Letter From Linda Shelton @ Www.lindashelton.org - Feb. '07, Linda Shelton demands the evidence be made public Options

[Observer]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

Aletheia, You have made several false statements. As I was involved in the ASI mediation, and you were not, as far as I know, but I really do not know who you are, your information is faulty.

To respond to you, I will post a series of responses. People will then be able to judge for themself the truth.

[Observer]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

Aletheia:

In early December, I recieved an e-mail from Mr. Lance. Quoted below are a couple of paragraphs from that e-mail that I believe are important:

I know there are many issues being discussed. I have counted at least 23 in
the last few weeks. Some issues are already the subject of ongoing
litigation. The request from the 3ABN Board of Directors to ASI was:
..."request to ASI that it establish a commission to evaluate and determine
Danny's' legal and moral right to remarry". ASIs' membership criteria
includes a component that requires the applicant or its leaders to be in
regular standing with the SDA Church. We check that factor in every
application. Membership in the SDA Church is the exclusive province of the
local church (except for membership in the "Conference Church", not involved
here). The rather unique situation of the Church associated with 3ABN
creates a different perspective from the typical SDA Church on matters of
membership.

All of us know ASI has no jurisdiction to act as a court with authority to
make orders and awards that disputants are required to follow. What we may
have that could be of assistance is some stature and credibility that would
make its' findings hard for the parties to ignore. This can only have a
possibility of succeeding if the parties support and respect that potential.
Because of ASI's membership requirements there is some logic for ASI's
involvement on issues that directly reflect on 3ABNs' membership status in
ASI. We believe that ASI could properly focus on issues revolving around the
biblical appropriateness of the Shelton's divorce and Danny's subsequent
remarriage, issues relating to Linda's and Danny's employment status at 3ABN
and actions taken concerning Linda's membership in the local SDA Church.

GM:

1) You will note that ASI accepted a request from 3-ABN to examine Danny's legal and moral right to remarry. That is clearly a one-sided approach that appears to benefit Danny and 3-ABN. As you know, one of the issues was whether or not Linda had a Biblical right to divorce Danny and to remarry. In fairness, the examination should clearly have been expanded to include this aspect: Did Linda have a Biblical right to divorce Danny and to remarry.

2) In mediation, an impartial mediator never accepts the boundaries that one party wants. Rather, the impartial mediator discusses boundaries and limitations with both sides. Only when both sides agree upon those limitations does mediation begin.

3) As I have said, several times: I agree with Mr. Lance that the majority of the issues lie outside of the ability of ASI to resolve. Those issues, if ever resolved lie in the area of the civil authorities.

You may have learned that it is the ASI position that there needs to be a
balance between the process of being open and on the other hand be
respectful of the legitimate privacy concerns of the parties. Government,
worldly businesses, charitable organizations and the Church all recognize
this need. When sensitive personnel matters are under consideration Boards
typically go into executive session for such discussions. Accordingly we
expect that this process would do the same and that information and
documentation would be received and held in confidence by all of the parties
and their representatives. At the conclusion of the matter the Panelists
findings of facts and recommendations would become publicly available.

Aletheia, Here Mr. Lance states that the facts and recommendations would become public. His statement is fairly clear that the reasons for those recommendations would be held in confidence. That was unacceptable to Linda. Her reputation has been so trashed that it was a fundamental position of ours that the reasons for the recommendations should be laid out in a manner that any person would be able to access those and decide themselves as to whether or not the charges were true. Linda believes that she has nothing to lose in this. There is a very clear difference of opinon on the issue of making things public. This was one of the reasons the ASI attempt failed.

Aletheia, you are wrong when you attempt to imply that ASI wanted it to be more open than Linda wanted.

