Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[LaurenceD]

hey, maybe we should look at the brackground of one whose signature this is... :just a little humor:

"But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. - Yoda"

Yoda

This post has been edited by LaurenceD: Aug 23 2007, 04:19 PM

[PeacefulBe]

hey, maybe we should look at the brackground of one whose signature this is... :just a little humor:

"But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. - Yoda"

Yoda

LaurenceD,

Hey, not a half-bad idea at all! Okay..... I'm waiting...

[PeacefulBe]

LD,

It seems to me that you have missed the point made by some in regards to the wording used in the legal documents. Much consideration was given to these phrases by the attorneys I am sure, and I am sure that those being represented by these attorneys were not comfortable with these phrase. However, if one reads the documents it becomes clear that Gailon Joy maintained the intent or at least the possibility of such intentions, to counter sue.

It is not at all a ridiculous speculation that Mr. Joy would go after any entity that was/is tied to 3ABN. If there were any mention of the Seventh-day Adventist church organization then he might very likely go after the church itself in order to further embarrass 3ABN. What better tool to create a false perception than to run around shouting that you didn't want to sue the church, but you had no choice because they were/are directly connected to the church.

The phrases used in the legal briefs were designed to insure that no other ministry, and especially the organized church, would not be used as a target to further attack 3ABN. Following the rules of logical taught in law school allows one the opportunity to understand why these phrases were used and then to imagine why such was done. Your arguments continue to be hold only peripheral connection to the subject being discussed.

There is nothing double-minded. The message being broadcast through 3ABN, when it comes right down to it, is non-denominational. To think that it can only be proclaimed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church or a baptized Seventh-day Adventist is rather a triumphalist attitude. The message of the Gospel belongs to no man, to no denomination . . . but belongs to those who will hear and follow.

A denomination is merely an organizational tool whereby those who do subscribe to a particular set of tenets/beliefs. A denomination is not the truth, the individuals who are members may have learn the truth through study and prayer - but the denomination is only there for managing the organization of the believers. The believers may ask it to do more, like provide pastors and help maintain a repository of the definitions of shared beliefs. In other words, it has a place in the process of religion, but isn't the religion.

For 3ABN to say it's message is non-denominational isn't far from Jesus method of operation. Did he single out who would be an acceptable recipient of His message? Of course not. Did he limit his message to the members of the organized Jewish faith of His day? Of course not. His message was for Jew and Gentile alike. His salvation was for Jew and Gentile alike. His message was non-denominational. It was His message and He gave it to all who would hear and sent them on with the admonition to share this message with anyone and everyone. So for 3ABN to say its message is non-denominational would not be unlike Christ in His earthly ministry.

As a last note, 3ABN's web site has the following statement:

3ABN is not owned, operated or funded by any church, denomination or organization, so people from all cultures and backgrounds appreciate 3ABN programming. Many of 3ABN's employees and volunteers are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

There is nothing there that distances it from the Seventh-day Adventist church, nor does it deny the Adventist origin of its message. You can not logical argue that simply because it isn't spelled out there that the opposite is true. To do so is to weaken your own point of view.

So, the fact that the lawyers decided to use the phrase "non-denominational" and protect the church organization and other ministries from frivolous law suits would seem to be the wisest course of action.

- FHB

FHB,

I understand and appreciate the spirit of your opinion.

The most important part of the Gospel is Christ and what He has done to redeem the world, When we are followers of Christ we are, foremost, Christians. However, during his ministry Jesus did not spread His message of hope and then point those who heard and believed in Him to their local synagogue or Greco-Roman temple of the period. We know from history that He had a large following and that even before He left this Earth the new Christians began meeting together to edify each other and grow in the truth.

One of the benefits of 3abn has been the viewers taking the next step in their spiritual journey and walking in through the doors of their local Seventh-day Adventist church. What will happen now? Will they open the yellow pages and check to see what Christian church is nearest them? If 3abn is not clearly stating what denomination they are representing with this unique doctrine, how are the souls they reach to know where to go?

PB

[beartrap]

Beartrap,
You of all people know better than to insinuate anything other that 3abn's strict doctrinal guidelines for programming. Read my post again. It's all about definitions under the law, nothing else. You are well aware of the Adventist Message being broadcast 24/7 and to try and post anything different is at the very least deceitful and you know it.

Absolutely, Appletree. Of course I know very well that 3ABN presents a VERY denominational message. Indeed, if you think that I was insinuating that it is not, I will clear that up right here. I know VERY WELL that 3ABN is an organization that is very denominational in its programming, its funding comes almost entirely from within the Seventh-day Adventist circles through tithes and offerings, and 3ABN has had strong affiliations within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. To say, or to even insinuate otherwise would be a lie. Thus, I was not a little surprised to see the statements in 3ABN's lawsuit. Statements that I knew to be utterly false. And easily provable as such. Why did 3ABN agree to its lawers going further than stating in veracity that 3ABN is not a denomination, and not owned, operated, or funded by a denomination, and cross the line into untruths by stating that it is not affiliated with a denomination, and that its message is non denominational? Taking into consideration affiliations such as Atlantic Union and 3ABN Productions, I would have to say that there are most certainly some denominational affiliations. In stating that its message is non denominational they insinuate that it is not fundamentally tied to a denomination, and we both know that would be a deceitful statement.

