Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[fallible humanbe...]

Thank you Soul,

You are indeed correct and I think I was clear about that. 3ABN is lead by Seventh-day Adventist Christian leaders. There are non-Adventist Christians working there or volunteering there because they are drawn to the message. But leadership has been and continues to be dedicated Seventh-day Adventist Christians - dedicated to the mission given to (among many) the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Soul is right on target, the message that for years has been held as intellectual property of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is indeed a non-denominational message established long before any of the church founders was a sparkle in their parent's eye. It would continue, carried by others, if the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church and all of its members suddenly disappeared. We, as a group of believers must avoid the human tendency to triumphalism lest we end up being like the Jewish nation at the time of Christ's earthly ministry. While God has blessed our faith with understanding and knowledge, it is not because we are "Seventh-day Adventists, but rather because those who came before us had hearts and minds open to His voice - and we have been blessed because of this. But, the truth we and our forefathers have been blessed with is not ours - it belongs to all who would accept God's justifying love and allow our lives to be changed because of an ever growing love for God and His faithful grace.

The message being spread by 3ABN is a message that belongs to no one and everyone at the same time - it is timeless and timely. As long as a copy of God's Holy Word is available the message can not be claimed to "belong" to anyone.

Now if you look at 3ABN's "About Us" type of page you find that they do not disavow the Seventh-day Adventist church, in fact, theirs is the only site of the three biggies (3ABN, Hope, LLBN) that mentions at all a connection to the Seventh-day Adventist faith on this page.

And lastly, my comments were initially begun to point out that it was in the best interest of the official church organization that 3ABN had in mind. They made sure that no other ministry and the official church could in no way be drawn into a counter suit by Gailon Joy. I still contend that there would, based on other actions and words, have been a great likelihood that such a counter suit would have included any and all entities that 3ABN identified itself with in its legal documents. Thus, if they used language that legally tied them to the organized church, ASI, Amazing Facts, etc, Joy would have included these in a counter suit as a means to try and create the perception that 3ABN was, by its associations, brining down all of these other parts of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - remember his is an effort of perception creating.

As for beartrap's claims that I am deceitful, a logical read of my early post and this one will show otherwise.

- FHB

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?

[awesumtenor]

remember his is an effort of perception creating.

And yours is not?

In His service,
Mr. J

[beartrap]

3ABN features a particular denomination and a unique denominational message. Yes, there are individual parts of the message that are not denominational, but the message as a whole is uniquely SDA. As Appletree said, 3ABN has been airing the "Adventist Message" around the clock for years, and to state otherwise is deceitful. I understand what you are saying about the need to legally define that 3ABN is not the Seventh-day Adventist church, nor is it a part of the denomination. To state, however that there is no affiliation, and that the message is non denominational is crossing the line into trying to mislead the court. There have been many affiliations between 3ABN and the SDA church over the years. Close affiliations. Do you deny that? Seventh-day Adventist conference offices are housed in the 3ABN facility in Russia. Church owned broadcast stations carry 3ABN as their network affiliate. The Atlantic Union Conference partnered with 3ABN to create Atlantic Union and 3ABN Productions. The SDA Church and 3ABN have signed a formal document that ties them together in mutual support. The president of the Illinois Conference of SDA has always held a seat on the board. The list could grow quite lengthy. Do you suppose Pickle and Joy will not make the court aware of these facts should they decide to dispute that portion of the lawsuit?

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 25 2007, 02:18 PM

[Artiste]

...
And lastly, my comments were initially begun to point out that it was in the best interest of the official church organization that 3ABN had in mind. They made sure that no other ministry and the official church could in no way be drawn into a counter suit by Gailon Joy. I still contend that there would, based on other actions and words, have been a great likelihood that such a counter suit would have included any and all entities that 3ABN identified itself with in its legal documents. Thus, if they used language that legally tied them to the organized church, ASI, Amazing Facts, etc, Joy would have included these in a counter suit as a means to try and create the perception that 3ABN was, by its associations, bringing down all of these other parts of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - remember his is an effort of perception creating.
...
- FHB

FHB, I feel that you have been misguided and misinformed at some point to think that Gailon Joy's intentions were what you have listed above.

