Propose Some "wisdom Of Solomon" Even At This Late Date? Options

[Johann]

Most of the interest always seems to lie totally within the "frailities of human acts which some view as "spicey" rather than a correct understanding of the avoidance of those "spicey" situations with their ultimate consequencs.

Do you think we would be engaged in the Mid-East conflict, as some see it, had Abraham avoided the very appearance of evil with the admonition that the parent's sins will be visited to the third and fourth generations even in spite of the knowledge that certain of these parents were styled as "father of the faithful?"

We see it stranger than fiction that some with a vested interest in your PRINCIPAL may have a lesser regard for your PRINCIPLE. Be careful or these same will go after your PRINCIPAL when your expressed views of PRINCIPLE may conflict with their views!

Are we to avoid specifics when dealing with "spicey" situations in general?

Is it your conclusion that in this particular case some disregard PRINCIPLE to save the PRINCIPAL?

[CPAATTY]

Are we to avoid specifics when dealing with "spicey" situations in general?

Johann has the geography in Iceland and all the locations you have ever occupied allowed you to hold to the premise that "by beholding we become changed?" The TV broadcast business and other communicative endeavors like magazines thrives on "spice" even to some well meaning SDAs who possibly get enthralled "up to" or possibly better stated "down to" penetration as I remember was a crucial term in domestic relations when I sat for and passed the bar exam on the first sitting with a grade well above the average. A good lawyer can make a "cause of action" for divorce where one of the parties to a valid marriage becomes unable to fully participate for one reason or another without getting to "spicey" with you.

And yes Johann as I sit on the outside looking in without the benefit of any of "the wisdom of Solomon," it appears that the Board of Directors belatedly dealt with any possible"spice" in this situation the best they knew how by insulating "both co-founders" which may not be to the satisfaction of all in the absence of "hard evidence made public for the benefit of all interested parties?" Do all possible "spicey incidences" wind up being presented to some "church board" for some movement on "church membeship" or are they just routinely "swept under the rug" or "charged to the dust where the next rain will settle it?"


Is it your conclusion that in this particular case some disregard PRINCIPLE to save the PRINCIPAL?

Johann, I would give you a firm answer on the matter if I had a "dog in this fight?" In that absence, I will merely conclude no better than that made by the BOD that allegedly fired one and later allegedly "insulated" the other co-founder from "direct management as an officer" into an "advisory" state where standard implications should be understood to be for some "valid reason" in the absence of a specific stated reasons to the public and\or shareholders in the pew.

Johann do you hold to the premise alleged by some that one is guilty of "ALL TEN" if they are guilty of "EVEN ONE?" I can understand that we individually would like to reserve that privilige for not applying same to ourselves while being able to freely apply it to others.

In the instant case, it appears to me that any "virtual or otherwise involvement by any" was a feeble attempt to get some relief by some "financial supporters who constued themselves as shareholders in the pew" who were vitally interested "solely" in the moral terpitude as a necessary ingredient of certain employees with the idea of firming up some perpetuity in the institution with the hope that they could continue to support same. I have seen nothing stated publicly that may be construed as demeaning or appears to demean any director, officer, and\or employee for any other reason.

I will have to admit that what you see is not always what you get even with the regularly organized SDA church. My local conference's duly-called nominating committee's alleged three-vote decision to oust the president with the alleged manipulation by the union president that he would personally see that the black-balled, if I am afforded that privilige, president would be moved to another slot. There was no timeframe of the alleged action of the nominating-commitee impasse solution included in the alleged rumor; however, I think the commonly-understood timeframe has long passed. The alleged black-balled president appears to have been a less-than-stellar perormer in this conference based on what happened to my local church which in now sitting with a "For Sale" sign prominently placed, even on Sabbaths, which could have contributed to one of the brother's newly dug crypt. The conference executive committee voted to "re-arrange and or consolidate some district pastoral duties without formally merging\selling any churches and building new structures.

The alleged morals of the city church had deteriorated to the extent that one city-church member told me of 13 teen pregnancies, at least one by a former pastor who may have adopted the results. The more recently alleged impropriety occured between a deacon, after a recent divorce between fellow church members, and another church member who must have thought he was the father until DNA evidence was sought that proved otherwise even after an extended period of financial and certain moral support withoug marriage of the imprenated and results which could have been an excuse for the previous divorce. The local pastor who admitted to the district that his alleged father was not his biologic father, his alleged uncle being his biologic father, attempted to de-frock the alleged impregnating deacon without local conference support and eventually found himself defrocked by the lack of a "certified flock" instead and to which he allegedlyresponded after the meeting by throwing down a replica of the "Ten" in the church assembly area somewhat like Moses.

