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

[ClubV12]

Ahhh, I had missed where you got the idea the name was yours. It belongs to God and therefore NOT the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Hmmmm, thats a bit of stretch I think. Using that logic any group could claim the name. Placing it under the "ownership of God" is essentially the same as "placing it in the public domain", open to anybody and everybody for whatever purpose they prepose.

I'm not sure, but I suspect, that virtually every church has some kind of legal protection associated with their name so that it doesn't become a "public domain" issue. Regardless of how they aquired said name, by divine revelation from God or their own devising, which God blessed after the fact.

[Windsor]

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

There was never a vision received by Ellen White and most certainly never a vision by Chick from the Most High God saying to take the name Seventh-day Adventist. S.T. Cranson first utilized the name in a letter to the editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Ellen White wasn't even present when the name was officially adopted by the church.

[Stan]

Peter & Israfe and others... posting from the same computer under different names to try and show support is really tacky

If you have to manufacture screen names to support your position shows that it has no position.

PLUS it is irritating for me to constantly get notices from the software when people do this..

[ClubV12]

Interesting point Windsor. So where DID the name come from and when? I'll assume it "came from God" but He usually works through people in some way. So who ever came up with the name, I wouldn't have a problem if some wanted to declare it was from God. Just curious about the origination details (who, when) and time frame is all.

[Stan]

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.

You don't get it, it is not your name to use, you are impersonating that adventist Church

Why do you say you are from Tenn? When you are posting from Corinth Mississippi? Just curious..

[Stan]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

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."

I know all the people you speak about, except the patent attorney, and I have had letters from him, over a similar situation, and after getting some legal advice I turned some domains over to the GC and kept some others.

What did the courts say? Did they say you had a legal right to use that name? That brand the God's remnant people have invested so much in?

If I saw a sign that said Creation Souther Baptist Convention. I would expect that to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I would feel tricked and deceived other wise.

Getting folks to register and post under different names to support this does not go over well with this forum administrator.

[Israfel]

Club12, Do you get it?

Not the name was given to make the people holy but the name was given to those that were holding the banner,(the commandments and the faith of Jesus) but unfortunately the GC SDA church lowered that banner long time ago. Today they are just seeing the result of apostasy from the Truth. Read about what happended to Israel when they lowered the standard? Please do not confuse this point.

"We are Seventh-day Adventists, and of this name we are never to be ashamed. As a

people we must take a firm stand for truth and righteousness. Thus we shall glorify God." Letter106, 1903.

"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...This distinctive banner is to be borne

through the world to the CLOSE OF PROBATION." MS 15, 1896.

So to take another name would be to do something that only God has prerogative upon. That would be sin.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Well, I fry **mine** in butter..

[Light Fox]

Ahhh, I had missed where you got the idea the name was yours. It belongs to God and therefore NOT the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Hmmmm, thats a bit of stretch I think. Using that logic any group could claim the name. Placing it under the "ownership of God" is essentially the same as "placing it in the public domain", open to anybody and everybody for whatever purpose they prepose.

I'm not sure, but I suspect, that virtually every church has some kind of legal protection associated with their name so that it doesn't become a "public domain" issue. Regardless of how they aquired said name, by divine revelation from God or their own devising, which God blessed after the fact.

Club,

I appreciate the points you're contributing to the discussion. While I understand we disagree, I at least do not feel I am being "interrogated" That is a rare treat in this age. Hopefully we can continue to reason on these disagreements until we come into the spirit of unity.

As far as your post above, yes, that is quite right - it would indeed be in the public domain, and anyone could use it as they wished. People ought to have that freedom, just as they have the freedom to identify themselves as "Christians" whether you or I may believe they "deserve" that title or not. The Investigative Judgment is what sifts between the true and false professors; we dare not take that work on ourselves, and we most *certainly* dare not take it upon ourselves to force people to deny what they believe they are.