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 24 2007, 12:14 AM

[SoulEspresso]

Wow, you have either been mislead or have come to some mistaken conclusions all by yourself.

First you must show that a person is wrong before you explain how he got to be so silly.

Danny Shelton does not decide what goes on the air, period. A programming committee is in place for programming ideas. Once that those ideas are put in effect and a program taped, it then goes before the pastoral committee for doctrinal review of content.

So who put the committees in place? Who picked the members of those committees?

Out of all the thousands of conference employees obviously you will find a few that have negative opinions about Danny or 3abn. That hardly counteracts the huge majority of Conference Employees, presidents, vice presidents and so on that have worked steadily with 3abn through the years and still are.

The individuals to which I was referring (I can think of four different administrators across the NAD, right off the top of my head), did work and were working with 3ABN on occasion--not because they were oh-so-joyful about God's chosen ministry, but because in the days before the divorce, refusing would have been perceived badly by rank-and-file members who thought 3ABN spoke for the church.

Longtime church workers are reluctant to present things to anyone that would damage the church--even less so when it's a media ministry involved. In those days, nothing this bad was known. They knew things that made them uncomfortable but were not grounds to cut off contact.

Just turn your little scenario around. Think you can find many Adventist christians that find fault with the conference? Enough said.

I have problems with my conference, okay? Bottom line is, while I think they make poor decisions many times, the vast majority of church leaders and employees want what's best for God's cause, even if they're often clueless about how to get there. In other words, they're trustworthy as individuals. (Not all, most.) The reason the church worked with 3ABN for 20+ years is because it was easier to do that than to hurt people unnecessarily--at least that's my interpretation.

Of course, there are some in church leadership who just seem happy to see their own faces on television. But that would be something they'd have to search their own hearts over.

Edited for clarity.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 23 2007, 11:28 PM

[beartrap]

The message being broadcast through 3ABN, when it comes right down to it, is non-denominational.

I agree with Appletree. He stated the truth very bluntly.

You are well aware of the Adventist Message being broadcast 24/7 and to try and post anything different is at the very least deceitful and you know it.

Appletree's statment speaks also to the deceitfulness of the verbage in 3ABN's lawsuit which refers to their programming as non denominational when we know very well that it denominationally Adventist.

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 24 2007, 12:24 AM

[runner4him]

I was not a little surprised to see the statements in 3ABN's lawsuit. Statements that I knew to be utterly false. And easily provable as such. Why did 3ABN agree to its lawers going further than stating in veracity that 3ABN is not a denomination, and not owned, operated, or funded by a denomination, and cross the line into untruths by stating that it is not affiliated with a denomination, and that its message is non denominational?

Maybe somewhere this idea has already been posted.......perhaps this was the purpose behind the wording......

Maybe if it was stated that 3abn is non-denominational preaching a non-denominational, not affiliated with any church then the thinking might be it would possibly be easier to keep the law suit impounded since no particular group of people would be interested in an open trial and the results being in full view of all.

After all if you are not affiliated with anyone...you answer to no one..... then who really cares what you are or have been doing and what linen you are airing in a federal court.

[Observer]

Maybe somewhere this idea has already been posted.......perhaps this was the purpose behind the wording......

Maybe if it was stated that 3abn is non-denominational preaching a non-denominational, not affiliated with any church then the thinking might be it would possibly be easier to keep the law suit impounded since no particular group of people would be interested in an open trial and the results being in full view of all.

After all if you are not affiliated with anyone...you answer to no one..... then who really cares what you are or have been doing and what linen you are airing in a federal court.

You still answer to those who fund you, and also to those from whom you solicit funding, and the civil authorities who govern how the public is solicited for funds.

NOTE: Solicitation of funds over the air, and by other means is public solicitation. Such is not private solicitation among an identified group of members.

If you want to know the reason 3-ABN wanted the documents impounded, read there stated reason in their filing. It is clearly stated. They did not want Bob and Gailon to say bad things about them, and they believed that Bob and Gailon would use the legal documents to say bad things about 3-ABN and Danny.


This post has been edited by Observer: Aug 24 2007, 09:50 AM

[ex3ABNemployee]

So, if I read your post correctly, you do seem to imply that when I was employed there, at least, Danny called ALL the shots?

Hmmm....no reply yet. I must have hit on something here.

[västergötland]

I have heard Rick preach, and I have never heard him make any statement that is contrary to SDA doctrine.

Though that doesnt nessessarily make him SDA in and by itself

[beartrap]

QUOTE(fallible humanbeing @ Aug 23 2007, 02:29 PM)
The message being broadcast through 3ABN, when it comes right down to it, is non-denominational.

I agree with Appletree. He stated the truth very bluntly.

You are well aware of the Adventist Message being broadcast 24/7 and to try and post anything different is at the very least deceitful and you know it.

Appletree's statment speaks also to the deceitfulness of the verbage in 3ABN's lawsuit which refers to their programming as non denominational when we know very well that it denominationally Adventist.

