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

[Aletheia]

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.
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.

There is already a separate thread where all can discuss counseling to your hearts content, as this subject has already been discussed off topic in another thread, and that thread was created.

I'm just going to say.

There is a big difference between pastoral Counseling, and worldly Counseling.

Pastors are concerned with leading their flock and pointing out error and sin and need to show the right way to go, that is their responsibility as a Pastor.

The world is concerned with the Id and the ego and the super Ego, and "How do you feel" "what do you want"

God's says that way is wrong. It's all about Self.

[awesumtenor]

There is already a separate thread where all can discuss counseling to your hearts content, as this subject has already been discussed off topic in another thread, and that thread was created.

I'm just going to say.

There is a big difference between pastoral Counseling, and worldly Counseling.

Pastors are concerned with leading their flock and pointing out error and sin and need to show the right way to go, that is their responsibility as a Pastor.

The world is concerned with the Id and the ego and the super Ego, and "How do you feel" "what do you want"

God's says that way is wrong. It's all about Self.

Your ignorance and your lack of objectivity is showing again Cindy... everything is not Freudian...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

Your ignorance and your lack of objectivity is showing again Cindy... everything is not Freudian...

In His service,
Mr. J

All I'm saying is, if you want a psycho analysis go to a shrink. You want spiritual guidence and counsel go to your pastor.

It's not rocket science.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 11 2007, 10:24 AM

[Clay]

All I'm saying is, if you want a psycho analysis go to a shrink. You want spiritual guidence and counsel go to your pastor.

It's not rocket science.

and you would be wrong... not all counseling is psychoanalytical... if you knew something about counseling you would know that..... and pastors cannot give guidance.... nor counsel... they cannot live your life.... you have to decide with God's help what He would have you do.....

[awesumtenor]

All I'm saying is, if you want a psycho analysis go to a shrink. You want spiritual guidence and counsel go to your pastor.

It's not rocket science.

And all I am saying is... you have less than a zero idea of what you are talking about. It is not rocket science, true... but from your obvious lack of understanding, it may as well be...

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

..and they were not affecting spiritual guidance either. They were basically badgering Linda to stop talking to the Dr. treating her son, because Danny said so. That is not counseling either spiritual or worldly.

We are not going to over look your statement as being altogether false. First problem being you can also have a christian psychiatrist. This fear and lack of knowledge is why christians walk around with their issues unresolved. There is so much more wrong with that one statement, Cindy.

All I'm saying is, if you want a psycho analysis go to a shrink. You want spiritual guidence and counsel go to your pastor.

It's not rocket science.

[Observer]

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"

Alethia: I tell those stories because I was personally involved. You were not invovled with Linda. I happen to know that the discussion went on for some time. The exact details do not need to be posted.

[awesumtenor]

Alethia: I tell those stories because I was personally involved. You were not invovled with Linda. I happen to know that the discussion went on for some time. The exact details do not need to be posted.

Talk about misguided zeal... Cindy do you really expect that your n-th hand hearsay account should carry more weight than the account of a principal involved in the situation?

You may say you know what you've been told by others.. but you were not there. Observer was there and involved... yet you think we should believe you over him?

If you do, that borders on the delusional...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

There is already a separate thread where all can discuss counseling to your hearts content, as this subject has already been discussed off topic in another thread, and that thread was created.

I'm just going to say.

There is a big difference between pastoral Counseling, and worldly Counseling.

Pastors are concerned with leading their flock and pointing out error and sin and need to show the right way to go, that is their responsibility as a Pastor.

The world is concerned with the Id and the ego and the super Ego, and "How do you feel" "what do you want"

God's says that way is wrong. It's all about Self.

Yes, that is what pastors do. It is not professional counseling. I do a lot of stuff that is not professional counselilng. I give Bible studies. That is not professional counseling. I lead people to a greater understanding of what the Bible says, and that is not professional coounselilng.

But, there is also a place for professional counsleing.

You can talk about the Id, the Ego, and the Supper Ego all that you want. Be careful that you do not show your ignorance of counseling. The vast majority of professisonal counseling provided today is not psychoanalytic. Psychoanalytic counseling in terms of the number of people who recieve it is in the vast minority.

