Leaderboard

Stan! Tell us how you really feel!!!

I agree with CoAspen, treat him as anyone else. Eventually, if he's really there to recruit, and not there for fellowship, he will disappear.

Stan, you keep up with the CRTC more than I do, but basically what was announced today is that in response to Canadian consumers' complaints about high costs in cable TV outfitting. I do not use cable at ALL because of the expense. I have Apple TV for entertainment, a couple channels and that is it. I connect my iPad with the TV if I want to watch anything online and have not missed television at all. I would be interested in learning how much members here pay for their cablevision. Anyways, here is the speech: Government calls for cheaper cablevision for Canadian consumers

Aubrey: You are correct. Pope John Paul I was Pope for 33 days. At the end of 33 days he died.

I guess Czologosz! Answer: On Sept. 6, 1901, President William B. McKinley was shot and mortally wounded by anarchist Leon Czolgosz at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Czolgosz approached McKinley, who had been standing in a receiving line inside the Temple of Music, greeting the public for ten minutes. At 4:07 P.M., Czolgosz reached the front of the line. McKinley extended his hand. Czolgosz slapped it aside and shot the President in the abdomen twice, at point-blank range: the first bullet ricocheted and lodged in McKinley's jacket; the other seriously wounded him. McKinley died eight days later of an infection which had spread from that wound.

Correct that it is complex, but perhaps not the question. It really is the answer that is complex and to that extent the above is not quite correct, primarily because it is incomplete. The way it is phrased it sort of makes Adventist Health (and by implication Adventist healthcare generally) sound like a monolithic entity. It is not a single entity. (Of course, neither is the denomination.) There are multiple corporations and denominational relationships with varied interrelationships. There are also a couple details that are incorrect. Strictly speaking the corporate relationship was not severed. It was changed and perhaps in some ways clarified. There remains a definite corporate relationship (or relationships to be more accurate) still. And a definite denominational relationship complying with denominational status policy is required for them to be considered to be Adventist entities. If an Adventist healthcare entity satisfies the requirements of the denominational status policy (and they do) they are deemed to be an integral part of the denomination. There is more to corporate governance and control than just the governing board. At that corporate layer it is true that a majority of the members of the board are not leaders from other denominational institutions and organizations. While a board could be said to "run" an organization to the extent that they have broad oversight over operations, it is really the officers and administration that "run" the organization under the oversight and general supervision of the board. These officers are considered to be denominational leaders. ( A key role of a governing board is the selection, appointment and oversight of the corporate officers. And to replace officers that are not functioning as expected or required.) But the more fundamental corporate governance that is really at the heart of the question is who controls Adventist healthcare. That corporate control is not in the officers, nor the governing boards. The missing corporate governance layer in the above description is what may be the most important to the question - the corporate membership. It is effectively the constituent governance layer, somewhat like the constituency of a conference and it is the corporate membership to which the non-profit corporation is ultimately accountable. In a non-profit corporate context it is functionally like the shareholders of a for-profit corporation. The most significant distinction would be that shareholders both own and control the corporation, while non-profit corporate members would only control the corporation. (Since a nonprofit corporation would be organized as a tax exempt organization, its ownership cannot be said to be by another entity or persons.) One of the fundamental responsibilities of the corporate membership is the appointment of the board, just as shareholders would for a for-profit corporation. In that ultimate sense, the denomination does indeed control Adventist healthcare. That level of control would effectively say that if the board and officers are not running the entity as expected and required by, and to the satisfaction of, the corporate membership, that corporate membership has the authority to and can remove one or all of them and put in place others who will do so. It is at that layer where the most essential control exists for any denominational entity. Powers reserved to corporate membership (similar to shareholders) also include major disposition or encumbrance of assets, significant changes to corporate purposes and functions, and any changes to articles of incorporation and often even bylaws. Who exactly controls any given Adventist healthcare entity depends on who or what entity or entities comprise the corporate membership. It does vary from one to another. But denominational status policy requires that a clear majority of the corporate membership be individuals in leadership positions from currently existing denominational entities, or in some cases an existing denominational corporate entity. For example, for a regional Adventist healthcare entity with healthcare operations and facilities within the geographic territory of a single union conference, the executive committee of that union conference would likely constitute the majority of the corporate membership of that regional Adventist healthcare corporation. In that sense, the union conference would have ultimate control of that corporation and the corporation is accountable to that union conference. Another denominational status policy requirement that gives a finality to who has ultimate control is a required dissolution provision in the corporate articles and/or bylaws that has to provide that a designated denominational entity listed in the SDA Yearbook is to be the final recipient of net assets in the event the corporation is dissolved. Most typically that would be the same entity identified that controls it. While there is more complexity to all of this, there is one general bit of information about non-profit corporations that should be noted. Some who are familiar with this area of corporate law may know that a non-profit corporation, under most state non-profit corporation laws, can be organized and operated without a corporate membership, and only act through its board of directors that assumes the functions of a corporate membership, essentially making them accountable to only governmental oversight. This form of corporate structure is prohibited by the denominational status policy for the simple reason that it removes that essential layer of denominational accountability and control.

