General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

[doug yowell]

The fact is, is that some here just don't like the Church's decisions on this matter;

I plead guilty to that charge.

[Overaged]

Two days ago I heard Ted Wilson say in public: “Don’t be ashamed to tell the world that you are an Adventist," and I thought about Mark Price and the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” domain. Both of them were severely penalized for trying to tell the world that they were Adventists.

Mark’s Facebook web page, which took countless number of hours to build, was destroyed without warning, and the original owner of said domain name was forced to de-register. Is this the proper way of encouraging our members to tell the world that we are Adventists? I wonder!

The Church would not want anyone to say they are an Adventist; if they are knowingly misrepresenting the church's true position, which Mark was doing; so your comment on that note is way out of context.

I am sure that Mark worked very hard at building up his cause; but once again, it was Facebook which made the decision and carried out the action of removing Mark's page. The church cannot, and did not force Facebook to do this. Facebook has plenty of money for a legal fight; they made the decision based upon their already stated terms of use which Mark knew full well of.

Your definition of "severely penalized" is sure different than mine.

[John317]

Two days ago I heard Ted Wilson say in public: “Don’t be ashamed to tell the world that you are an Adventist," and I thought about Mark Price and the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” domain. Both of them were severely penalized for trying to tell the world that they were Adventists.

Mark’s Facebook web page, which took countless number of hours to build, was destroyed without warning, and the original owner of said domain name was forced to de-register. Is this the proper way of encouraging our members to tell the world that we are Adventists? I wonder!

The reason I am not ashamed to tell the world I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because of the SDA message and its teachings, and this isn't affected by what happened on Facebook. If the entire SDA church apostasized, I'd still stay true to the SDA message because I believe it is a message from God.

I think it's important for people not to use the SDA name in a way that misrepresents the church. Otherwise people will be confused about what the SDA church teaches and believes.

[hch]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

The fact is, is that some here just don't like the Church's decisions on this matter;

I plead guilty to that charge.

[Overaged]

Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. (Micah 7:7)

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “The Church would not want anyone to say they are an Adventist; if they are knowingly misrepresenting the church's true position, which Mark was doing; so your comment on that note is way out of context.”

I say: You must have read what Mark was saying in his Facebook page. Can you cite what portion of the church’s teaching Mark did misrepresent. Was Mark teaching anything contrary to the Bible? Must our loyalty be first to the church and second to the Bible and God or the other way around? Didn’t Peter say: “We must obey God rather than men”? If tomorrow the church starts teaching that Sunday is the correct day of worship like the leaders of the Worldwide Church of God did a few yeas ago, would you say “Amen, brother” and stop keeping the true Sabbath holy?

Overaged said: “I am sure that Mark worked very hard at building up his cause; but once again, it was Facebook which made the decision and carried out the action of removing Mark's page. The church cannot, and did not force Facebook to do this.”

I say: King David did not force Joab to arrange for the death of Uriah the Hittite. Does it follow that David was blameless? Are you assuming that the church did not suspect that Facebook would destroy Mark’s work? What is the biblical procedure outlined in Mathew 18 when one of the members offends another? Is it to go straight to the authorities, or is it to discuss the problem with the offending brother first? Did the church follow this procedure? If the church does not follow the correct procedure outlined by Jesus, how can anyone expect the church members to do this? Isn’t the maximum authority on moral issues expected to set the proper example for the church members to follow?

Overaged said: “Facebook has plenty of money for a legal fight”

I say: Do you expect non-Adventist to undo the harm done by the church to one of its members? Can we expect a non-religious organization to follow the proper way to treat offenders when the maximum authority of the church has ignored to follow Jesus instruction described in Matthew 18?

[Overaged]

There was no "harm" done to Mark by the Church or by Facebook. And King David has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I plead guilty to that charge.

Some people did not like the decisions of the Church in Christ's day. It was the church that said "Crucify Him." But the tares and the wheat have to grow together until the harvest.

Originally Posted By: EGW

A few words more press upon my mind. I want you to be united with the church, not because I regard all the church members perfect nor because I regard you perfect. God has precious ones in His church; there are also men and women who are as tares among the wheat. But the Lord does not give you or anyone else the office of saying who are tares and who are wheat. We may see and condemn the faults of others, while we have greater faults which we have never realized, but which are distinctly seen by others. God requires you to give to the world and the church a good example, a life that represents Jesus. There are duties to be performed and responsibilities to be borne. The world has not enough true Christians; the church has need of them; society cannot spare them. Christ's prayer for His disciples was: "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil." Jesus knows we are in the world, exposed to its temptations, but He loves us and will give us grace to triumph over its corrupting influences. He would have us perfect in character, that our waywardness may not occasion moral deformity in others. {5T 333.3}[/quote']Meaning what,that Stephen was wrong for saying:"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit;as your fathers did,so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One,of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderer, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it"? EGW's comments also hardly forbid criticism of a church failure to follow Christian principles.

[Nic Samojluk]

John said: “I think it's important for people not to use the SDA name in a way that misrepresents the church. Otherwise people will be confused about what the SDA church teaches and believes.”

