Letters Between Linda And The Thompsonville Church, J.L. re: counseling, censure & attempts at reconciliation Options

[watchbird]

[/color]

. . . When he got there rather then telling Danny he was wrong, he told Danny that Linda had told him her side of the story and said "now let's hear yours"

After hearing about all the hours being spent on the phone and how Danny had caught her in lies several times and how after looking up the phone calls on the internet, she had started buying phone cards so they wouldn't show up on the bill, and after talking to both of them

Pastor Lomacang explained to Linda that her situation was a whole different story then the one with he and his wife, and there were many other factors here, and that she needed to stop the relationship before it hurt their marriage further. Tis was just one of many hours the pastor spent counseling...

Now I know some or many are going to say that's heresay. Yes it is, It came secondhand from someone who directly asked Pastor L about it, and relayed what was said to me, and now I am repeating it, so it is thirdhand. I would not do so except the words and testimony of John Lomacang are in the letter above regarding this, and his is a first person account and he is talking right to Linda about this:

Cindy, this would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

You seem to forget the obvious.... that there were other people besides Linda who were witnesses to what happened in the spring of 2004.... and that there were others of us who were not direct witnesses who were in constant contact with others of these witnesses besides Linda.... so we got the stories as they unfolded.... not only in hindsight after there was time to spin-doctor the stories and come to an agreement as to what would be told to others.

But in spite of all of this.... you put your finger on the key point.... that most of those to whom Linda either turned herself or was taken to by Danny..... discarded anything Linda said and took only what Danny said as the "gospel truth". I will shortly be pulling together some of this information that I have saved from the actual time frame and giving a time line for some of these things that happened.... but for now I'll just point out this one thing... that right from the beginning it has been considered a "he said/ she said" tale..... with those who had the upper hand in world wide publicity via 3abn Television as well as mailings, newsletters, and phone calls giving Danny's view of things only, and refusing to give equal weight to things that Linda herself said... or that any others who remained her friends through that initial ordeal or that became her friends afterwards might say.

I understand your connections and your sources of information. So it does not surprise me at all to hear the things you repeat as though they were gospel-truth. Unfortunately, they are not factual, and are not the way things actually happened.

And the bottom line is not whether one "likes" Linda... or "likes" Danny.... the bottom line questions are.... What actually happened? And not only what happened in regard to phone calls and a relationship that Linda was accused of having but that not only she but other witnesses claim never existed... but, What happened to make it so "necessary" to remove her from the scene of action... and to do so in a way that would give Danny "the right to remarry" (a direct quotation from some of his letters)? And not only that... but what about all of the other offenses that have been discovered that have gone on at 3abn that have absolutely nothing to do with the oft cited "relationship" that Linda has been accused of having?



I thank you for your contributions.... they give us a window into how your information sources think that we have not previously had access to. And they also give us an opportunity to give the contrasting information as gleaned from multiple other information sources.

................. .............. ...........

[watchbird]

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/

Apparently censureship lasts no longer than 12 months and is NOT a permanent situation.

I wonder if Linda even had any idea about this. I doubt that the knowledge would have helped anyway. Especially since she had to abide by the gag order Danny gave to her. So going to the board would have been silly at best.

Example. She goes in. They talk... she listens. They ask questions....She has to be silent. Danny knew she would not win no matter what.

Also since she was so isolated from so much and was in so much turmoil in the midst of all that was going on she might have not even realized that the censure would not last very long. It is very apparent she DID NOT have adequate council.
JMO

Rosyroi
@}---;---;-----

Sorry, Rosyroi, but you have missed a very important point here. Censureship may only be for a specific length of time as far as keeping someone from exercising the full rights of church membership.... ie the ability to transfer to another church and the priviledge of serving in one's local church in either leadership or service roles..... but it makes a STATEMENT which is PERMANENT.... and that statement is that the individual is guilty in the eyes of the church for one or more of the items listed as deserving censureship.... whichever ones the individual is being charged with.