Let me explain my position from a bit of SDA history. I'm not sure if you know this, but the name Seventh-day Adventist was given by God before any organization existed (there was no General Conference til some years later). The name was not given to an organization, but to a faith, and the people who held that faith. I was also interested when I discovered a piece in the ARSH where (I believe it was James White, but I may be mistaken) authored an article about the "Evangelical Adventists" and their creed.

Sparing the details of the article, the summary was that if the Evangelical Adventists would stick to the portion of their creed as pertaining to the law, they would become Sabbath-keepers. And having done so, they would be recognized as Seventh-day Adventist brethren.

That was the only requirement. It was not a matter of "coming under the headship" or "being in the right organization," though that certainly would have come later. No, a Seventh-day Adventist was one who believed in the Seventh-day Sabbath and the Advent of Christ. It was quite simple.

Now, let me throw another log on the fire. This somewhat goes into another thread or two we've seen about early Adventists and the Godhead, but I think I can avoid a side-debate here (hopefully!). Not long ago, the Adventist church stated outright in addressing the issue of the Godhead that the majority of the founders of Seventh-day Adventists would not be allowed to join the church today if the standard of the 28 fundamentals was applied; specifically the portions about the trinity.

Now, can you start to see where I am coming from? The name was given to express a faith - the faith of the people who founded the Adventist Church. Those same people could not join what that organization is today *because* of their faith. So what is a "real" Seventh-day Adventist? Is it the faith, or the organization?

My research and prayer tells me that it is the faith that makes one a Seventh-day Adventist. For me to say I am *not* one would be a lie. For me to *not* call myself one publicly when we have Mrs. White saying what she does on the matter would be rebellion. And as a church composed of Seventh-day Adventists in faith, we would be liars to call ourselves another name that God had not given us in place of the one He did.

I hope you can see my side of the fence on this, at least - even disregarding the issue of extra revelations of the addition of "Creation" to the name, we're in the same discussion really of who owns the name. It's like asking who owns Christian.

---------------------------------------------------------

Stan,

Okay. Given your lack of any substantial response, I suppose it's just up to Yahweh to judge between us as to who is "not getting" what the other is saying.

Regarding your query about my location, why are you asking? If you are interested, a quick reference to a Google map showing where Guys, TN is in relation to Corinth, MS will provide ample explanation.

[ClubV12]

"... the Godhead that the majority of the founders of Seventh-day Adventists would not be allowed to join the church today if the standard of the 28 fundamentals was applied; specifically the portions about the trinity."

Being as truth is progressive, I don't think that particular argument is valid. The founders would have either moved to the current position or left the church. But we'll never know which.

"It's like asking who owns Christian."

THAT could be considered a valid argument in the AD time frame. The descriptive name Seventh-day Adventist could be applied to all time. Adam was an SDA! However, we are left with the sticky "legal issue" as it regards the specific SDA name. It's a good thing nobody got a trademark on "christian"!

Whether the early Seventh-day Adventist church has dropped the banner, or not, like Joshua and Caleb, I will stay with my people and continue wandering until God brings us home.

[Brother Peter]

Hermit of Adventistan

Registered: 2006-09-15

Posts: 4635

Loc: Adventistan

Peter & Israfe and others... posting from the same computer under different names to try and show support is really tacky

If you have to manufacture screen names to support your position shows that it has no position.

PLUS it is irritating for me to constantly get notices from the software when people do this..

_________________________

Hello Stan I am sorry that it appears that it seems that it one person.But Israfel is my wife. And we DO have different PC in our home and we do use each others PC from time.

I would like to know what is the typical forum procedure for that situation so as not to inconvenience the administrator.

__________________

Bro.P

[Scion]

I really think this would be best if we stuck to general principles here. When the actual discussion last left off, I asked for a Bible verse or Spirit of Prophecy quote that would justify a church suing another church or an individual. I got one post about "respecting the leaders," which I think is really dangerous if used blindly and by itself (the Crusades? the Inquisition? You can easily see how that can be used to justify any atrocity in the name of God without a principle that speaks to the specific issues).

