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

[CPAATTY]

This lawyer\cpa has seen a lot of "self justification" even in religious matters amongst many tied to the purse-strings of the church where administrators have a degree of direction, control if you must, which I heartily suggest as a hedge for "decency and order" in all respects as we are all still human. Once decency and order are breached, it takes too many resources to get the "ox out of the ditch" where it could be construed that the ox was placed there conveniently. The "placing" in this case is no exception to that rule.

I remember well the "camp meeting contacts" ab initio and wasn't too swift even then on "independent ministries" conveniently connected to the "regularly organized church" primarily from its financial resources. I became aware of human tendencies of some to embezzle from "church related funds" early in gaining my educational work for my dual profession. With this knowledge in hand, I am never surprised that a major player in an independent minestry may be tagged with possible misconduct where there is a possible breakdown in corporate governance. My years of "fact finding" in my dual profession speaks loud and clear of "red flags" needing further attention.

It appears to me that some have conveniently latched on to "spiritual adultry" rather than "physical adultry" for their degree of "self-justification" for their actions. We should all clearly understand that "adulty" within the relationships between the "HEVENLY PERSONAGE" involves even "THE VERY THOUGHTS!" Are all thoughts sinful or is it necessary for these thoughts to become "cherished" before they become sin? While I have avoided two areas of law, criminal and domestic relations, I see only "physical adultry" as biblical justification as last resort for divorce as I understand, for only myself, that thoughts, even cherished if they become, are not yet "matters between the married parties." We should all understand that both spiritual as well as physical adultry must be forgiven.

While I have formed my own opinion in this matter to self-justify any actions that may be required of me going forward, I query whether the wisdom of Solomon could be applied in this environment by the use of polygraph techniques in re the "crux of the problem" to possibly see which side would "walk with the baby" if the results thereof could be rightly determined from being conducted in a well defined environment while keeping in mind that the theory of "spiritual vs physical adultry" will not be resolved. Rather than being misled of evil, I will excuse my spouse for using "spiritual adultry" against me if they so desire while opting only for "physical adultry" for myself as a reason. Why would I take this position? Simply stated, true spiritual adultry can only be surmised by weak human beings if used as an "excuse" as it is only between the Creator and the created and fully understood only by the Godhead.

[Johann]

CPAATTY. I appreciate your words of wisdom.

[Whtz Happenin]

Welcome CPAATTY

I have a very simple mind. Could you summarize what you said above using one or two sentences?

Thank you and enjoy your time here. Even with all of your experience, I believe your head will be spinning after reading all of the information located here.



This post has been edited by Whtz Happenin: Oct 16 2007, 04:19 AM

[Nandina]

Welcome CPAATTY

I have a very simple mind. Could you summarize what you said above using one or two sentences?

Thank you and enjoy your time here. Even with all of your experience, I believe your head will be spinning after reading all of the information located here.

I think he's saying that, although scripture indicates "adultery" as a LAST RESORT for divorce (don't have to divorce, would be better to forgive) the admonition that a person who regards another with lust has already committed adultery in their heart is in fact intended to warn God's people against letting a sinful thought linger in their mind (lest the lust of the eye turn into the lust of the flesh). The determination as to whether this has actually happened is only discernible by God and/or the other person, so hardly grounds for divorce.

[SoulEspresso]

... and that whichever side is first willing to take a polygraph might be right?

I'm not sure how good/bad this idea is, but I'm amazed nobody thought of it before.

[Statrei]

While I have avoided two areas of law, criminal and domestic relations, I see only "physical adultry" as biblical justification as last resort for divorce as I understand,

I cringe everytime I hear that statement because it is a misinterpretation of a clear statement. Hearing from a one who has training in law makes me cringe even more.

[CPAATTY]

Welcome CPAATTY

I have a very simple mind. Could you summarize what you said above using one or two sentences?

Thank you and enjoy your time here. Even with all of your experience, I believe your head will be spinning after reading all of the information located here.

We don't think you are simple minded in spite of your self-styled contention; however, a feeble attempt is made to allay your concerns. The ministry is viewed by some to have been placed in jeapordy financially and elsewise without the proper give\take on the matters of a continuing relevance based on viewed past, present, and future actions adjudged on a day to day basis.

Don't fret as I have dealt with both the schooled as well as the unschooled. Many times you have no problems with the schooled as they mostly opt out of independent ministries unless they want to organize their ministry in such a manner as to sever the financial ties but not other assumed ties with the regularly organized chuch, including doctrine. I am reminded on one shooled individual who ran affoul of "regular organization" and who accepted semi-organized financial assistance from my local church which finally eroded into a total severance. The severance prompted a split in the local church to provide financial support for the affected party through an independent ministry. This ministry moved forward until an allegation of rape of a teen using hypmotism was made by one of the split group against the affected party which caused the affected party to move to another area after a so-called preliminary hearing was held in an ice-cream parlor by a justice-court judge with a jury of three men. The defendant's lawyer subpoenaed the "whole local organized church" as witnesses with the view to make it appear as an "axe to grind" by the witnesses where none were ever called. This was before the "DNA" days. None have come forward since to press criminal charges against the alleged party. Rumor has it that a party questioned the alleged rapist as to whether he raped the teen. The response by the alleged rapist was "I wasn't convicted" subject to interpretation rather a flat denial. So you see, there are opportunities for potential misrepresentation in most matters.