If you read the letter from him carefully that was posted earlier, you will be able to discover his real intentions.


***********************************************************

[Observer]

Thank you Soul,

You are indeed correct and I think I was clear about that. 3ABN is lead by Seventh-day Adventist Christian leaders. There are non-Adventist Christians working there or volunteering there because they are drawn to the message. But leadership has been and continues to be dedicated Seventh-day Adventist Christians - dedicated to the mission given to (among many) the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Soul is right on target, the message that for years has been held as intellectual property of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is indeed a non-denominational message established long before any of the church founders was a sparkle in their parent's eye. It would continue, carried by others, if the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church and all of its members suddenly disappeared. We, as a group of believers must avoid the human tendency to triumphalism lest we end up being like the Jewish nation at the time of Christ's earthly ministry. While God has blessed our faith with understanding and knowledge, it is not because we are "Seventh-day Adventists, but rather because those who came before us had hearts and minds open to His voice - and we have been blessed because of this. But, the truth we and our forefathers have been blessed with is not ours - it belongs to all who would accept God's justifying love and allow our lives to be changed because of an ever growing love for God and His faithful grace.

The message being spread by 3ABN is a message that belongs to no one and everyone at the same time - it is timeless and timely. As long as a copy of God's Holy Word is available the message can not be claimed to "belong" to anyone.

Now if you look at 3ABN's "About Us" type of page you find that they do not disavow the Seventh-day Adventist church, in fact, theirs is the only site of the three biggies (3ABN, Hope, LLBN) that mentions at all a connection to the Seventh-day Adventist faith on this page.

And lastly, my comments were initially begun to point out that it was in the best interest of the official church organization that 3ABN had in mind. They made sure that no other ministry and the official church could in no way be drawn into a counter suit by Gailon Joy. I still contend that there would, based on other actions and words, have been a great likelihood that such a counter suit would have included any and all entities that 3ABN identified itself with in its legal documents. Thus, if they used language that legally tied them to the organized church, ASI, Amazing Facts, etc, Joy would have included these in a counter suit as a means to try and create the perception that 3ABN was, by its associations, brining down all of these other parts of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - remember his is an effort of perception creating.

As for beartrap's claims that I am deceitful, a logical read of my early post and this one will show otherwise.

-FHB

FHB:

Questions regarding the message of 3-ABN, and a denominaitonal message do not focus on whether or not a specific teaching is the intellectual property of the formally organized SDA denominaiton.

The typical SDA, informed ragarding SDA history, would likely consider the unique denominational message of the SDA chruch to consist of what our early leaders called the five pillars of the SDA faith:

Sabbath

Sanctuary

State of the Dead aka Soul Sleep

Spirit of Prophecy

Second Advent

The typical member of the general non-SDA, p;ublic, would typically include some of the above, and might include other issues depending upon what they knew about the SDA church.

3-ABN is an independent ministry, associated with, but not controlled by the organized SDA Church. I can understand why some of the verbage was placed in legal documents filed with the court.

But, I can also understand why that verbage is troubling to many who reat it.

In addition, in my personal athinking, 3-ABN has gone well beyond what might have been legally appropriate, if their intent had solely been to assert a legal reality. In my mind, one example of their going beyond the legally appropriate was in the section where they asserted that they proclaimed a unique message that was not being proclaimed by any other group!

The above sends a message to me that 3-ABN may be looking to reduce its relationship with the organized chruch from what it now is.

As to legal liability for the SDA Chruch: The verbage of the legal filings does not provide the organized denomination with any protection. If Gailon and Bob want to embroil the organized denomination in a counter-suit, they already may do so. NOTE: I am not making a statement in regard to whether or not such would succeed. I am simply saying that they could do so already, and the referenced verbage in the legal documents would not prevent that.

