Reaping The Whirl Wind, IRS Criminal Investigation of 3ABN Options

[runner4him]

That is how I understood it--a tongue in cheek statement.

That was my first thought while reading the article...... Tongue in Cheek

[Richard Sherwin]

dittos

That was my first thought while reading the article...... Tongue in Cheek

[lurker]

[quote name='Ian' date='Dec 9 2007, 06:17 AM' post='227371']

For what it's worth and despite the false claims and erronious speculation about the IRS and what's going on in this thread, from what I have seen and read it appears to me that it is you and Joy, and your cohorts and supporters, and even sources, who are, and will be reaping the whirlwind.

"Even sources." Isn't this a bit much? Do you mean that even IRS and the federal, state and local government employees, whose jobs are to gather and make public information filed by the plaintiffs, will reap the whirlwind. Are the plaintiffs that vindictive?

This post has been edited by lurker: Dec 9 2007, 08:07 AM

[watchbird]

Maybe I got the wrong impression when I read the article but I thought that the conclusion that the lawsuit would not have happened if the plaintiffs didn't have proof was a kind of tongue in cheek statement ...

I've been putting together what I know personally of Vance... and I'm having a hard time seeing him as using "tongue in cheek"... at least in the common use of that term. I can, however, see it as a defensive ploy... and by that I mean this. Vance knows his constituency (ie, those to whom he appeals and who can be affected by what he says), and he doubtless knows that a large number of these are in the "Danny Shelton can do no wrong" camp. So his task is this... how to warn those who do not want to be warned without causing them to attack him for even hinting that something may, indeed, be very wrong. In that case, he has "covered himself" very well by echoing the sentiments that he knows many (maybe most) of his readers hold... while at the same time giving them the warning that he thinks they need. This much I know for certain... 1) Vance considers himself a "watchman on the walls of Zion"... 2) he takes that role very seriously.... and 3) he is both cognizant and shrewd as to what will be accepted by his "constituency".

IOW, I think there is a pungent phrase that covers this.... and it isn't "tongue in cheek".

[watchbird]

For what it's worth and despite the false claims and erronious speculation about the IRS and what's going on in this thread, from what I have seen and read it appears to me that it is you and Joy, and your cohorts and supporters, and even sources, who are, and will be reaping the whirlwind.

"Even sources." Isn't this a bit much? Do you mean that even IRS and the federal, state and local government employees, whose jobs are to gather and make public information filed by the plaintiffs, will reap the whirlwind. Are the plaintiffs that vindictive?

I'm sure they are... but... in the face of the forces that cause the whirlwind.... their "vindictive" desires will be blown away like chaff. Then it will be seen who is making "false claims and erroneous speculation".

Let us continue waiting patiently.

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

[GRAT]

I've been putting together what I know personally of Vance... and I'm having a hard time seeing him as using "tongue in cheek"... at least in the common use of that term. I can, however, see it as a defensive ploy... and by that I mean this. Vance knows his constituency (ie, those to whom he appeals and who can be affected by what he says), and he doubtless knows that a large number of these are in the "Danny Shelton can do no wrong" camp. So his task is this... how to warn those who do not want to be warned without causing them to attack him for even hinting that something may, indeed, be very wrong. In that case, he has "covered himself" very well by echoing the sentiments that he knows many (maybe most) of his readers hold... while at the same time giving them the warning that he thinks they need. This much I know for certain... 1) Vance considers himself a "watchman on the walls of Zion"... 2) he takes that role very seriously.... and 3) he is both cognizant and shrewd as to what will be accepted by his "constituency".

IOW, I think there is a pungent phrase that covers this.... and it isn't "tongue in cheek".

Thank you for your wise perspective. I had never heard of the man or the web site. Am learning so much here. Will go back and reread it with this in mind.

As to your last sentence.............

[lurker]

The part that I disagree with Mr Farrel about is that it isn't all about Linda and whether the accusations about her were backed by any evidence at all. So far not even any circumstantial evidence has been brought forth that is convincing. I agree that if Danny can't come up with conclusive evidence, it does look bad for him though.