Thus, had the 3abn church succeeded in pushing through a resolution of censorship, it would not only have bound Linda to church membership there rather than allowing her to transfer to the church in which she had been attending for over a year and which had sent an official request for Linda's transfer of membership approximately 10 months before the letter regarding a meeting at which the 3abn church would ask for censure.... (notice that it also claimed that the church board had already voted on such a measure even BEFORE she was notified of this action).... BUT.... and this is the most important point..... it would ALSO have given Danny official church judgement on Linda's guilt.... thus sparing him the necessity of producing "proof" of the relationship with which she had been accused.... and thus giving him an official church sanction on remarriage.... the "right to remarry" that he had been reiterating he needed to have ever since the spring of 2004.


One can perhaps understand this concept a little better by referring to the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia.... where the Australian pastor's wife who was jailed after being wrongfully accused of murdering her own baby refused to accept an offered "pardon"... since to do so would have been to admit that she was in fact guilty and thus needed a "pardon". She chose to remain in jail until proof was finally obtained that proved her innocence and she was rightfully acquitted rather than merely pardoned.

Linda was in the same sort of forced choice..... only if she relinquished her church membership could she halt the process which would have put her under censure which would mean having the full weight of the SDA church on record as pronouncing her "guilty". And this could never be removed by any reinstatement of full membership priviledges. The sentence would stand. Only by having another SDA church show enough confidence in her innocence to accept her as a member "in good and regular standing" upon her "profession of faith".....(a procedure commonly granted to anyone who has been previously baptized into some other church, whether SDA or other Christian church which practices adult baptism) could she avoid having this official church black mark recorded against her name.

Those who counselled her to take this route took all of these things into consideration... as well as the ones you so accurately note... that she stood no chance at all of preventing the 3abn church from putting her under censure as its board had already voted.

[awesumtenor]

I do have a problem with this statement of yours:
"However, his published statements on various issues clearly reveal that he fails to understand aspects of the issues." You forgot to say "In my opinion" and you forgot to give any evidence. All that means is that Gregory Matthews disagrees with Pastor Lomacang, and Pastor lomacang has a different understanding then Gregory Matthews. -- and that may mean you lack understanding Gregory...

And what seminary did you attend that qualifies you to say Lomacang must be right and Elder Matthews must be wrong?

I also didn't like it when you said he had no ethics, that was rude and also unproven.

You obviously are not paying attention to the facts, then...

I don't know everything about his training.

You don't know *anything* about his training, Cindy; you are simply regurgitating what you have been told by others

I do know about "callings" and that the qualifications for a Pasor (bishop) are in the bible, and the conference has him listed as a Pastor, if they have no problem why should you?

He has 16 plus years of counseling experience...

Because fhb/bystander/wwjd et al said so? Can you name one person you know personally who has had marital counseling from JL?

In His service,
Mr. J

[LaurenceD]

Really, Diane I don't want to argue, but my position i(s) that either Linda has misrepresented what happed, or every single member of her former Church, her friends, her fellow employess and fellow board members, and even the Non SDA couselors her sister recommended so that they wouldn't be biased, all are lying. That to me is ludicrous indeed, for the only reason we have to believe evil of all those people is one woman who says that is what happened, and those she talked to, who weren't there and didn't see or witness anything.

This statement reminds of of another situation where everyone teamed up against an innocent person. Finally, it became necessary for the lynch mob to manufacture something called "blasphemy" so that the crowd's thirst for blood could be quenched...and they hung him out to dry...and the rest is history.

How could so many possibly have been wrong?

(there's more to this analogy, but I'll stop with that)

[watchbird]

Thank you Gregory, for spelling out your involvement and the reasons for the counsel you gave. I will just point out that you were not the only one. Linda sought and received counsel from many different people. While some originally gave quite different advice, after a little reflection, it is my understanding that they all came to the same position that you have described here.... and that I elaborated on in a previous post. Those who counseled her to take this route included many laypersons, many pastors (including several who offered to accept her as a member in their own churches), professional Counselors, and even some Conference Administrators.