[appletree]

princessdi,

3abn is not the one legally describing themselves as nondenominational, not affiliated or funded by any denomination, or denominational organization, etc. appletree has very reasonably described that it was the lawyers who wrote this legal stuff. We can only speculate as to why they would need to distance 3abn from the SDA denomination. We all know that it is okay for lawyers to misrepresent the truth a bit, to try to create loopholes by creative wordings or subtle untruths to create the best case for their client. We all know that 3abn would never describe themselves (for they are a supporting ministry of the SDA church and have the contract to prove it)thusly. Right?

You explained that well PB. Thank you

[appletree]

Yes, you did... but you neglected to say where they got their "grounding". Thank you so much for explicating that in your next paragraph.
O K ..... I think I've got it.... Lessee... Rick got his instruction on what Adventists beleived by watching 3abn programing.... IOW.... what he knew of Adventism was whatever someone before him picked out as being what 3abn had decided was the way they wanted to represent SDA doctrines... and practices.... and biblical interpretation... and ..... whatever.....

So yes... that would give him an EXCELLENT foundation for being " an excellent reviewer".... so it was a natural that he be advanced to the position of making decisions on which programs were representative of SDA interpretations... and doctrines... and practics.... .... yeah.... .....

Sounds pretty common sense and accurate to me....

Thank you very much for confirming .. and adding to... the information that I already had on this.
..............................

Another twisted interpretation of what I actually wrote. Did I say that Rick became an SDA soley by watching 3abn. No I did not. Just surmising on your part which seems to be your MO. After listening to truths on 3abn and searching for himself, he then went through the SDA bible studies with an SDA pastor before he was babtized. The natural progression of things. Sorry, your criticism of SDA pastor and lay pastors reviewing programs is just not working. Try asking most of the ministries that show programming who (if anyone) reviews their programs. It will be pastors and lay pastors. You act like that is not good enough. If SDA pastors are not good enough to review SDA programs who in the world is?

[appletree]

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

Because the programs that have been sending people to their nearest SDA church haven't changed. Because the law by definition words court documents a certain way doesn't change anything that is aired on 3abn. Nothing has been taken off or put on because of legal mumbo jumbo. People will still be recognizing 3abn as representing the Adventist beliefs and will continue to find the nearest churches.

[appletree]

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.

BT. You have read enough on this subject posted by me, Aletheia and FHB to know there is a vast difference between what we believe about something vs how the law technically defines it. 3abn nor their attorney's are responsible for writing the laws and the definitions within those laws. Whatever fits into the legal definition of independent ministry is where 3abn will be stuck. Again, it is a technicality. We have all seen what 3abn teaches and who they have worked with and alongside all of these years. Because the laws force 3abn into definitions that are limited doesn't make 3abn or their attorney's deceitful. They are simply adhering to the choices the law provides for them.

[appletree]

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.

Funny you should bring that up. I would imagine then that internet solicitation is public solicitation. So where is the check and balance system of Pickle and Joy's legal fund. Have they made themselves into a corporation that can accept solicited funds? Where are the records of the donations that show how much came in, how much went out and to whom? Is it public record everytime they withdraw from their paypal account? And do those records coincide with deposits made into their accounts? Is Joy getting paid to represent himself? If so, is it the same amount that Laird is getting paid? After all, the people that donate to their fund have a right to know exactly where their money is going. Accountability seems to be a favorite word around here. So, who are Pickle and Joy accountable to?

[Johann]

BT. You have read enough on this subject posted by me, Aletheia and FHB to know there is a vast difference between what we believe about something vs how the law technically defines it. 3abn nor their attorney's are responsible for writing the laws and the definitions within those laws. Whatever fits into the legal definition of independent ministry is where 3abn will be stuck. Again, it is a technicality. We have all seen what 3abn teaches and who they have worked with and alongside all of these years. Because the laws force 3abn into definitions that are limited doesn't make 3abn or their attorney's deceitful. They are simply adhering to the choices the law provides for them.

e

Thank you very much, Appletree, for giving us this explanation. It demonstrates something that has been difficult for a number of people to understand, and now we have your word for it. Now we see why and how the administrators of 3ABN have, through the years, been working with two diametrically opposite sets of "truths", the "legal truth", and then what Christians generally regard as "truth". This gives a plausible explanation why Mr. Danny Shelton when accusing Linda of what some of us knew she had never done. Now we know he was speaking in "legal" terms, because that was needed to get rid of her.

