General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

[Overaged]

The name calling and evil innuendo is usually a one way street.

Wow; if you really believe this; then I got some swamp land in The Gobi Desert you can buy at half-price. This kind of thing which you & Nic persist with is an innuendo; which you say is usually "a one way street?"

To be fair; it takes two to Tango. Not one. When I see the other issues & concerns that Nic keeps mixing in with the pro-life issue; it is hard to know how much is true, and how much is embellishment.

I would love to talk with people who don't mix other innuendoes & problems with this issue. Just the facts. That would be nice.

[Overaged]

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.

Nic; where did I or anyone else say Mark was "pretending" anything? You have created another farsical red herring.

This issue with Mark is not rocket science. He doesn't need the church's permission for anything, unless he attaches the name Seventh-day Adventist to it, and then it is only right that he, or anyone else, run it by the officials concerned.

I can understand Mark being upset here; I really can, but I also have a big problem with how this is all playing out like the GC has done something so wrong; and Mark is apparently quite innocent in all of this. If you are just going by things he has said; what is the reason you don't look elsewhere to verify?

[Overaged]

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.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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.

Well; they might be "natural" to you. I would like to hear from the other side and the nature of Mark's responses and actions. So far, this is way too one-sided.

If you actually read the entire account,OA,you might have noticed that the GC never contacted Mr. Price. They simply bypassed him and notified Facebook of the possible infringement.Price was then notified by Facebook after his site had been shut down. Unless he's been holding back vital info, Price to this day has had no contact with the GC.He seemed not only shocked by the church's response but discouraged by it as well,so he decided not to risk any further confrontation. That is why this is so one-sided.

[doug yowell]

The alleged "victims" are the ones who choose to be "embittered," The church does not make anyone take this choice.

Yes,this is true. No one is trying to justify any embittered reaction. However, this does not relieve the church of any culpability in such a case. "Offences must come, but woe to him by whom they come." "Be at peace with all men, as much as lies within you." ad infinitum

[Nic Samojluk]

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?

I received an email from the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” domain. He states that Mark Price did contact the General Conference regarding a permit to use the “Adventist” name in his web site, but has given up on the idea given the red tape. I am trying to locate Mark’s private email in order to ask him whether he is a member of the church.

[Nic Samojluk]

This kind of thing which you & Nic persist with is an innuendo; which you say is usually "a one way street?"

To be fair; it takes two to Tango. Not one. When I see the other issues & concerns that Nic keeps mixing in with the pro-life issue; it is hard to know how much is true, and how much is embellishment.

I would love to talk with people who don't mix other innuendoes & problems with this issue. Just the facts. That would be nice.

Did you read the Washington story reporting the action of the General Conference against Mark Price? I reported what I have examined in black and white:

1. The Washington Post story

2. The Communication I received from Mark Price alerting me of what happened to his Facebook web page

3. The fact that Mark Price’s “Adventist for Life” web page did disappear from Facebook

4. The Email I received from the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” domain who received a warning from the GC legal department advising him to deregister his domain name.

I am quoting from the email I received yesterday from the original owner of “Adventist for Life” who still owns the domain”

Quote: “Hey, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. You may know this already, but Mark Price already asked the GC if he could get permission to use the name for Adventists for Life. They replied that he could apply to use the name. However, it's a very bureaucratic process. It's not like the impression they gave in the Washington Post article that they'd approve it right away if we'd simply ask. So, Mark Price decided not to pursue it due to the red tape.

I contacted the ACLJ, the ACLU, and the CLRF. None of them are interested in helping to fight this legally. I certainly don't have the funds or resources to fight the church when they have several million Adventists paying tithes to fund their legal cause (church-state union?).”

I believe that what I posted is based on facts—not “innuendos.”

[Overaged]

Did you read the Washington story reporting the action of the General Conference against Mark Price? I reported what I have examined in black and white:

1. The Washington Post story

2. The Communication I received from Mark Price alerting me of what happened to his Facebook web page

3. The fact that Mark Price’s “Adventist for Life” web page did disappear from Facebook

4. The Email I received from the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” domain who received a warning from the GC legal department advising him to deregister his domain name.