So yes, Linda was well supplied with counsel in this area, and it was all based on SDA policy as expressed in the Church Manual.

Oh! So it is apparent that she did not have adequate council! On what basis do you say that?

I am the one who advised her that she should request that the Thompsonville Chruch drop her from their membership rolls. As SDA clergy do your really think that I do not know and understand the CHRUCH MANUAL, and that censure is a temporary thing. Of course I know that.

This story has been so well published that I am only going to give a brief account of it.

The Thompsonville SDA Church did not move toward the discipline of Linda until it bacame apparent that Linda had associated with another SDA Chruch, and had been integrated into it's ministry. Linda had moved on with her life. She was involved with a SDA Church, and it's ministry. She planned to transfer her membership to that church.

It was at that point that the Thompsonville SDA Chruch began a process that probably would have led to a vote of censure for Linda. That vote would have prevented Linda from transfering her membership to that other SDA Chruch. It addition, it would have stopped her ministry within that Chruch.

I proposed to Linda that she request that her membership be dropped in the Thompsonville SDA Chruch. At that time, another person organized a very effective public relations campaign to persuade John L, the Thompsonville pastor to grant Linda's request to be dropped. Telephone calls and e-mails were sent to him by many people, and on a daily basis. That campaign, which I did not organize, was very effective. The Thompsonvllle Chruch granted her request to be dropped from membership.

As soon as Linda's membership was dropped, another SDA Chruch granted her membership on Profession of Faith. That process was immediate. I had advised her to seek membership on Profession of Faith, as soon as the Thompsonville Chruch dropped her. I guided her through that decision-making process.

Some might say that the her entry into the other chruch by Proffesion of Faith was in violation of the CHRUCH MANUAL. I disagree with that. I do not intend to specify the details. I will only say that Linda's acceptance into membership of the other SDA Church was done in compliance with the accepted standards of the SDA Chruch in North America, and after careful consideration by the involved parties, and consultation with others. If you think it violated the CHURCH MANUAL, you simply do not know what went on.

I am the one who proposed this plan to Linda. I advised interested parties to this process to the point where she became a member of the other SDA Church. However, I was not the one who organized the telephone/e-mail campaign. My advice was given within the guidelines, and accepted practices of the SDA Church in North America. Specific details, and consultations with others do not need to be made public.

I say again: What do you mean that Linda did not have good/adequate advice? You are entitled to your personal opinion. But, I will suggest that you are wrong.

[Observer]

Thank you Gregory, for spelling out your involvement and the reasons for the counsel you gave. I will just point out that you were not the only one. Linda sought and received counsel from many different people. While some originally gave quite different advice, after a little reflection, it is my understanding that they all came to the same position that you have described here.... and that I elaborated on in a previous post. Those who counseled her to take this route included many laypersons, many pastors (including several who offered to accept her as a member in their own churches), professional Counselors, and even some Conference Administrators.

So yes, Linda was well supplied with counsel in this area, and it was all based on SDA policy as expressed in the Church Manual.

Yes, that is true. When Linda seeks advice she seeks if from several people whom she believes to be willing to advise her from the point of her best interests. They may mean that she will seek advice from people who will present different point of view in the issue.

Certainly, I was not alone in this. There were others. I simply made a brief statement which could not include everything.

It was clearly an unsusual situation in which people strongly committed to the SDA Chruch were advising someone to request that they be dropped from membership. That concept took some time to consider and for people to reach agreement. But, in the end, it worked out very well.

Yes, there were/are denominational leaders who support Linda, even though they may not be well known.

[erik]

This statement reminds of of another situation where everyone teamed up against an innocent person. Finally, it became necessary for the lynch mob to manufacture something called "blasphemy" so that the crowd's thirst for blood could be quenched...and they hung him out to dry...and the rest is history.

How could so many possibly have been wrong?

(there's more to this analogy, but I'll stop with that)

LD,


Now you are speaking truth.