Other than that I have seen... nothing. I've seen some human reasoning about people's hands being forced, but is this really the state of Adventism today? We should be people of the Book. For every action, we should be able to find a principle, if not an actual guideline to follow, but when I said I was a "long time believer" that courts and religion should be separated, I have found nothing of substance in reply that actually addressed that from the Word of God. Anyone care to actually try to demonstrate this? It's not what we feel "Ok" with, or "comfortable" with, but rather, "It is written." We dare not be satisfied with anything less, and although many people can point fingers and rationalize things to themselves, it's all going to go back to those questions that I asked:

"What does God say about it?"

"What would Jesus do, and instruct His people to do?"

[ClubV12]

I do think the reason for a suit needs to be clear, thus, the discussion of it's "worth" is a critical component. Is the legally trademarked name worthy of a suit? Is the legally trademarked name in harmony with biblical principles?

In both cases I believe the answer is yes.

Now, we turn back to what to do about it, the original question. I think that question was answered sufficiently for myself early on in the discussion. It is lawful and within biblical principles to sue someone who is not a member of your congregation. Your neighbor? Yes, sometimes, that also has to be done. Using the Government to "prosecute" your case? Paul did that by declaring himself to be a Roman citizen and demanding that all due respect and the weight of the law be followed.

Jesus followed the law of the land whenever it did not conflict with His Godly duties. As did the apostles and the disciples. It is clear to me that Government laws cannot be treated lightly. I understand the conflict with the CSDA church as it regards the law of the land and their position on the law of God. While I understand it, that does not mean I approve it. In this case, having heard the argument for and against, the merits of the suit, I support law of the land as having more weight.

As to the biblical references used to support the CSDA case against "suing a brother", I don't beleive they apply based on my interpretation of what constitutes a "brother". Once you have been removed from "membership", by resignation or disfellowship, you loose certain rights and privileges. Being a "member" of any organization does not mean you can or cannot be a christian. Nor does it gaurentee salvation either way. You don't have to be a Seventh-day Adventist in good standing to find favor with God and walk closely with Him.

"Membership does have it's privileges."

[skyblue888]

If Christ was truly the Head of the professed SDA church there could be no lawsuit of any kind. Can you imagine Christ, when He walked this earth, launching a law suit for any reason at all?

In 1909 the Lord sent this testimony: "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God (Christ) aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481.

Lawsuits are among the devisings of men.

sky

[ClubV12]

Even the laws of Moses addressed the issues of civil authority and gave clear "laws" about how to deal with civil issues. While we don't condone "stoning" as a punishment today, the principles still apply, laws have to be enforced. Heaven is all about order, when the law was violated, a 1/3 were thrown out. Jesus would not need a law suit to handle a problem, He has divine ways and methods of addressing an issue! Like the laws of Moses, He leaves some things for the government of the people to be worked out by the people. The laws of man, it could be said, are based on the laws of the bible and we are warned by the bible to take them seriously.

I don't see a conflict here between the laws of God and the laws of man...

[Pastor_Chick]

Lawsuits are among the devisings of men.

sky

sky,

I am really pleased to find some agreement here.

[Windsor]

Dear Brother Chick,

"The present is a time of great peril to the people of God. God is leading out a people, not an individual here and there. He has a church on the earth, that abide in the truth; and when we see, not only men, but young girls, crying out against the church, we are afraid of them. We know God has not sent them, yet they ran, and all who do not accept their erratic ideas are denounced as warring against the Spirit of the Lord. All such things are in Satan’s line, but the work of God will go forward while there are now and ever will be those who work directly against the prayer of Christ. The work will advance, leaving them with their satanic inventions far behind."

Sincerely,

Sister White

[skyblue888]

Windsor, be careful how you intepret this statement. Statement must be compared with statement. See 1 S.M.42. Right now you seem to be handling this statement like a novice.