But the issues that have made this a matter of conscience for Pickle and Joy are the (documented) abuse of power and the lawbreaking by the leaders at 3ABN. And the glossing over of the same by those who are supposed to be responsible for keeping the leaders on the straight and narrow.

And I believe the lawsuit is about the same thing that the separation agreement with Linda was about. It is about silencing anyone who possibly has information about the plaintiffs which might be incriminating.

This post has been edited by lurker: Dec 9 2007, 10:28 AM

[Fran]

Many years ago I home schooled my children. We rarely had sugar in the house, but I bought them some chocolate as a special treat. I put it in my bedroom until I was ready to give it out at the end of the school day.

My oldest (then 12) asked to go to the bathroom. Off she went and was gone forever! I called to her and she finally appeared in the classroom with chocolate all over her face!

The other kids started laughing, but I told them to be quiet. After several minutes I asked one of the others to get the chocolate from my bedroom. Back he came with what was left. It wasn't much! She just about ate the whole thing!

I asked everyone if they knew what happened to the chocolate. Everyone but the chocolate eater raised their hands. I asked her if she knew. No she didn't. After a few minutes I told her to go to the bathroom and comb her hair. She did and came back with the chocolate all gone from her face.

Then we had a talk about sharing and honesty. She absolutely refused to admit she ate the chocolate! She lied so long about not eating the chocolate that she began to believe the lie. For years she accused everyone of lying about her. She began to firmly BELIEVE her lie!

Not until she turned about 25 did she accept that maybe she did eat that chocolate. However, she still held in the back of her mind that she did not do that.

Sometimes I feel that Danny has been caught lying and he now believes his very own lies. Scriptures tell us that even the elect could/would be led to believe a lie.

I read the article at SDA Defend and thought this is probably Danny's situation. When you start to believe your own lie, it becomes truth to the one lying.

[AzA]

Off-topic: Fran, that would make a great children's story; would you mind if I tell it one day?

[Johann]

But the issues that have made this a matter of conscience for Pickle and Joy are the (documented) abuse of power and the lawbreaking by the leaders at 3ABN. And the glossing over of the same by those who are supposed to be responsible for keeping the leaders on the straight and narrow.

And I believe the lawsuit is about the same thing that the separation agreement with Linda was about. It is about silencing anyone who possibly has information about the plaintiffs which might be incriminating.

Again you have hid the nail on the head, lurker. This is how my wife and I experienced the whole affair right from the beginning. Danny Shelton tried all he could to silence us about what we had experienced. When he did not succeed he tried to convince himself and other people that I was was a liar. That is why this case does not just fade out into oblivion, regardless of how much time it takes for cleansing of the issues. The knowledge of crimes may fade, but still remain an evil that has no place in a ministry that is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Johann]

Many years ago I home schooled my children. We rarely had sugar in the house, but I bought them some chocolate as a special treat. I put it in my bedroom until I was ready to give it out at the end of the school day.

My oldest (then 12) asked to go to the bathroom. Off she went and was gone forever! I called to her and she finally appeared in the classroom with chocolate all over her face!

The other kids started laughing, but I told them to be quiet. After several minutes I asked one of the others to get the chocolate from my bedroom. Back he came with what was left. It wasn't much! She just about ate the whole thing!

I asked everyone if they knew what happened to the chocolate. Everyone but the chocolate eater raised their hands. I asked her if she knew. No she didn't. After a few minutes I told her to go to the bathroom and comb her hair. She did and came back with the chocolate all gone from her face.

Then we had a talk about sharing and honesty. She absolutely refused to admit she ate the chocolate! She lied so long about not eating the chocolate that she began to believe the lie. For years she accused everyone of lying about her. She began to firmly BELIEVE her lie!

Not until she turned about 25 did she accept that maybe she did eat that chocolate. However, she still held in the back of her mind that she did not do that.

Sometimes I feel that Danny has been caught lying and he now believes his very own lies. Scriptures tell us that even the elect could/would be led to believe a lie.

I read the article at SDA Defend and thought this is probably Danny's situation. When you start to believe your own lie, it becomes truth to the one lying.

A great story, Fran!