The "crux of the whole problem" seems to have begun with an "independent ministry too closely connected to the "financial blessings of the regularly organized SDA church" as viewed by some wherein the "constituency or shareholders in the pews" have little direct or no indirect oversight over the "cause" that appears to be sanctioned by the leadership of the regularly organized SDA church to the highest leadership levels on a worldwide basis without a warning that the shareholders are granted no voting powers therein. I am not impressed with the credentials of volunteer boards of directors to prevent or deal squarely in light of the "ENRON" debacle et al of recent fame. Some may view volunteerism as not being 100% accountable to the "primary financial supporters" who, in the final analysis, will cause a demise if further support is required by an informed majority of segmented supporters. A majority of SDAs speak with their financial blessings while some of them further feel the responsibility to whet their interest in the overall health of their overall church ministy past their tithe and freewill offerings. I will agree that those who have supported, directly or indirectly, alleged self-supporting ministries should have a say in the overall resources of that entity. I further agree that any self-supporting ministry that alligns itself, to any degree, to the "regularly organized SDA, should be willing to be controlled as to the presentation of doctrine, lifestyle, and all other matters of faith espoused by the "regularly organized church" and as presented by the independent ministry that will not confuse innocent bystanders about SDA beliefs generally as well as specifically.

[watchbird]

... and that whichever side is first willing to take a polygraph might be right?

I'm not sure how good/bad this idea is, but I'm amazed nobody thought of it before.

Someone already has... and it has been previously discussed here on BSDA. The problem with polygraph testing is that they cannot be depended upon to be 100% correct.... and especially is this so with persons who have the habitual patterns of behavior as have been exhibited by Danny Shelton and others connected with him.

But the problem goes much deeper than that... for the point is not, and never has been, merely one of Danny and Linda's marriage and whether or not she did some kind of "adultery". CPAATTY needs to start at the beginning and read all there is on here to read.... starting with the pinned threads at the top... and including working through all of the "guided tour to the history threads" urls as well.

When he sees the breadth, depth, and time length of the many problems, he will realize that there are things here that no polygraph... however accurate... could possibly untangle and put straight. Only repentance, confession, reparation, and complete housecleaning.... including everything under the various levels of rugs.... will suffice.

[Johann]

I cringe everytime I hear that statement because it is a misinterpretation of a clear statement. Hearing from a one who has training in law makes me cringe even more.

It is unclear to me what cringes and how.

[Statrei]

Reading CPAATTY post reminds me of something my Torts professor told us during our first class. He said that by the time we are done with law school we will be able to converse with any lawyer in the country, and we also won't be able to converse with anyone else. Not many people are going to be up on their "ab initio" and "in re."

[Statrei]

It is unclear to me what cringes and how.

Jesus has been misinterpreted as saying that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. We have repeated that lie so often that we now believe it to be truth.

[CPAATTY]

I think he's saying that, although scripture indicates "adultery" as a LAST RESORT for divorce (don't have to divorce, would be better to forgive) the admonition that a person who regards another with lust has already committed adultery in their heart is in fact intended to warn God's people against letting a sinful thought linger in their mind (lest the lust of the eye turn into the lust of the flesh). The determination as to whether this has actually happened is only discernable by God and/or the other person, so hardly grounds for divorce.

Following the admonition of "7 X 70", "70 X 7" or even "70 X 70", I would be priming myself for actual physical adultry en persona by the injured in rather than mere "spiritual adultry which hopefully would have been fogriven when used by an alleged aggieved party.

I hope all get the distinct impression that I would not be prepared to argue the law of spirtual adulty with St. Pete at the Gate regarding sexual matters. I fully understand and irrevocable hold that spiritual adultry can involve religious doctrine apart from sexual matters.

[watchbird]

Reading CPAATTY post reminds me of something my Torts professor told us during our first class. He said that by the time we are done with law school we will be able to converse with any lawyer in the country, and we also won't be able to converse with anyone else. Not many people are going to be up on their "ab initio" and "in re."

[awesumtenor]

Following the admonition of "7 X 70", "70 X 7" or even "70 X 70", I would be priming myself for actual physical adultry en persona by the injured in rather than mere "spiritual adultry which hopefully would have been fogriven when used by an alleged aggieved party.

I hope all get the distinct impression that I would not be prepared to argue the law of spirtual adulty with St. Pete at the Gate regarding sexual matters. I fully understand and irrevocable hold that spiritual adultry can involve religious doctrine apart from sexual matters.

Dude, we believe you when you say you're an attorney... your bona fides are established so you don't have to keep speaking legalese as proof... you're having a conversation, not entering a plea... otherwise people are going to look at your posts like this: until they elect to not look at them at all...

Just a non-binding suggestion...

In His service,
Mr. J

[CPAATTY]

Reading CPAATTY post reminds me of something my Torts professor told us during our first class. He said that by the time we are done with law school we will be able to converse with any lawyer in the country, and we also won't be able to converse with anyone else. Not many people are going to be up on their "ab initio" and "in re."

We post for all levels, including professionals as well as the willing ignorant "engaged even with the CLOTH!" We hope you have "stumbling-around" intelligence of the level that would permit you to elide or slide past parts you do not fully understand due to spelling or some insignifigant inclusion by the writer. I hope you get the distinct unerstanding that retirement has pulled me from the courtroom looking for relief from one whose main ability is to tell you more and more about less and less or to the extent you understand everything about nothing!

Before I get away from you, let me inform you there are various and sundry jurisdictional legal causes and defenses for and against divorce. I approached the subject on the basis that the venue or subject matter was fairly well defined, maybe not to the jail-house lawyers in attendance!

Let us inject the defence of "CONDONATION" for church jurisprudence no matter what the laws of Guam or any other jurisdiction may allow. I personally would have severed full and complete disassociation in all respects from the offending party, especially the residential occupation part, once I discovered an alleged cause of action whether you call it spiritual adultry or spiritual infidelity. I think we have adequate admonition by the alleged prophet among us on dealing with unbelievers to whom we may be married! Alas, how complex we lawyers present ourselves! I will cease and desist for the present so as to get back to my full-time stock trading!