[Observer]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

Aletheia:

Here is the response that I made to Mr. Lance. As it was a long response, I have removed material that appears to go beyond the issues that you suggested:

Response to ASI
HL 061203

Introduction:

Overall I was encouraged by the outreach that Harold Lance has made to us. It is a good start. It reflects a good tone (spirit). In many ways it reflects where I am. Of course, I am going to think a document is good when it agrees with me. 

It seems to agree with my assessment of what must be accomplished if ASI can establish a panel that can achieve some degree of resolution. If he has read what I have previously posted on the Internet, he knows that I have stated that the following are the critical issues that the respective parties must agree upon if this panel is to be effective:

1) They must agree upon the issues to be considered.
2) They must agree upon the aim of the panel, or to put it another way, what the expected results are.
3) They must agree upon the process.

NOTE: In my previous public posts, I have expanded upon the above slightly.

In my understanding of what Harold has written, he also sees the above as critical issues.

I have reflected upon his document overnight. Without detracting from what I consider to be an excellent document, I will suggest that it contains a number of issues that need further clarification, and agreement by the parties. It is my intention in my response to identify those and to comment upon them. Any references that I may make to “critical issues,” unless otherwise identified, will reference the three listed above. To identify my point for discussion, I will quote from Harold’s document with a “Re:” followed by either the quotation, or a brief summary of a point in his document.

Discussion:

a) Re: “. . . request to ASI [by 3-ABN] that it establish a commission to evaluate and determine Danny’s’ [sic] legal and moral right to remarry.”

This falls under my critical issue # 1.

This request seems to limit the issues that are to be considered by this commission. Perhaps that is O.K., if the respective parties agree to this. In my mind, the marital issues, which have some importance, are much less important than other issues. Again, what do the respective parties want, and agree to?

A larger issue is that this wording restricts the marital issues to Danny and Linda, their divorce, and Danny’s remarriage. I will suggest that the marital issues are much larger than this focus. Danny has been charged, rightly or wrongly, I do not know, with sexual misconduct, during the time that he was married to Linda, and following the divorce, prior to his marriage to Brandi. These issues are clearly marital issues, yet they lie outside of the narrow focus as requested by 3-ABN.

I acknowledge that this commission cannot be expected to consider every one of the issues that are considered important by everyone. But, I think it is important that this commission issue a statement of such limitations, and that therefore interested parties are free to pursue redress in other venues, to include the civil authorities. After all, God established civil government, and directed all of us to submit to its rule, when not in conflict with God. This all is related to my critical issue # 2.

Re: “ASI has no jurisdiction. . . [and is without} authority to make orders and awards that disputants are required to follow.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. ASI is very limited in what it can accomplish. To place what Harold then states in words of my own: ASI can only make findings of fact, and recommendations. Again, this is related to my critical issue # 2. With this perspective, ASI cannot require binding resolution. There must be an acknowledgement that the parties are free to reject, and to see other venues for resolution. If any of the parties should do so, the findings of fact, and recommendations of the Commission would play a role as to how the SDA public perceived this situation. From this perspective, I believe that the parties would carefully consider such findings and recommendations, before rejecting them. I believe that this would be helpful.

c) Re: The Biblical appropriateness of the divorce and the remarriage.

We are on uncertain ground with this one, as important as it is. Regardless of the CHURCH MANUAL, we as a denomination do not agree with what constitutes Biblical grounds, and remarriage following divorce. In my personal opinion, as applied to this situation Biblical grounds must be limited to sexual misconduct, and what is commonly considered to be adultery. This presents us with a problem. Danny and 3-ABN (Dr. Thompson) have clearly stated, many times, that they have no proof that Linda violated what I have just laid out above. From this standpoint, by the thinking of some, with this admission from Danny and 3-ABN, the Commission can only find that Linda did not provide Danny with Biblical grounds for divorce. I agree with that position, until it is proven to me that she did commit adultery.

NOTE: In my mind, and that of many conservative SDAs so-called “spiritual adultery” and adultery in one’s thoughts are not Biblical grounds. ASI will clearly, in my mind be off the conservative platform if it suggests any such do constitute Biblical grounds. Any such opinion coming from it will highly disturb its conservative base of support.

