Wolves dressed as lambs, the impersonation of the Church continues

[Pastor_Chick]

Below is an article from the L.A. Times in 1988. The original may be found at the following link:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-27/news/mn-1068_1_adventist-church

By Russell Chandler, Times Religion Writer

Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1988

It is only a 4-foot-by-8-foot sheet of plywood with hand-painted lettering on a rainbow background.

The board hangs in Kona, Hawaii, outside a small rented hall where a few souls quietly worship God each Saturday morning.

But the sign contains a forbidden name, and a legal battle over its use has stirred a tsunami of church reaction on the mainland. The case is now pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"What we are faced with is a Goliath vs. David situation." said a defendant in the unusual lawsuit, which pits the 5.5-million-member Seventh-day Adventist Church against an 11-member splinter congregation.

"The real issue is forcing us to change our name, not allowing any use of the words 'Seventh-day Adventist' because it is a registered trade name." Lily Anne Deniz, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church of Kona, wrote in an unorthodox court defense for the tiny group.

Trademark Involved

A lawyer for the church corporation said that a trademark is a property right and the Kona congregation is not entitled to the church's "good name" because its members no longer subscribe to the denominational form of government and discipline.

Attorney Richard Johns said the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not want to be cast in the bully role of "a Goliath-and-David situation." But, he said, "the church believes 'Seventh-day Adventist' is a unique name that needs to be protected."

Until a court ultimately decides who is right, the little Kona congregation is being fined $500 a day and its pastor, John R. Marik, is in hiding to avoid jail. The federal district court in Hawaii issued a warrant for Marik's arrest and found him and his flock in contempt last May when they refused to take down the sign, "Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church," and to stop using "Seventh-day Adventist" and "SDA" in church correspondence and promotion.

At least six independent Adventist publications are churning out material supporting the Kona congregation. And protesters have organized a petition drive demanding that the denominational headquarters drop the litigation, which could easily cost $100,000 from church members' tithes.

About the only thing both sides agree on is that around 1860 the church's prophet, Ellen G. White, mandated "Seventh-day Adventist" as the "God-given name" to identify the faithful until the second coming of Jesus Christ. The two basic distinctives of Seventh-day Adventism are the beliefs that the Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day of the week, and that Jesus will return to Earth soon.

In 1981, the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference registered the words "Seventh-day Adventist" as a trade name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Although common in the commercial world, it is unusual for churches and religious organizations to seek trademarks. Court documents involving disputes over church trademarks are few and far between, according to attorneys familiar with church-state litigation.

The Kona case had its genesis in 1980 when Marik, a Seventh-day Adventist intern minister, began relating "dreams and visions," which he said came from God, to his congregation during worship services.

Drew Some Objections

Local church authorities "frowned on that," Marik said in a telephone conversation from California, where he is holding up until the case is resolved.

The following July, Marik was fired for "insubordination." He and his mother, wife, and daughter, along with a handful of followers, formed a separate congregation and rented a $765-a- month suite on the second floor of a corrugated metal industrial building near Kailua Bay.

Church officials issued repeated - and unheeded - warnings to Marik to stop using the name "Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church" because of the trademark. Finally, the denomination filed suit on April 9, 1987. Marik, who has no legal training, a month later filed a rambling paper defending himself and the church. Marik's congregation did not secure legal counsel until after the Hawaii District Court handed down a judgment and injunction against it on Dec. 8, 1987.

Essentially, Marik argued that the Bible forbids Christians to use secular courts to settle differences, citing 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, and that, adding the word "Congregational" to the title of his church sets it apart from congregations affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, headquartered in Takoma Park, Md.

Additionally, Marik and Max Corbett, a Seventh-day Adventist lawyer in Houston who has taken Marik's case without fee, claim that Seventh-day Adventist is a generic name in the same way they consider the names Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic to be and therefore not a valid trademark. They also maintain that since the Kona congregation does not market anything, it is not subject to trademark regulation anyway; the name is used on the church sign only to note the place of worship and invite the public.

Marik's cause was soon dramatized and championed by independent-minded and dissident Adventists around the world.

"The little group . . . that calls themselves 'Seventh-day Adventist Congregationalists' have a truly distinctive name," said Vance Ferrell, editor of Pilgrim's Rest, a newsletter published in Beersheba Springs, Tennessee. "Why should our leadership . . . try to sue 11 little folk in a tiny church on the Kona Coast?"

Then Ferrell, who sends out packets of more than a thousand pages of court testimony and other papers detailing the case to anyone who is interested, answered his own question.

"It is not the numbers but the legal precedent that counts: By winning a lawsuit against 11 people on a far-off island, a precedent will have been established in the court systems of America. . . ."

"Hottest Ruckus"

Corbett, Marik's twangy-voiced Texas attorney, said: "This has stirred up one of the hottest ruckuses I've ever seen. . . . It's a suit of tremendous import, for if the judgment is not overturned on appeal, it will open the door for mass persecution of one's religion, be it . . . Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu."

Other Church Groups Are Indeed Watching Nervously.