I say: Have you forgotten what Jesus said about the proper procedure to follow when a brother is guilty of an offense? What is the first step? Isn’t it to deal with the offending brother privately? Even non-believers quite often will follow Jesus advice and talk to the guilty individual first before taking drastic measures. Should we not expect the church to follow this fair guideline set by Jesus in Matthew 18?

Wasn’t Mark entitled to have received a warning before his work was destroyed? Did the church set the proper Christian example for the church members to follow? Do loving parents punish first and then issue the warning? Hasn’t the church placed the chart before the horse? Are we supposed to shoot first and then ask questions? Does this represent the proper Christian behavior? Am I wrong, John?

[Nic Samojluk]

hch said: “I want you to be united with the church”

I say: You mean that I should be united with the church even when the church is breaking the Sixth Commandment which forbids the shedding of innocent blood? Wouldn’t this make me an accomplice to murder? Did Ellen White say that we must say “Amen” to everything that the church is doing? Did she ever criticize the church? Did she suggest that we need to defend the church in the following circumstances?

Quote: “We must as a people arouse and cleanse the camp of Israel. Licentiousness, unlawful intimacy, and unholy practices are coming in among us in a large degree; and ministers who are handling sacred things are guilty of sin in this respect. They are coveting their neighbors' wives, and the seventh commandment is broken. We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clear unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil?” {TSB 188.3}

Notice that she wrote this when the Adventist Church was pro-life. What would she say today knowing that some of our own physicians have departed from the sacred work of healing and have started killing innocent human beings by the hundreds? Would she say: “I want you to be united with the church” in the slaughter of unborn babies?

[doug yowell]

The reason I am not ashamed to tell the world I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because of the SDA message and its teachings, and this isn't affected by what happened on Facebook. If the entire SDA church apostasized, I'd still stay true to the SDA message because I believe it is a message from God.

I think it's important for people not to use the SDA name in a way that misrepresents the church. Otherwise people will be confused about what the SDA church teaches and believes.

I agree with you 99%,John. But the 1% occurs when I'm are asked to explain the Church's position on abortion and why SDA hospitals are performing elective abortions. It is then that I am ashamed to be called an SDA.I have to try to explain why all of our founding fathers agreed with my view of abortion(or vice versa)but the church now feels that any SDA who publically presents this view is misrepresenting the church's position.So I see the "protection of it's name" action in the Facebook case as unprovoked,uncalled for, and completely out of line with God's instructions for dealing with "erring"(alleged)brethren.If the purpose of the GC action was to keep Mark Price from agitating against a church "non-position" like abortion,in order to attempt to change that "stand"(which I'm not yet convinced of)then their action is even more devious and indefensible.It then becomes an employment of state power to quash public criticism of an action they cannot otherwise defend and becomes deserving of any criticism it invokes.If public criticism of the church's abortion guidelines,by any of it's members, is now considered seditious heresy then we're in a lot more trouble then we realize!

[doug yowell]

[Wasn’t Mark entitled to have received a warning before his work was destroyed?

A shot across the bow is standard procedure unless war has already been declared.

[Nic Samojluk]

There was no "harm" done to Mark by the Church or by Facebook. And King David has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I agree! King David is innocent of the harm done to Mark Price, but the church is not innocent. The church should have set an example for all Adventists to follow; and they should have shown us the proper way to deal with those who offend us.

Read Matthew 18 and tell me whether I am misinterpreting what Jesus said about this. If the church ignores what Jesus said, how can we expect church members who have less light to follow God’s Word?

[doug yowell]

[Wasn’t Mark entitled to have received a warning before his work was destroyed? Did the church set the proper Christian example for the church members to follow?

Given this tactic, it would be wise to note that the action taken WAS the warning! Let all others beware!! (A word to the wise is sufficient?)

[doug yowell]

The Church would not want anyone to say they are an Adventist; if they are knowingly misrepresenting the church's true position, which Mark was doing; so your comment on that note is way out of context.

Facebook has plenty of money for a legal fight; they made the decision based upon their already stated terms of use which Mark knew full well of.

Your take that Mark Price was misrepresenting the church's true position is without your presenting any evidence to support it.That's prejudice. It is commonly held belief among those who study the guidelines that they are neither clear nor consistent.This includes both those who support the prolife cause and those who oppose it.Your claim that Price was "knowingly" misrepresentative has even less evidence.If Mark knew full well of the stated terms of the use of the name SDA by an SDA member then his Facebook debocle should have come as no suprise to him. Do you have evidence of his foreknowledge of the church's legal claims? Are you accusing him of creating this whole sham?

[doug yowell]

I am sure that Mark worked very hard at building up his cause; but once again, it was Facebook which made the decision and carried out the action of removing Mark's page. The church cannot, and did not force Facebook to do this. Facebook has plenty of money for a legal fight; they made the decision based upon their already stated terms of use

Most agree that Facebook,in this case, whimped out, deciding to avoid the hassle of legal action.Unless you've got information to the contrary.Do you have evidence that the church connected with Facebook as a result of Mark Price's refusal to cooperate with their previous contacts with him?

