@MLB: MLB, my understanding is that Wisbey has been able …

Comment on The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop by David Read.

@MLB: MLB, my understanding is that Wisbey has been able to use the lawsuit by the LSU-3 to prevent internal communication by GC officers regarding the the substance of that lawsuit. Wisbey’s lawyer, Kent Hanson, is apparently friends with Karnik Deutmeztian, the general counsel for the GC, and Hanson has been able to use that lawsuit to protect Wisbey’s malfeasance from scrutiny.

That said, that lawsuit, brought by three of the four people who recorded themselves plotting against the church (and, pointedly, planning to importune WASC about the structure of LSU’s Board of Trustees), has nothing whatsoever to do with the treatment of Louis Bishop; the two issues aren’t even related. So Elder Wilson should be free to talk to whoever he wants to about the Louis Bishop case.

David Read Also Commented

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Sean Pitman: Sean, I wish you post the whole video and dare somebody at La Sierra to sue you for “copyright infringement.” Any lawsuit would cause a tsunami of publicity, which is the last thing in the world that Randal Wisbey wants. I think I can arrange for your legal expenses to be covered.

Randal Wisbey is still in power at La Sierra, still personally causing untold mischief and covering up for others’ mischief, because the overwhelming majority of Adventist are like LJ: people of good faith and good will who are very badly informed, or misinformed, about what is actually happening at La Sierra. They are the Adventist equivalent of “low information voters.” A lawsuit would be the quickest way to get the truth out about what is actually happening.

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Patricia Holy: Patricia, it is a cop out, and not least because the lawsuit by the LSU-3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Louis Bishop matter.

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Professor Kent: Jeff Kent, so far the only ones to “go to law” are the three LSU professors who were recorded bad-mouthing Larry Blackmer, Dan Jackson, and other church officials, dismissing creationism as so much nonsense, and planning to use secular accreditation to separate LSU from effective church control. If you’re upset about church members “going to law” I suggest you direct your ire where it rightly belongs: against the three LSU professors.

Those that haven’t “gone to law” include Louis Bishop who, although he obviously retained counsel, did not file a lawsuit. From the foregoing article, he would have been well justified in doing so.

Also, Lee Greer didn’t file a lawsuit, even though Randal Wisbey wrongfully fired him for his discussion with NAD education leader Larry Blackmer, and a “joint statement” about science pedagogy that he crafted, and that was approved of by his department head and signed off on by all biology instructors except for the Muslim. He would have been justified in filing suit for his mistreatment, but he didn’t.

Then there are the three board members whom Wisbey had kicked off of the Board of Trustees for their constant attempts to see La Sierra reform its inculcation of Darwinism. None of them has filed suit, yet, although they were treated absolutely atrociously.

No, the only ones to sue were the ones who were manifestly in the wrong–the rebellious, anti-Adventist La Sierra professors who were recorded bad-mouthing church officers and plotting to loosen the chruch’s control over the university (in exactly the way the proposed bylaw changes would loosen it, by the way). They’re the ones who have no case (and no monetary damages) yet they’re the ones who sued. And, as MLB reports, Randal Wisbey and Kent Hanson have been able to use their lawsuit to prevent the church at the GC level from doing anything about Randal Wisbey’s reign of error.

Recent Comments by David Read

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Pauluc: I do not agree that science must be naturalistic, but if that is your bottom line, it will not trouble me much where it concerns most day-to-day science–the study of current, repeating phenomena. But a rigid naturalism applied to origins morphs into philosophical atheism. Hence, mainstream origins science is not science but atheistic apologetics. This is what should not be done at an Adventist school, but sadly what has been the rule at La Sierra.

Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
@Pauluc: The Adventist doctrine of creation is that God created the world in six days and rested on the Seventh day and hallowed it. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11) Do you believe that doctrine? It won’t do to say that you accept some vague “Christian doctrine of creation.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a very specific mission to call people back to the worship of the creator God, on the day that He hallowed at the creation.

You say you believe that the “core doctrine of Christianity is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ,” but what was Jesus Christ incarnated to do? Wasn’t his mission to redeem fallen humanity, to be the second Adam who succeeded where the first Adam failed? And doesn’t your view of origins make nonsense of a perfect creation, a literal Adam who fell, and the need for redemption because of Adam’s sin? You seem to want to gloss over all the very profound differences you have not only with Seventh-day Adventist dcotrine, but with the most basic reasons that Seventh-day Adventism exists.

The syncretistic hodgepodge religion you’ve created for yourself, combining elements of a biblical world view (the incarnation) and elements of a pagan worldview (a self-created creation) is not Adventism. It is anti-Seventh-day Adventism.

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Holly Pham: Holly, I will try, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Pauluc: Since no creationist could land a job as chairman of a biology department at a public university, it seems entirely appropriate that no Darwinist should be given the chairmanship of a biology department of a Seventh-day Adventist college.

The SDA educational system doesn’t exist to expensively duplicate the public university system. It exists to provide a uniquely biblical and Seventh-day Adventist education to interested young people. If mainstream origins science is correct in its assumptions and conclusions about our origins, the entire enterprise of Seventh-day Adventism is an utterly foolish waste of time. So at Adventist institutions, our professors should assume that Darwinistic science is false, and that creationistic science is true (just the reverse of how it is done at public universities), and proceed accordingly.

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@gene fortner: What I like about your list of topics, Gene, is that it points out that many disciplines are implicated in the necessary change of worldview. It isn’t just biology and geology, although those are the main ones. History, archeology, anthropology and other disciplines should also be approached from a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview should pervade the entire curriculum.