If Danny Is The Victim?, Why is the church not defending him Options

[erik]

Ok all the Danny supporters.


Here is my very simple question if danny is the victim of a massive effort
to destroy him and 3abn.


Why as the leadership of the sda church not published a like in the review
or in north america in all the union papers at the same time an article that clearly
spells out that Danny is 100% in the right and come to his aid?

Why did danny not go ask the church to take a stand on his side instead of running off to court?

[Observer]

Ok all the Danny supporters.
Here is my very simple question if danny is the victim of a massive effort
to destroy him and 3abn.
Why as the leadership of the sda church not published a like in the review
or in north america in all the union papers at the same time an article that clearly
spells out that Danny is 100% in the right and come to his aid?

Why did danny not go ask the church to take a stand on his side instead of running off to court?

The answer to your qustion is very simple. I can illustrate it by asking the following question:

If Linda is the victim, why has the leadership of the SDA Chruch not published an article in the REVIEW and/or the Union Papers that clearly spells out that Linda is 100 % right and come to her aid?

NOTE: Let it be clear that I am a supporter of Linda. I did not post the above to suggst that Linda is guilty of the charges made against her. I posted it to illustrate a point.

The SDA Church does not have the ability to investigate and to resolve many of the issues that are involved in this saga. 3-ABN is an independent organization. As such, the denomination has no authority to investigate and impose a resolution upon 3-ABN. Certain of the issues involved allege criminal behavior. These allegations clearly fall into the venue of the civil authorities. The denomination cannot resolve these issues. Certain of the issues involve intrepretations of civil law and include rights granted by those laws. The denomination can not resolve these issues. The civil authorities are the only venue to impose a resolution upon the respective parties. Folks, that will typically mean litigation. There are other issues that do not rise to the level of criminal behavior but fall into a civil realm that belongs to the civil authorities and lie beyond what the deomination can resolve. As such, only the civil authorities can settle those matters.

Folks, the bottom line is: The denomination can not defend and publish articles in its publications that exeronate either individual because it lacks the authority to investigate and to impose a resolution on the respective parties.

NOTE: As many of you know, I was one of several people the entered into discussions withe Harold Lance of ASI in an attempt to resolve certain issues. That attempt failed. I do not intend to point fingers in this post. I happen to agree with Mr. Lance that a number of the issues were beyond the scope of this attempt at resolution and for reasons that I have given above. I considered that the ASI attempt at resolution could only have a very limited effect. I did have a hope that in a very limited way something positive could come from that effort. With the failure of the ASI attempt nothing positive came from the effort that people put into the discussions. I was sorry for that.

In the same sense, I do not believe that the denomination can do nothing in this ongoing saga. But, what it can do is very limited. I will say that the denomination has made limited attempts to become involved in the process. Some of those have been discussed in these forums. I appreciate what the denomination has attempted to do. I will also say that it is quite probable that the denomination has done more that has been discussed in public. Just because someting has not beeen discussed in these Internete forums does not mean that it has not happened. I personally know of some such, but it is likely that I do not know of most of such attempts.

There is a learning lesson that comes from this developing saga. I hope that we as a denomilnation can learn a lesson that will help to prevent another such event from developing. But, I am not certain that such will happen. While 3-ABN was independent, it claimed to be closely associated with the SDA denomination. As such it used our good name and trademarks in a manner that many people considered it to be an integral part of the SDA Church. Independent ministries can, in my opinion, make a vital contribution to the organized work of this Church. But, I will suggest that there are limits that must be placed upon the independence of organizations that trade upon the good name of the denomination in a manner that assocates them with the denomination in the mind of the population. The lesson that I believe needs to be learned is that the denomination must develop a process by which independent organizaiton who use our good name have some level of responsibility to the denomination. I will suggest that the issues that have arisen in connection with 3-ABN have arisen in part due to the fact that 3-ABN did not have the needed responsibility to the denomination and the denomination did not have the needed level of oversight of an organization that used its good name.

[erik]

The answer to your qustion is very simple. I can illustrate it by asking the following question:

If Linda is the victim, why has the leadership of the SDA Chruch not published an article in the REVIEW and/or the Union Papers that clearly spells out that Linda is 100 % right and come to her aid?

NOTE: Let it be clear that I am a supporter of Linda. I did not post the above to suggst that Linda is guilty of the charges made against her. I posted it to illustrate a point.

The SDA Church does not have the ability to investigate and to resolve many of the issues that are involved in this saga. 3-ABN is an independent organization. As such, the denomination has no authority to investigate and impose a resolution upon 3-ABN. Certain of the issues involved allege criminal behavior. These allegations clearly fall into the venue of the civil authorities. The denomination cannot resolve these issues. Certain of the issues involve intrepretations of civil law and include rights granted by those laws. The denomination can not resolve these issues. The civil authorities are the only venue to impose a resolution upon the respective parties. Folks, that will typically mean litigation. There are other issues that do not rise to the level of criminal behavior but fall into a civil realm that belongs to the civil authorities and lie beyond what the deomination can resolve. As such, only the civil authorities can settle those matters.

Folks, the bottom line is: The denomination can not defend and publish articles in its publications that exeronate either individual because it lacks the authority to investigate and to impose a resolution on the respective parties.