Johann, while I don't express any firm convictions that you appear to feel the need, I haven't seen what the BOD has seen as a need for "totally avoiding the appearance of evil" to effect a firing; however, the same BOD may not have seen the level of "total avoidance" needed when they effected the "advisorship! Keep in mind that a federal judge or jury may not see matter similarly in fashion on the bench and jury box as a church tribunal where character is the primary ingredient rather than possible "loaves and fishes."

And to be totally honest with you maybe from lack of info, I fail to see your interest in either side of this matter short of concrete evidence unless you feel the need to totally take one position with the understanding that no truth can be found nestled within some error!

This post has been edited by CPAATTY: Nov 27 2007, 06:58 PM

[lurker]

CPATTY, Your illustration was interesting but I think you are stretching if you are implying that the change in the job description of an "employee" at 3ABN was in order to avoid the appearance of evil. Avoiding the appearance of evil does indeed seem to take precedence over the actual practicing of evil within the church.

But may I suggest an even more pressing reason and that is the legal liability of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole and not because 3ABN is a part of the church. As we know, it is not a part of the church. I believe the church is legally liable because of the entanglement and of 3ABN and the Illinois conference and because the prez used his office to serve DS in doing what the prez perceived to be politically expedient rather than what would have been morally or legally sound.

This post has been edited by lurker: Nov 27 2007, 11:16 AM

[Pickle]

Regarding entanglement, it is interesting to note that in the Thanksgiving Special that just aired, John Lomacang thanked everyone for their prayers and support "on behalf of the Thompsonville Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Illinois Conference.

So on an official special broadcast of an alleged non-denominational ministry that is allegedly unaffiliated with any church or organization or denomination, John Lomacang thanked folks on behalf of two church organizations. Sounds like entanglement to me, entanglement with a global ministry that thus far answers to no one but a handful of people.

Regarding Gilley's flattery of Danny on that broadcast, I do think that before he carries on anymore about how dedicated Danny is, he ought to ensure that Danny has apologized to those he has wronged, has paid back that which he has wrongfully taken from 3ABN (even if the board okayed the private inurement), and has backed out of the current, retaliatory lawsuit. To do otherwise is a mockery, in my opinion.

[CPAATTY]

Johann, I would give you a firm answer on the matter if I had a "dog in this fight?" In that absence, I will merely conclude no better than that made by the BOD that allegedly fired one and later allegedly "insulated" the other co-founder from "direct management as an officer" into an "advisory" state where standard implications should be understood to be for some "valid reason" in the absence of a specific stated reasons to the public and\or shareholders in the pew.

Johann do you hold to the premise alleged by some that one is guilty of "ALL TEN" if they are guilty of "EVEN ONE?" I can understand that we individually would like to reserve that privilige for not applying same to ourselves while being able to freely apply it to others.

In the instant case, it appears to me that any "virtual or otherwise involvement by any" was a feeble attempt to get some relief by some "financial supporters who constued themselves as shareholders in the pew" who were vitally interested "solely" in the moral terpitude as a necessary ingredient of certain employees with the idea of firming up some perpetuity in the institution with the hope that they could continue to support same. I have seen nothing stated publicly that may be construed as demeaning or appears to demean any director, officer, and\or employee for any other reason.

I will have to admit that what you see is not always what you get even with the regularly organized SDA church. My local conference's duly-called nominating committee's alleged three-vote decision to oust the president with the alleged manipulation by the union president that he would personally see that the black-balled, if I am afforded that privilige, president would be moved to another slot. There was no timeframe of the alleged action of the nominating-commitee impasse solution included in the alleged rumor; however, I think the commonly-understood timeframe has long passed. The alleged black-balled president appears to have been a less-than-stellar perormer in this conference based on what happened to my local church which in now sitting with a "For Sale" sign prominently placed, even on Sabbaths, which could have contributed to one of the brother's newly dug crypt. The conference executive committee voted to "re-arrange and or consolidate some district pastoral duties without formally merging\selling any churches and building new structures.

The alleged morals of the city church had deteriorated to the extent that one city-church member told me of 13 teen pregnancies, at least one by a former pastor who may have adopted the results. The more recently alleged impropriety occured between a deacon, after a recent divorce between fellow church members, and another church member who must have thought he was the father until DNA evidence was sought that proved otherwise even after an extended period of financial and certain moral support withoug marriage of the imprenated and results which could have been an excuse for the previous divorce. The local pastor who admitted to the district that his alleged father was not his biologic father, his alleged uncle being his biologic father, attempted to de-frock the alleged impregnating deacon without local conference support and eventually found himself defrocked by the lack of a "certified flock" instead and to which he allegedlyresponded after the meeting by throwing down a replica of the "Ten" in the church assembly area somewhat like Moses.

