Corporate "worship" At 3abn, The Shelton Gang Rides Again! Options

[Observer]

It is interesting to see what information Mr. Danny Shelton is providing you with, WWJW. I received e-mails from Danny claiming it was spiritual adultery, and he even made Linda write to me stating that Danny was trying to convince her this was spiritual adultery.

It is also quite interesting how you people are trying to make use of Mark Finlay. I did not mention him by name, but you - or Bystander - did.

Now we have two witnesses who heard Mark Finlay state his personal conviction that Linda Shelton is innocent of the accusations against her. Are you trying to twist this as meaning he was actually supporting Danny's claims by making that statement?

Yes, Linda called Mark Finlay long after the sad events around the divorce, and Mark confirmed this when we talked. Linda asked Mark Finlay to plead on her behalf that the board of 3ABN would re-consider . . . Mark Finlay pleaded in vain, and I did not get this information from Linda. It seemed like nobody at 3ABN would listen to him.

Keep on making your claims, wwjd. They add to the drama of this uncanny soap opera!!!

There is another interesting factor involved in all of this. To comment on it, I am going back to the days when discussions regarding the divorce and 3-ABN were going on in Club Adventist, which I moderated. As is known, Club Adventist closed down that discussion. I am only going by memory which may be faulty. Here it is as I remember it:

1) Statements were made in regard to Kay Kuzma counseling Linda, and that Dr. Kuzma was a member of the 3-ABN Board, and had been charged by the Board with counseling Linda that if she did not break off the claimed relationship with Dr. A, she would lose both her marriage and her position at 3-ABN.

2) I stated that the above presented a violation of standard ethical relationships for counselors in regard to the ethical principle of a dual role. I therefore went on to say that Dr. Kuzma could not in any way be assumed to have provided Linda with professional counseling unless she violated that ethical standard. I went on to say that I did not believe that Dr. Kuzma would have violated that standard, and therefore, she did not professionally enter into a counseling relationship with Linda. It can only be said that she approached Linda from the standpoint of a representative of the 3-ABN Board to advise Linda as I stated in # 1.

3) Following my posting of the above, I was informed that Dr. Kuzma had stated in a private letter to someone that she had not entered into a professional counseling relationship with Linda, and had only acted as a representative of the 3-ABN Board. As I recall, I sent a message to Dr. Kuzma and asked her to confirm that she had written the letter that I have referenced. She did not respond to me. So, I cannot say whether or not what I was told is accurate.

4) Folks, in most cases professional counseling is highly regulated by the State in which it occurs. State law will often require that professional counselors enter into a written contract with the counselee. That contract will contain various provisions, as the local law requires. Those provisions may vary from place to place. I believe that in some places there may be no such requirement. But, in the places where such is required, violation of those requirements is a crime. If Dr. Kuzma provided Linda with professional counseling, there should exist whatever contract is required in the locality where that counseling took place.

[Richard Sherwin]

You folks are scaring me with these proof requests. You put so much on them producing proof of their innocence. What will happen when and if they produce it? At that point we've backed ourselves into a corner. Anyone can produce written records, whether or not they are real or not is another story but by begging for documents we need to be careful we don't get what we're asking for. I really don't think any of Danny's critic want to see the proof, but if he produces it what then? Do we just poo poo away what we've been demanding? Just a note of caution.

Richard

All I keep asking for is the "proof"...the "real deal" that would seal this and end it.

You can talk about the woman like a dog.
You can talk about her having an affair.
You can talk about the woman and her "monthly" cycle.
You can talk about the woman and her "problems" within her family.
You can talk about the woman and how she had an "expensive" lifestyle.

Put the real proof out there.....
Does she have a sex tape?
Does their exist tape recordings of conversations that were illicit?
Are these tapes not doctored?
Can these tapes be made public?
Are their letters that would prove that an affair was going on?
What of plane tickets and receipts from Hotel rooms and such?
Any lipstick smears on shirts?
What of others within the family that "don't care" and will tell all business just to get this entire mess to "shut up"?

I WANT PROOF!

