Should GC Legal Stop those who impersonate the Church? Yes or No?

[Stan]

Pastor Chick

How many years did the GC ask you to cease using their name before this went to the courts?

[CoAspen]

Sort of how many threads are we going to have on this issue, stan!

I wonder if caring a grudge for so long is Biblical or even healthy!!!

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think we are to carry a grudge after sundown. Something about the sun not setting on our anger.

[Woody]

Yes Shane. Right on. And it certainly is not healthy nor helpful to God's cause.

[Light Fox]

Suing people to the point of jailtime over a religious matter is acceptable (even commendable) Christian behavior, but attempting to intelligently discuss whether the Bible condones that act is holding a grudge and unhelpful to God's cause.

That's quite an interesting set of views you have there.

In any event, back to the actual discussion.

Club, here is where I'm having a problem with what you said most recently on the matter. You say that Jesus might be very harsh with people, even for their own good. Obviously, this is true - Christ rebuked hypocrites very sternly. The "Hugs and flowers" view that most Adventists seem to cherish of our Savior's method of dealing with sin is a very inaccurate one. To some, I suppose it can even look like "grudge holding."

The problem, however, is who metes out those consequences? Whose job is it to punish and penalize people? Is it ours, as Christians?

And if you are inclined to answer yes, let me tell you what I really find alarming about this whole line of thought - the Catholic Inquisition was based entirely on the idea that the civil punishments, the torture, and the executions they forced onto people were "harsh punishments for the good of the people." The idea was "they are endangering the souls of others and themselves."

I read about Christ being harsh with people - rebuking them. I read about Christ pleading with tears, calling people vipers, and telling them their house was left to them desolate.

What I don't read is about Him going to Pilate to force the high priest out of office for being unfit. I read Him saying if someone sues you for your cloak, give them your coat also; I do not interpret that as "and if you sue, make sure you get both from them as well."

In short, Christ never used force, and He stayed entirely aloof of the civil government. He said that He would not judge, but His words would judge in the last days. So, where do we sit on this? Do we judge where Christ would not? Do we trust the courts to judge where Christ has not seen fit?

It seems that the whole of the argument is either "We have to, or we have no protection" or "It laws of the land allow it, so it must be okay." I really don't see how either of those sentiments can be reconciled with a Christian viewpoint, much more an Adventist one.

[Windsor]

maybe it is just me.... but I think this still has credibility

New International Version (©1984)

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

For other versions

http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-17.htm

What does one do, or demand our leaders to do, is someone imitates the Seventh-day Adventist Church and is not one? Surly a start up church can pick a name that is not already taken.

How hard is that to reason with?

Of course they can. However, when their leader has a supposed vision from God telling them to violate established trademark and hence, the civil authorities, in contradiction to scripture, then they have to violate scripture! Never once, of course, does their leader think for a second that his vision might not be from God even if it violates the principles established in the Bible. Galatians 1:8 comes to mind.

[Stan]

What were the fruits?

[Pastor_Chick]

Pastor Chick

How many years did the GC ask you to cease using their name before this went to the courts?

Stan,

Why? Why do you continue to jab me? You post error about the whole thing, and then jab me again.

Make your point, please.

[Stan]

Chick

The question still prevails. How many years did the GC Legal labour with you before the court action began?

To the casual reader, it would appear as if there was almost nothing.

[Stan]

I do have to ask this....

Which is the greater sin, for the church to sue someone or to steal from the World Wide sisterhood of Churches and bear false witness against the church? Your organization did not, and does not reflect the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but rather takes the name, and misrepresents the teaching.

Please do not get me wrong, I am ok with Challenging thoughts and teachings, but impersonating the Adventist Church to do such is just wrong.

[Stan]

If you wanted to have a ministry that supported creation info, which I would like to see more of that done, and did not use it to continually attack the Seventh-day Adventist Church I would host it for you free, as well as purchase the domain name for you.

I would have to have 1-2 google ads on the page to help cover the server expense etc.

What about www.thecreationchurch.com ?

[Light Fox]

Stan,

I don't know why you seem to be having such a difficult time with this very simple concept. There is no impersonation. Even the civil courts, which you seem to hold in such high regard in religious matters, stated that very clearly. Perhaps quoting a Federal judge will have more weight that quoting Scripture, Mrs. White, or facts?

"While the use of the mark was certainly knowing, there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to confuse the public into believing that his church was one of the Plaintiffs’. Rather, the proof supports the conclusion that they chose the name based on a divine revelation." (ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, p.22)

In over twenty years, the CSDA Church has never been confused with the SDA Church. Logos are different, names are different, and CSDA websites and materials often have a disclaimer of unaffiliation just to be absolutely certain there's no potential for misreading. If you're going to keep posting in threads talking about "impersonating the Adventist church", I don't know what else I can conclude other than you're either dishonest or not listening at all.

