing so. I also went on to say that one aspect of this was that ASI could not resolve such issues in a manner that was fair to either Danny, 3-ABN, or Linda. That was one of the reasons why ASI should not be involved in such. I made comments in regard to this more than once.

At no time did either Bob Pickle or GAJ reject my proposal. All of us waited for a response from Harold as to whether or not ASI would agree to making such a public statement. That response never came, as I recall it.

Alethia, you are simply wrong. But you were not directly part of the discussion. I was. I do not challenge your honesty, just your knowledge and facts.

[Observer]

Re: "ASI HAS GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ALL KINDS OF MINISTRIES THROUGH THE YEARS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT HOLD A FAIR HEARING INVOLVING ANY OF THOSE MINISTRIES."

Bystander:

Perhaps ASI could have been fair? Perhaps they could not have been? In any case it was appropriate to address it, and in the context of a full disclosure of the relationship.

I sit on a hospital ethics committee. We deal with ethical issues brought to us by physicians, other staff, families, and patients. When we make a recommendation, that recommendation is followed.

Let me give you a real case:

A physician requested that our ethics committee and a hospital administrative board give him permission to be the holder of a power of attorney over a patient. He gave us reasons why that would be in the best intersts of the patient, and stated that he would never provide midical care to that patient.

Our ethics committee agreed with the hospital adminstrative board. We told the doctor that if he became the holder of a power of atorney over the patient, he must resign his position as a physician in our hospital.

Bystander, you simply do not understand etics. Sometimes the children of the world set the example for the children of God.

Regardless of the decision, it wsa appropriate to raise the question of whether or not ASI could be fair.


Re: "In this case it looks like you lost because you didn't want to play by the rules, but wanted to make your own."

Alethia:

In this context, rules cannot be imposed upon anyone. They cannot be imposed upon ASI. They can not be imposed upon us. They can only be discussed and agreed upon.

Unfortunately my iimpression was that it was a take it or leave it proposition, and ASI pulled out because they did not want to develop a set of mutually agreed upon rules.