Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi there Steffan
Just in case you are wondering, I have only talked to one of these individuals once in my life so you seem to be projecting again.
As for you dealing in documented facts. You seem to have documented yourself as a liar since you just can't stop talking.
You said to me:
Since Mozart was not a member of BSDA until very recently, how could you possibly know about Mozart posting at BSDA unless you had either been there or you are conferencing with someone else who is?
Care to unpack that one for us?
Seems like it was around October 2005 that she was notified that she was up for church discipline, after requesting a transfer the previous December. That's what I recall.What I have not heard is that there was a church buisiness meeting. Was there one?
If she was going to be censured they should have done that, transfer or not. And what kind of action is only learned of when you go to transfer? Action should be upfront, with her there to defend herself.
As to the pastor telling her what she can or cannot do, that is not official church discipline. The pastor is not allowed to do discipline on his own. He must go before the whole church. This is only after efforts to work out things behind the scenes, but even the church business session should be with the goal of reconcilation ("if he does not listen to the church").
So the church never dealt with her, Danny won't present the evidence against her--for those who say she did it--why?
And I would like to thank Pickle for editing his posts to remove his inflammatory language.I want to personally thank Steffan for editing out the inflammatory language out of your posts on pages 21 and 22 of this thread. Avoiding that kind of language will greatly help your cause. And once Google has those pages out of their cache, the original posts will no longer be freely available eithe4r on this forum or in Google.
Thanks, dj. Not even Dirk has accused me of that, right?I have never known him to use any inflammatory language.
A influential individual has indicated that Danny probably made hundreds of thousands of dollars from that book
Right!Thanks, dj. Not even Dirk has accused me of that, right?
I have spoken to pastors, conference personnel and even a friend of mine whose father attended the birthday party of Dr. AA.Steffan,
What do pastors where you attend think of what is going on at 3ABN?
Now if I were you, I would immediately think the worst of this refusal. But you know what, my friend's father did the right thing. He refused to open his mouth and, in his own words, "add anything to this mess."
Now the pastors...this is the unanimous response - "that group should stop all their allegations and let God do His work" - but that's not what you want to hear, do you?
Actually, dj, newspapers quote unnamed sources all the time. But the fact of the matter is that the individual who wrote the email in question ought to know the facts. And we presently have some of the same basic information from multiple sources, including Danny hmself.Oh, I'd love to see the financials on that deal! From what I understand extrememly few writers make that kind of money. This claim fails the "sniff" test. Back to the drawing board and never, ever use an unnamed source for anything--this is a more typical tactic of the critics of the church.
Now the pastors...this is the unanimous response - "that group should stop all their allegations and let God do His work" - but that's not what you want to hear, do you?
[Actually, dj, newspapers quote unnamed sources all the time.
Seems like it was around October 2005 that she was notified that she was up for church discipline, after requesting a transfer the previous December. That's what I recall.
Linda asked Danny for a release from Danny's 3ABN one-way gag order so that she could defend herself, and Danny refused to consider that before Linda would agree to return all the money she had already received. Without that release she could not defend herself at any business meeting. But Danny continued to be free to say whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.
One has to wonder why Linda would consent to such injustice as the one-way gag order, the one-way property transfer, and such. Looking at it objectively, she appears to be one that is easy to take for a ride. Now that's not complimentary, I know, but how else do you explain her agreeing to silence about Danny when Danny never agreed to silence about her? How else do you explain why she signed over furniture to him without him signing over one single piece of furniture to her including her own kids' baby chairs?
Thus it seems plausible to me that she may have been clueless about a lot of the corruption going on while she was vice-president. I say "may" since I do not know for sure. But it sounds plausible given how she signed these stupid agreements on June 4, 2004.
That won't work with me, Pickle...Then maybe you aren't from GNY after all, or maybe you and I have just talked to different pastors.
That won't work with me, Pickle...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?