I am quoting from the email I received yesterday from the original owner of “Adventist for Life” who still owns the domain”

Quote: “Hey, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. You may know this already, but Mark Price already asked the GC if he could get permission to use the name for Adventists for Life. They replied that he could apply to use the name. However, it's a very bureaucratic process. It's not like the impression they gave in the Washington Post article that they'd approve it right away if we'd simply ask. So, Mark Price decided not to pursue it due to the red tape.

I contacted the ACLJ, the ACLU, and the CLRF. None of them are interested in helping to fight this legally. I certainly don't have the funds or resources to fight the church when they have several million Adventists paying tithes to fund their legal cause (church-state union?).”

I believe that what I posted is based on facts—not “innuendos.”

Yes Nic; it's all innuendos. You quote no evidence, only say so, one-sided claims. If Mark didn't want to go the proper route for applying to use the name; then how does this translate into being the church's fault? Is this alone not enough evidence to say it is a 2 way street here? It's no wonder no one wants to "fight this legally." Everyone but you seems to know it would fail; and the reason has nothing to do with money.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “Nic; where did I or anyone else say Mark was "pretending" anything? You have created another farcical red herring.”

Nic responds: Did I claim that someone had said that Mark was pretending to speak on behalf of the church? I merely attempted to argue that, since Mark’s web site was definitely pro-life, there was no reason for the church to fear that Mark was trying to deceive readers with the idea that he was speaking in representation of the Adventist church.

I see no reason for the church to be so apprehensive about the use of the “Adventist” name. I googled this morning the “Adventist” name and found 145,000 references to it. There are Adventist churches, hospitals, organizations, official sites and independent ministries bearing that name. Some are official entities of the church, some are independent, and others are former Adventists.

Do all those organizations have a special authorization from the church to use the Adventist name? I believe that the term “Adventist” has become a generic term which should not be the exclusive property of the church. Should not former Adventists, for example, have the right to identify themselves as “former Adventists”? I understand why the church should protect the name of the church: “Seventh-day Adventist Church,” but merely the term “Adventist” or “SDA”? Have other churches done something similar? Are the terms “Baptist,” “Lutheran,” “Anglican,” or “Catholic,” legally protected?

Overaged said: “I can understand Mark being upset here; I really can, but I also have a big problem with how this is all playing out like the GC has done something so wrong”

Nic responds: What I see wrong is the GC action of destroying what Mark had build as a result of a significant amount of time and effort without a proper warning. Christian courtesy demands a proper warning before such a drastic action is taken. I said his before and I will repeat it: A city will not send the wrecking crew to demolish a building which was built in violation of some city code. The city will first give a proper cease and desist warning to the guilty individual, give him a chance to correct the problem, and order the building demolished only as a last resort. Am I wrong on this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “Yes Nic; it's all innuendos. You quote no evidence, only say so, one-sided claims.”

Nic responds: “all innuendos?” “no evidence”? Is the Washington Post story a “one-sided claims”? Didn’t the reporter contact the GC legal department in order to listen to their side of the story? Where is the double meaning in this? If you do not believe in the impartiality of the author of the WP article, why don’t you conduct your own investigation and provide factual evidence showing that the story was based on false information?

Overaged said: “If Mark didn't want to go the proper route for applying to use the name; then how does this translate into being the church's fault?”

Nic responds: Is this assumption of yours based on facts or mere “innuendos”? Are you sure that Mark did not want to apply for the use of the “Adventist” name? Is it possible that he had no idea that the term was legally protected. Are you assuming that all Adventists using Facebook are aware that the word “Adventist” is legally protected? Are terms like “Baptist,” “Lutheran,” “Anglican,” and “Catholic” legally protected?

The evidence is that Mark did contact the General Conference after his web page disappeared from Facebook without any warning, which suggests that he would have asked for permission to use said name had he received a proper warning.

Is the church the only entity which shoots first and then asks questions? Does God kill first and then issues the proper warning? Do secular organization act against violators without proper warning? Should not the church be an example of Christian courtesy? Do parents punish first and then warn their children when they misbehave? I am applying to common sense!

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged Said: “You quote no evidence, only say so, one-sided claims.”