There are any number of schools of counseling that are not based upon Freud.

Frankly, if you understood counseling, the marital issues that are attributed to Linda and Danny would probably be better served by schools of counseling other than psychoanalytic.

To illustrate from the medical field: If I have a heart problem and it is determined that I need to be cardio-converted no one is going to suggest that I recieve a heart transplant. Yes, it would cardio-convert me. But, it would not be the treatment of choice. There are clearly other treatmets, much less invasive, that would be better suited to cardio-convert me.

So also, it is highly likely that the marital issues that Linda and Danny faced would be better served by some type of counseling other than one that is Freudian based.



It took time because it was not an easy decision for Linda to decide to ask for her membership to be dropped.

Alethia does not know when these decisions began. She does not know when they ended with a final decision. She simply does not know.

[princessdi]

Second we obviously see things very differently here, from differing viewpoints, and we may just have to agree to disagree for now. It is actually because of my experiences that I do not see Danny as people accuse him. Sure he seems to talk without thinking first sometimes but that doesn't make him evil. I don't idolize him, as people calim but you know what, I like him, and i think he's got the raw deal here.

You are going to have to explain how you think he got a raw deal. He is still on TV, remarried with the lion share of the assets from the former marriage, living life like nothing ever happened.....Well, accept for the part that he just can't keep from talking aobut "how sh e done him wrong". Please tell me what part of that is a raw deal

I will explain what I know, and understand about those couseling sessions, and it isn't what you are saying everone knows.

First I have never heard anything negative or heard anybody finding fault with John Lomacang, or with the Thompsonville Church until the problems arose because of Linda's relattionship with the Doctor. Suddenly he is evil and biased and part of a conspiracy against her. As far as I can tell the only reason that "everyone" believes all these negative things about those counseling sessions is because Linda said that to others and they repeated it, and so on. She gave her view to the Dr, to Johann and to whover would listen because someone had to be wrong here, and as she admitted no wrong the fault had to be with everyone else.

But there something a little wrong with the little girl marching out of step in the band and saying did you see how good I did and how everyone was out of step but me? They all tried to tell me I was wrong but I knew better, so I just kept on going. Don't you agree it's mean for them to keep picking on me?

I don't know what this paragraph about the little girl means, Cindy.

The truth is Pastor Lomacang came to 3ABN because of Linda, she thought very highly of him.

Which is why his actions now are viewed as backstabbing.

People are reacting here like he want over to the house to attack her, and continued to do so. That isn't the case at all. Loving and caring for another means sometimes you have to disagree and say that is wrong. As a Pastor J.L has a greater responsibility to do so.
The truth is Linda went to him first, He heard her story first. She asked him to come to her house and talk to Danny. If anything he was at first biased in her favor having heard her side first.

How I understand it is it went like this. She called and was talking to her pastor about the situation of her friendship with this Doctor, and asked him if his wife Angie had any male friends, and how he felt about that.

So-- he explained that she had one very good friend who she had known for years before he'd met her. He said he'd met him and liked him too and that he knew it was simply a platonic friendship and so their conversations on the phone a couple times a year didn't bother him.

This was the first he'd heard from either danny or Linda about this and it didn't sound like there was a problem to him, so Linda asked him to come over and talk to Danny.

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:

JL is not evil, but he is biased and part of the problems Linda is esperiences. He has compromised himself as a pastor. The only thing JL did was to listen to Linda first. Do we even know if he knew the situation before she talked with him? You know that is entirely possible. But if not, he listened to Linda, and then Danny and chose to side with Danny. What could Danny have told him, really? We already know from your account that there was no adultery on Linda's part. Because he said his counsel was to stop before soemthing happened to further damage her marriage. He did not talk to her about an adulterous affair. Danny was just whining about the time she spent ont he phone with the Dr......about her son. And since it was more that his alotted 15 mins, it had to be something wrong.........Voila! "spiritual adultery". Because that was his initial claim and grounds for the divorce.Which is ridiculous, since it doesn't exist. So there was no overwhelming evidence of actual adultery. I am sure you know the drill with jelous inseucre men, they ask you are you fooling around you say no, but they are sure you are lying.