Either one makes me question what the value of replying to you is, and as PC said above, you seem to have a penchant for "hit and run" posts. That said, for the sake of others, I'll answer your query:

The GC did not labor at all before initiating the lawsuit. The only word received was a brief, legal "cease and desist" letter sent from a secular attorney, which was received extremely briefly before the actual lawsuit filing. This, after being in operation since 1991, having distributed literature to every SDA Conference office announcing our formation, and initiating a visit with Walter E. Carson in his office to discuss the matter in person.

Lastly, from a purely "historic" perspective, Ellen White tells us explicitly that the name Seventh-day Adventist is a banner to be carried to the close of human probation, and that no other name we take can be appropriate but that - SDA - which accords with our faith and marks us as a peculiar people.

Even if you choose to ignore or deride claims to a later vision demarcating an altered version of that name (which it seems like you would be prone to accept, given your desire to see "non-impersonation)", the only way you could advise a Adventist-believing Christian who is separate from the General Conference's umbrella to "just use another name" would be to advise them to outright ignore that counsel from her pen.

Now, perhaps this is long for a forum post. And perhaps this is a bit of a derail. But I do hope I've addressed what is worth addressing here well enough that the "casual reader" won't be mislead by your continued misrepresentations.

[Pastor_Chick]

Chick

The question still prevails. How many years did the GC Legal labour with you before the court action began?

To the casual reader, it would appear as if there was almost nothing.

I have answered this at least once before, and perhaps you did not read it. I am obliged to tell a story to make it very clear.

The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was commissioned in 1991, and immediately we mailed our position paper, Crucified Afresh, to every Conference office we could locate a mailing address for in the NAD. I interacted with Kermit Netteburg by email in 1996-97, the subject of which was eventually handed over to the Biblical Research Institute for examination. The Institute never responded to me however.

1998 was the year my wife and I visited the General Conference headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. While we were there, we stayed with the ADRA director and his hospitable wife. We met with Attorney Walter Carson privately and shared much together. I closed the meeting in prayer, and with tears in his eyes, Mr. Carson said, "Please don't take anything personal that I have to do. I must do whatever the leading men tell me." There had been no demands or even suggestions that we should cease using the name Creation 7th Day Adventist. [it is interesting to note here that shortly after the 2006 lawsuit was styled against us, Walter Carson was relieved of his duties in the GC legal department and the handling of trademark disputes.]

In fact, it was about this time (1997-98) when I was also dialoging with Attorney Alan J. Reinach, religious liberty authority, and now, North American Religious Liberty Association – West. Alan told me he did not see that our name would be infringing on the General Conference Corporation's trademark.

The General Conference was silent until 2005 when their Patent Attorney Vincent Ramik of Annandale, VA posted me a "cease and desist" letter which was actually confusing us with some Davidians who owned websites that the GC wanted to curtail. After dialogue, Ramik included some of our websites in the complaint which resulted in a case being filed with WIPO in Geneva.

The actual trademark lawsuit against me and the Creation 7th Day Adventist members in Federal District Court did not occur until 2006. That story is fairly covered on the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church entry at Wikipedia.

I hope this matter is put to rest. If my language is difficult to understand, please address my deficiency, and I shall try to express myself "in other words."

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

[...] when their leader has a supposed vision from God telling them to violate established trademark and hence, the civil authorities, in contradiction to scripture, then they have to violate scripture! Never once, of course, does their leader think for a second that his vision might not be from God even if it violates the principles established in the Bible. Galatians 1:8 comes to mind.

[Windsor]

It's a little hard to take you seriously. You needlessly bring persecution upon yourself by taking a name that doesn't belong to you. There is no glory in persecution not received for the cause of God! Your persecution is no different than the jail time a robber receives when he gets caught. It has nothing to do with performing God's work. You are not enduring for Christ.

"But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."

I Peter 1:20

Then you have the nerve to state that believers should not goto the courts when troubles arise. I agree it's better if it can be avoided. However, you're the one forcing their hand! Wouldn't it be so much better if you simply turned the other cheek? But no, you want them to turn the other cheek so you can keep striking!

[ClubV12]

"...true as steel to principle..."

The essence of the issue, as I see it, is this.

Pastor Chick believes with his whole heart that he was divinely directed to take the name. Being as, it is believed, this message was from God, then the command "true to steel" MUST be followed, even unto death.

While that is admirable and many christians have suffered death and persecution for being "true to steel", one can only hope that their sincere belief was well placed and truly solid.

Here's where we depart Pastor Chick. I cannot accept that this name was in fact a divine revelation from God, to you. I KNOW you are very sincere, but alas, I fear that you are sincerely mistaken on this point. I say this in all christian humbleness and sympathy. But I too, must be "true as steel" in my testimony.

[Light Fox]

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" (1 Cor.6:7)

It's a dark day when following plain instructions from Ellen White is "nothing to do with performing God's work" and failing to turn the other cheek, quoting the words of Paul is considered having "the nerve to say something," and being thrown in jail and chased from country to country by someone you've never harmed is considered "striking" a victim and "forcing their hand."

Father forgive them...

[Windsor]

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" (1 Cor.6:7)

It's a dark day when following plain instructions from Ellen White is "nothing to do with performing God's work" and failing to turn the other cheek, quoting the words of Paul is considered having "the nerve to say something," and being thrown in jail and chased from country to country by someone you've never harmed is considered "striking" a victim and "forcing their hand."