It seems that there is a divergence of opinion from within the ranks of the 3ABN defenders regarding 3ABN's relationship to the SDA church. FHB states that 3ABN is non denominational, and Appletree says that 3ABN is Adventist and posting anything else is at the very least deceitful. Therefor, according to Appletree, you, FHB, are at the very least being deceitful. I tend to agree with Appletree. Having been an insider for most of the 3ABN's existence, I am well aware that 3ABN is VERY denominationally Adventist, and that any insinuation otherwise is absolutely deceitful, as Appletree so clearly says. So, why the the lies? Why is 3ABN trying to portray itself as something other than what it is? Why has 3ABN gone on record in a court of law to state that it is something other than what it is? Appletree? You stated that this would be deceitful, so do you have some form of answer to this? FHB, you seem to take issue with the facts as we know them, and as Appletree has stated them. So do you have something to say about that?

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 25 2007, 12:56 AM

[SoulEspresso]

I think the point FHB was making earlier was that the truth the Adventist church presents is not their exclusive property. It's in the Bible, and other Christians are starting to see it without our help.

Of course nobody can honestly deny that 3ABN gets its funding from Adventists and is an Adventist organization ... what does ASI stand for again?

[Johann]

I agree with Appletree. He stated the truth very bluntly.

Appletree's statment speaks also to the deceitfulness of the verbage in 3ABN's lawsuit which refers to their programming as non denominational when we know very well that it denominationally Adventist.

It seems that there is a divergence of opinion from within the ranks of the 3ABN defenders regarding 3ABN's relationship to the SDA church. FHB states that 3ABN is non denominational, and Appletree says that 3ABN is Adventist and posting anything else is at the very least deceitful. Therefor, according to Appletree, you, FHB, are at the very least being deceitful. I tend to agree with Appletree. Having been an insider for most of the 3ABN's existence, I am well aware that 3ABN is VERY denominationally Adventist, and that any insinuation otherwise is absolutely deceitful, as Appletree so clearly says. So, why the the lies? Why is 3ABN trying to portray itself as something other than what it is? Why has 3ABN gone on record in a court of law to state that it is something other than what it is? Appletree? You stated that this would be deceitful, so do you have some form of answer to this? FHB, you seem to take issue with the facts as we know them, and as Appletree has stated them. So do you have something to say about that?

We hope they have a good answer to your question.

[Johann]

Though that doesnt nessessarily make him SDA in and by itself

[watchbird]

I agree with Appletree. He stated the truth very bluntly.

Appletree's statment speaks also to the deceitfulness of the verbage in 3ABN's lawsuit which refers to their programming as non denominational when we know very well that it denominationally Adventist.

It seems that there is a divergence of opinion from within the ranks of the 3ABN defenders regarding 3ABN's relationship to the SDA church. FHB states that 3ABN is non denominational, and Appletree says that 3ABN is Adventist and posting anything else is at the very least deceitful. Therefor, according to Appletree, you, FHB, are at the very least being deceitful. I tend to agree with Appletree. Having been an insider for most of the 3ABN's existence, I am well aware that 3ABN is VERY denominationally Adventist, and that any insinuation otherwise is absolutely deceitful, as Appletree so clearly says. So, why the the lies? Why is 3ABN trying to portray itself as something other than what it is? Why has 3ABN gone on record in a court of law to state that it is something other than what it is? Appletree? You stated that this would be deceitful, so do you have some form of answer to this? FHB, you seem to take issue with the facts as we know them, and as Appletree has stated them. So do you have something to say about that?

While we are waiting for appletree's response, I have a question for you, beartrap... (or for anyone else who is "in the know" on this)....

What was the reason for changing the statements on the website from ones which proclaimed 3abn as a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the present disclaimers on their website ... which does not even claim to be an "independent ministry of the SDA church"?

Would you give us some history on that please?

I think the point FHB was making earlier was that the truth the Adventist church presents is not their exclusive property. It's in the Bible, and other Christians are starting to see it without our help.

You could be right that this was the point FHB was "making earlier"... but that doesn't REALLY match what actually happens in 3abn publications, publicity, or actual broadcasting, now, does it....

Of course nobody can honestly deny that 3ABN gets its funding from Adventists and is an Adventist organization ... what does ASI stand for again?

Come on now, Soul... you know the difference between "funding from" and "being funded by"...... .....

In case you have forgotten... here's a couple hints.... .... they are spelled "control" and "accountability"....

As for what ASI stands for.... the short answer is Adventist-Laymen's Services and Industries.

The more detailed answer as given on their home page is...........

ASI--the organization of Seventh-day Adventist lay persons involved in professions, industry, education, and/or services--exists to provide challenge, nurture, and experience in Sharing Christ in the Marketplace as well as support the global mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

For an even more complete answer, check out http://www.asiministries.org/, especially the several pages under the menu selection "About Us", one of which gives a rather detailed history of the development of the present name.... or rather what the present acronym stands for.... because it has been called ASI from the beginning, when it stood for Association of Self-supporting Institutions.


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