[lurker]

I'm sorry you feel that Brandy should not be the focus, Observer, perhaps you feel her role in all this should not be questioned at all. I was told that Brandy had become a Christian before she came to 3ABN. Not a Seventh-day Adventist but a Christian. Wwjd said that she had biblical grounds for divorce. Don't you think that if this is true it shows her and Danny to have a better right to marry than if wwjd had said "lets not look into this". I wouldn't have asked about this if her divorce hadn't been just before wwjd said that she appeared at 3ABN.

I certainly never said her baptism was a fraud. She may very well truly be converted. Dr Arild Abrahamsen should not be the focus of a discussion about Linda's behavior either but you can't talk about Linda's behavior and not discuss him at all either. I was also told in late February 2005 that Danny had a new girlfriend who he was buying furniture for and who he was helping buy a car. Wwjd says they began dating months after Nov 11. This appears to be barely possible but if he was helping her with major purchases so soon, it was a whirlwind romance, 14-15 weeks from her arrival. Not just casual dating. What is important is how Danny behaved with her and when. I don't know how she expected a christian courtship to be conducted. Her previous marriages would not have prepared her for this. She is now the new "first lady at 3ABN" is she not? When she married Danny, she became a public figure.

Her divorce final Oct 14 2004
Mid to late October 2004 Brandy's mother calls 3ABN about Brandy
Wwjd says she arrived at 3ABN November 11 2004
Late February 2005 "Danny has a girlfriend" and is helping her in a major way.

This post has been edited by lurker: Feb 11 2007, 09:13 AM

[Observer]

I'm sorry you feel that Brandy should not be the focus, Observer, perhaps you feel her role in all this should not be questioned at all. I was told that Brandy had become a Christian before she came to 3ABN. Not a Seventh-day Adventist but a Christian. Wwjd said that she had biblical grounds for divorce. Don't you think that if this is true it shows her and Danny to have a better right to marry than if wwjd had said "lets not look into this". I wouldn't have asked about this if her divorce hadn't been just before wwjd said that she appeared at 3ABN.

I am not making any judgment in regard to whether or not Brandy was a Christian prior to her marriage to Danny. The issue of Biblical grounds for divorce, and their application to people today is a subject upon which Christians disagree. So, it is possible that we might say that Brandy was a Christian prior to coming to 3-ABN. If so, let us say that she was living up to her knowledge of Christianity. Let us also say that she obtained a greater knowledge of Christina beliefs in regard to divorce and remarriage after becoming a SDA. My point is that regardless of all of that, Brandy's prior life should not be subject to discussion and debate in regard to whether or not she lived by SDA standards prior to her becoming an SDA.

The reality is that Seventh-day Adventists disagree on some aspects of Biblical grounds for divorce.

If you want to talk about a right to remarry, do in in regard to Danny. I consider it inappropriate to do so in regard to Brandy. Yes, I know that one can do it. I am simply suggesting that we not do so. People who disagree with me will continue to do so, and they have the right to do so. I am simply suggesting that they consider not doing so.

I certainly never said her baptism was a fraud. She may very well truly be converted. Dr Arild Abrahamsen should not be the focus of a discussion about Linda's behavior either but you can't talk about Linda's behavior and not discuss him at all either. I was also told in late February 2005 that Danny had a new girlfriend who he was buying furniture for and who he was helping buy a car. Wwjd says they began dating months after Nov 11. This appears to be barely possible but if he was helping her with major purchases so soon, it was a whirlwind romance, 14-15 weeks from her arrival. Not just casual dating. What is important is how Danny behaved with her and when. I don't know how she expected a christian courtship to be conducted. Her previous marriages would not have prepared her for this. She is now the new "first lady at 3ABN" is she not? When she married Danny, she became a public figure.

I was making a broad statement. I did not intend to imply that you had ever said that her baptism was a fraud.

Danny claims that Linda's actions with Dr. A. gave him the Biblical grounds to divorce and remarry. These claims are fair game for both sides. Sorry, the situation with Dr. A. differers from that with Brandy.

As First Lady of 3-ABN her behavior may be subject to public discussion. But, I will again say that it is not necessary to go back into her past life. As far as Brandy is concerned, focus on the "now," not the past.

You bring up Danny's relationship with Brandy prior to his marriage to her. O.K. When you focus on that, make it on Danny, and not Brandy. If you talk about it, make Brandy tangential to your comments.

Just my thoughts--Gregory Matthews.