Really, Diane I don't want to argue, but my position if 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.

Every single one of them is operating on information furnished by.........Danny.......whom they trust........just like you..........

And over and over what is presented doesn't match what Linda has said.

I do not see persecution or meanness in the letters above. I see a Church Pastor dealing with an erring member in the most loving and compassionate way possible. Some don't like the scriptural references, well they were given for our example and that's what he's using them for.

But as is obvious others here find fault. I guess that's what they want to see, and nothing I'm going to say will change that.

I find it ironic that those who keep asking for proof, never accept anything offered. Guess that's why they haven't ever got what they've asked for, all they'd do is pick things apart individually and deny it and still insist nothing had been proven. But to me all those individual things they deny can't be denied when you put them all together.

Cindy when you first came here you asked for first hand information. in many cases, you were given that first hand information. Two fo them are from Johann, who was present and involved in many of the incidents in question, and the other which is the testimonies of the victims of TS. You have rejected both of those for often second hand information whoch supposedly comes from Danny, but not directly to you, but still through another person or two. Why when we have firt ahnd testimony would we accept second, or even in this cases admittedly, third hand information from you?


Anyway, I doubt fran will answer, because nathan had nothing to do with linda's relationship with the Doctor, that is simply how they met, after the beginning he never entered into it, so obviously Danny wasn't asking her to choose between him and her son. He was aksing her to choose him, and she chose the Doctor.

....and you have first hand proof of this.........? Cindy that is what you have been told by Bystnder, wwjd, Lee,................You may have to come to a very difficult realization.

So I guess people can keep writing ugly things about everyone who thinks or ever thought linda made poor or wrong choices. I think I'm done with this thread. I also think maybe Gregory and others are right, a civil court is the last and probably only option available here.

It is not about Linda poor or wrong choices. We cannot judge them becuase we dont' know them. We only have Danny's words as to what they were, and because of his own actions and lies, he is less than credible. I am not about protecting or defending Linda. I have already said that she put her new husband before her son, which is a horrible thing for a mother to do. I really think she set up this president by doing so, and Danny was not happy about her finally choosing her son as she should have from the beginning. One more time is Linda did each and everything Danny and his cohorts acuse her of, he is still more than wrong for the way he handled this whole situtaion. He was unChirst-like, calculating, mean, vindictive and he got the 3ABN board and the church to help him do his dirty work. That is what I have a problem with. The only thing it has to do with Linda is that the wrong was done against her. If he turned around and did the samething to Brandy, he would be wrong a second time.(which BTW, does fall into the "reaping what one's sow's", what goes around comes around", "karma" whatever you want to call it category.)

But I do appreciate your spirit and sincerity in answering me Di.

God bless--
[/quote]

[Aletheia]

Talk about misguided zeal... Cindy do you really expect that your n-th hand hearsay account should carry more weight than the account of a principal involved in the situation?

You may say you know what you've been told by others.. but you were not there. Observer was there and involved... yet you think we should believe you over him?

If you do, that borders on the delusional...

In His service,
Mr. J

The letters have dates on them....

[Fran]

Fran,

Aletheia: Of course Nathan's a grown Man, as are my 2 boys, and they've struggled with some of the same (issues) as Nathan, in addition my Oldest is bi-polar. and so I personally know how hard it is as a mother to try to support and help without condoning or enabling,

Fran: So do I. We adopted 5 Eskimos that all have severe Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS).

Aletheia: So I have every sympathy with Linda in that regard. What I never had was a relationship with any of my Son's Doctors beyond what was considered professional and necessary for the well being of my Son.

Fran: There was no relationship between Linda and the Doctor! Go and re-read those documents on http://www.save3abn.com.

Aletheia: Thanks to God they are both recovering and becoming what he wants them to be.

Fran: Praise God for deliverance for your children. There is no greater joy.

Aletheia: I also had a husband who was a alcoholic and drug addict, and could not help himself much less our boys.

Fran: This sentence says it all. No wonder your boys had problems. I am sure you had a hand full of problems too. I am glad to see the words, “I also HAD a husband

Aletheia: He was abusive, controlling, possessive and VERY jealous, yet even he could not find anything to complain of regarding any of the Doctors or me.