[I have removed a very short paragraph—GM.]

There is also another issue here that is raised due to the fact that the SDA church is divided in regard to what are Biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. It is a fundamental issue under law that people be treated equally. It is likely that people are not treated equally in this issue, and are treated according to the congregation in which they find themselves. The ASI Committee should consider not only Biblical grounds, the CHRUCH MANUAL, but also the typical way that people are treated today in SDA congregations. I.e. They should not treat either Danny or Linda more strictly than they would be treated in the typical local congregation. This is required by basic fairness.

Retention in a position of spiritual leadership is an appropriate consideration. I.e. A person might be retained in church membership, yet removed from a position of major ministry. When such is done, there is an obligation to treat all in the same manner. E.g. If Linda is to be examined as to her conduct, and whether or not she should be retained in a position of spiritual leadership, so also should Danny be examined. And, her treatment should also be examined in relation to other people who may also have been charged with sexual misconduct.

d) Re: Issues of Danny and Linda’s employment:

ASI can only recommend. It cannot enforce. ASI potentially could recommend that Danny be relieved from all employment at 3-ABN, if this was thought to be appropriate. However, it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that such would happen if ASI were to recommend it.

As to Linda: Realistically, she could not effectively return to 3-ABN unless there was a major change in leadership to include the Board. She simply would not be allowed to effectively work there, and would likely be marginalized.

e) Re: Issues regarding Linda’s membership:

Linda is presently a member, in good standing, in a SDA Church recognized by a recognized SDA Conference. Her membership should not be an issue.

Should ASI consider how she was treated by her church of former membership? Perhaps? Maybe? I am not certain? What would be accomplished? Within the denominational rules that are supposed to govern such, local congregations have the authority, right or wrong. Perhaps the best that could be said might be so say that the relationship between Linda, the local congregation, the Conference and its leadership, and 3-ABN, was of such a nature that denominational rules in existence did not provide the guidance that was needed, and that therefore issues of potential ethical conflicts arise out of this situation.

NOTE: I am not attempting to prejudge the case, or to suggest that there is only one conclusion that the Committed may make. I think that there are many aspect of this case that present very hard questions and I am not certain that ASI can resolve them. Perhaps, however, they can raise issues that may be resolved for future situations should they rise again.

[I have removed a major section of material which deals with issues outside of what Aletheia mentioned—GM.]

The issue of a record is important. There must be enough detail to provide a historical record for the future.

‘i) Re: Balance between privacy and openness.

There is a clear place for privacy. Women who accuse someone of sexual misconduct must have some expectation of privacy. Society in general recognizes such.

However, society distinguishes between common people and public figures. Danny and Linda are both public figures. Both have been accused publicly of major sins. Neither rightly has the expectation of privacy that a common person might have. In any case, with the publication of their alleged sins for the world to read, privacy in [is] not the answer at this time. In fairness to both of them, a final report should report findings on the accusations that have been made against them. As public figures, the SDA public needs to know such findings. If this is not done, these issues will not go away. They will remain in public view and under public discussion.

[I have removed a very short paragraph as it dwelt with an issue outside of what Aletheia mentioned—GM.]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

Aletheia:


Writing to Mr. Lance on December 11, I stated the following:

Harold:



I appreciate the time and effort that you have expended in making this response. It is clear that you have thoughtfully read the comments that have been made to you. I agree with much of what you have said. This mess could turn into litigation that conceivably could result in the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars. Under some circumstances the idea of it costing tens of thousands of dollars is a gross underestimate. I agree that the Church does not have a process that is suitable for the situation that we are facing. I also think that it is not possible for some of these issues to be resolved outside of the civil realm.



However, I do believe that it is possible for ASI to be involved in this situation in a manner that will be helpful. But, that is only if the respective parties can come to an agreement that allows for that. I am not certain that such an agreement will be reached.