[sister]

You folks are scaring me with these proof requests. You put so much on them producing proof of their innocence. What will happen when and if they produce it? At that point we've backed ourselves into a corner. Anyone can produce written records, whether or not they are real or not is another story but by begging for documents we need to be careful we don't get what we're asking for. I really don't think any of Danny's critic want to see the proof, but if he produces it what then? Do we just poo poo away what we've been demanding? Just a note of caution.

Richard

Richard, citing a quotation from Aunt B:

"Truth welcomes examination and doesn't need to defend itself, while deception hides in darkness and blames everyone else."

I believe in the innocence of Linda Shelton in regard to transgressing her marriage vows to Danny Shelton and that Danny had no Biblical grounds to divorce his wife. Also, the following allegations against her are unfounded in fact, except in the unbalanced mind of a mentally disturbed individual.

(PrincessDrRe @ Feb 10 2007, 11:24 PM)

All I keep asking for is the "proof"...the "real deal" that would seal this and end it.

You can talk about the woman like a dog.
You can talk about her having an affair.
You can talk about the woman and her "monthly" cycle.
You can talk about the woman and her "problems" within her family.
You can talk about the woman and how she had an "expensive" lifestyle.

Put the real proof out there.....
Does she have a sex tape?
Does their exist tape recordings of conversations that were illicit?
Are these tapes not doctored?
Can these tapes be made public?
Are their letters that would prove that an affair was going on?
What of plane tickets and receipts from Hotel rooms and such?
Any lipstick smears on shirts?
What of others within the family that "don't care" and will tell all business just to get this entire mess to "shut up"?

I WANT PROOF!

I, along with PrincessDrRe and others, continue to demand to see the proof. Crudely phrased, I believe the expression is "put up or shut up". Bystander and Eye Witness, you always seem to disappear when it is time for the "rubber to meet the road". Here is your opportunity to provide the evidence as the Princess has outlined it. Everyone is waiting...

Sister

This post has been edited by sister: Feb 11 2007, 09:41 AM

[PrincessDrRe]

You folks are scaring me with these proof requests. You put so much on them producing proof of their innocence. What will happen when and if they produce it? At that point we've backed ourselves into a corner. Anyone can produce written records, whether or not they are real or not is another story but by begging for documents we need to be careful we don't get what we're asking for. I really don't think any of Danny's critic want to see the proof, but if he produces it what then? Do we just poo poo away what we've been demanding? Just a note of caution.

If it's "true" evidence then it will be proven truth. If it is "made up" evidence then it will be proven that it is false.

It will come out in the wash. I just want something to wash...... I'm tired of he say/she say.

If you got proof that Linda is dirty - put it out there and make it plain.
If you got proof that Danny is dirty - put it out there and make it plain.

So far much proof is existing that Danny is dirty. I just want to see all proof REGARDLESS....

[Clay]

Observer,
I asked Kuzma if she provided counseling early on.... you can search here because I posted my request, and her response...

[inga]

I was also told in late February 2005 that Danny had a new girlfriend who he was buying furniture for and who he was helping buy a car. Wwjd says they began dating months after Nov 11. This appears to be barely possible but if he was helping her with major purchases so soon, it was a whirlwind romance, 14-15 weeks from her arrival. Not just casual dating. What is important is how Danny behaved with her and when.<snip>
Her divorce final Oct 14 2004
Mid to late October 2004 Brandy's mother calls 3ABN about Brandy
Wwjd says she arrived at 3ABN November 11 2004
Late February 2005 "Danny has a girlfriend" and is helping her in a major way.

Buying a woman furntirue adn helping her buy a car is not the way to treat a mere "girl friend." Such behavior suggests a much deeper involvement.

By the way, is February 2005 the date that Brandi moved into the house directly opposite Danny's house in a private area sheltered by trees?

Others have said that Brandi arrived at 3ABN much earlier than November 2004, by the way. Do we have any witnesses on here that can confirm an approximate date?

[Lee]

Well Well! Yes, we all want the truth on this board. But every time some truth is brought forward it is either conveniently deleted or the thread is locked. Or the person bringing it is banned. Ask questions? Nope--you'll get banned like Cindy was.

You want truth? Really? I couldn't have guessed.

Sorry, you are not convincing me. When I see real fairness in allowing the truth to be expressed here, then and ONLY then will I believe you really want truth.