Erik

[Observer]

I do have a problem with this statement of yours:
"However, his published statements on various issues clearly reveal that he fails to understand aspects of the issues." You forgot to say "In my opinion" and you forgot to give any evidence. All that means is that Gregory Matthews disagrees with Pastor Lomacang, and Pastor lomacang has a different understanding then Gregory Matthews. -- and that may mean you lack understanding Gregory...

I also didn't like it when you said he had no ethics, that was rude and also unproven.

I don't know everything about his training.

I do know about "callings" and that the qualifications for a Pasor (bishop) are in the bible, and the conference has him listed as a Pastor, if they have no problem why should you?

He has 16 plus years of counseling experience...

But beyond that, and probably off topic, who ordained the Apostle Paul, gregory?

Alethia, you tell us that I said that John L. "had no ethics." Here is what I actually said:

Every time I read those letters there is one impression that I receive: John L. does not have even a minimal understand of ethical behavior, as defined by the secular world.

Your statement and mine are quite different. I did not make a statement in regard to his ethics. I made a statement in regard to my impression of his understanding of ethics as defined by the secular world.

Does John have and practice ethics? Certainly. Everyone has ethics. You see ethics does not equate with virtue. Ethics may be rotten. They may be unchristian. I have a son who is a correctional officer in a major prison. Those prisoners subscribe to an ethical system.

I have never said that John L. did not have any ethics. I have never commented on his personal ethics. I have simply stated that it is clear that he does not understand secular ethics as defined by the world.

NOTE: I am not accusing John L. of having rotten, unchristian, ethics.

You tell me that my statement was not proven. Yes. But, I did give my reasons for making such. You have ignored that.

Why is it that when I check what you say about someone elses post, I often find that the actual post does not read as you claim it to read. Do you simply not understand what is being said here? Do you intentionally misrepresent what someone has stated. What is going on with your ability to cite and discuss what someone else has posted.

You tell us that John L. has 16+ years of counseling experience. Did you man pastoral experience? They are not the same.

This post has been edited by Observer: Apr 11 2007, 08:51 AM

[Observer]

Alethia said this about John L.:

He has 16 plus years of counseling experience...

We need to define what we mean by counseling experience:

1) On one level is may simply mean that counseling is telling, or advising, someone on what to do. On this level, someone who is a "busybody"and has spent 25 years of telling others what to do might be said to have 25 years of counseling experience.

2) On a professional level, it means that a person has completed a specific educational program, has completed a specific supervised internship, adheres to certain professional standards, and according to the legal requirements where that person practices, may be licensed.

3) It also means that the person follows certain plans of relating to the person and the issues, according to the school of counseling that is practiced by that person.

4) As I have publicly stated my professional training and experience, I see no need to post that again.

Now, if you are telling us that John L. has 16 years of telling people what to do, I will not argue with you. I will simiply accept your statement as fact.

If you are telling us that John L. practices professional counseling, then you should ethicly support your statements with comments on his professional training, his certifications, and his practice standards. I will point out that professional standards of ethics, and typical licensure laws require such to be made availabe to the public at large.

If you are suggesting that John L. is a pastoral counselor, I will ask you if he is certified by the Association of Pastoral Counselors, and/or if he follows their ethical standards.

Yes, I am and have been a member of professional organizations. I was an Associate Member of the American Psychological Association for years, untill I decided I did not want to pay their fees any longer. However, I contintue to be a member of such professional organizations as I think approprite for me.

This discussion is important for a variety of reasons:

1) It is important to comments that are made in regard to Linda and Danny getting marital counseling. Was it professional quality? What was the approach (school of counseling) that was to be used. Were the counselors free from ethical conflicts? Were they licensed, and where. Etc.

2) It is also important in other areas. Comments have been made in regard to Kay Kuzma, and her claimed counseling involvement. She is qualified to do professional counseling. Did she do that with Linda? It has also been claimed that she was unethical in her relationship with Linda. Those charges made against her are of a serious professional nature.