I will make some personal responses to your post to us. I will identify them with my initials (GM), to distinguish them from your comments. It should be noted that my response is simply that, my personal response. It may, or may not agree with that of others of us. In this issue, Mr. Joy is the primary person who is representing the interests of Linda Shelton.


WILL OUR PROCESS CONFLICT WITH THE PENDING ASSET DIVISION LITIGATION?



GM: This is clearly an area that should not be decided by any independent panel. This belongs to the civil realm. In my opinion, it is Biblical for some issues to be left to t he civil realm. Further, that is consistent with the CHURCH MANUEL. Some issues simply cannot be decided outside to the civil authorities. This also applies to a number of issues. Included in these would be criminal matters, and certain financial matters, and issues of taxation.



If we agree on the above, I believe that it is critical for the ASI panel to issue a statement that certain specific matters belong in the civil realm, and people who pursue those issues in civil courts, or cooperate with such, are on Biblical grounds for doing so.



Is ASI willing to issue such a statement?

IS ASI IMPARTIAL OR IN DANNY'S HIP POCKET?


GM: There will always be people who will believe that ASI should not be involved. In one sense, probably most people involved in this will have some sort of a bias. We are never going to change the mind of those who believe that ASI should not be involved. The issue is: Can we structure a process that the respective parties can agree to, and is as fair as possible?

SINCE THERE ARE MANY OTHER CONCERNS WHY LIMIT THE ISSUES TO THOSE SUGGESTED?


GM: You are correct that ASI probably cannot deal with all of the issues that have surfaced. There are many reasons for that. The decisions as to what issues to deal with cannot be made unilaterally. If ASI does that it will immediately be seen in a negative light. The decisions as to what issues to deal with must be made by the parties involved. That is the first issue: What are the issues to be considered?



The second issue is as I have referenced earlier: What about the other issues? How should people work to resolve them? As some are likely to only be resolved in the civil realm, will ASI publicly state that people who do such are acting appropriately?


DO ACTIVITIES AND PERSONNEL ACTIONS THREATEN LIABILITY FOR THE SDA CHURCH?



GM: I am one who has clearly raised this issue. In discussions that I have had with other people, it is clear to me that I have not been clear in what I was attempting to communicate. Let me attempt to state this issue in a better form: I DO NOT believe that either 3-ABN or the denomination has so-called ascending liability for the past actions of any person during a time when they were not employed by 3-ABN. It would be a stretch to conclude otherwise. However, I do believe that should a person accused of prior criminal acts commit such acts in the future, while in a relationship with 3-ABN, that such could involve both 3-ABN and/or the IL Conference in liability. That liability could be based upon the failure of both 3-aBN and/or the IL Conference to exercise due prudence in assigning duties to an individual whom they knew has been accused of criminal or immoral acts in the past.



Re: “IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE INTERCHAGES, CONTAINING DEROGATORY INFORMATION, STOP AMONG THE PARTIES AND THEIR TEAM MEMBERS.”

GM: Harold, you have been unable to stop Danny from fueling the fires that you understandably object to. Further, the supporters of 3-ABN are independent, and not controlled by Danny. They continue to engage in such. They can not be stopped. As long as they do such, others will respond.



So, also those who support Linda are independent, and not controlled by either Linda, or us. We cannot stop them. As long as people supporting Linda engage in such, those who support 3-ABN will respond.



Harold, I understand what you are asking. It is not possible for either you or for us.




SHOULD AN SDA JUDGE BE USED TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS?

GM: Point taken, if the parties agree to such.

DO PARTIES WHO MAY BE "PUBLIC FIGURES" GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?


GM: No, anyone who understands the law knows that public figures do not give up all rights to privacy. But, U.S. law clearly limits the rights to privacy of pubic figures over non-public figures.



