Squelching Rumors

[Nestor]

O.K., Call it as you will.

I have always been quite open as to any bias or allegiance.

I do not know what the question was. I have not seen the deposition. I was asked by Cynthia to state what I personally knew. I have done so. As far as semantical gymanstics, words have meanings and phrases have popular understandings in any culture. In the U.S. to say that someone is living with another generally is taken to mean that they are sexually involved. I have raised that as an issue in an attempt to see is that is what is meant by statements that are made.

I will say again that I believe that the time is well past come for everyone to let both Danny and Linda alone as far as their marital affairs are concerned. NOTE: My use of the word "affairs" is not intended to imply and breakign of the 7th commandment. Both should be allowed to develop relationships as they wish and they both, in my thinking should be wished well in any relationships that they develop.

As to LInda, any relationship that she might develop, or not, with Dr. A. at this time says nothing about any relationship that she might have had with him while married to Danny. They two of them have been thrown into the same shared pot together by the circumstances of this mes that one could easily expect that they would have some level of friendship at this time.

To peple on both sides I say: Get a life. Move on. Let both DAnny and Linda alone.

[Nestor]

O.K. For the purpose of this discussion, let us look at the idea that if Linda is living on the property of Dr. A, she surely must be sexually involved with him.

Well, Dr. A. must have a very active sex life. There are ten people living on the property that he owns. Why shoud he restrict his activities to just Linda? Why should he favor her ovfer any of the others. Important questions to ponder, are they not?

[Cynthia]

Cynthia said:

I find quibbling about words tiresome. If you have seen the deposition and can testify exactly what it was that she said and meant, please do so. If you have talked to her and know what she says about this say so. Otherwise ask a question of whoever originally was giving their personal testimony about what she said to clarify what they meant, before finding fault please.

No, I have not seen the deposition and I wish that I had.

However, I can personally testify thatI believe the implication that Linda put up a fight to keep people from knowing that she had mvoed to Norway is an exageration. As I think you know (?) I publicly posted that she had moved to Norway. In that post I stated that she was an adult and entitled to develop relationslhlps whith whomever she wished. Then I went on to say that people should leave both she and Danny alone on this matter as in my opinon, each of them should be allowed to develop relationslhips as they wished. I still hold that position for both Linda and Danny.

Linda has been free to tell people that she moved to Norway.

In U.S.culture to say that someone is living with a person of another gender is typically thought to be a statement that they are sexually involved. That is quite different than saying that someone is living in a house owned by someone of another gender. So, I do not beleive that I was quibling with words.

Give me a break, I am sorry but you posted she had moved to Norway after she announced it and please stop arguing and being defensive. Yes, that is my opinion. Why would she move there? and who is there, except her doctor friend? Yes, she can be with whomever she wishes but the thing is her relationship started before her divorce and the choice of who she put first as in her husband or her Doctor came before the divorce. ( Note I am not claiming they slept together then, or are now. I don't even think that needs to be argued about, or should even be discussed. I am saying she chose him rather than her husband, and that caused problems in her marriage and even at work along with other problems leading to the board voting to remove her from her position on the board and after that from her job itself) Folks who can't see that imo, just choose not to as every choice she made proves she wouldn't give him up and even now she is with him. Linda moved to Norway to be with a "friend". (One she always maintained before her divorce was "just professional", even though she spent the majority of the summer after her divorce with him while claiming nothing was going on.. even tho she posted on her website that she had been sequestered off alone in southern Illinois licking her wounds. ( a outright lie) even though I quoted a document from her court case stating that he was practically the only friend she had in the world and if not for him she wouldn't be able to be there in court... Even tho every counselor she had was insulted and called not qualified, and DS and 3ABN were accused of trying to force her into counseling, but she herself maintained she needed counseling, and that he was needed to counsel her on marital and job problems etc, although he was the cause of her marital and job problems. She had to be counseled by and talk to him only about those things? And lie and sneak to do so? (RED Flags should arise!)That caused concern for all involved as they have stated. Note: it wasn't about Nathan, except initially. DS and 3ABN have said that, and she has said and admitted that herself. Those who claim that haven't read what she herself wrote about it. She wasn't asked to choose between her son and her husband as people have claimed and keep claiming. She was asked to choose between her husband and Arild Abrahamsson. Even though she doesn't identify him on her website-- AND SHE DIDN"T-- we all know who the "friend" is. Especially as she gave him a glowing recommendation after that BY NAME. She is being evasive and trying to mask it. Face it! She is not publicly telling ALL the truth. She has no other friends in Norway. No other friend, not one in the U.S. would do? Moving to Iceland to be near Johann wouldn't work? As I said, and I am sorry but give me a break! She is accountable for the choices she made, and being called to account and losing her job and position due to her choices should be expected. One may argue that DS and 3ABN didn't handle it as well as they should have, but to say there wasn't a problem and mark her an innocent victim, or to say " well maybe a relationship has developed since the divorce and that is her right" while ignoring the plain facts that a relationship was always there, and was the direct cause of problems she had, is beyond reason, imo.

