General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

[Guest]

Isn't there a story in the Bible about someone teaching in the name of Jesus that the disciples wanted to hush up, but Jesus told them to leave that someone alone?

So someone gets a slice of the pie......are we talking about greed here?

[doug yowell]

Isn't there a story in the Bible about someone teaching in the name of Jesus that the disciples wanted to hush up, but Jesus told them to leave that someone alone?

Good point.Except I think the issue was group exclusivity and who got the credit.Hmmmm......a little daja vu perhaps?

[Dr. Shane]

Pride is most likely the culprit. First, the church guidelines for abortion are pro-life so anyone that has the attitude that the guidelines are not, is going to bump heads with the GC. If the get a humble heart and decide to work with the GC instead of against it, I think they will find greater success and peace with their fellow man.

[Nic Samojluk]

Pride is most likely the culprit. First, the church guidelines for abortion are pro-life so anyone that has the attitude that the guidelines are not, is going to bump heads with the GC. If the get a humble heart and decide to work with the GC instead of against it, I think they will find greater success and peace with their fellow man.

True. It is much easier to swim with the current. The Adventist Church is dominated by liberal minded individuals who are determined to impose their non-biblical view about abortion. So far they have been successful, but we have a new president now who might try to remdy this anomalous situation. We need to pray for him like never before. This is an area where reformation, repentance, and forgiveness is sorely needed.

[Stan]

This needs a new title, or an explanation of what legal action was taken.

If not, it will be viewed as a gross overstatement and locked.

[Stan]

I would prefer a new title.

[doug yowell]

I would prefer a new title.

Yes. General Conference Hints at Legal Action Against Prolife Facebook Site. Howz that,Stan?

[Stan]

got one.. thanks

FWIW I too, have had 'Conversation's with the Brethern re ClubAdventist" we worked things out.

[doug yowell]

got one.. thanks

FWIW I too, have had 'Conversation's with the Brethern re ClubAdventist" we worked things out.

I think the difference,however, is that you are probably more connected with those relevant entities, whereas the majority of us (we?)aren't, and assume that as a Seventh-day Adventist we have a natural right to identify ourselves as such(as was done pre-2005).Since the church has failed to notify it's members of the non-permissable use of the Adventist ID,it's rather inaccurate to suggest by the title that the church was "protecting" it's registered(legal)name from use by one (or all)of it's baptized members.Unless you believe that the good SDA name was in danger of being blasphemed.Here's another option: Church Hints at Legal Action Against "Adventist" Facebook Site? This is accurate and neutral.

[Overaged]

Its not innacurate at all; and the Church has published material which makes it pretty clear what uses of the Church name are permissable. There are of course some who try to see how far they can go without going over the line; and so there will always be situations where conflict develops. I doubt that Stan's "connections" have anything to do with it. The GC has their ideas on this subject; and only ones who are infact misusing the name would resist them with any great fervor. Atleast, that's what history seems to show us...

[Overaged]

True. It is much easier to swim with the current. The Adventist Church is dominated by liberal minded individuals who are determined to impose their non-biblical view about abortion.

The church actually is not dominated by such people. Is that the best you can do to "support" your far-reaching, outrageous claims? Under the guise of something "good" (abortion) you have taken many pot-shots at the Church. I don't believe much of what you say anymore.

[doug yowell]

Its not innacurate at all; and the Church has published material which makes it pretty clear what uses of the Church name are permissable.

That's odd. Even Stan said that he had to negotiate his way thru the clarity before starting CA. And if the church has made this area so clear then why are most who know of this story suprised to find out that the church applies these "clear" restrictions on an individual SDA member's Facebook site? I can understand a reaction to someone or group using the SDA name to misrepresent Adventist beliefs,ect...but who knew that the word Adventist was now also the private domain of the SDA church? And no one's answered the question as to why the church cannot successfully regulate the SDA name out of so many other organizations who are openly antagonistic towards the church.

[Stan]

It perhaps should have been

General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

I know it takes some awkward initial steps, but it can be resolved.

[doug yowell]

I doubt that Stan's "connections" have anything to do with it. The GC has their ideas on this subject; quote] I was suggesting that Stan has a closer working connection with those within the confines of the GC that the rest of us commoners don't. Thus he has access to the do's and donuts that people in the know can supply him with (particularly the latter). It's not watcha know,it's whoya know!Unfortunatly for Mark Price,no one from the GC cared enough about him to bother to educate him on the ideas that the GC held regarding his Facebook site.