Aletheia: As you claim to SEE so well, and are so defensive of Linda. Help me to understand what it is that you see here, that I cannot.

Fran: I see that everything was preplanned. Danny wanted to get rid of Linda at least a year before the doctor came on the scene! There was a group at 3ABN that began to pray for a way to remove Linda from 3ABN.

Fran: That would place the “praying” to have starting about the time of receiving the letter about Tommy Shelton. You know, that letter from another church where Tommy had been a pastor.

Fran: Remember also that Linda objected to Tommy, Danny’s brother, being hired a few years back. Danny’s board sided with Linda. This is where Danny realizes Linda is no longer an asset, but a liability to Danny’s desired actions. Thus Danny began his preplanned campaign to discredit/remove Linda. This began before the Doctor ever cam onto the scene!

Fran: All of those praying this prayer were praising God for having answered their prayers by sending the doctor. God made a way to remove Linda from 3ABN as well as from Danny. Praise be to God!

Aletheia: What do you really know about Nathan and the Doctor, other then one visit to Norway in January of 2004?

Fran: This is a very subjective question. Maybe my answer should be, “About as much as you know about them,” since I have no clue what you know.

Aletheia: His drug use? Recovery? Any ongoing treatments or visits to Norway? Any on going conversations or even a relationship between Nathan and Dr A? Any contact at all?

Fran: These are as subjective as the previous question. Maybe my answer should be, “About as much as you know about them,” since I have no clue what you know.

Aletheia: What do you really know of Linda's ongoing relationship with Doctor A, after the beginning of 2004?

Fran: Before March 7 there was no personal relationship. Before the divorce in June 2004, there was no relationship. After the divorce, there is no relationship. Reference Dannys letters on http://www.save3abn.com.

Fran: Weren’t we on the subject of John Lomacang? Oh well, I decided to tried to answer what you asked.

Fran:
Do tell, please.

[Aletheia]

It took time because it was not an easy decision for Linda to decide to ask for her membership to be dropped.

Alethia does not know when these decisions began. She does not know when they ended with a final decision. She simply does not know.

Just so you know, I took Nursing , including psychiatric Nursing, and even had ongoing education as required. and have worked in mental health jobs, also, so I'm not a total idiot about this subject, although not a Doctor or expert either. . But Frankly I am bored with all your arguments, the subject of what can be called counselling, and what cannot, and therefore doesn't count as official counseling for Linda, doesn't interest me.

What does is your statement above.

I know you all claimed she dropped her membership to avoid the censure and that letter came on Occt 27 2005. And she requested her membership be dropped on Oct 31 2005.

So are you now claiming that she was talking about this with you all , and making decisions about this before then?

WHY?

[Rosyroi]

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.

Sorry I said what I did about the no council to Linda. Sounds like what you counciled was the best she could get. That was very informative. I am very glad you were with her in this terrible trying time in her life. Also thank you to those who sent emails, telephone calls etc to help Linda. Thank you for the details.
Rosyroi

[Observer]

Just so you know, I took Nursing , including psychiatric Nursing, and even had ongoing education as required. and have worked in mental health jobs, also, so I'm not a total idiot about this subject, although not a Doctor or expert either. . But Frankly I am bored with all your arguments, the subject of what can be called counselling, and what cannot, and therefore doesn't count as official counseling for Linda, doesn't interest me.

What does is your statement above.

I know you all claimed she dropped her membership to avoid the censure and that letter came on Occt 27 2005. And she requested her membership be dropped on Oct 31 2005.

So are you now claiming that she was talking about this with you all , and making decisions about this before then?

WHY?

The question "why" is not an appropriate question for me to respond to. I am not going to tell why or when we gave Linda every item of advice. I am not going to tell you why and when Linda may have asked us every question that she asked us.

No one ever suggested that you were a total idiot in the area of counseling. However, you present yourself in a manner that suggests that you have a limited understanding of counseling. Your presentation may be 100 per-cent wrong. But, that is how several of us see you.


As to you being bored with my comments: Don't respond to them if you are bored by them. Your continued responses suggest that, based upon the energy you expend in reponding to them you are far from bored. But, again, that is simply your presentation, which may not reflect where you actually are.