Nic responds: I have the evidence from both sides, but I am not allowed to quote the response from the GC. I got the same response from the GC that Mark Price got, and I will paraphrase it, since quoting their response is legally protected as well. But first, let me post the letter I wrote to them:

Quote:

“Dear Andrea D. Saunders,

As a pro-life Adventist, I was encouraged to write to you after reading the Washington Post Article authored by Julia Duin entitled “Who owns the word 'Adventist,' or 'Catholic'?” in which she cites Garrett Caldwell stating the following: “If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," …”

Evidently, Mark Price had not asked permission from the General Conference for the use of the name Adventist in his Facebook web page. Since I have a similar web page on Facebook with the name “Seven Days Life Center,” I would like to ask your permission to change the name of my page to “Adventist Life Center.”

The reason is very simple: I joined the church by baptism over six decades ago when the Adventist church was definitely pro-life, and I feel that the Lord has called me to share my pro-life views with other members of the church, and it is rather hard to do this if I am precluded from identifying myself as a member of the Adventist church.

If there is a fee for this privilege, please let me know what it is.

Your brother in the same hope,

Nic Samojluk, a second generation Adventist.”

*********

And here is a summary of the answer I receivd from the GC which I am not allowed to copy nor quote:

The letter, signed by Andrea D. Saunders, Associate General Counsel, states that in order to have a chance to use the name “Adventist,” “SDA,” or “Seventh-day Adventist” I must secure—among many other requirements-- a letter of recommendation from the local Conference and declare that my activities are in harmony with the teachings of the Adventist Church.

It also states that there is no guarantee that I would be granted such privilege after complying with all the requirements, and that in the event I am granted permission to use the Adventist name, this privilege could withdrawn at any time.

Problem One: Can I secure a letter of recommendation from the local Conference? Perhaps I could, but I don’t know anybody at the local Conference of the church. If I were to request such letter of recommendation, they would contact my pastor, who has opposed my pro-life work in the past. I have my serious doubt that he will suddenly alter his attitude towards my pro-life activities.

Problem two: How can I in good conscience declare that my pro-life activities are in harmony with the teachings of my Adventist Church? I would have to lie, and I am not ready to sell my soul for a permit to use the name Adventist in my work.

Problem three: Why would I go through all this red tape if there is no warranty that my request will be granted, and that once granted, it could be withdrawn. The moment I provide any evidence that I am not in harmony with the teachings of the church regarding the killing of the unborn in our hospitals, the coveted permission to use the Adventist name would be either denied or withdrawn if granted.

Given all the above, what pro-lifer would be foolish enough to even try to secure a permit to use the Adventist name?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged Said: “It's no wonder no one wants to "fight this legally." Everyone but you seems to know it would fail; and the reason has nothing to do with money.”

Nic responds: Who would be foolish enough to fight an entity with deep pockets like the GC without the support of people with deep pockets as well? Money is the main reason no pro-lifer would dare to fight something like this in court. Are the names of other religious entities legally protected? Are the members of other religious organizations like Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, or Baptists precluded from using those names in their activities?

[Overaged]

There should be nothing to "fight them" about, in court, or otherwise. it almost sounds like you are threatening the Church.

Personally; I favor their viewpoint and approach on this kind of thing. The letters of reference, and all the other hoops which you express such disdain for, are good safeguards, and sound principles for EVERYONE to go by. I even had to do all that stuff just to be a Literature Evangelist, (colporteur) and when I was ordained as an Elder.

Usually, when someone does not want to submit to due process like this; it's because there are other problems. You admit yourself that you would have a hard time getting a good pastoral reference; and there is a reason for this. That reason, is not the Church's fault Nic. It is a direct result of your own actions and decisions, both locally, and on the internet. I have seen you bring other issues into this matter, and you come across as someone who has some major beefs with the Church, and as someone who fights these issues, under the "umbrella" of the abortion issue. I am glad the GC has these loopholes and red tape in place. It prevents a lot of unsavory ministries.

While I am against abortions; I am even more against the self-professing "pro-life movement" mentality that turns people into illegal parasites; thriving on the husks of other people's so called failings. I want no part of the pro-life movement, for they have too many psudo-agendas that they keep mixing into the bag.

[doug yowell]

Usually, when someone does not want to submit to due process like this; it's because there are other problems.

That's a rather broad statement,OA And not necessarily true. Your assumption is obviously based upon the view that the church "regulators"are generally attempting to protect the church from a membership gone bad.It's actually an admission that there are so many possible unAdventists in the church that unless they are carefully screened the good SDA name will be attacked. That's good dark age Catholicism! Why did the church manage to function without the government's legal clout to protect their name until the 1990's? Why is the mandate to ask the church for permission to identify one's ministry or blog site or whatever not included in the fundamental beliefs or baptisimal vows? You're simply arguing for the church's right to strong arm all members because most have some negative hidden agenda.