[doug yowell]

It perhaps should have been

General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

I know it takes some awkward initial steps, but it can be resolved.

I think awkward is a very diplomatic description of the GC's initial steps in this case.But I tend to agree with your optimistic outlook on a resolution.

[Overaged]

[doug yowell]

Well; now I must admit that I am not quite sure just what your point is. Of course Stan negotiated; and my point was that so should everyone else.

My point is simple: Few in the church are even aware that they need to have permission to use the SDA (much less "Adventist")ID when beginning any type of ministry or public image. So it would be nice if the church made a real effort to either educate everyone or to simply contact each case with the intent to cooperate if possible rather than to shoot first and then blame the victim for every violation.If everyone needs to get permission then make sure everyone knows up front!

[Overaged]

My point is simple: Few in the church are even aware that they need to have permission to use the SDA (much less "Adventist")ID when beginning any type of ministry or public image. So it would be nice if the church made a real effort to either educate everyone or to simply contact each case with the intent to cooperate if possible rather than to shoot first and then blame the victim for every violation.If everyone needs to get permission then make sure everyone knows up front!

[Nic Samojluk]

This needs a new title, or an explanation of what legal action was taken.

If not, it will be viewed as a gross overstatement and locked.

I agree. The title should probably read “The General Conference files “legal notice” …” which is the wording Mark Price used in his letter to me. The problem is I have no idea how to change the title.

[Stan]

Do you know where he is a member in Canada?

[Stan]

I would really like him to contact the GC and work things out.

[doug yowell]

Doug! You are not listening! Now I had to use 5 minutes looking up the evidence so that maybe you will get it. Your sympathies are in the wrong place on this matter. I have tried to say that the Church has actually made all of this quite clear, and it is not/should not be a mystery to anyone who respects the Church's position on this. <a href="http://www.adventist.org/world-church/name/index.html">Use Of The Church Name</a> is quite accessible to anyone who will take a few minutes to do the research. Only those "ministries" who wish to go on their own bender and "set the Church straight" will call this kind of action by the Church "foul play."

Here is what it says on the guidelines for church web sites link:

All denominational organizations listed in the current Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook are authorized to use, for non-commercial purposes, the registered trademarks ("Seventh-day Adventists," "Adventist," "SDA," or any derivative of such; see GC BA 40 40) and logo, of the Church. The right to use the official name and logo of the Church is accompanied by an obligation to protect these against misuse and misrepresentation.

Wrong OA, I am listening.Well, I'm not actually listening, I'm comprehending,but,I think I'm right in my observations.First, the Mother Church has an ethical/moral obligation to it's own to notify them of the legalities expected of them. This puts the primary responsibility on the church not the individual church member.Arguing that ignorance of the law is no excuse may work for the state but is usually interpreted as a antagonistic prejudice against everyone who has broken any law. This is your stated prejudice, one which I don't agree with.Second,I stand by my belief that most individual church members are ignorant of the legal claims staked by their own organization and are suprised when their motives and actions are impugned.THis leads to painful experiences and sometimes creates the very animosities that were originally absent.Thirdly,that it took you 5 minutes to find something that you implied should be common knowledge to all SDA's indicates that it is not one of the 29 fundamentals of the Adventist church and therefore not mandatory reading. Fourthly, the GC guidelines you quoted begin with the wording:"All denominational organizations listed..." giving the impression that the guidelines apply to any organized group of SDA's,not individual SDA's, talking to other individual SDA's,about SDA's.So it's lack of clarity disguised in legalese is understandable.Fifthly, the church legal dept. has a moral obligation to the Overseer of the organization to follow the guidelines that He has CLEARLY posted in Matt.18 if they feel thet the church name has been offended. Ignorance of this law is no excuse and violation of that requirement puts the legal dept. in the position of becoming the defender offending in the name of defending against the offender.Fortunately for the legal dept. the sentence against the violation of Matt.18 has been postponed in order for proper corrections to be made.Unfortunately for Mark Price (and others)no such grace period was offered."But the servant of the Lord (the SDA legal dept.?) must not strive but be gentle to all men,patient..."

[doug yowell]

I would really like him to contact the GC and work things out.

He's been hurt by the way the situation was handled and doesn't want to pursue it anymore.He's now very wary of the church's attitude towards prolife SDA's I think.

[Woody]

If one doesn't have the energy or desire to pursue the right course then the wrong course (the internet) should not be pursued either.

[doug yowell]

If one doesn't have the energy or desire to pursue the right course then the wrong course (the internet) should not be pursued either.

Expound please.