Three Davidian Seventh-day Adventist groups - they have differed with the General Conference over doctrinal matters since the 1930s - have filed a friend of the court brief backing Marik. None have been sued by the General Conference so far, but a Southern California-based homosexual group called Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, with 600 members in chapters around the nation, is locked in a federal court fight with the General Conference over its name. That case is expected to be tried in Los Angeles in February.

Two other small groups, a black congregation in Alabama and a Samoan congregation in Southern California, settled out of court after the denomination sued and pressured them into not using the name "Seventh-day Adventist."

The denomination's trademark committee "doesn't go out beating the bushes looking for cases" said Thomas Wetmore, the church corporation's associate general counsel. Of 40 that have been considered, only four have gone to court and only the Kona and Kinship cases remain unsettled, he said.

Nevertheless, Peter Fowler, a San Francisco attorney who wrote the friend of the court brief for the Davidian groups, voiced the heart of the dissidents' concern.

Applying trademark laws to the Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church's activities, he said, "fails to pass constitutional muster since it strikes at the very essence of the religious enterprise, namely, the expression and communication of one's religious beliefs by means of clearly protected First Amendment activities such as speech, press, and distribution of religious literature."

Fowler thinks the true dispute is over who is a Seventh-day Adventist. "Who is entitled to use the name in connection with their religious beliefs and ministry?"

To decide that, he said, "would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine."

Earlier Case Cited

Fowler and Corbett cite a 1987 case in which a group disassociated itself from the First Church of Christ, Scientist - the so-called mother church in Boston - to form the "Independent Christian Science Church of Plainfield, N.J."

Even though the denominational body had trademarked the names "Christian Science" and "Church of Christ, Scientist," the New Jersey Supreme Court held that "'Christian Science Churches' is a generic name for churches in which Christian Science is practiced . . . and not entitled to trademark status."

Lawyers for the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, however, insist that neutral principles of law can be applied in all property disputes without violating freedom of religion and speech protected by the First Amendment.

In papers filed with the appeals court in San Francisco, these lawyers point to a 1944 case in which seceding members of the "Methodist Episcopal Church, South" were not allowed to continue using that name to describe themselves.

Good Will Issue

"Men have the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience; but they have no right in doing so to make use of a name which will enable them to appropriate the good will which has been built up by an organization with which they are no longer connected," wrote the judge (U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; Purcell vs. Summers).

General Conference attorneys said that they have tried to reach a compromise with Marik, suggesting that his church could use either "Seventh-day" or "Adventist" as part of its name - but not both.

"If they would simply remove the sign and not use the name, we'd settle and waive damages," said lawyer Johns, who represented the General Conference in early stages of the case.

Marik firmly refuses to do that. "If we were to call ourselves by some other name, wouldn't . . . that be concealing our true identity and . . . who we truthfully claim to be?" he asks.

-----------------~~~~~~~~~~~----------------

History repeats itself. The same masterful mind that plotted against the faithful in ages past is now at work to gain control of the Protestant churches, that through them he may condemn and put to death all who will not worship the idol sabbath. We have not to battle with man, as it may appear. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (ST 11-08-99)

[Pastor_Chick]

PASTOR_CHICK

thank you for posting this article--it was very interesting

dgrimm60

[Light Fox]

Really, Stan? Renaming the thread?

[Pastor_Chick]

Really, Stan? Renaming the thread?

I think this thread will actually receive more views under the new impersonating title, but it might be better transferred to "Some Issues" forum along with the rest of our threads that did not qualify under "Religious Liberty."

After all, what does incarceration of Christian believers (for use of the name of their religion) have to do with "religious liberty?"

Even the private eye whom I caught photographing our church sign last Sabbath (in behalf of GC attorneys) admitted this case is an unfortunate violation of freedom of religion. He gave the illustration of "spilt milk" and "the cow." No matter how much milk we may have spilled, the cow has not been dried up or stolen -- should continue giving milk as always.

[Stan]

With the wearing of the stethoscope and the white jacket, it almost appears this guy is impersonating a MD.

[Light Fox]

Stethoscope? You mean the ID card?

Might try visiting this fellow, Stan.

[Pastor_Chick]

With the wearing of the stethoscope and the white jacket, it almost appears this guy is impersonating a MD.

[Naomi]

Stethoscope? You mean the ID card?

Might try visiting this fellow, Stan.

Give Me A Break!!!In fact give it a break!!! If you are that concerned about details, perhaps you should take your own advice & see this guy

[Light Fox]

With the wearing of the stethoscope and the white jacket, it almost appears this guy is impersonating a MD.

Wondering if you missed what I was replying to there, Naomi..?

It's not about being bothersome regarding the details as much as it is about verifying those details before making slanderous implications and statements based on them. I think I handled it rather gently all things considered, but you're welcome to offer correction. I am "easy to be entreated."

I also don't understand why I should see an optometrist if were overly concerned with details. Can you clarify?

[Naomi]

Really, Stan? Renaming the thread?

Appears Stan was kind in the "new name"

[Pastor_Chick]

Back to the topic (original)...

What is the consensus on the incarceration of Pr. John Marik for his exercise of religion?