Father forgive them...

Well at least some people are starting to admit that indeed the creation sda's are defrauding the Seventh-day Adventist church. You can't slap someone in the face and tell them that it's God's plan for them to now turn the other cheek and accept another slap.

[ClubV12]

As I see it, the "plain instructions" from the prophet was that a group of christians at a specific time in history were to take the name, "Seventh-day Adventist".

There have been many sub-groups along the way who have abandoned that original group of Seventh-day Adventist. CSDA, is one, of many such groups, all of whom feel just as adament about their reasons and calling from God. Splinter, if you must, go your own way, if you feel so compelled. But I see nothing in the scripture or the Testimonies that allows for assuming the name God gave to the FIRST group.

How that should be handled, by a court, civil process, counsel among the brethren, etc. is a separate issue. But the concept is clear to me, taking the name from the first group is not acceptable under any circumstances. It was given of God, not to TWO or more groups, but to one. Therefore, I must conclude, use of the name in "group #2" cannot be from God.

[Brother Peter]

I am not surprise that the truth is very hard to see. The bible and the SOP have so many guide lines on how as a people we should live and conduct ourselves among each other. But even though these two lights are there, I see that the majority of humanity love darkness rather than light. They like to reason base on their own thinking and not upon the word of God. The bible clearly tells us how we must treat some one whom we consider our nabour or our enemy or even someone whom we may think is defrauding us. It is time that humanity take their heads out of the sand. Light is shining, “[b]but not from a polluted church”.

[Brother Peter]

Religious Liberty Stated that They are:

"Building bridges with governments, international organizations, and

religious leaders of diverse faiths; addressing conflicts; improving legislation;

defending those who are persecuted for their faith; and promoting

religious freedom for everyone".

If this statement is true and the GC is doing what they are doing now then something is realy wrong. Eather it is of "God" or from the "devil".

[Brother Peter]

The banner of the third angel has inscribed upon it, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Our institutions have taken a name which sets forth the character of our faith, and of this name we are never to be ashamed. I have been shown that this name means much, and in adopting it we have followed the light given us from heaven. . . . The Sabbath is God's memorial of His creative work, and it is a sign that is to be kept before the world.

385

{2SM 384.3}

The GC is claiming that the name is belong to them but here it state that it was instructed by the Most High (God). If God has shown me what I aught to do when building a house Can I lay claim to the blue print that it is mine and in turn trade mark it so as to prevent anyone from using it... and if anyone does then I prosecute them? Would this be correct in the sight of God?

Let us look at how Jesus deal with a particular issue in Mark 9. 38-40 that today would not be dealt with in the same manner, but rather be brought before the courts of the land:

Mark 9.38-40. "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part".

We saw in the pass when a religious body invoke the laws of the land in order to carry out dogmas, it resulted in imprisonment and death. History shall repeat it self again. Are you ready for such events as it were in the dark ages

[ClubV12]

Just to clear up what I was saying:

Brother Peter is addressing how the name issue should or should not be handled. Counsel of the brethren, civil or criminal contempt, law suit, etc. I was addressing the essence of the use of the name and it's origin for "both" groups, SDA group 1 and CSDA group 2.

[Israfel]

You don't get it Windsor,

This battle is the Lord's. When one has a religious conviction, (God gave the name, therefore it is His, not the GC's) as America understood when they wrote the US Constitution, ...he cannot turn the other cheek on it.

The Bible says we must obey God rather than men"! Is he commiting a sin by believing as he does? which one according to the Bible?

Now he is not the one that has initiated any cout case, how could he turn the other cheek. Would you submit to a false accusation of Satan? Would you not rather rebuke him in the name of the Lord?

Who made or took the wrong step here, are you an SDA and you do not know these things?

The Bible forbids any true Christ follower to take their bretheren to court,

The Bible on the other hand on the matter of conscience, states that we must obey God rather than men.

So why should he has to turn the other cheek? Do you see what I mean?

[Windsor]

You don't get it Windsor,

This battle is the Lord's. When one has a religious conviction, (God gave the name, therefore it is His, not the GC's) as America understood when they wrote the US Constitution, ...he cannot turn the other cheek on it.

The Bible says we must obey God rather than men"! Is he commiting a sin by believing as he does? which one according to the Bible?

Now he is not the one that has initiated any cout case, how could he turn the other cheek. Would you submit to a false accusation of Satan? Would you not rather rebuke him in the name of the Lord?

Who made or took the wrong step here, are you an SDA and you do not know these things?

The Bible forbids any true Christ follower to take their bretheren to court,

The Bible on the other hand on the matter of conscience, states that we must obey God rather than men.

So why should he has to turn the other cheek? Do you see what I mean?

Is: How can you, with any sense of logic, claim that a group you're defrauding should accept your abuse? Are you really typing with a straight face or is this some sort of joke that I haven't been let in on?

Another comparison would be a husband who beats his wife every night and then claims she should accept it because the Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands.