General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

[Overaged]

Doug; you are making the Church responsible for things over which it has very little control. People need to be responsible for their own actions. I'll bet this fellow at question would be able to work it out just fine if he went to the GC and began discussions. Your smoke signals are clouding the issue. But I found your last post quite interesting to read...

[doug yowell]

Doug; you are making the Church responsible for things over which it has very little control. People need to be responsible for their own actions.

You're losing me here, kemosabe.The corporate church is responsible for it's own actions and attitudes every bit as much as the individual.So what are you thinking I'm missing?

[doug yowell]

I'll bet this fellow at question would be able to work it out just fine if he went to the GC and began discussions.

Perhaps. And perhaps the same could be said if the GC had done the same.

[Stan]

I

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.

I would not mind having a pro-choice and a pro-life area here, if they could be civil, in a Adventist Hot Potatoes section.

that and a few others.

those topics tend to get down and dirty pretty quick, don't they?

[doug yowell]

Your smoke signals are clouding the issue.

Isn't that what smoke signals are supposed to do?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Your smoke signals are clouding the issue.

Isn't that what smoke signals are supposed to do?

Ha ha! I guess so...I showed you where people can go online to see the GCs outline of use of the church name/logo. I don't know why you say the church's attitude is wrong. If this "pro-life Adventist" was so hurt by the GCs "heinous" actions, why does that mean it was the GCs fault? I have failed to understand... It seems to me, that before making claim to "representing" the Church, that people should do their research and make sure they actually know what they are getting into.

[Dr. Shane]

He's now very wary of the church's attitude towards prolife SDA's I think.

The GC would have probably done the same thing if it had been an "Adventist" pro-choice group on Facebook.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

He's now very wary of the church's attitude towards prolife SDA's I think.

The GC would have probably done the same thing if it had been an "Adventist" pro-choice group on Facebook.

And I would have sympathized with the same reaction if it had been done in like manner.Treating your members like unauthorized hackers needs heavenly approval first.

[Overaged]

And I would have sympathized with the same reaction if it had been done in like manner.Treating your members like unauthorized hackers needs heavenly approval first.

And I would have said that's not what they are doing.

[Nic Samojluk]

Do you know where he is a member in Canada?

No, I have no idea where he is located, but you could probably find him through Facebook.

[hch]

Doug; you are making the Church responsible for things over which it has very little control. People need to be responsible for their own actions. I'll bet this fellow at question would be able to work it out just fine if he went to the GC and began discussions. Your smoke signals are clouding the issue. But I found your last post quite interesting to read...

I would venture to conclude from your comments that you have never tried to contact people at the GC to discuss an issue. But maybe my experience is the exception?

Perhaps someone could tell us how any individual should be able to go about such a task.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

And I would have sympathized with the same reaction if it had been done in like manner.Treating your members like unauthorized hackers needs heavenly approval first.

And I would have said that's not what they are doing.

And that is precisely the point with which I disagree.I have no other way to explain why threatening legal action without first giving a member the benefit of the doubt is anything other.Or how it does not violate Paul's injunction to not not take a brother to court to settle these types of matters.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Doug; you are making the Church responsible for things over which it has very little control. People need to be responsible for their own actions. I'll bet this fellow at question would be able to work it out just fine if he went to the GC and began discussions. Your smoke signals are clouding the issue. But I found your last post quite interesting to read...

I would venture to conclude from your comments that you have never tried to contact people at the GC to discuss an issue. But maybe my experience is the exception?

Perhaps someone could tell us how any individual should be able to go about such a task.

What was your experience?

[Nic Samojluk]

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

I did advise him to contact the General Conference and request permission to use the Adventist name in his web page. I haven’t received a response from him. He must be quite frustrated because all the data which took a lot of time to prepare and publish was destroyed. The GC could have warned him about the Adventist policy and the potential outcome in the event of his refusal to comply. My understanding is that this was not done.

Taking a drastic action like that without warning is unacceptable in my view. The man who originally founded the “Adventist for Life” web site and who still owns the domain, is broken hearted over this action and he is very discouraged. I believe that those who are pro-life deserve at least the same courtesy as those who favor abortion. Our Washington Adventist Hospital has been in the business of killing innocent unborn babies with impunity for decades while using the “Adventist” designation in their title, but Mark Price was dealt in a drastic manner and without any warning. This is hard to accept.

There seems to exist a preferential treatment for those who see no wrong in the destruction of human life. At least this has been my experience during the last couple of decades, and this explains my sympathy for Mark Price’s loss. I’ll give you an example: A few years ago, The Pacific Union Recorder published an articled written by a former religious liberty director in which he argued that unborn babies have no intrinsic right to life. I submitted my defense of the unborn, but they refused to publish it on the pretext that the issue was controversial. Did abortion become controversial overnight when I submitted my response?

I have written to the General Conference about the abortion issue on several occasions, but all I get is a total silence. I can take opposition and criticism, but silence and apathy is much harder to deal with. This reminds me of several occasions when in Sabbath School everybody who were raising their hands were recognized, but not me. Finally I stood up and said: “I must be invisible, because I have been raising my hands for the last half an hour with the hope of being granted the privilege of asking a question. The teacher was evidently ignoring me because he suspected that I would say a word on behalf of the unborn. After that incident, that teacher made an effort to act with fairness.

In Spanish there is a saying which states the following: “El bebe que no llora no mama.” The baby who doesn’t cry is not fed. Our church was founded by individuals who were definitely pro-life, which means to me that pro-life Adventists should not be treated as second class citizens. When I joined the Adventist church more than six decades ago, the church was pro-life, and I intend to remain faithful to the pro-life church I joined.

[Nic Samojluk]

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..."

Thanks, Doug. I am with you 120 percnt.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

I'll bet this fellow at question would be able to work it out just fine if he went to the GC and began discussions.

Perhaps. And perhaps the same could be said if the GC had done the same.

Perhaps Mark Price could be lucky if he tried given the notoriety of his case and the fact that the Washington Post took interest in what happened to him. My experience with the GC has not been very encouraging. I have written to the GC more than once or twice. How many years or decades should I wait for a response?

[doug yowell]

I

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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.

I would not mind having a pro-choice and a pro-life area here, if they could be civil, in a Adventist Hot Potatoes section.

that and a few others.

those topics tend to get down and dirty pretty quick, don't they?

My experience and the experience of almost every other adamant pro-lifer I know has been a very negative one,not only in general circles but also in SDA arenas. I always caution a new comer to the debate to count the cost first. As a general rule prolifers are intense but civil(there are always exceptions)and prochoicers are intense and uncivil(there are always exceptions).The name calling and evil innuendo is usually a one way street. Very few other subjects create the type of emotional reactions that this one does. Vitriolic responses by those who are supposed to be your future neighbors in the New Earth are very hurtful and discouraging to most. Being labeled an extremist and a psycho control freak is usually not that conducive to further discussions.Meanwhile, I can appreciate your efforts to provide a "safe environment" for the discussion.

[doug yowell]

[in Spanish there is a saying which states the following: “El bebe que no llora no mama.” The baby who doesn’t cry is not fed.

There is another saying that I recommend to those who enter the fray (on the prolife side)when they are considering the future responses of their opponents: "No llores!!"

[Nic Samojluk]

Ha ha! I guess so...I showed you where people can go online to see the GCs outline of use of the church name/logo. I don't know why you say the church's attitude is wrong. If this "pro-life Adventist" was so hurt by the GCs "heinous" actions, why does that mean it was the GCs fault? I have failed to understand... It seems to me, that before making claim to "representing" the Church, that people should do their research and make sure they actually know what they are getting into.

Mark Price did not pretend to be speaking in the name of the church. The title of his page made it clear that his web site was pro-life, and the GC leaders know quite well that the church is pro-choice. There was no chance of anybody being deceived into thinking that his page was officially recognized by the church. He is an Adventist, and his mission was to reach other Adventists with his pro-life message. Is this a cardinal sin? Evidently, the church is determined to silence those Adventists who believe that human life is sacred and that innocent unborn babies should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience.

How can pro-life Adventists promote their pro-life message among Adventists if they are precluded from using the “Adventist” name? Why do we need permission from the GC in our efforts to reach other Adventists? When faithful Adventists are searching for other members of the community, they will routinely avoid any web site which might resemble former Adventists Internet pages. So how can pro-life Adventists who are not interested in leaving the church reach fellow Adventists with what to them is anchored in one of the Commandments written by God’s finger?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

He's now very wary of the church's attitude towards prolife SDA's I think.

The GC would have probably done the same thing if it had been an "Adventist" pro-choice group on Facebook.

I have my serious doubts about this! My previous experience going back several decades tends to deny what you are suggesting.

[Nic Samojluk]

And that is precisely the point with which I disagree.I have no other way to explain why threatening legal action without first giving a member the benefit of the doubt is anything other.Or how it does not violate Paul's injunction to not not take a brother to court to settle these types of matters.

Amen! The church should provide a good example of fairness to the entire world. When an innocent citizen violates a city ordinance, the city does not respond by sending the wrecking crew with the order to demolish what has been build in violation of a city code. A cease and desist is usually preceded an outright demolition order.

[Nic Samojluk]

My experience and the experience of almost every other adamant pro-lifer I know has been a very negative one,not only in general circles but also in SDA arenas. I always caution a new comer to the debate to count the cost first. As a general rule prolifers are intense but civil(there are always exceptions)and prochoicers are intense and uncivil(there are always exceptions).The name calling and evil innuendo is usually a one way street. Very few other subjects create the type of emotional reactions that this one does. Vitriolic responses by those who are supposed to be your future neighbors in the New Earth are very hurtful and discouraging to most. Being labeled an extremist and a psycho control freak is usually not that conducive to further discussions.Meanwhile, I can appreciate your efforts to provide a "safe environment" for the discussion.

Excellent response!

[Stan]

Doing anything of any significance has problems and bumps in the road. As one Preacher said, if mountains were nice and smooth no one could climb them.

I still do not know who this guy is or if he is in fact even an adventist. Where does he live in Canada, and where is his Church?

[doug yowell]

Doing anything of any significance has problems and bumps in the road. As one Preacher said, if mountains were nice and smooth no one could climb them.

I still do not know who this guy is or if he is in fact even an adventist. Where does he live in Canada, and where is his Church?

Yes, he has indicated that he is an Adventist and that he will remain at his local church (incognito?).Where it is he didn't say.He did reveal that he was considering whether to remain a SDA after the treatment he had received at the church's hands or whether to pay his tithes and offerings,ect... The natural things that one questions after an experience like this. I believe the Satan uses these wrong responses by the church to hurt everybody!! Not only does he get the church representatives to do wrong but he uses that to embitter the victims, and divide loyalties within the ranks of those who hear the story. It also creates an atmosphere of apprehension among those who may be on the edge anyway.The "Seventh-day Adventist Church" is not a separate entity from it's members!

[Overaged]

And that is precisely the point with which I disagree.I have no other way to explain why threatening legal action without first giving a member the benefit of the doubt is anything other.Or how it does not violate Paul's injunction to not not take a brother to court to settle these types of matters.

The phrase you used "without benefit of the doubt" is what you have failed to demonstrate in this or any other case; making what you say wrong and false.