[Nestor]

Cindy:

Of course there were problems in the marriage of Danny and Linda, I have posted such several times. For whatever reasons, the marriage died. It is now ended. Let both Danny and Linda live in peace.

Let us look for a moment at the idea of healing broken marriages:

NOTE: My comments here are not intended to point blame at any one.

A common approach is to identify the individiual who is acting in a destructive manner that threatens the marriage. The focus then is on that person and how to change the destructive behavior that endangers the marriage. Sometimes this approach works. But I believe that there is a beetter way that comes right out of Family Systems Theory (FST).

In FST there is no attempt to point blame at any individual. Rather the focus is on the interactions between all members of the famly. In FST, every member of the family system has to become part of the theraputic process. Each person is thought to play a part. Each person has responsibility--note that I did nto say that each person had blame. The focus is on healing the system, the interactions and dynamics that are taking place in that system. IOW it is not on the individual, but focused on the family system as a whole.

I think that it is time to quit focusing on either LInda or Danny. The focus on them does not help those two individuals to move beyond their broken marriage. It does not help them to be restored to wholeness. It does not heal broken people. It, in my opinon, lacks the Christian graces that we should exhibit to wounded people. There are a number of broken people involved in this mess.

It is time to quit pointing the finger of blame at either LInda or Danny. Neither was perfect. Yes, I do not believe that LInda is guilty in the manner that I have stated many times. Let us move beyond these issues to the point where we can give both Linda and Danny our blessing as they attempt to get on with their lives.

[Nestor]

What I say here, I have said in other venues.

My comments as to FST being a proper method of attempting to heal borken family relationships does not mean that it is the only one that can work. I obviously favor it, but in some cases, other methods may be successful.

Further, my commenst should not taken to be personal criticisms of the motivies behind the actions that individuals took. To be specific:

I believe that Dr. Walter Thompson had the best of motives in the actions that he took. I believe that he wanted to heal a marriage that was in trouble and that he wanted to do such with the least pain to all people involved.

However, based on what has been said, I believe that the attempts to heal were doomed to fail.

Dr. Kay Kuzma has been criticized by those who claim that whe was unprofessional. Back when I was posting on Club Adventist, I rejected that claim as unfounded. I believe that she complied with the ethical guidelines of her profession and did not act outside of those. I continue to hold that view, which I previously stated on Club Adventist.

Folks, the past is the past. To what extent can we move beyond that past to the present?

Perhaps not totally. People are people and it is clear that some issues are going to continue to be issues of controversey and perhaps more formal litigation. But, even in the persuit of these isseus, of which all parties have the right to defend their interests, can we move beyond the past issues that no longer should concern us?

[uncovering truth]

Mr. Nestor, there is truth in your words. Yes, they do need to be left alone. But how does your position jibe with the ongoing legal issues that are being perpetuated by Linda herself. She seems least able to let things go and move forward.