Further, public figures to have a right, if conditions are met, to recover damages for slander, libel, and defamation of character. Those who understand the law know that this cuts both ways. It is likely that neither side is guilty to the exclusion of the other side. Should one side litigate over these issues, it is likely that counter-suits will be filed against the side that initiated the litigation.



In addition, I could propose situation in which neither side would want to litigate these issues. It is correct that “truth” may sometimes not be a defense against such a lawsuit. But, I can imagine where a side would not want to litigate an issue that they might win due to discovery and public exposure during a trial.



One fundamental issue is simply this: Public charges have been made against public individuals, and 3-ABN that will not go away unless they are resolved in public. To publicly resolve them, there may have to be some public exposure of facts that are typically protected by confidentiality in denominational circles. A failure to do this will likely result in continued discussion in public.



Let me add an additional factor: The so-called media is following this more closely that some may know. I have been asked to write an article for publication on one aspect of this which I declined to write at that time. There are others who have been approached in a similar manner, to include the secular media. Herald, I predict that if this is not resolved, and fairly soon, the media, to include the secular media, will begin reporting aspects of this which none can control. If ASI cannot resolve this, the world at large may do so.


SHOULD THE PANEL INCLUDE EXPERTS THAT COULD ASSIST IN THEIR COMPREHENSION OF
THE INFORMATION?


GM: My comment on “transference” could be satisfied by a witness, rather than a member. Regardless, my point is taken, and you seem to have heard it.

WHAT STANDARD IS TO BE USED IN WEIGHING THE BIBLICAL DIVORCE REMARRIAGE
ISSUE?

GM: Yes the CHUCH MANUAL is the standard. But, that can be understood and enforced in various ways. As an attorney you know that while “statute law” is the standard, “case law is always considered. My point is made. As I have previously stated, the “gold standard” among conservative SDAs is physical adultery. It has been clearly stated by 3-ABN that proof of such does not exist. If ASI strays away from that gold standard of adultery, it will lose status among conservative SDAs.


WHAT STANDARD WILL BE USED IN ALLOWING INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED ?


GM: Sounds good as I understand it.

HOW WILL PANEL PROCEED AND THE QUESTIONING OCCUR?


GM: The representative must be the one chosen by the party. In other words, ASI cannot exclude anyone from being a representative.


Re: “The hearing will be confidential and private, not recorded or reported by
the panel, the parties, or the representative.”



GM: I understand. I have some concern. This scandal is public. There must be enough information given to the public to resolve their issues. Harold, the public has a stake in this. All parties, to include 3-ABN have a major interest in this being resolved in the mind of the public.

Re: “Thank you for your patience in awaiting my thoughts. Please read this
carefully. If you have questions feel free to express them. Whenever we have
clarified adequately we will put our process information into a document
that we can all sign on to, then begin the details of scheduling, etc.”



GM: And thank you for the effort you have put into this.

Gregory Matthews

[Observer]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

Aletheia:

I have other things to do. So, I am going to do them now.

Keep in mind that we who were involved in the attempt by ASI to mediate have pretty good records. If you want to debate and challenge us, we can probably rebut what you say.

You have clearly made statements that were inaccurate. I can provide further support for my position.

I am very serious in appreciateing the efforts of Mr. Lance to effect this resolution. But, certain of the positions that he and ASI took made an ASI mediated resolution impossible. He, in his statement posted on the 3-ABN website has made statements that are false. I do not attribute that to any personal dishonesty in him. I consider him to be an honest person. I could easily sit down with him and have a pleasent conversation with him. But, he failed to understand some of the dynamics that went on in the process. That failure contributed, in my mind, to the failure to obtain agreement on the process. He came to us with an agenda of what and how. In mediation all parties must have a part in selecting the what and the how. Otherwise failure occurs. The failure that occured clearly demonstrates the correctness of my position.

