An Unauthorized History Of 3abn, Continues Options

[Ian]

As usual Appletree, you are factually challenged in every way. What first hand witnesses? No names, nothing except your word—which is suspect at best—to prove that your facts are anything more than the musings of an idle mind. If idle hands are the devil’s workshop, how much more the false accusations, innuendos and outright lies of an idle mind such as yours?

And by the way, I was not speculating on your identity when I mentioned “Danny’s tactics” merely suggesting that you and he use the same despicable maneuvers in presenting falsehoods as truth in attempting to murder the reputations of honest individuals who are willing to stand for conscience and expose Danny Shelton’s true character and what goes on behind the scenes at 3ABN.

Go ahead, Appletree, keep suggesting that I am Linda or Sandra or anyone else of your choosing, it just makes it easier for me to move unobserved, witnessing and writing about what goes on in Dannyland...

Sister,

In reading your posts here, and your pm to me, I can see that you are upset. I maintain that I do not believe all the personal insults are necessary, but I do understand why you would be upset that the story you related here was challenged, so I would like to address that.

Before I posted, I tried to explain the danger of just taking one point of view and not asking others, or investigating further, before forming a judgment or repeating it.

It is true no names were given here, but rather then calling it all lies, and attacks because it doesn't agree with what you claim Mr and Mrs F said, maybe we could look at this in an objective manner and consider that Mr F & Mrs F were obviously alone in their perception and view of the situation, and in their objections to Danny being an Elder.

Why would I say that?

Because the one thing that your account and the others that I related have in common is that the nominating committee did not agree with him, next when he objected before the Church, the other Elders and the Pastor did not agree with him, and finally when it was taken to a vote the entire church did not agree with him, for Danny was voted in as an Elder.

You did not mention anyone else voting with Mr F and His wife... and actually emphasized how alone they were.

That leads me to suspect that perhaps the way they perceived the situation was skewed or clouded by misunderstanding or something, certainly it is obvious all the others perceived Danny and the situation differently.

Moving on..

You have not related how Mr F was fired, and how you tie these two events together yet, and I presume you still plan to,

When, and if you do, as you are allegedly in touch with Mr F, could you ask him the date the Church voted in Danny as Elder, and the Date #ABN let Mr F go? And what ties those 2 events together?

Sometimes people have a way of looking at things that casts the blame on others rather than themselves, and excuses any fault, accountability, or responsibility that they may have when it comes to consequences. I don't know if that is the case but it should be considered at least, and ruled out if proof to the contrary exists.

I would also like the official reason he was given for the loss of his position at 3ABN. I am sure that more than I would consider that a necessary ingredient in trying to decide what to believe here.

Thank you. I am sure we would all like to see an end to all of this.

Peace--

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 27 2008, 08:44 AM

[PeacefulBe]

Calvin,

You remind me of the time I was doing graduate studies at a Lutheran theological faculty. There I was exposed to all kinds of theories, also the work of de-mythologizing. In the following I am NOT stating my opinion, but the opinion of certain de-mythologizers of whom there are various shades.

Don't grab your hankerchief when reading the melodramatic renditions of the miracles of Christ nor the story of Joseph. It is all fiction, but useful fiction. This fiction inspires faith, and that is why you have to keep dramatizing it from your pulpit. You just have to keep in mind for yourself that these things never happened the way it is told in the Bible.

Neither did some of the good Lutheran theologians believe in all the dramatic stories told from the reformation and the life of Luther. Just fiction to instill faith in the hearers.

So is truth somewhere in between? Should we balance our faith and stay away from the either or created by our 3ABN - and other - evangelists?

I will have some more comments later.

So, let me try to understand this.... In your allegory, are you saying that Sister's version of events is like the Bible stories? Inspired by God? Are you saying that anything brought by those representing 3abn, the "evangelists", is like the Lutheran faculty, heretically de-mythologizing Sister's inspired truth and that their offerings are merely attempts at historical revisionism like the Lutheran theologians?

If so, it appears that some might view Sister as anointed...

Feathers have certainly gotten ruffled.

[sister]

Sister,

...finally when it was taken to a vote the entire church did not agree with him, for Danny was voted in as an Elder.

You have made an error in logical thought and in doing so have come to a false conclusion. It is true that the vote was taken and as a whole the report of the nominating committee was accepted and that Danny was voted in as an elder. The error in your reasoning comes with the conclusion that “the entire church did not agree with him (Pastor Fiscalini)”.

How is it possible for the entire church to either agree or disagree with Pastor Fiscalini when they had not heard his views, neither were they informed of the nature of his disagreement with the report of the Nominating Committee. The church neither agreed or disagreed with Pastor Fiscalini, before the vote was taken they were not given the opportunity for further knowledge in regard to the situation. I know this for a fact, I was present and sitting in a pew at the Thompsonville Church. I, like the other church members, wondered what was going on behind closed doors, but no explanation was given.