The reason this comes up is that, as Cindy points out, Linda attempted to tell the world there was never anything other than a professional relationship. The evidence has piled up over time to the contrary. Again, as Cindy points out, Linda refused to make choices while she was married that would have been prudent and instrumental in healing the wound in the marriage. No one suggested her son not see the doctor, they counseled her to stop placing the doctor above Danny in her life. She was willing to lose her marriage in order to maintain the relationship with the doctor. You can point to the stress of her son's illness/addictions, but that doesn't justify her choosing the doctor over her marriage. Moving on requires taking responsibility for the actions of your life first. Her continued denial of her responsibility and cloaking herself in victim's garb just doesn't fly. It takes two to tango and they both should have made better choices.

Her admitted cooperation with Joy and Pickle also cast a serious shadow over her attempts to present herself publically as the innocent one. Her continued legal action against Danny begs questioning. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together it seems more than speculation that she prized her relationship with the doctor over her marriage to Danny.

[Cynthia]

Nestor,

While I can understand what you are saying as far as how things usually work, the thing is, these issues don't die, and alot of that is due imo to the members on the other forum who can't stop criticizing or accusing and she is their rallying cry, over and over, but also partially it is those who arise to defend her, such as Johann and yourself when no offense is intended, but people who read such feel the need to clarify and explain, just as you yourself do. No, you don't openly attack DS or 3ABN, but what you do, WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO, is defend and Justify, or excuse her, which is merely another way of attacking and criticizing DS and 3ABN (passively aggressively) imo. You don't seem to see that, so while you try to speak fairly and think fairly to others and think others believe that you are, others who are aware of more to the story see you as one sided, biased, and deceived by another passive aggressive- Linda. I suggest that will always bring the issues back up, even while you wish and advise that they stay in the past. You can't have the last word. If you wish it to stop, then you must stop speaking, but to keep speaking and advising others to let it go, suggests you think you can have the final word. That appears arrogant.

I know that is blunt, but I need to be honest here and don't like mincing words and hope you can appreciate that because while disagreeing with you, I do like and admire you -- for the most part, and believe that even though you may disagree with my stance, that you are well able to understand that.

peace...

[Nestor]

O.K.

Thank you.

I do not mind honest talk.

[Nestor]

Uncovering Truth: Frankly I have struggled for the past several hours as to whether or not I should respond to your post, and if I did, how much should I say and to what extent I should respond. In part that is because the civil tone of your post, and the valid questions (does not mean I agree with the intent)
warrent a resopnse.

You may remember that there was a time in the past when I was closely involved with Linda and regularly spoke to issues that involved her. You may recall that several years ago I announced that a change in that relationship had taken place although still supported her and wished her well. That was a major change in relationship in which I remained out of contact with her until a few weeks ago. While that relationship change took placae, I consider her to be a friend to this day and I believe that she considers me to be a friend. That change in relationship had more to do with the time having come where there was no longer a need for me to advise or consult with her on the direction that she was going. In short that was a healthy change for her.

From this perspective, I do not consider it appropriate for me to comment on any legal issues that she may be involved in. First, I am not aware of any specifics about legal issues that may involve her. I only occasionally hear about some unsubstantiated gossip. I do not feel that I need to know about them and I have not attempted to find out what is going on in this area of her life. However, I will say, as I have said: Everybody involved in on-going litigation has the right to seek resolution through the judicial system that exists in the United States. I do not cirticize Danny, Linda, Bob, Gailon or 3-ABN for exercisingtheir rights to use our legal system to seek redress. NOTE: I have some decided opinons on some aspects that I have followed, somewhat, as to the legal sufficiencey of the legal claims that have been made and the motions and briefs that have been filed as well as the judicial decisions that have been made. But, I have primarily not expressed my opinon in public in these areas as I am confident that the courts will eventually decide. As to legal issues that primarily concern Linda, in general terms I do not have enough information to have an opinon as to their legal sufficience. I simply do not know. But, I do believe that she has a right to assert her cliams in U.S. courts.

You bring up Lind'as involvement with Joy and Pickle: I probably have a better idea about that during the time that I was closely working with her than do you. I strongly suspect that you do not have some important factual information on this. But, that is not mine to share and I will not. So, think what you may. As to her involvement with them in more recent times, I have no knowledge about this. So, I cannot comment and I do not.

