To SDA Believers, Whom It May Concern:

I traveled to New York City to visit with Ivan C. Plummer, former pastorof the Bronx Emmanuel Seventh-day Adventist Church prior to the church's major financial controversy and inevitable split.

I also, after a little confusion over "the facts" published by the Adventist Review and information provided by Pastor Plummer, formerpastor of the Bronx Emmanuel Seventh-day Adventist Church, found the public records on file in the court houses (for two separatelawsuits). The result of this search provided me enough information to conclude that the major problem was surrounding which of the two groups, claiming to be the Emmanuel SDA congregation, has the legal rights to claim two bank accounts in the total amount of over $180,000 dollars. The church name controversy was undoutedly connected to a need on the part of the Conference to prove which group has legal rights to the name on the bank accounts.

It is impossible to discern exactly which of the two groups is responsiblefor the split when reading the legal files, since the attorneys, representing both sides, do a remarkable job of building their cases. May God have mercy on the judge who finally sorts all of this out. As of October, 1998, the civil suit is still pending. From a purely legal standpoint, it appearsthat the Conference will prevail in the contest. However, the question of morality in this matter is at bar in Heaven.

My best perception of the matter at this time is that both groups in thedispute made mistakes based on their fear of losing "rightful" sharein the bank accounts. There are indications that the "Plummer group"experienced "muscle treatment" [i.e., force] from the Conference, which placed the "Plummer group" in greater jeopardy from the legalperspective. An interesting development in this dispute is that the "Conference group" vacated the church house where the Emmanuel Seventh-day Adventist Church was meeting, and went elsewhere under the direction of a newly-assigned pastor, forming a "new" congregation with newly-selected officers, calling herself the self-same "Emmanuel Seventh-day Adventist Church." The congregants remaining at the original meeting place are considered the "splinter group" by the Conference.

My heart's interest was involving the trademark infringement lawsuitwith its implications for restriction of religious liberty. As it appears thatthe defendants did not have enough finances to contest the complaint,they subsequently lost the case by default judgment-- closed August, 1998.The question of an appeal is not foreseen.

The deposed "Plummer group", labeled as "apostates" by the Conference, testifyto being Seventh-day Adventists, but now they would be in contempt of court to continue employing any name similar to SDA in their ministry. Theelders and members of Plummer's Adventist constituency are in prayer as to what they must do to obey God in this regard.

The "definition" of "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" is the significant questionat this time. The Conference position, and of course, the stand of thecourts, based on the trademark name, is that a SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST is one who holds membership in good standing with a Conference Church. This controversy is not unlike what occured during the Edict of Milan c. 313 AD. See The Controverted Name. In the near future said controversy will be escalated as the "loud cry" swells during this "shaking time". MayYAH have mercy in judging His people.