[Stan]

One must keep in mind this

If they do not protect it, they lose it.

[doug yowell]

There should be nothing to "fight them" about, in court, or otherwise. it almost sounds like you are threatening the Church.

I find your reasoning here purplexing. The church threatens to take a church menber to court for not asking church permission to identify themselves publically as a church member and when the church member decides that they will resist(legally)it sounds to you like THEY are threatening the church??? What's wrong with that picture,OA?

[doug yowell]

While I am against abortions; I am even more against the self-professing "pro-life movement" mentality that turns people into illegal parasites; thriving on the husks of other people's so called failings. I want no part of the pro-life movement, for they have too many psudo-agendas that they keep mixing into the bag.

So OA, if you're against abortions then why don't YOU start a public ministry that works for the abolition of elective abortions that is void of any other trappings? Why simply condemn the prolife movement because some (in this case,one)of their advocates also talks about other issues? (Unlike any in the prochoice camp)Rather than simply criticizing why not suggest how to do it right?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage said: “There should be nothing to "fight them" about, in court, or otherwise. it almost sounds like you are threatening the Church.”

Nic responds: Mark Price’s Facebook web page was eliminated with a single blow and without any prior warning. This represented the destruction of what had taken months to build. Christian courtesy demanded that he be given a chance to take it down and save his work. The evidence seems to indicate that Mark would have been willing to cooperate with the GC over this issue.

He did contact the legal department of the church and requested permission to reinstate the web site that had been taken down, but the conditions were prohibitive. One of the requirements stated that he must state that he was in agreement with the teachings of the church. How can a pro-life Adventist declare that he is in agreement with the teachings of the church on abortion? Would you have lied in order to secure the coveted permission to use the Adventist name?

Do other religious organizations require a special permission to use names like Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, or Pentecostal? The threat came from the GC and not from pro-lifers. You may be aware that the original owner of the “Adventist for Life” organization—who was the rightful owner of the domain name until two days ago—was forced to de-register and loose the right to his domain under legal threat from the GC. How can you accuse pro-lifers of “threatening the Church”?

Overage said: “You admit yourself that you would have a hard time getting a good pastoral reference; and there is a reason for this.”

Nic responds: Yes, and the reason is that my pastor is definitely opposed to my defense of the unborn. Is this my fault? Am I to blame for refusing to alter my allegiance to the pro-life church I joined six decades ago? Am I supposed to say “Amen” to murder just because my church has decided to redefine the clear meaning of the Sixth Commandment beyond recognition? I was trained to be as faithful to duty as the compass is to the North Pole.

Overage said: “I am against abortions”

Nic responds: If you were against abortion, you would defend my actions instead of condemning them.

[doug yowell]

One of the requirements stated that he must state that he was in agreement with the teachings of the church. How can a pro-life Adventist declare that he is in agreement with the teachings of the church on abortion? Would you have lied in order to secure the coveted permission to use the Adventist name?

I think that this is one of the big problems that has resulted from the church's failure to take a clear stand on abortion. Mark Price is as plainly wrong as is the GC legal dept.if he (or Nic) interprets the "guidelines" as an official "church teaching". It is clearly stated as "guidelines" and not included as a "doctrine". Therefore, I would have no problem in adhering with the requirements of agreement. If agreement with everything that the church allows were the mandate then I could see a big problem. But if the legal dept. were to go legal on this they could not include the guidelines as an official church teaching or policy.Given the very wording of the guidelines themselves(particularly #7) it would be a violation of church principles to forbid discussion of them in an open forum.If the legal dept. required that I not criticize the church's allowance of abortion in their hospitals then I'd use the name Adventist for Life and let them take me to court!!

[Overaged]

One thing I have been trying to say here is that this being in agreement with the Church thing may not be what Nic says it is, nor what this other fellow says, who had the FB page. There is usually more than one item [doctrine] that a given person is in disagreement with when it hits the point that this issue has.