Johann, while I don't express any firm convictions that you appear to feel the need, I haven't seen what the BOD has seen as a need for "totally avoiding the appearance of evil" to effect a firing; however, the same BOD may not have seen the level of "total avoidance" needed when they effected the "advisorship! Keep in mind that a federal judge or jury may not see matter similarly in fashion on the bench and jury box as a church tribunal where character is the primary ingredient rather than possible "loaves and fishes."

And to be totally honest with you maybe from lack of info, I fail to see your interest in either side of this matter short of concrete evidence unless you feel the need to totally take one position with the understanding that no truth can be found nestled within some error!

I am not a supporter of any private\independent ministry and any feeble attempts to "officially entangle" the regularly organized Seventh-Day Adventist Church domiciled with legal headquarters in Washington, DC and\or Silver Springs, MD with any private\independent ministry is nothing but a bald-faced lie from what I have been able to research. Moronically attributing the individual actions of any possible misguided individual connected with any private and\or independent ministry calling themselves Seventh-Day Adventist with "official church action" speaks of your basic intelligence which may be of the level that can lead you into legal harm through your public pronouncements. I stand ready to withdraw my support of any "overall organized religious body" that allows itself to be "officially connected" with private\independent ministry even though there may be limited financial support without being responsible for the general liabilities of that ministry. Take your "entanglement theories and complaints" to a more specific thread, preferably away from BlackSDA, IMHO! Those that feel disenchanted with my official position about my "overall world-wide church" are cordially invited to get over their cheap-selves!

[Pickle]

I forgot to add a positive note: I enjoyed watching the interview of Camille Gilley's parents.

[lurker]

I am not a supporter of any private\independent ministry and any feeble attempts to "officially entangle" the regularly organized Seventh-Day Adventist Church domiciled with legal headquarters in Washington, DC and\or Silver Springs, MD with any private\independent ministry is nothing but a bald-faced lie from what I have been able to research. Moronically attributing the individual actions of any possible misguided individual connected with any private and\or independent ministry calling themselves Seventh-Day Adventist with "official church action" speaks of your basic intelligence which may be of the level that can lead you into legal harm through your public pronouncements. I stand ready to withdraw my support of any "overall organized religious body" that allows itself to be "officially connected" with private\independent ministry even though there may be limited financial support without being responsible for the general liabilities of that ministry. Take your "entanglement theories and complaints" to a more specific thread, preferably away from BlackSDA, IMHO! Those that feel disenchanted with my official position about my "overall world-wide church" are cordially invited to get over their cheap-selves!

CPATTY, Calling established facts theories or gossip won't make them go away. By the way, the 3ABN forum on Blacksda is one place where these facts have been discussed already and it is very hard for me to see a theme for this particular thread. Can you tell me what the point you are trying to make is - in six words or less?

[Johann]

And to be totally honest with you maybe from lack of info, I fail to see your interest in either side of this matter short of concrete evidence unless you feel the need to totally take one position with the understanding that no truth can be found nestled within some error!

I´m glad you want to be totally honest. Then you will also have to admit that you have not read much of what I have posted earlier. What more concrete evidence could I have? I was involved in this before it started.

This post has been edited by Johann: Nov 28 2007, 08:31 AM

[GRAT]

CPATTY, Calling established facts theories or gossip won't make them go away. By the way, the 3ABN forum on Blacksda is one place where these facts have been discussed already and it is very hard for me to see a theme for this particular thread. Can you tell me what the point you are trying to make is - in six words or less?

"in six words or less?"

[CPAATTY]

I am not a supporter of any private\independent ministry and any feeble attempts to "officially entangle" the regularly organized Seventh-Day Adventist Church domiciled with legal headquarters in Washington, DC and\or Silver Springs, MD with any private\independent ministry is nothing but a bald-faced lie from what I have been able to research. Moronically attributing the individual actions of any possible misguided individual connected with any private and\or independent ministry calling themselves Seventh-Day Adventist with "official church action" speaks of your basic intelligence which may be of the level that can lead you into legal harm through your public pronouncements. I stand ready to withdraw my support of any "overall organized religious body" that allows itself to be "officially connected" with private\independent ministry even though there may be limited financial support without being responsible for the general liabilities of that ministry. Take your "entanglement theories and complaints" to a more specific thread, preferably away from BlackSDA, IMHO! Those that feel disenchanted with my official position about my "overall world-wide church" are cordially invited to get over their cheap-selves!