[awesumtenor]

Linda says she was 100% faithful to Danny. Was that only during the marriage? Was there ever a time she was with the Dr, romantically? What about when Danny's people say he took her to the airport so she could be with the Dr?

You're kidding, right?

If you have read all of what is on this site, you would know that these questions have been asked and answered.

If you have not read all of what is here then you need to do your homework. If you feel that is not worth the time it will take you would be better served not to engage in the topic than doing so ignorantly... but you're not Gordie Howe... so you shouldnt need to get someone to do your thinking for you...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Nuggie]

As I was reading Linda's letter I kept wondering what spin the Danny apologists would put out there. At the end of the letter, I thought surely Linda's request for Danny to show all this rock-solid evidence that he claims he has would be welcomed by people on both sides of the argument. But, incredibly, I see by reading Alethia's response that they've sunk to a new low. I can't wait to see what darts the others have to throw.

I've never met Linda and have no feelings for her either way, but I am impressed with the tone of her letter. Unlike the vitriol and hate that seeps through every word posted by Danny and his crew, Linda never once bashed her accusers, even though some would say she would be completely justified in doing so, and never condemned them all to hell. Whether she's right or wrong, innocent or guilty, I appreciate her approach to the whole situation.

[simplysaved]

I agree with you.... the tone of the letter is becoming a servant of Christ.

If nothing else, it definitely serves as a reminder of how we as Christians need to handle difficulty, criticism, and scrutiny...

As I was reading Linda's letter I kept wondering what spin the Danny apologists would put out there. At the end of the letter, I thought surely Linda's request for Danny to show all this rock-solid evidence that he claims he has would be welcomed by people on both sides of the argument. But, incredibly, I see by reading Alethia's response that they've sunk to a new low. I can't wait to see what darts the others have to throw.

I've never met Linda and have no feelings for her either way, but I am impressed with the tone of her letter. Unlike the vitriol and hate that seeps through every word posted by Danny and his crew, Linda never once bashed her accusers, even though some would say she would be completely justified in doing so, and never condemned them all to hell. Whether she's right or wrong, innocent or guilty, I appreciate her approach to the whole situation.

[Clay]

The facts are ASI was to consider the issue of Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage with evidence submitted by both sides, and witnesses for each. Their findings and the reasons for them were to be made PUBLIC.

Danny and 3 ABN agreed. Linda's side, including you, did not. You wanted to discuss other thiings...

Yet here comes Linda and all that she demands now to be made public is proof that she committed adultery??? That could have already been done had she agreed.
She must think people are stupid.

you comments reflect the fact that you have no clue... not to mention your favorite beverage must be haterade....

[erik]

In my opinion, this has no substance, for the most part it is just: and I think all this talk of lawsuits, is what stirred this rally the troops letter.

What did she really say?

1. "I'm persecuted" -- No proof or evidence

2. "I don't visit the chat sites... " -- This is a bit much if you are aquainted with any of the behind the scenes garbage. In any case all her friends and supporters do, and her representatives have a website, slandering 3ABN and this letter will appear in both ...

3. Prove I committed Adultery!

Calling what you think is a bluff is not always good. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it...
I know..


All I can say is THANK GOD THIS IS ALMOST OVER.

Then bring the proof, if she is bluffing, other wise you are bluffing, so i say be quiet and let the proof speak for you.

Erik

This post has been edited by erik: Feb 15 2007, 09:41 AM

[Rosyroi]

"I don't visit the chat sites... " -- This is a bit much if you are aquainted with any of the behind the scenes garbage. In any case all her friends and supporters do, and her representatives have a website, slandering 3ABN and this letter will appear in both ...

Alethia,

Apparently you are aquainted with the behind the scenes garbage. How about some transparency and open explanation what you mean by that?

I don't know what you mean by supporter of Linda. If you mean spiritual supporter then I spiritually support Linda. If you ask me to be your spiritual supporter I will be happy to do that too. There is no conflict of interest. Last time I looked in the Bible God didn't say anything about supporting one person and not supporting another. Do you know that God even Loves Hitler?