[Overaged]

I agree! King David is innocent of the harm done to Mark Price, but the church is not innocent. The church should have set an example for all Adventists to follow; and they should have shown us the proper way to deal with those who offend us.

Read Matthew 18 and tell me whether I am misinterpreting what Jesus said about this. If the church ignores what Jesus said, how can we expect church members who have less light to follow God’s Word?

Actually; what I said was that King David has nothing to do with the subject of the OP of this thread. You are twisting my words out of context again.

The reality here is that the Church did not "cause harm" to Mark, and the only "evidence" you are able to present us with is that of his say-so - making your "evidence" anecdotal at best.

While you yourself could use a review of Mathew 18, it would be good for you to also realize that you are being anti-biblical by suggesting how people with "less light" would be misled by alleged error. It's not the amount of light that matters; it is what one does with it. The Church has not broken the 6th commandment in this matter at all. You; like all good Roman Catholics are demanding that the Church become people's conscience in this matter; and while you quibble away about Mathew 18, you destroy the Bible truth that the church cannot be our conscience, and that we are obligated as Christians to love and support the few individuals in the Church who do break this commandment. That includes both Doctors and patients who participate in this procedure.

With your kind of anti-church militancy; the true principles of "pro-life" will always remain hidden.

A very wise Pastor once said to me: "Overaged," we should never, ever tear down someone else's shack of belief, unless we have a palace of truth for them to move into." Your anecdotal, mud-slinging theology (on this subject) does less than nothing to help anyone with anything; in my humblest opinion possible...

[Overaged]

Most agree that Facebook,in this case, whimped out, deciding to avoid the hassle of legal action.Unless you've got information to the contrary.Do you have evidence that the church connected with Facebook as a result of Mark Price's refusal to cooperate with their previous contacts with him?

What part of "the Church did not force/cannot force Facebook to do anything" don't you understand?

Here you go; guess what this trophy is for?

[doug yowell]

The reality here is that the Church did not "cause harm" to Mark, and the only "evidence" you are able to present us with is that of his say-so - making your "evidence" anecdotal at best.

It's hard to believe that you are continuing to employ this test of truth to your argument. You dismiss Price's testimony as anecdotal at best while offering no evidence of it's not being true. The obvious conclusion that any rational person would reach from this is that you are calling Price a liar,delusional,or you simply don't care what the evidence is. The Washington Post reporter reported the original story and it's facts were later verified by Price yet you choose not to believe them in favor of what...? The church itself has offered no defense yet you stand as their attorney in proxy? Facebook aborted Price's site in response to the church's legal contact and you claim that they did not cause him harm? Bring some evidence to the table,OA, not just your conclusions.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “The reality here is that the Church did not "cause harm" to Mark”

I say: The church’s action resulted in the destruction of what Mark had been working for months, and you claim that Mark was not harmed?

Overaged said: “the only "evidence" you are able to present us with is that of his say-so - making your "evidence" anecdotal at best.”

I say: Anecdotal? All those who used to visit the “Adventist for Life” Facebook web page are witnesses of Mark’s loss, and I am one of them. One day I searched for Mark’s site, and it had disappeared from cyber space.

Overaged said: “The Church has not broken the 6th commandment in this matter at all.”

I say: True! They did not kill a human being; they simply killed a web page. In this they violated the rule set by Jesus in Matthew 18 which requires that we deal with an offending brother privately first before taking him to court.

Overaged said: “A very wise Pastor once said to me: "Overaged, we should never, ever tear down someone else's shack of belief, unless we have a palace of truth for them to move into."”

I say: Yes, the church should have not destroyed Mark’s “shack” web page until they had a palace built for him. Great illustration! Thanks!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Most agree that Facebook,in this case, whimped out, deciding to avoid the hassle of legal action.Unless you've got information to the contrary.Do you have evidence that the church connected with Facebook as a result of Mark Price's refusal to cooperate with their previous contacts with him?

What part of "the Church did not force/cannot force Facebook to do anything" don't you understand?

I understand the use of the term force pretty well. Notice that I didn't (I hope not anyway) use the word force. My apologies if I did.Threat of possible legal action is a more accurate description.The ACLU is very good at this type of legal tactic.Send the "offending" party (usually a school board or a city council)and notify them that they may be allowing a practice that is in violation of some constitutional statute.Most simply fold to avoid a possible lengthy and costly legal battle. Everyone with any legal knowledge that I've talked to about the case has said that Facebook simply punted on a first and five situation.The church did not force them to punt they just "encouraged" them that it might be advisable.As to the church's being "able" to force Facebook to remove any non-GC approved SDA site I'll have to ask my attorney friends if there's that possibility if the trademark was being illegally violated.

[doug yowell]

?

Here you go; guess what this trophy is for?

Being a really cool guy??

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]?

Here you go; guess what this trophy is for?/quote]Being a really cool guy??

Ha ha! yes sir! You got it!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

quote=Overaged]?

Here you go; guess what this trophy is for?/quote]Being a really cool guy??

Ha ha! yes sir! You got it!

Gee thanks.You're pretty cool too!

[Overaged]

Hey, and Happy Sabbath to you, wherever you are...