Also when Mr. Danny Shelton was accusing me of things I knew I had never done, then he was merely speaking in "legal" terms to accomplish his desire.

So now we know that whenever the 3ABN administrators are speaking, they might be using legal terms, while the opposite is the truth in the eyes and ears of God and man. Thank you for this explanation. This helps us understand you.

But now I still wonder if the explanation you give above is given in legal terms or not?

[lowender]

FHB... Do you believe that Danny Shelton is intellectually honest?

[Observer]

Funny you should bring that up. I would imagine then that internet solicitation is public solicitation. So where is the check and balance system of Pickle and Joy's legal fund. Have they made themselves into a corporation that can accept solicited funds? Where are the records of the donations that show how much came in, how much went out and to whom? Is it public record everytime they withdraw from their paypal account? And do those records coincide with deposits made into their accounts? Is Joy getting paid to represent himself? If so, is it the same amount that Laird is getting paid? After all, the people that donate to their fund have a right to know exactly where their money is going. Accountability seems to be a favorite word around here. So, who are Pickle and Joy accountable to?

Appletree:

If you follow my posts, you will know that whether or not you agree with me, I call it like I see it, regardless of who is affected by my comment.

In regard to my comment ragarding puclic solicitations: The requirement to be accountable, etc. falls into two catagories. The first is the ethical requirements that apply to all. The second is the legal requirements that may apply to organizations that are formally registered with the civil authorities. This second catagory would include issues relating to the Internal Revenue Service, and other such civil agencies. It would alse include issues relating to the requirements of their specific organization and registeration. One example of this would be the legal requirements and public accountbility required of 501c organizations. There are certainly other requirements for other formally registered organizations.


As to 3-ABN: 3-ABN should be held accountable for all ethical requirements, whatever they might be. In addition, it should be accountable for all legal obligations that result from its formal organization and registeration. My comment here does not either imply that 3-ABN has compliled with such, or that it has not complied with such. I simply say that it should be held accountable according to law and ethics.

As to fund-raising attempts on behalf of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy: In brief, the above applies to them as well as to 3-ABN. It should be noted that the legal and ethical requirements apply to those who are attempting to raise the funds to help them. i.e. If Bob and Gailon are not directly attempting to raise funds, they should not be held accountable for the actions of those who may be attempting to raise such funds. So, the first question that would need to be determined is: Who is actually attempting to raise funds? This is only fair. If I attempt to raise funds for 3-ABN, 3-ABN should not be held accountable for what I do.

In additions, to whatever extend Bob and Gailon are involved in fund raising, they should be held accountable for all ethical aspects of that fund raising. That is only fair. If 3-ABN should conduct their fund raising in an ethical manner, so should Bob and Gailon, and anyone else who attempts to raise funds for either 3-ABN, or for Bob and Gailon.

One additional factor in response to you: How are Bob and Gailon formally organized in regard to any fund raising efforts? One can not state the legal requirements until one determins the how they are, or are not, formally organized.


Appletree, I trust that this will answer your question.

Yes, you have asked specific questions that deserve answers.

I do not expect that either Bob or Gailon will have a problem with telling you how they are formally organized, and whether or not they are taking a salery from the donations.

[Observer]

Appletree:

If you follow my posts, you will know that whether or not you agree with me, I call it like I see it, regardless of who is affected by my comment.

In regard to my comment ragarding puclic solicitations: The requirement to be accountable, etc. falls into two catagories. The first is the ethical requirements that apply to all. The second is the legal requirements that may apply to organizations that are formally registered with the civil authorities. This second catagory would include issues relating to the Internal Revenue Service, and other such civil agencies. It would alse include issues relating to the requirements of their specific organization and registeration. One example of this would be the legal requirements and public accountbility required of 501c organizations. There are certainly other requirements for other formally registered organizations.
As to 3-ABN: 3-ABN should be held accountable for all ethical requirements, whatever they might be. In addition, it should be accountable for all legal obligations that result from its formal organization and registeration. My comment here does not either imply that 3-ABN has compliled with such, or that it has not complied with such. I simply say that it should be held accountable according to law and ethics.