An insight into the Nominating Committee, the elders and the Pastor of the Thompsonville SDA Church: all were either employees or had immediate family members who were employees of 3ABN. The church building, as has been established, was bought and owned by 3ABN. Actually, Danny himself, in the name of 3ABN, made the decision for this purchase. As president of 3ABN all assets were at Danny Shelton disposal, including the church building and the grounds of the Thompsonville SDA Church.

It was also stated that the church paid no rent to inhabit the premises and therefore had no rental contract entitling them continual occupancy. This situation created an apparent conflict of interest between 3ABN and the Thompsonville Church. The church existed in it’s current location dependant exclusively upon the goodwill of one individual— Danny Shelton. Prior to meeting at this location they had met in the original 3ABN complex. Prior to that everyone had been a member of one of the district churches that surrounded 3ABN. After a disagreement of how the worship service should be managed at the West Frankfort Church, Danny left and started having his own church services at 3ABN.

Why was the Thompsonville SDA church formed? Unable to have the control he desired at the West Frankfort SDA church, Danny picked up his marbles and founded the Thompsonville SDA Church, which consisted himself and a tiny group of 3ABN employees...

[Johann]

So, let me try to understand this.... In your allegory, are you saying that Sister's version of events is like the Bible stories? Inspired by God? Are you saying that anything brought by those representing 3abn, the "evangelists", is like the Lutheran faculty, heretically de-mythologizing Sister's inspired truth and that their offerings are merely attempts at historical revisionism like the Lutheran theologians?

If so, it appears that some might view Sister as anointed...

Feathers have certainly gotten ruffled.

PB, you have made some excellent posts in the past. Please read again what I wrote. I have no way of understaning what you do not understand.

What did I say about inspiration?

How do you understand an allegory?

How did I state that Sister's stories are like Bible Stories? Did I make any reference to Sister's stories?

What did I say about evangelistist? Anything negative?

Did I make any indication they are like any Lutheran theologians?

What indications did you find that what I wrote only applied to a single person or a group?

I have a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say. I need a key to understand.

This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 27 2008, 11:41 AM

[Ian]

You have made an error in logical thought and in doing so have come to a false conclusion. It is true that the vote was taken and as a whole the report of the nominating committee was accepted and that Danny was voted in as an elder. The error in your reasoning comes with the conclusion that “the entire church did not agree with him (Pastor Fiscalini)”.

How is it possible for the entire church to either agree or disagree with Pastor Fiscalini when they had not heard his views, neither were they informed of the nature of his disagreement with the report of the Nominating Committee. The church neither agreed or disagreed with Pastor Fiscalini, before the vote was taken they were not given the opportunity for further knowledge in regard to the situation. I know this for a fact, I was present and sitting in a pew at the Thompsonville Church. I, like the other church members, wondered what was going on behind closed doors, but no explanation was given.

An insight into the Nominating Committee, the elders and the Pastor of the Thompsonville SDA Church: all were either employees or had immediate family members who were employees of 3ABN. The church building, as has been established, was bought and owned by 3ABN. Actually, Danny himself, in the name of 3ABN, made the decision for this purchase. As president of 3ABN all assets were at Danny Shelton disposal, including the church building and the grounds of the Thompsonville SDA Church.

It was also stated that the church paid no rent to inhabit the premises and therefore had no rental contract entitling them continual occupancy. This situation created an apparent conflict of interest between 3ABN and the Thompsonville Church. The church existed in it’s current location dependant exclusively upon the goodwill of one individual— Danny Shelton. Prior to meeting at this location they had met in the original 3ABN complex. Prior to that everyone had been a member of one of the district churches that surrounded 3ABN. After a disagreement of how the worship service should be managed at the West Frankfort Church, Danny left and started having his own church services at 3ABN.

Why was the Thompsonville SDA church formed? Unable to have the control he desired at the West Frankfort SDA church, Danny picked up his marbles and founded the Thompsonville SDA Church, which consisted himself and a tiny group of 3ABN employees...

Sister,

Two things.

1.I am quite sure we have all either been on nominating commitees or have taken part in a church vote to fill Church offices.

When do members ever know objections raised in the nominating commitee meeting or behind closed doors?

They don't.

What the members do know, is the Job description and duties, and they know the brethren they are voting for, and they each know whether they believe that individual is qualified and suited for that position, and all vote their conscience, or should.

None of the things you have brought up in your "story" as concerning Mr F were private nor secret, so all had the same opportunity to see the same things for themselves and have the same concerns or objections without having him tell them.

They didn't vote with him, obviously as you say you were sitting there you did not either.

In my opinion you are grasping at straws trying to defend what you have previously posted, and it doesn't really make sense to me.

2. If the grounds and building was being given to the Church to use freely, then there is no reason to say it created a conflict of interest UNLESS the members were being coerced or forced to do things with threats that they could or would no longer be able to use the building or grounds if they did not do as Danny wanted them to do.

Is that what you are really claiming here? If so, you need to document it.

If not, you need to stop.