[Pastor_Chick]

On April 29, 2012, I noticed that a very popular and relevant thread here has disappeared. The views were pressing close to 1800 at my last visit.

The title was "Adventists to be jailed / RFRA diluted."

Perhaps the thread was deleted, OR maybe it was merely moved to a more obscure forum.

At any rate, it was also the thread wherein some "phony person" (similar to a corporation) posted a brag about starting a church and launching creationseventhdayadventist.com which was to be a means of collecting contributions. Later, the domain was forwarded to adventist.org. We could then conclude with little doubt who the impersonator was.

Stan has actually admitted to the author that he moved the thread to "trash." So, I continue to pray that those who hate us will somehow discover the Sabbath rest experience that can be found in YAHSHUA (known as Jesus).

Oh, and if any of you wish to read the essence of what the thread was about, you can merely Google "Adventists to be jailed" (in quotes) and choose the "Christian Forums" link.

[Pastor_Chick]

The AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGN has proven to be a great success in its first week. We are receiving hits from multiple locations in the USA and an impressive number from Canada as well.

Most of the SDA constituency has never known about the trademarking of the religious name SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, not to mention the spending of sacred tithe money on attorneys' fees and advocating incarceration as the final sanction for trademark violators.

Here is a flier that has been widely distributed to raise the awareness.

Thanks to all who have decided to take part in the campaign and to stand boldly against the policies of the "image of the beast."

We are pleased to mention that the Adventist Spectrum Magazine Blog has taken up the discussion.

[teresaq]

I haven't really followed this very much except for occasional posts here and there,

but I have to admit that a part of me understands the GC's position, tho perhaps not some or all of its actions, especially when it comes to the davidians aka Shepherd's Rod.

Claiming to be an Adventist while deliberately rewriting the SoP and thereby diverging from the beliefs of the SDA church at large...well how on earth could one claim to be SDA? Even if there are "fundamental beliefs" in agreement?

The Kona case had its genesis in 1980 when Marik, a Seventh-day Adventist intern minister, began relating "dreams and visions," which he said came from God, to his congregation during worship services.

Have these "dreams and visions" changed the beliefs enough to make them different from the traditional stance of SDA (which could also raise the question, has the current church changed enough in beliefs from the pioneers understanding? complications, complications)

In 1981, the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference registered the words "Seventh-day Adventist" as a trade name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Although common in the commercial world, it is unusual for churches and religious organizations to seek trademarks. Court documents involving disputes over church trademarks are few and far between, according to attorneys familiar with church-state litigation.

Could this turn around and bite us in the view of the world, and other churches, perhaps even the Papacy, when we try to justify separation of church and state? Will we just end up being derided and not taken seriously?

I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly is not an easy issue.

[Pastor_Chick]

I haven't really followed this very much except for occasional posts here and there,...

[...]

I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly is not an easy issue.

Teresa,

I would say the question could be asked, "Do you really want to know what the answer is?" Of course, it is "easy" for one who knows the answer to ask that question.

[teresaq]

The answer to what specifically would you be referring to? I believe I brought up several points. :)

[Stan]

The AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGN has proven to be a great success in its first week. We are receiving hits from multiple locations in the USA and an impressive number from Canada as well.

Most of the SDA constituency has never known about the trademarking of the religious name SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, not to mention the spending of sacred tithe money on attorneys' fees and advocating incarceration as the final sanction for trademark violators.

Here is a flier that has been widely distributed to raise the awareness.

Thanks to all who have decided to take part in the campaign and to stand boldly against the policies of the "image of the beast."

We are pleased to mention that the Adventist Spectrum Magazine Blog has taken up the discussion.

Scam alert.

[Coming_of_EliYAH]

Back to the topic (original)...

What is the consensus on the incarceration of Pr. John Marik for his exercise of religion?

I have not seen any activity here. I can begin the responses.

Taking into account the position of Pastor Marik, it is a dark day in time when conscience is trampled in the name of religion. It is "dark as night" when church employs the sword of the state to defend her institutions.

But, sadly, Pastor Marik was not strong enough in faith to "endure unto the end."

[Springs]

I believe the Scriptures and Ellen White answer this well enough. I agree with their position!

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? [...] 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. 6:1,7)

"I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word, "to be consumed one of another." They cast aside the inspired counsel God has given, and in the face of the message He gives they do the very thing He has told them not to do. Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers. They insult Jehovah, and He will leave them to become the subjects of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sins. . . ." [3SM 302]

"This action, of appealing to human courts, never before entered into by Seventh-day Adventists, has now been done. God has permitted this that you who have been deceived may understand what power is controlling those who have had entrusted to them great responsibilities. Where are God's sentinels? Where are the men who will stand shoulder to shoulder, heart to heart, with the truth, present truth for this time, in possession of the heart?" [3SM 303]

"These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin.

Matters connected with the church are to be kept within its own borders. If a Christian is abused, he is to take it patiently; if defrauded, he is not to appeal to courts of justice. Rather let him suffer loss and wrong." [3SM 299]

[Scion]

So... what was the original purpose of this thread again?

[phkrause]

Good question Scion!