I have publicly steped in to say that Kay Kuzma did not violate professional ethics because she did not have a professional counseling relationship with Linda. Her relationship with Linda was outside of that of a professional counselor, regardless of the fact that she is a professional counselor.

This is am important distinction. Licensed professional counselors are subject to revocation of thier license for major ethical violations. Recently I was talking to a licensed professional counselor, who is a Christian clergyperson. He/She had been giving Bible studies to someone, without cost. That person was now suggesting ethical violations of professional counseling standards--not in any way related to sexual misconduct, or to other personal misconduct. As I told that person, you did not have an established professional counseling relationship. You did not meet the requirements that you professionally have for a written contract. Outside of that, you can not be accused of violating professional ethical standards.

FYI, in my opinon, very few SDA Clergy meet the standards to do professional counseling. There are exceptions, but they are clear exceptions.

The published comments that I have read about John L. suggest to me that he did not give Linda any kind of professional counseling. They suggest to me that he is neither trained nor experienced in such.

However, if you only meant to tell us that John L. has devoted 16+ years of his life to telling people what to do, as I do not know the truth of that, I will simply accept it, and not argue with you.

[watchbird]

Yes, that is true. When Linda seeks advice she seeks if from several people whom she believes to be willing to advise her from the point of her best interests. They may mean that she will seek advice from people who will present different point of view in the issue.

Certainly, I was not alone in this. There were others. I simply made a brief statement which could not include everything.

It was clearly an unsusual situation in which people strongly committed to the SDA Chruch were advising someone to request that they be dropped from membership. That concept took some time to consider and for people to reach agreement. But, in the end, it worked out very well.

Yes, there were/are denominational leaders who support Linda, even though they may not be well known.

"Unusual" if by that you mean quantitatively speaking. It should not, howver, be assumed that this was a completely unique situation and this was the only time that this method of transferring membership had ever been utilized. I had personally known instances where it was both chosen by an individual.... and also recommended by the pastors involved.... thus I knew that it was within policy guidelines even though seldom utilized and very early on recommended it as an option that I thought appropriate to her circumstances. From the feedback I got from others, I think at least some of them also almost instantly saw this as the preferred.... and possibly the only.... way for her to handle the situation with Christian graciousness.

[LaurenceD]

You don't know *anything* about his training, Cindy; you are simply regurgitating what you have been told by others.

Good point. I think some are giving too much credit to the DS defenders here. They really don't represent 3abn well at all. Perhaps we should give 3abn a little slack. I'm sure they'd be embarrassed if they knew what was being represented here. Surely 3abn can do better. I learned a long time ago that this DS/3abn defenders team doesn't know nearly as much as they'd like us to believe.

[Aletheia]

Yes, that is true. When Linda seeks advice she seeks if from several people whom she believes to be willing to advise her from the point of her best interests. They may mean that she will seek advice from people who will present different point of view in the issue.

Certainly, I was not alone in this. There were others. I simply made a brief statement which could not include everything.

It was clearly an unsusual situation in which people strongly committed to the SDA Chruch were advising someone to request that they be dropped from membership. That concept took some time to consider and for people to reach agreement. But, in the end, it worked out very well.

Yes, there were/are denominational leaders who support Linda, even though they may not be well known.

Why do you tell these ridiculous stories? One of those Pastors advising her was Johann was it not?

and "took some time to consider and for people to reach agreement"???

On Thurs Oct 27 a letter is snail mailed to Linda, she calls John on Sat the 29th when she recieves it and on Mon Oct 31 the reply is in John Lomacang's hand.

John L. replies and says:

"Thank you for your speedy response to the letter the Church Board sent to you. I, H- was also pleased to speak to you when you called me Sabbath afternoon. I thought that our conversation went well and I listened to your observations hoping that we would be able to help you. I was somewhat surprised how soon you had Derrell Mundall hand deliver your reply letter to me at my office"

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 11 2007, 09:53 AM

[watchbird]

Good point. I think some are giving too much credit to the DS defenders here. They really don't represent 3abn well at all. Perhaps we should give 3abn a little slack. I'm sure they'd be embarrassed if they knew what was being represented here. Surely 3abn can do better. I learned a long time ago that this DS/3abn defenders team doesn't know nearly as much as they'd like us to believe.