When I read Linda's letter it contained the same loving caring Christ centered way she always portrayed when she would sit on the porch talking to us lifting us up to God in prayer when she was co-founder of 3ABN. This time her walk with Jesus is even closer than ever.

I am so sorry you are hurting so much. I will keep you in my prayers daily so that you and Jesus can become good friends again and begin to heal so your heart can be so overfilled with Love that it spills out in your life to those around you and you can begin to minister to others showing them God healed you so God can heal them also.

Jesus loves me this I know. I die daily when I ask the Holy Spirit to take out my filty rags righteousnes and fill me up with Holy Spirit righteousness so I can be more loving and caring and helping to others around me and point to Jesus how Loves them too.

Sending Linda's letter to as many sites as possible will be a wonderful witnes of Linda's relying on her relationship with Jesus. Thank you.

Rosyroi... A Rose for you to smell and think of Jesus and HIS Love for you.

[sonshineonme]

Aletheia,

It is a curious thing, your behavior.

Do you seriuosly feel you are stating comments that cause a person to think? I don't think that is what you are about.

You might consider what your personal issues really are with Linda, because there is NOTHING productive about your attitude whatsoever.

Your comments only serve to show you angry, bias, and worshipful of a man inspite of the warnings and proof. You have only more pits to fall into at this rate.

This is sad.

And I too can't wait until this situation is resolved, in every area.

[Observer]

Folks, in regard to Linda's letter, I have the word:

Linda was working in connection with some other people to develop a letter that she could post on her website. That letter had NOT yet reached its final form.

The letter that was posted was a working draft. It had been extensively revised by another person working with Linda on its preparation. Some of Linda's comments were removed from that letter, and some comments from another person were added to it.

It was sent to Linda with the intention that she review it to see what changes, if any, she would make to that draft. Linda did not consider it to be in the final form that she wanted to post on her website.

She was not asked if she would permit it to be posted on the Internet prior to her posting it on her website. She would have denied permission if she had been asked. When Linda first learned that it was posted on the Internet, she asked that it be removed. She has been informed that it is to late to remove anything. So, the letter stands, and will remain posted on the Internet.

While the letter posted was not the final version of what Linda would have posted, she is clear that she was working with other people to prepare a letter to be posted on her website.

She plans to later post such on her website. She is considering her options in view of the fact that this draft was posted. She will probably make some revisions in the letter that she posts on her site. But, that will be done in the context of what has been posted here.

[Clay]

Folks, in regard to Linda's letter, I have the word:

Linda was working in connection with some other people to develop a letter that she could post on her website. That letter had NOT yet reached its final form.

The letter that was posted was a working draft. It had been extensively revised by another person working with Linda on its preparation. Some of Linda's comments were removed from that letter, and some comments from another person were added to it.

It was sent to Linda with the intention that she review it to see what changes, if any, she would make to that draft. Linda did not consider it to be in the final form that she wanted to post on her website.

She was not asked if she would permit it to be posted on the Internet prior to her posting it on her website. She would have denied permission if she had been asked. When Linda first learned that it was posted on the Internet, she asked that it be removed. She has been informed that it is to late to remove anything. So, the letter stands, and will remain posted on the Internet.

While the letter posted was not the final version of what Linda would have posted, she is clear that she was working with other people to prepare a letter to be posted on her website.

She plans to later post such on her website. She is considering her options in view of the fact that this draft was posted. She will probably make some revisions in the letter that she posts on her site. But, that will be done in the context of what has been posted here.

so then what are we to do with the letter we have?

[Observer]

so then what are we to do with the letter we have?

It can remain posted here. It is to late to recall it. Let it remain.

[Clay]

It can remain posted here. It is to late to recall it. Let it remain.

true.... but since it is a draft.... I will unpin it and hope that the finalized copy comes out soon....