Interesting little tidbit:

To expand upon the answer: In actual fact (Fact? I can just see people challenging me on this.), from a practical point the Federal government probably has the greatest control over our health care organizations. 1) A major part of the funding for health care providers comes from the Federal Government in the form of payments for services--Think Medicare, and a listing of other such funding. 2) With the exception of a few hospitals that would only admit very wealthy people who could afford to pay cash for their services, no hospital in the U.S. today could exist without accepting Federal payments. 3) In order to receive such payments, hospitals must comply with Federal mandates which cover just about every aspect of care. 4) In some places in the U.S. (not all), due to mostly State laws, hospitals can not be built unless the State grants permission for the hospital to be built. In those areas, expansion of services provided may be regulated by obtaining permission from the State. 5) The fees that may be charged for hospital services, in the majority of cases are set by the Federal government. 6) In cases where fees are not regulated, the hospitals feel that they are required to overcharge in order to make up the loss that they incur for services for which they are not paid their full costs. This is why a hospital may bill a patient $15 for a single asprin pill. 7) One study has stated that on the average one agency of the Federal Government pays 42% of the cost of medications that you would pay if you were purchasing that medication for yourself. 8) I use a mechanical device in my own health-care. That device is paid for with Federal funds. The financial regulations that govern Federal payments to the provider of that device are complex. During specific defined periods of time that device must be provided with no payment going to the provider. So, the provider simply increases the costs during the time periods that the provider will be paid. In addition, the provider of that device is determined by a bid process for each county. In counties where a number of providers bid on the contract, the cost to the Federal Government is lower than in counties where there is only one provider that bid on the contract. 9) I am aquainted with a case where a Federal hospital needed to contract for a CABG with a non-Federal hospital. In this case the surgery would be performed by the non-Federal hospital and the post surgery care would be provided by the Federal hospital. In this case the surgical fee was not set in law and was to be negotiated. The non-Federal hospital requested $100,000 for the surgery. The Federal hospital said that was robbery. NOTE: As a point of information the surgery involved the heart and is one that is routinely done every day. Pam, I am going to have to get off of my soap box. I have just gotten started on the subject of health care costs.

Pam, questions, questions, questions. Can't you just let things be and not stir the pot? 1) Where does the money come from? Answer: The money comes from patient care services and or gifts and grants made directly to it. IOW, the SDA denomination does not fund it unless it contracts with it for specific services. In actual fact, our Adventist hospitals make direct gifts/grants to the SDA denomination. 2) Does the SDA denomination really run Adventist Health? Answer: This is a complex question on which, from the practical standpoint, people do differ. The first part of the answer involves legal issues: At one time some parts of so-called Adventist Health were owned and controlled, by the SDA denomination. The time came when lawyers working for the denomination became concerned as to financial liability risks to the denomination. The result was that in an attempt to shield the denomination from such risks legal steps were taken to sever the corporate relationship between the denomination and Adventist Health. In this new relationship, the denomination (see below) may influence Adventist Health, but it does not control it. The second part of the answer involves some issues which have a legal basis but go beyond the above: Denominational leaders are members of the respective governing boards of the constituent organizations of Adventist Health. But, denominational leaders do not constitute a majority. IOW, denominational leaders do not rule.

Nephilim: For an extensive discussion of who the Nephilim are see: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/

I am bumping this. Now that I have gotten the rest of my stuff from up north, I have found the game and will be starting it up again!! Thank you all for your patience. I just realized its been 2+ years!!

hahahaha, I picked 6 (and that by the way was a guess) D. Six times Good old Leo DiCaprio recently starred in the sixth remake of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel adapted for the silver screen. Just two years after it was written, a silent version made it to the movies. Source: various web sites.

Ask the conference for guidance. Some have established guidelines.

Depends on how much time you feel like wasting. Ask him what his motivation is for sharing his new ideas.

Phkrause said below: I agree with what was said below. I once [I may (?) not have it today.] had a book written by a historian of that period of English history that published the elements of the King story that he felt were probably based upon actual fact. Yes, that folklore and literary invention clearly exceeded what he considered to be historical fact. But, enough remained to consist of a book. He believed that historical fact supported the idea t hat here was such an English King along with what I will describe as Knights of a so-called Round Table. He considered some of those Knights to be historical figures. He believed that certain of their exploits, while greatly embellished did consist of actual events that occurred during that period of English history. It was an interesting book. But, as was stated, this thesis is debated and disputed by some modern historians.

Where do you find this in Scripture? It sounds like some man-made theory.

No pretending here. I've read the Bible completely through several times looking for any passages that might say something similar to what you claimed is written somewhere. I didn't find anything that says anything like what you claimed is written somewhere. Exactly where do you find it written? I did find in Scripture that the Law contains provisions to save sinners without abolishing any law. I also found that Jesus commanded us specifically to not think that he came to abolish the Law or the prophets (Matt 5:17). Yet that seems to be exactly what you are thinking and claiming.