Nic; if you could make me believe even for a minute that the only thing you disagree with is the abortion thing; I might see what you are doing differently; and you must keep in mind the abortion guidelines are not infact official doctrine of the Church. Again; you have made it abundantly clear that you have many different disagreements with the Church, so anyone doing the same kinds of "ministry" could reasonably be expected to go the red tape mile. If you or this Mark fellow find it "prohibitive;" then again, how is that translated into being the Church's fault? Are you saying that the Church has the power to order a large commercial entity like Face Book to delete whatever pages they say? What a swampland in Florida pitch that one is. Face Book made that decision, not the Church.

You even have to get a reference from your local Pastor to run an ad in The Review Classified! (or atleast you used to have to). No. What they are asking is perfectly reasonable.

Stan was right in his post above

[Nic Samojluk]

Doug said: “I think that this is one of the big problems that has resulted from the church's failure to take a clear stand on abortion. Mark Price is as plainly wrong as is the GC legal dept.if he (or Nic) interprets the "guidelines" as an official "church teaching". It is clearly stated as "guidelines" and not included as a "doctrine". Therefore, I would have no problem in adhering with the requirements of agreement.”

Nic responds: There are two ways the church expresses its will: by action and inaction. In the Old Testament we have a statement which illustrates this basic principle regarding authority. It says that if a married woman makes a vow and the husband remains silent, the vow becomes binding on the woman, but if the man disallows it, then it is void. The same principle applies to an unmarried woman and her father.

The ultimate authority of the church rests with the General Conference in session; nevertheless, the next lower authority resides with the Autumn Council. The decisions of the Autumn Council are binding on the church unless voided or modified by the General Conference in session. This seems to have been the understanding as we study the history of the church. Consider the following example:

*********

Quote:

“In 1932, the church developed the first Church Manual . Among its provisions was a section on divorce.(12) It repeated the action of the 1925 Autumn Council, and added a number of other elements, most of which have continued in subsequent statements of policy. …

So, for the first time in 1932, Seventh-day Adventists adopted a policy that was considered binding on all church members. And in broad outline, the 1932 policy, with its distinction between guilty and innocent parties, its emphasis on rights to remarriage for the innocent but not the guilty, and its provision for excluding guilty remarried persons from membership, has served as the template for subsequent church policy.

Ten years after the first Church Manual , the church looked again at its divorce and remarriage policy. Some leaders believed that the 1932 policy needed to be clarified and expanded. A special study commission was appointed, and it reported to the 1942 Autumn Council. The result was the adoption of a six-point policy that solidified the provisions of the 1932 policy and generally made them stricter. …

Already in 1946, for example, the delegates to the General Conference Session revised the Church Manual. …

More significant revisions occurred at the 1950 General Conference Session and were incorporated in the 1951 Church Manual. …

Source: http://www.adventistfamilyministries.org/world/divorce_policy.htm

**********

My reading of the above seems to indicate that the decisions of the Autumn Council are invested with authority and reflect the teaching of the church; which can be modified, amended, or voided by the General Conference in session—the highest authority of the church. This interpretation of mine seems to be consistent with the following:

*********

Quote:

“Procedure for Changes in the Church Manual …

Changes in or revisions of the Church Manual, the Notes excepted (see below), can be made only by action of a General Conference session in which delegates of the world body of believers are assembled and have a voice in making revisions. If revisions in the Church Manual are considered necessary by any of the constituent levels (see p. 26), such revisions should be submitted to the next constituent level for wider counsel and study. If approved, the suggested revisions are then submitted to the next constituent level for further evaluation. Any proposed revisions shall then be sent to the General Conference Church Manual Committee. This committee will consider all recommended amendments or revisions and, if approved, prepare them for presentation at an Annual Council and/or General Conference session.

If revisions to the Notes at the end of some chapters of the Church Manual are considered necessary by any of the constituent levels (see p. 26), such revisions should be submitted to the next constituent level for consideration. If approved, the suggested revisions should continue on through the next constituent levels for further evaluation until they are received by the Church Manual Committee. The Church Manual Committee will process the request and, if approved, the revisions will be acted upon by the General Conference Executive Committee at the final Annual Council of the quinquennium to coordinate them with the changes of the main content that the General Conference Executive Committee will recommend to the next General Conference session. However, the General Conference Executive Committee may address changes to the Notes at any Annual Council.

Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church-manual/index.html

Doug said: “If the legal dept. required that I not criticize the church's allowance of abortion in their hospitals then I'd use the name Adventist for Life and let them take me to court!!”