NOTE: As many of you know, I was one of several people the entered into discussions withe Harold Lance of ASI in an attempt to resolve certain issues. That attempt failed. I do not intend to point fingers in this post. I happen to agree with Mr. Lance that a number of the issues were beyond the scope of this attempt at resolution and for reasons that I have given above. I considered that the ASI attempt at resolution could only have a very limited effect. I did have a hope that in a very limited way something positive could come from that effort. With the failure of the ASI attempt nothing positive came from the effort that people put into the discussions. I was sorry for that.

In the same sense, I do not believe that the denomination can do nothing in this ongoing saga. But, what it can do is very limited. I will say that the denomination has made limited attempts to become involved in the process. Some of those have been discussed in these forums. I appreciate what the denomination has attempted to do. I will also say that it is quite probable that the denomination has done more that has been discussed in public. Just because someting has not beeen discussed in these Internete forums does not mean that it has not happened. I personally know of some such, but it is likely that I do not know of most of such attempts.

There is a learning lesson that comes from this developing saga. I hope that we as a denomilnation can learn a lesson that will help to prevent another such event from developing. But, I am not certain that such will happen. While 3-ABN was independent, it claimed to be closely associated with the SDA denomination. As such it used our good name and trademarks in a manner that many people considered it to be an integral part of the SDA Church. Independent ministries can, in my opinion, make a vital contribution to the organized work of this Church. But, I will suggest that there are limits that must be placed upon the independence of organizations that trade upon the good name of the denomination in a manner that assocates them with the denomination in the mind of the population. The lesson that I believe needs to be learned is that the denomination must develop a process by which independent organizaiton who use our good name have some level of responsibility to the denomination. I will suggest that the issues that have arisen in connection with 3-ABN have arisen in part due to the fact that 3-ABN did not have the needed responsibility to the denomination and the denomination did not have the needed level of oversight of an organization that used its good name.

With all due respect the attitude that the church as very limited options is because the church lacks an understanding of its role. Mr. shelton would still be building things or what ever else he did before pre-3abn days.

I understand the church is taking the "safe" route on this whole 3abn mess, and to be honest as a tithe paying member of the SDA church it makes me sick.

The church has the power and the moral oblagion to to step in, even if that means taking sides, maybe not on the marriage. But there is plenty of other stuff flying around that the church should have acted on.

and for the record the way the Church let Danny use it to smear Linda is a sad statement about the leadership of the church.

Very week At my little church in nowhere Oregon i hear about 3abn this and that, and the support they are getting from the church by its silence is on th etopic has allowed the untruths about this matter to grow a lot.

Plus what is the church going to when the mess at 3abn goes nuclear and they are trying to keep thousands of very heartbroken members from walking out of the church(and yes i can see that coming)

The church can and should have acted on the financial and the sex abuse topics. Sadly the reason they did not is because like any large organization they have tried to look the other way while holding a large broom and sweeping very fast.

[appletree]

Plus what is the church going to when the mess at 3abn goes nuclear and they are trying to keep thousands of very heartbroken members from walking out of the church(and yes i can see that coming)

Goes nuclear? I don't think I get what you are saying. If procecuting those in the wrong meant 3abn would "go nuclear" I doubt they would have taken that action. Certainly this has been an issue to deal with but 3abn is now on the "uphill" side. The only "nuclear" fallout that I can see will be from the accusers who have to provide proof of their accusations they have made on the internet and elsewhere.

Think about it Erik. What if Danny is the victim?

Oh BTW the church leadership has shown what side they are on. That is why you see a union president on the board, that is why you see leaders in the church such as Doug B, Kenneth Cox, David A and Jim G supporting 3abn 100%. Can it be their close association with 3abn makes them privy to the truth? I believe that is a privilege that you and others do not have.

[Pickle]

I am fairly certain that Doug B, Kenneth Cox, David A and Jim G do not approve of covering up child molestation allegations, or of buying a house from one's own ministry for $6,139, and then reselling it for $135,000 one week later.

[erik]

Goes nuclear? I don't think I get what you are saying. If procecuting those in the wrong meant 3abn would "go nuclear" I doubt they would have taken that action. Certainly this has been an issue to deal with but 3abn is now on the "uphill" side. The only "nuclear" fallout that I can see will be from the accusers who have to provide proof of their accusations they have made on the internet and elsewhere.

Think about it Erik. What if Danny is the victim?

Oh BTW the church leadership has shown what side they are on. That is why you see a union president on the board, that is why you see leaders in the church such as Doug B, Kenneth Cox, David A and Jim G supporting 3abn 100%. Can it be their close association with 3abn makes them privy to the truth? I believe that is a privilege that you and others do not have.

AT,

Well when the the justice is delivered someday at 3abn, then we will see if the church looking the other way was the correct course.

Looking the other way at sin is never a good plan and always makes the the results of sin that much worse.

Maybe danny is the victim but if he is then he should act like one and have proof like one.

[Johann]

Oh BTW the church leadership has shown what side they are on. That is why you see a union president on the board, that is why you see leaders in the church such as Doug B, Kenneth Cox, David A and Jim G supporting 3abn 100%. Can it be their close association with 3abn makes them privy to the truth? I believe that is a privilege that you and others do not have.

You state that these men support 3ABN. Are you thereby saying these men all approve of Danny Sheltons actions? What is your proof if this is the case? Have you asked all of these men to make a statement to prove what you are saying is right? I doubt what you are saying is true in all the cases you mention, but you are the one who is making the statement. Can you prove it?