[Guest_glenetta_*]

Maybe you should ask wwjd.

Well. I'm not WWJD, but I want to ask the same question, why bring Elder Finley in on this? I understand the you ,Duane, are pastoring a Baptist church now, is this so?

[PeacefulBe]

You folks are scaring me with these proof requests. You put so much on them producing proof of their innocence. What will happen when and if they produce it? At that point we've backed ourselves into a corner. Anyone can produce written records, whether or not they are real or not is another story but by begging for documents we need to be careful we don't get what we're asking for. I really don't think any of Danny's critic want to see the proof, but if he produces it what then? Do we just poo poo away what we've been demanding? Just a note of caution.

Richard

I believe that anyone who wants to know the truth should be willing to accept verifiable proof, no matter where it falls. I don't want an edited "version" of the truth, I want to see the truth. If this exonerates Danny - great! If it exonerates Linda - great! If it shows them both to be complicit in behavior inappropriate for Seventh-day Adventist Christians - sad, but it would be the truth nonetheless.

Claims without proof don't have the muscle that verification provides, for either side.

PB

[erik]

Well Well! Yes, we all want the truth on this board. But every time some truth is brought forward it is either conveniently deleted or the thread is locked. Or the person bringing it is banned. Ask questions? Nope--you'll get banned like Cindy was.

You want truth? Really? I couldn't have guessed.

Sorry, you are not convincing me. When I see real fairness in allowing the truth to be expressed here, then and ONLY then will I believe you really want truth.

Lee,

Any one getting banned was clearly warned ahead of time, and they choose to move forward to areas that the Admin. had clearly not allowed.

Asking questions is not what people get banned for, at least from were i am sitting it does not look that way.

Are the still holes in both sides story yes, does ones sides story have more holes in yes.


So the hunt for the truth goes on, the truth will must likely be in the middle but closer to one side then the other.

Erik

I believe that anyone who wants to know the truth should be willing to accept verifiable proof, no matter where it falls. I don't want an edited "version" of the truth, I want to see the truth. If this exonerates Danny - great! If it exonerates Linda - great! If it shows them both to be complicit in behavior inappropriate for Seventh-day Adventist Christians - sad, but it would be the truth nonetheless.

Claims without proof don't have the muscle that verification provides, for either side.

PB

PB,

Amen i fell the same way just wish both sides would more clearly lay out the dates times of things.

Erik

[PeacefulBe]

Well Well! Yes, we all want the truth on this board. But every time some truth is brought forward it is either conveniently deleted or the thread is locked. Or the person bringing it is banned. Ask questions? Nope--you'll get banned like Cindy was.

You want truth? Really? I couldn't have guessed.

Sorry, you are not convincing me. When I see real fairness in allowing the truth to be expressed here, then and ONLY then will I believe you really want truth.

There is a huge difference between truth and slanderous claims which have not been proven.

Can you cite members that were banned along with the "truth" they were telling that got them banned?

What I have seen is some people not willing to play by Calvin's Forum Rules one too many times.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Feb 11 2007, 12:21 PM

[Ralph]

Well. I'm not WWJD, but I want to ask the same question, why bring Elder Finley in on this? I understand the you ,Duane, are pastoring a Baptist church now, is this so?

Glenetta, why are you dragging Duane into this? Is it any concern of yours what kind of church he is pastoring?

[PrincessDrRe]

Well Well! Yes, we all want the truth on this board. But every time some truth is brought forward it is either conveniently deleted or the thread is locked. Or the person bringing it is banned. Ask questions? Nope--you'll get banned like Cindy was.

You want truth? Really? I couldn't have guessed.

Sorry, you are not convincing me. When I see real fairness in allowing the truth to be expressed here, then and ONLY then will I believe you really want truth.

I don't have to convince you Lee. Truthfully speaking - although I am asking for truth and "evidence" none of yall... (whether pro Linda or pro Danny) have anything to prove to me. All you have to prove is directly toward GOD.

That is the lone judge and the only one to answer to.

So truthfully speaking - I don't need proof. I have been asking for it. Sho' have. But I don't need it. GOD sees all and will be the judge in the end..... and GOD doesn't have to "break rules" to try and make his point. He (GOD) made the rules...thus he does what he does.

AMEN