As to fund-raising attempts on behalf of Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy: In brief, the above applies to them as well as to 3-ABN. It should be noted that the legal and ethical requirements apply to those who are attempting to raise the funds to help them. i.e. If Bob and Gailon are not directly attempting to raise funds, they should not be held accountable for the actions of those who may be attempting to raise such funds. So, the first question that would need to be determined is: Who is actually attempting to raise funds? This is only fair. If I attempt to raise funds for 3-ABN, 3-ABN should not be held accountable for what I do.

In additions, to whatever extend Bob and Gailon are involved in fund raising, they should be held accountable for all ethical aspects of that fund raising. That is only fair. If 3-ABN should conduct their fund raising in an ethical manner, so should Bob and Gailon, and anyone else who attempts to raise funds for either 3-ABN, or for Bob and Gailon.

One additional factor in response to you: How are Bob and Gailon formally organized in regard to any fund raising efforts? One can not state the legal requirements until one determins the how they are, or are not, formally organized.
Appletree, I trust that this will answer your question.

Yes, you have asked specific questions that deserve answers.

I do not expect that either Bob or Gailon will have a problem with telling you how they are formally organized, and whether or not they are taking a salary from the donations.

By the way, to set the record straight, in case anyone wonders:

1) I have not authorized anyone to solicit funds, privately or publicly, on my behalf.

2) I have not recieved any donations.

3) I am not drawing any salary or other funds other than from my empoloyeer, and/or due to my employment.

4) I have not formally registered in any attempt to solicit funds either privately or publicly.




This post has been edited by Observer: Aug 26 2007, 07:02 AM

[lurker]

Even before 3ABN got in a dispute with the state of Illinois (as a non church) over property tax usage and before the 990's came under scrutiny, it has been very plain to see that someone at 3ABN has been trying to put it into a position where it does not have to give out financial information. How can it do this?

There are two ways that this might happen:

(1.) Some ministries do not have to fill out 990's because they are under the umbrella of an official church. If 3ABN had merged with Amazing Facts and if the new organization had been under a conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as Amazing Facts is it probably wouldn't have to file 990's just as Amazing Facts for that reason does not have to file 990's. And I think that getting out of disclosing financial information is part of the reason 3ABN wanted a merger. But if Amazing Facts had moved out from under the umbrella of the church in order to join with 3ABN that objective wouldn't have been gained and Amazing Facts as well as 3ABN would then have both been required to file 990's. Unless....(2.)

(2.) Some ministries can fit into the legal guidelines as churches (denominations). http://www.runquist.com/ARTICLE_ReligTax.htm and do not have to file. See Judge Rowe's words in her ruling saying why 3ABN could not be considered to be a church (denomination). Walt Thompson said "In fact, a few years ago when we were dealing with the State's desire to tax ministry facilities, suggestions were made that if we were to become a Church (denomination) we would be in a better position with the State as far as taxes are concerned. Of course, we did not do that, but it does indicate how we are viewed legally." http://tinyurl.com/289qct Wonder who made that suggestion? Don't tell me that this was not considered, even if just for a moment. And the thought of the possible advantages was planted.

Pehaps they don't want to claim to be a separate denomination yet because they depend on their SDA supporters. However they might try to skirt the issue by getting under the umbrella of a SDA offshoot that is recognized as a unique denomination but which may still arguably claim to be Seventh-day Adventist. They might get under the umbrella of a church that wouldn't look too closely at their financial dealings and would rubber stamp decisions even as the board has done. Or 3ABN could meet the requirements as a church (denomination) and apply to the government as a church or denomination separate from the official Seventh-day Adventist Church. They could therefore change their status and not be required to file (disclose) financial information all the while claiming to Adventist supporters that this is a technicality and that they are still Adventists. (As they have done with the nondenomiational claim) In my opinion this claim to be nondenominational is a step in that direction.