The most vital fact that has been established in this arena is that the "financial conduit through the regularly organized church as a whole" has been dealt a very severe blow! My common sense causes me to question how the financial conduit was ever established in the first place without the "proper internal controls in place!" Other than that, search out the nearest fence post with which to argue and waste your time.

I'm reminded of the local conference owned\operated nursing home where lack of proper sanitation led to a drastic change in the operational entity. Do you think the governing entity did a lot of arguing about who caused the lack of sanitation? Lack of sanitation by one entity caused other Certificates of Necessity to be issued. If you can't comprehend this picture, you may have the opportunity to argue your reasoning is some "soup line!"

[Shepherdswife]

I´m glad you want to be totally honest. Then you will also have to admit that you have not read much of what I have posted earlier. What more concrete evidence could I have? I was involved in this before it started.

Johann, do you two know each other? I have not kept up with this thread because frankly, most of it makes no sense to me, and I thought I was a reasonably intelligent person. Either I am not "legal" enough, or there are ESL issues here, but as it has gone on a long time and you seem to respond to CPAATTY as if you understand what he is saying, the only thing I can come up with is that some of you know him and what he is up to or trying to say...and the back and forth that I have picked up on seems to come from possible long-term jousting?

You don't have to answer, I am not trying to "out" anyone--just trying to figure out why I am not "getting it" when it seems others are...am I the only one? I first thought that the whole thing was a joke, but evidently not.

shepherdswife

[YogusBearus]

Johann, do you two know each other? I have not kept up with this thread because frankly, most of it makes no sense to me, and I thought I was a reasonably intelligent person. Either I am not "legal" enough, or there are ESL issues here, but as it has gone on a long time and you seem to respond to CPAATTY as if you understand what he is saying, the only thing I can come up with is that some of you know him and what he is up to or trying to say...and the back and forth that I have picked up on seems to come from possible long-term jousting?

You don't have to answer, I am not trying to "out" anyone--just trying to figure out why I am not "getting it" when it seems others are...am I the only one? I first thought that the whole thing was a joke, but evidently not.

shepherdswife

LOL Shepherdswife! Isn't it amazing how often our first impression is correct?

-bear

[CPAATTY]

The most vital fact that has been established in this arena is that the "financial conduit through the regularly organized church as a whole" has been dealt a very severe blow! My common sense causes me to question how the financial conduit was ever established in the first place without the "proper internal controls in place!" Other than that, search out the nearest fence post with which to argue and waste your time.

I'm reminded of the local conference owned\operated nursing home where lack of proper sanitation led to a drastic change in the operational entity. Do you think the governing entity did a lot of arguing about who caused the lack of sanitation? Lack of sanitation by one entity caused other Certificates of Necessity to be issued. If you can't comprehend this picture, you may have the opportunity to argue your reasoning is some "soup line!"

The "off-shoot" types are shooting off which is understandable on an "independent minsistry" thread! Oh, they love their independence where the TEN are mandates rather than promises!

[Fran]

The reason many don't get "it" is because CPAATTY is carrying conversations with his/her self. We will never understand the workings taking place in this persons mind for sure!

Johann, do you two know each other? I have not kept up with this thread because frankly, most of it makes no sense to me, and I thought I was a reasonably intelligent person. Either I am not "legal" enough, or there are ESL issues here, but as it has gone on a long time and you seem to respond to CPAATTY as if you understand what he is saying, the only thing I can come up with is that some of you know him and what he is up to or trying to say...and the back and forth that I have picked up on seems to come from possible long-term jousting?

You don't have to answer, I am not trying to "out" anyone--just trying to figure out why I am not "getting it" when it seems others are...am I the only one? I first thought that the whole thing was a joke, but evidently not.

shepherdswife

[Johann]

Johann, do you two know each other? I have not kept up with this thread because frankly, most of it makes no sense to me, and I thought I was a reasonably intelligent person. Either I am not "legal" enough, or there are ESL issues here, but as it has gone on a long time and you seem to respond to CPAATTY as if you understand what he is saying, the only thing I can come up with is that some of you know him and what he is up to or trying to say...and the back and forth that I have picked up on seems to come from possible long-term jousting?

You don't have to answer, I am not trying to "out" anyone--just trying to figure out why I am not "getting it" when it seems others are...am I the only one? I first thought that the whole thing was a joke, but evidently not.

shepherdswife

I find a few words I understand and then I guess the rest. Had some practice learning various languages.