If we were to take that lone statement without studying it with other statements, we would have no choice but to conclude that Jesus was of the devil because He certainly was a lone man and the Reformers would fall into the same category.

There is more than meets the eyes in that statement.

sky

[ClubV12]

The law of Moses said if you lend a man money and take his coat for collateral, you should return the coat at nightfall. What if the lender did NOT return the coat? The poor man without it had a right to pursue "legal recourse" under the law, in other words, he could "sue for relief" (from being cold at night). A devising set up under the laws of Moses, which became the laws of men.

Sky, thats a valid point. The interpretation of scripture is much like the interpretation of Ellen White testimonies. Easy to misconstrue and requires a diligent search of other verses and quotes on the subject matter to arrive at a balanced view.

[skyblue888]

Even the laws of Moses addressed the issues of civil authority and gave clear "laws" about how to deal with civil issues. While we don't condone "stoning" as a punishment today, the principles still apply, laws have to be enforced. Heaven is all about order, when the law was violated, a 1/3 were thrown out. Jesus would not need a law suit to handle a problem, He has divine ways and methods of addressing an issue! Like the laws of Moses, He leaves some things for the government of the people to be worked out by the people. The laws of man, it could be said, are based on the laws of the bible and we are warned by the bible to take them seriously.

I don't see a conflict here between the laws of God and the laws of man...

It was a theocracy in which God ruled over moral and civil affairs and let us not forget that God gave instructions in civil affairs according to the sword because His professed people had chosen to elect the way of the sword to protect themselves from their enemies and within the camp. They did not have the faith to allow God to fight for them in righteousness, which was most of the time.

But there is to be no true theocracy until He comes again.

Church and State are to be kept separate.

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

"The present is a time of great peril to the people of God. God is leading out a people, not an individual here and there. He has a church on the earth, that abide in the truth; and when we see, not only men, but young girls, crying out against the church, we are afraid of them. We know God has not sent them, yet they ran, and all who do not accept their erratic ideas are denounced as warring against the Spirit of the Lord. All such things are in Satan’s line, but the work of God will go forward while there are now and ever will be those who work directly against the prayer of Christ. The work will advance, leaving them with their satanic inventions far behind."[...]

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

[Windsor]

I really don't know how else to refer to you except as a false prophet.

[Pastor_Chick]

I really don't know how else to refer to you except as a false prophet.

More mind games. (There is a more appropriate thread for this "false prophet" discussion.)

Now, do you really think your condemnation offends me? What do you intend to gain? I will rebut you on flawed scholarship, but not your personal beliefs.

[Light Fox]

The Law of Moses cannot be appealed to for principles on how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians. How many times was Christ accused of speaking against Moses because He began a statement with "Moses said x, but I tell you y?" The hardness of their hearts was the reason Christ said many things were allowed under Moses as they were, but not so now (including, in fact, the issue of cloaks and lawsuits).

Here is what has always struck me as the most relevant and clear Scripture on the whole matter:

"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:51-53)

That same question is relevant here. Thinkest thou that I cannot now give more than twelve legions of angels to (fill in the blank)? And incase there is any temptation to consider this an isolated principle, look at where else it appears:

"If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Rev. 13:9-10)

Now, Rev 13 should be familiar. You know where that is found? It's in the chapter that deals with the first beast, the second beast, and the image and mark of the beast. That seems very clear to me that this principle isn't disassociated in the slightest with the end days, but even more relevant.

Not only that, but the very next words in that chapter are "And I beheld [...]" describing the second beast arising. Here is the whole matter of Church lawsuits in summary: John identifies "the patience and the faith of the saints" as being the same rebuke Christ gave to Peter in Gethsemane for not resting in God (Sabbath, if you think about it) for protection and vindication.

He then goes on to describe the second beast of Revelation, which becomes the enemy of God's people.

How can Adventists, of all Christians, consider going to that second beast in order to take the sword to others? A more complete disregard of those two passages is hard for me to conceive. No wonder Mrs. White called it "doing the very thing God has bidden you not to do."