Whether they know or don't know isn't really the point. I think we can be well assured that they are saying exactly what the DS Defender Unit WANTS them to say. There is a consistency and coherency among the various yarns spun by the Dannyspinners that makes their sources all traceable. If 3abn is "embarrassed" they have only themselves to blame. The reporters are doubtless only repeating what they have been told.....

[Aletheia]

Alethia said this about John L.:
We need to define what we mean by counseling experience:

1) On one level is may simply mean that counseling is telling, or advising, someone on what to do. On this level, someone who is a "busybody"and has spent 25 years of telling others what to do might be said to have 25 years of counseling experience.

2) On a professional level, it means that a person has completed a specific educational program, has completed a specific supervised internship, adheres to certain professional standards, and according to the legal requirements where that person practices, may be licensed.

3) It also means that the person follows certain plans of relating to the person and the issues, according to the school of counseling that is practiced by that person.

4) As I have publicly stated my professional training and experience, I see no need to post that again.

Now, if you are telling us that John L. has 16 years of telling people what to do, I will not argue with you. I will simiply accept your statement as fact.

If you are telling us that John L. practices professional counseling, then you should ethicly support your statements with comments on his professional training, his certifications, and his practice standards. I will point out that professional standards of ethics, and typical licensure laws require such to be made availabe to the public at large.

If you are suggesting that John L. is a pastoral counselor, I will ask you if he is certified by the Association of Pastoral Counselors, and/or if he follows their ethical standards.

Yes, I am and have been a member of professional organizations. I was an Associate Member of the American Psychological Association for years, untill I decided I did not want to pay their fees any longer. However, I contintue to be a member of such professional organizations as I think approprite for me.

This discussion is important for a variety of reasons:

1) It is important to comments that are made in regard to Linda and Danny getting marital counseling. Was it professional quality? What was the approach (school of counseling) that was to be used. Were the counselors free from ethical conflicts? Were they licensed, and where. Etc.

2) It is also important in other areas. Comments have been made in regard to Kay Kuzma, and her claimed counseling involvement. She is qualified to do professional counseling. Did she do that with Linda? It has also been claimed that she was unethical in her relationship with Linda. Those charges made against her are of a serious professional nature.

I have publicly steped in to say that Kay Kuzma did not violate professional ethics because she did not have a professional counseling relationship with Linda. Her relationship with Linda was outside of that of a professional counselor, regardless of the fact that she is a professional counselor.

This is am important distinction. Licensed professional counselors are subject to revocation of thier license for major ethical violations. Recently I was talking to a licensed professional counselor, who is a Christian clergyperson. He/She had been giving Bible studies to someone, without cost. That person was now suggesting ethical violations of professional counseling standards--not in any way related to sexual misconduct, or to other personal misconduct. As I told that person, you did not have an established professional counseling relationship. You did not meet the requirements that you professionally have for a written contract. Outside of that, you can not be accused of violating professional ethical standards.

FYI, in my opinon, very few SDA Clergy meet the standards to do professional counseling. There are exceptions, but they are clear exceptions.

The published comments that I have read about John L. suggest to me that he did not give Linda any kind of professional counseling. They suggest to me that he is neither trained nor experienced in such.

However, if you only meant to tell us that John L. has devoted 16+ years of his life to telling people what to do, as I do not know the truth of that, I will simply accept it, and not argue with you.

Personally I am not interested in arguing withhow you define things or pontificate about that or others. You are entitled to your opinion. I just wish you'd state that when you write judgments about individuals you disagree with, instead of acting like everything out of your mouth is absolute truth, and if people disagree that is because they as you say "lack understanding".


We need a hot air balloon smiley around here.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 11 2007, 10:01 AM

[watchbird]

Thank you Gregory, for posting this analysis of what can be meant by "counseling experience". Mostly I'm responding here since I posted above so soon after you did that I wanted to be sure your detailed analysis was seen by bringing it forward here.