[Brenda]

I've been putting together what I know personally of Vance... and I'm having a hard time seeing him as using "tongue in cheek"... at least in the common use of that term. I can, however, see it as a defensive ploy... and by that I mean this. Vance knows his constituency (ie, those to whom he appeals and who can be affected by what he says), and he doubtless knows that a large number of these are in the "Danny Shelton can do no wrong" camp. So his task is this... how to warn those who do not want to be warned without causing them to attack him for even hinting that something may, indeed, be very wrong. In that case, he has "covered himself" very well by echoing the sentiments that he knows many (maybe most) of his readers hold... while at the same time giving them the warning that he thinks they need. This much I know for certain... 1) Vance considers himself a "watchman on the walls of Zion"... 2) he takes that role very seriously.... and 3) he is both cognizant and shrewd as to what will be accepted by his "constituency".

IOW, I think there is a pungent phrase that covers this.... and it isn't "tongue in cheek".

so I will stick to my original word - interesting . I have no knowledge of the author and will use another 'i' word to describe the comments here - illuminating.

[PeacefulBe]

Many years ago I home schooled my children. We rarely had sugar in the house, but I bought them some chocolate as a special treat. I put it in my bedroom until I was ready to give it out at the end of the school day.

My oldest (then 12) asked to go to the bathroom. Off she went and was gone forever! I called to her and she finally appeared in the classroom with chocolate all over her face!

The other kids started laughing, but I told them to be quiet. After several minutes I asked one of the others to get the chocolate from my bedroom. Back he came with what was left. It wasn't much! She just about ate the whole thing!

I asked everyone if they knew what happened to the chocolate. Everyone but the chocolate eater raised their hands. I asked her if she knew. No she didn't. After a few minutes I told her to go to the bathroom and comb her hair. She did and came back with the chocolate all gone from her face.

Then we had a talk about sharing and honesty. She absolutely refused to admit she ate the chocolate! She lied so long about not eating the chocolate that she began to believe the lie. For years she accused everyone of lying about her. She began to firmly BELIEVE her lie!

Not until she turned about 25 did she accept that maybe she did eat that chocolate. However, she still held in the back of her mind that she did not do that.

Sometimes I feel that Danny has been caught lying and he now believes his very own lies. Scriptures tell us that even the elect could/would be led to believe a lie.

I read the article at SDA Defend and thought this is probably Danny's situation. When you start to believe your own lie, it becomes truth to the one lying.

Fran, this is a wonderful story that demonstrates the true power of a carefully nurtured lie. I'm just saddened that you didn't have a camera of some type to document the event so that your daughter could have fully broken out of her denial as an adult.

This story, knitted into the framework we are discussing on this forum as well as into life in general has inspired a cliche that I will be using on my family, and others, from this day forward:

Hon, the chocolate is right there on your face!

PB

[Johann]

This story, knitted into the framework we are discussing on this forum as well as into life in general has inspired a cliche that I will be using on my family, and others, from this day forward:

PB

Thank God we can learn a lot from this dreadful experience!

[Seraphim7]

Then we had a talk about sharing and honesty. She absolutely refused to admit she ate the chocolate! She lied so long about not eating the chocolate that she began to believe the lie. For years she accused everyone of lying about her. She began to firmly BELIEVE her lie!

Not until she turned about 25 did she accept that maybe she did eat that chocolate. However, she still held in the back of her mind that she did not do that.

Sometimes I feel that Danny has been caught lying and he now believes his very own lies. Scriptures tell us that even the elect could/would be led to believe a lie.

I read the article at SDA Defend and thought this is probably Danny's situation. When you start to believe your own lie, it becomes truth to the one lying.

I understand that you mean well however the verse does state, not nor has it ever stated, that the very elect could/would be led to believe a lie. It does say as noted below "and shall shew great signs and wonders; in so much that, IF it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Though it may not apply, 1 Tim 4 1 sounds as though it may be more appropriate. But the one you have referenced does not. Ones unwillingness to admit the truth even after one has clearly been caught in a lie. And, even into adulthood says to me that ones conscience has been affected to a great degree.

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Even more so 1Tim 4 seems to apply to Danny's situation...