Nic responds: You must be rich, and I am not. Most attorneys charge $250 and more per hour, and if you add the hours some of them charge their many clients, you probably conclude that they work more than 24 hours per day.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “Nic; if you could make me believe even for a minute that the only thing you disagree with is the abortion thing; I might see what you are doing differently;”

Nic responds: Suppose I disagree with some other teaching of the church, would that invalidate my arguments in defense of the unborns’ right to life and the true meaning of the Sixth Commandment? The Adventist pioneers did not accept our current understanding of the Trinity. Does this mean that they were not true Adventists, or that whatever they taught about other issues is wrong?

Overaged said: “…you must keep in mind the abortion guidelines are not in fact official doctrine of the Church.”

Nic responds: Read my response to Doug above. The Autumn Council, which approved our Guidelines on Abortion, is the official caretaker of the church business and it is invested with full authority. The General Conference in session has the power to modify or void the actions of the Autumn Council, but their decisions are valid unless modified or voided. Almost two decades have gone by without any action by the GC in session, which means that the GOA stand as voted by the AC in 1992.

Overaged said: “Are you saying that the Church has the power to order a large commercial entity like Face Book to delete whatever pages they say? What a swampland in Florida pitch that one is. Face Book made that decision, not the Church.”

Nic responds: Yes, and David did not kill Uriah the Hitite. His military commander did.

[Overaged]

Overaged said: “Nic; if you could make me believe even for a minute that the only thing you disagree with is the abortion thing; I might see what you are doing differently;”

Nic responds: Suppose I disagree with some other teaching of the church, would that invalidate my arguments in defense of the unborns’ right to life and the true meaning of the Sixth Commandment? The Adventist pioneers did not accept our current understanding of the Trinity. Does this mean that they were not true Adventists, or that whatever they taught about other issues is wrong?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “They approved the guidelines, but this does not make it official Church doctrine...Read your dictionary to distinguish between the two words.”

Nic responds: I did, and this is what I found in the Merriam Websters dictionary:

Teaching: “something that is taught : the ideas and beliefs that are taught by a person, religion”

Doctrine: “something that is taught”

Guideline: “a rule or set of rules giving guidance on how to behave in a situation.”

Notice that the terms “teaching” and “doctrine” are synonymous. There are two ways of teaching: by word and by example. By word and by example the Adventist church is teaching that taking the lives of unborn babies is morally acceptable under a variety of circumstances, including the “health” exception, which the “Doe v Bolton” ruling has defined as including the mental health of the pregnant woman. This means that if the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy gets mentally depressed and cannot sleep, she has the moral right to get her baby killed.

Now, if your argument is that the guidelines do not represent one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the church, then I agree.

Overaged said: “The guidelines actually do not support abortions on demand.”

Nic responds: True! This is precisely where the main problem is. The guidelines clearly state that the church is opposed to abortions on demand; nevertheless, five of our hospitals were reported in Spectrum as offering elective abortions to their patients with impunity. How can we explain this apparent contradiction between what the guidelines teach and what the actual practice of the church is?

Very easy: The “health” exception which is included in said guidelines, which is defined as including the mental exception by the “Doe v Bolton ruling” theoretically opens the door for abortion on demand during the entire nine months of pregnancy. All a woman needs to secure an abortion is a pair of physicians who agree that the pregnancy is in fact affecting the mental health of the woman. As you can see, there exists and internal contradiction in our guidelines which has created this terrible conundrum.

[doug yowell]

Overaged said: “They approved the guidelines, but this does not make it official Church doctrine...Read your dictionary to distinguish between the two words.”

Nic responds: I did, and this is what I found in the Merriam Websters dictionary:

Teaching: “something that is taught : the ideas and beliefs that are taught by a person, religion”

Doctrine: “something that is taught”

Guideline: “a rule or set of rules giving guidance on how to behave in a situation.”

Notice that the terms “teaching” and “doctrine” are synonymous.

Isn't teaching also used as a verb? Which would give it a different meaning? One which is the way we often employ in the misuse of the English language?Like what we've all agreed is not official policy or imperative requirement? And according to the above definition of "guideline" the term has been misapplied to the church's "statement" on abortion since the "guidelines" themself don't give any mandates (rules)on behavior.Unlike the 28.I don't see any substantial difference between the 1970/1971/1992 statements that would alter any behavior.