But I also want to add that from a layman's point of view..... over long years of experience..... that while almost all Adventist pastors, trained or untrained, will enter into what the layperson assumes is a "counselling relationship".... the chances are very great that the pastor himself doesn't even have enough counselling training to know what those words really imply. And it seems as though there are very, very few Adventist pastors who have even had enough counselling experience so they recognize when an individual needs counselling of a professional nature.

Certainly, "telling someone what to do" is not professional counselling.... and in every account given which claims that Linda received "counselling" there is enough included to show that without exception EVERY person who is said to have "counselled" her, in fact, only told her "what to do". Which means that we are left with a unified account from all sides of the table saying that Linda in fact received NO true "counselling" from anyone connected with or contacted by Danny or the 3abn board.

Alethia said this about John L.:

(Aletheia @ Apr 11 2007, 06:52 AM)
He has 16 plus years of counseling experience...

We need to define what we mean by counseling experience:

1) On one level is may simply mean that counseling is telling, or advising, someone on what to do. On this level, someone who is a "busybody"and has spent 25 years of telling others what to do might be said to have 25 years of counseling experience.

2) On a professional level, it means that a person has completed a specific educational program, has completed a specific supervised internship, adheres to certain professional standards, and according to the legal requirements where that person practices, may be licensed.

3) It also means that the person follows certain plans of relating to the person and the issues, according to the school of counseling that is practiced by that person.

4) As I have publicly stated my professional training and experience, I see no need to post that again.

Now, if you are telling us that John L. has 16 years of telling people what to do, I will not argue with you. I will simiply accept your statement as fact.

If you are telling us that John L. practices professional counseling, then you should ethicly support your statements with comments on his professional training, his certifications, and his practice standards. I will point out that professional standards of ethics, and typical licensure laws require such to be made availabe to the public at large.

If you are suggesting that John L. is a pastoral counselor, I will ask you if he is certified by the Association of Pastoral Counselors, and/or if he follows their ethical standards.

Yes, I am and have been a member of professional organizations. I was an Associate Member of the American Psychological Association for years, untill I decided I did not want to pay their fees any longer. However, I contintue to be a member of such professional organizations as I think approprite for me.

This discussion is important for a variety of reasons:

1) It is important to comments that are made in regard to Linda and Danny getting marital counseling. Was it professional quality? What was the approach (school of counseling) that was to be used. Were the counselors free from ethical conflicts? Were they licensed, and where. Etc.

2) It is also important in other areas. Comments have been made in regard to Kay Kuzma, and her claimed counseling involvement. She is qualified to do professional counseling. Did she do that with Linda? It has also been claimed that she was unethical in her relationship with Linda. Those charges made against her are of a serious professional nature.

I have publicly steped in to say that Kay Kuzma did not violate professional ethics because she did not have a professional counseling relationship with Linda. Her relationship with Linda was outside of that of a professional counselor, regardless of the fact that she is a professional counselor.

This is am important distinction. Licensed professional counselors are subject to revocation of thier license for major ethical violations. Recently I was talking to a licensed professional counselor, who is a Christian clergyperson. He/She had been giving Bible studies to someone, without cost. That person was now suggesting ethical violations of professional counseling standards--not in any way related to sexual misconduct, or to other personal misconduct. As I told that person, you did not have an established professional counseling relationship. You did not meet the requirements that you professionally have for a written contract. Outside of that, you can not be accused of violating professional ethical standards.

FYI, in my opinon, very few SDA Clergy meet the standards to do professional counseling. There are exceptions, but they are clear exceptions.

The published comments that I have read about John L. suggest to me that he did not give Linda any kind of professional counseling. They suggest to me that he is neither trained nor experienced in such.

However, if you only meant to tell us that John L. has devoted 16+ years of his life to telling people what to do, as I do not know the truth of that, I will simply accept it, and not argue with you.