I have commented publicly in the past in regard to Linda's relationshlp with Dr. A. during the timethat she was married to Danny. My position remains essentially as I have stated in the past. Their marriage was in trouble and I do not think it helpful to point fingers of blame. Some want to blane Danny. Some want to blame Linda. I think that both views are simplistic. I think that there was a better way. But, that was in the past and the past can not be recreated. We have to live in the present now. I do not see things exactly as you have presented them. But, I do appreciate your civil tone and acknowledge that you have asked some valid questions, regardless of the response that may be made to them.

[Nestor]

In a previous post, Cindy said:

While I can understand what you are saying as far as how things usually work, the thing is, these issues don't die, and alot of that is due imo to the members on the other forum who can't stop criticizing or accusing and she is their rallying cry, over and over, but also partially it is those who arise to defend her, such as Johann and yourself when no offense is intended, but people who read such feel the need to clarify and explain, just as you yourself do. No, you don't openly attack DS or 3ABN, but what you do, WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO, is defend and Justify, or excuse her, which is merely another way of attacking and criticizing DS and 3ABN (passively aggressively) imo. You don't seem to see that, so while you try to speak fairly and think fairly to others and think others believe that you are, others who are aware of more to the story see you as one sided, biased, and deceived by another passive aggressive- Linda. I suggest that will always bring the issues back up, even while you wish and advise that they stay in the past. You can't have the last word. If you wish it to stop, then you must stop speaking, but to keep speaking and advising others to let it go, suggests you think you can have the final word. That appears arrogant.

I have given much thought to the above post and debated with myself whether or not to respond and to what extent. I have decided to respond. I am not going to defend the parts the deal specifically with me. There is some truth there. I will simply say that it would be ludicrous to think that I will, or should, have the last word. 

In thinking about this, my mind has come back a number of times to what Ellen White wrote about the American Civil War. She wrote extensively about in in 1T—especially in Testimony 7 & 9, both in 1T. On pages 264 & 368 she tells us that both the North and the South were punished for their sins. I will suggest that there may be a lesson in this that can be applied to the present issues that consume this website and others. So, let us look at it for a minute:

A common defense that 3-ABN makes is that those who attack it are the tools of Satan to attack God’s ministry. O.K. If it is true that Satan is directly attacking God’s ministry, then appeals based upon moral rightness will only have a potential for success as they are made to God’s ministry. IOW, if Satan is using people to attack 3-ABN, those attacks are not going to be stopped by appeals that are based upon Biblical/moral values. Those appeals will simply fall upon deaf ears.

O.K. If these assumptions are true, it is incumbent upon 3-ABN to only defend themselves against the attacks by Godly/moral means. IOW, 3-ABN should not use the same means of defense that it decries in those who attack it. I do not reference here the litigation. As I have said, both sides have the right to defend themselves by the judicial process.

Rather, I am thinking of the many personal attacks that have been made against Danny Shelton. I doubt that he is perfect. Some of those may be true, at least to some extent. Others may appear to be ludicrous to thinking people. But, the truth or falsity of those allegations is not my focus. If those attacks are thought to be the work of Satan, then those same attacks should not be used against Linda.

If 3-ABN considers it to be God’s ministry, if it claims to heal broken people, it should not make attacks on Linda that are similar to those made upon Danny, regardless of the fact that they are made against Danny. God does not engage in ”tit for tat.” If the attacks on Danny are the tools of Satan, those same tools should not be used against Linda.

In the American Civil War, according to Ellen White, God eventually brought about the objective that God wanted to accomplish. But, it came only after both sides had paid a great price for their sin.

I am 100% confident that in the end God will bring about the desired objective as to the mess that 3-ABN is in. I will suggest that if those defending 3-ABN use only the tools and methods that God would use (IOW depend upon God) that God will soon accomplish His objective. I do not believe that attacking Linda in the manner that is being done is Godly. Even if everything that is said about her is true, which I do not believe, I do not believe that God would go about it in this way.

O.K. Cindy, you got a response and I do not expect that it will be the last word. 