So far the only conflict seems to be about who would pay for what in the Church. The members are responsible for financing church expenses. So it does not seem unreasonable to me that Danny or any other would say that it wasn't 3ABNs responsibility to finance the Church endeavors or redecorating or whatever, especially as the constant concern here is that the Church is a conference Church and should be independant of 3ABN.

Also, the members freely joined the T'ville Church and they could freely leave, and meet in a home or go back to the surrounding Churches you spoke of...

One thing i really object to in all these stories and accounts whether it be about the T'ville Church or 3ABN, or ASI, or whoever is that only the key players and hero's in your's and other renditions can see and know all, the rest are portrayed as lacking faith, convictions and intelligence, or frightened out of their wits and unable to do anything bout it. I have a hard time buying that, and think it's belittling and insulting to them. That of course is my opinion.

Feel free to have the last word here, I'll wait for the conclusion to your story and the things I asked for, b4 commenting further.

peace--

edit-syntax

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 27 2008, 02:18 PM

[Pickle]

How is it possible for the entire church to either agree or disagree with Pastor Fiscalini when they had not heard his views, neither were they informed of the nature of his disagreement with the report of the Nominating Committee. The church neither agreed or disagreed with Pastor Fiscalini, before the vote was taken they were not given the opportunity for further knowledge in regard to the situation. I know this for a fact, I was present and sitting in a pew at the Thompsonville Church. I, like the other church members, wondered what was going on behind closed doors, but no explanation was given.

Shouldn't the church have been told what the difficulty was so that they could have voted intelligently?

The church building, as has been established, was bought and owned by 3ABN. Actually, Danny himself, in the name of 3ABN, made the decision for this purchase.

So a church building off 3ABN's premises was owned by 3ABN, not the Thompsonville Church and the Conference? Who allowed that kind of thing to happen? When did it happen? Why didn't the conference deal with this?

[Pickle]

2. If the grounds and building was being given to the Church to use freely, then there is no reason to say it created a conflict of interest UNLESS the members were being coerced or forced to do things with threats that they could or would no longer be able to use the building or grounds if they did not do as Danny wanted them to do.

Or if they would lose their job if Danny didn't get his way.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Well, wasn't Pastor Johann also fired for not going along with Danny Shelton? But then, although somewhat related firing-wise, that's another story.

[Ian]

Shouldn't the church have been told what the difficulty was so that they could have voted intelligently?

As if they were all ignorant of the fact Danny couldn't be an active Elder every Sabbath or attend all the meetings without Mr F telling them that? or that is what any Church ever does?
... see my post above...

So a church building off 3ABN's premises was owned by 3ABN, not the Thompsonville Church and the Conference? Who allowed that kind of thing to happen? When did it happen? Why didn't the conference deal with this?

BOB, you appear o be trying to blow this all out of proprtion,this is hardly a unique situation. They are a conference Church, so that should tell you the conference was ok with it.

If you have doubts ask the conference whether they or the church in question have to own the property and building.

Common sense?

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 27 2008, 02:56 PM

[Ian]

Or if they would lose their job if Danny didn't get his way.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would lose their jobs if danny didn't get his way about the Church handling there own finances and not depending on 3ABN to foot the bills?






common sense should tell you that all 3ABN had to do was say No, that's not our responsibility.

[lurker]

Ian, that's not the way I took Mr Pickle's post. I took it that one might think one might loose a job if he embarrassed Danny by opposing his nomination as elder (or opposed anything he had his heart set on).

This post has been edited by lurker: Jan 27 2008, 03:01 PM

[Ian]

Ian, that's not the way I took Mr Pickle's post. I took it that one might think one might loose a job if he embarrassed Danny by opposing his nomination as elder (or opposed anything he had his heart set on).

And? Certainly people are implying or suggesting that here, but do you see any evidence anywhere in this thread to support, or justify a church member thinking like that?

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 27 2008, 03:10 PM

[Pickle]

And? Certainly people are implying or suggesting that here, but do you see any evidence anywhere in this thread to support, or justify a church member thinking like that?

Sure. We have testimony purportedly coming from both Elder and Mrs. Fiscalini to that effect. Now if they had first been sworn in, their testimony would be admissibile in court as evidence.

[Pickle]

BOB, you appear o be trying to blow this all out of proprtion,this is hardly a unique situation.

What percentage of church buildings off premises of an institutional campus are owned by the institution rather than the church or conference? Sounds rather unique to me.

But I don't know that my questions have been answered. Was this a church building off premises and yet at the same time owned by 3ABN?

[Ian]

Sure. We have testimony purportedly coming from both Elder and Mrs. Fiscalini to that effect. Now if they had first been sworn in, their testimony would be admissibile in court as evidence.

Oh for pity's sake.

What would you submit in a court of law from this thread as evidence?!?

IMO this is what is wrong with so much of your reporting You jump from one to three and leave out two. There is zero evidence in this thread about why Mr F would have cause to be afraid beforehand, and there izero evidence in this thread tying the event in question to the loss of Mr F's employment. Sister hasn't even written her version yet of how or when or why he was fired, if that is even the case.

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 27 2008, 03:35 PM