LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Bob Pickle:

You pose some interesting questions. However, you will have to find someone else to answer them (perhaps Holly will decide to chime in again), as under the current circumstances, I have decided to no longer participate in any way on this board.

On August 5 at 4:27 PM, Sean posted some information on this thread that I believe was, and is, incorrect. However, when I questioned the accuracy of his statements in a fairly detailed post a few hours later, and asked him to provide some evidence for his claims, he (or Shane) decided to delete my post, yet they have so far refused to either provide any evidence, or retract what I believe to be a false allegation, and one that can have significant bearing on pending legal action.

I have already communicated my concerns directly to Shane, but have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply, although he did reply to me Sabbath afternoon on a different matter.

Since Shane and Sean obviously run this board, and can arbitrarily post, edit, alter or remove any and all information at will–and in this instance have, leaving a false impression for all who may be innocently reading the thread–it would be particularly unwise, at least for me, to continue to participate here on any level.

I happen to be in a position to know more than most about the LSU situation, and Shane knows this, as we have had extensive private communications over the past year or so. But it would be sheer idiocy to continue to post here, or to continue to communicate with Shane privately, when Sean and/or Shane are willing to be so disingenuous and unethical in how they handle information.

I’m pretty sure any further so-called ‘insights’ into the LSU legal situation on this board will have to come from the likes of Holly, Faith and InChristBob, as I sincerely doubt that anyone who is actually involved in the case and truly knows the facts will come anywhere near EducateTruth, knowing the potential for misrepresentation and outright manipulation of information.

Again, Bob, I am sorry that I am not responding substantively to your questions. Best of luck in finding answers . . . and then trying to figure out if they are accurate or not.

---

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Sean, thanks very much for that information. That particular Spectrum thread has been combed over quite thoroughly by legal counsel, but I’m not aware that the private conversation between the four individuals was ever referenced in any way prior to the forced resignations. It would be very interesting, and very helpful, if you could recover the specific debate you referenced above (or any other references to the private conversation between the four individuals prior to the June 10 forced resignations, on Spectrum or elsewhere).

I note that you made a somewhat similar reference on the Spectrum thread titled “On the La Sierra Resignations: The Privacy Issue (i)” on 06/21/2011 – 20:54. You stated the following: “The problem here is that this became general knowledge, with many referencing these recordings here on Spectrum in several blogs – – well before anyone was asked to resign. The recordings were posted online for quite some time. I wasn’t aware of them until someone here in a blog pointed out to me that these recordings existed and suggested to me that I listen to them (even though by that time they were no longer available online and I had yet to hear anything else about these recordings). I was told that these recordings were evidence against what the AAA had accused various professors of LSU saying during certain interviews – which the recorded individuals evidently denied.

“In short, these recordings seem to have been common knowledge and were, evidently, already widely distributed well before the GC or the Division leaders became aware of them. By the time these leaders, to include the leadership of LSU, did become aware, so many people had heard these recordings and had referenced them publicly that it was most likely very difficult to simply ignore what was said and done by those involved. The LSU board was, perhaps, forced to act since those involved had lost too much credibility in such a public manner, to remain effective in their positions of responsibility (as these recordings are now all over the internet yet again).”

In that post, you don’t explicitly reference the private conversation portion of the recording, although you appear to be referring to it indirectly.

However, to my knowledge no evidence of your claim (regarding the private conversation portion of the recording) has yet been uncovered. Yes, a link to the recording was posted on Spectrum on or about May 27, and yes, there were ongoing references to the semi-public meeting on the LSU campus between Jackson/Blackmer and the LSU faculty/staff prior to June 10. But that’s different than the private conversation portion of the recording.

If you are able to recall and recover any evidence of your claims, it would be most useful. It is my understanding that Spectrum has only deleted the one post that had the actual link to the recording; as far as I know, all other posts should still be available.

If you prefer to continue this offline, that is certainly understandable, and in fact preferable from my perspective. You should already have my email address, as it is required in order to post on your site (but I’ll also send it to your ‘Contact Us’ feature as well). And feel free to delete this post as well. Thanks.

---

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Sean:

You correctly raise one of the very real and valid legal questions in this lawsuit, and point out at least one of the reasons why a naive and simplistic reading of the law by some is simply that, naive and simplistic–and quite wrong.

I am certainly aware that some ET readers don’t apparently believe anything that I–a lowly law professor–write, and prefer to get their legal advice from Holly and a few of her supporters, but perhaps, Sean, your voice will cause them to think again . . . perhaps . . . ah, but now I’m probably the one being naive!

Your penultimate paragraph also accurately reflects the facts, although it does leave out several events that are key to a full understanding of the chronology leading up to the forced resignations.

However, it is not correct to state that it was “rather common knowledge of many as to what was on the recordings prior to the actions of the church in this case”. That is not accurate.

The only people who were aware of the full contents of the recording (i.e., the private conversation) prior to the forced resignations were Larry Blackmer, Dan Jackson, Karnik Doukmetzian, Ricardo Graham, Kent Hansen, and possibly one or two other individuals at the GC and/or NAD (some may notice the list does not include Randal Wisbey).

That was it; while others may have had a copy of the recording, they were not aware of the second half of the recording. And that includes Shane Hilde and Bonnie Dwyer, among perhaps others.

That said, though, Sean’s final question is still quite valid. At this point no one who is actually knowledgeable of the law can really be sure what the legal implications are, and won’t fully know until the legal case unfolds further. To rush ahead of the legal process and presume to know and understand how the law will be applied to the facts is, to put it charitably, childlike — besides being flat-out wrong.

And, for the third time, that’s why Shane pulled all direct references to the contents of the recording, once he received professional legal advice.

Again, though, the primary intent of my earlier posts was not to comment on the legal aspects of the private conversation. No one has yet said how knowing, and then publicly hashing through the details on a private conversation, serves any legitimate public purpose, let alone helps to advance the kingdom of God in any positive way.

Yes, it has taken a very long time for some sort of action to be taken, BUT THAT ACTION HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN. If you punish your child for misbehaving, do you then keep insisting on dragging out and incessantly rehashing all the details of the particular misbehavior, or do you focus on moving forward, with the expectation that a lesson was learned, and the hope that positive growth will occur as a result?

Is knowing, and then interminably discussing the details of a private conversation in public and on the internet really where you want to spend your time and efforts?

---

The Reptile King
Good luck with that request, Greg–and, by the way, welcome to InChristBob’s little world! You’re certainly not the first person to have their words twisted by InChristBob.

InChristBob generally lives in his own little reality, where he is simply smarter than all others. Hence he never has to admit he is ever wrong, let alone apologize for anything he ever says or does (neither of which he ever seems to have done). Oh, and he only has to pay lip service to the words of I Cor. 13, before quickly picking up his ‘sword’ again and resorting to strings of EGW quotes.

Most readers simply end up ignoring him, and have for years.

Greg, you seem like a very nice person, and I recommend you do the same . . .

---

The Reptile King
InChristBob,

Of course, that was JESUS who said, “I have not come to bring peace but a sword.”

Just keeping clanging away; I certainly know by now that no one (other than perhaps the Holy Spirit) is going to get you to change your ways . . .

---

The Reptile King
Greg (er, InChristBob and quite a few others of various persuasions):

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal . . .

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs . . .

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres . . .

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

---

LSU statement regarding resignations and Bradley’s email
Dr. Stone,

In both of your responses to me, you’ve made my point MORE relevant, not less.

PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE MORE CAREFULLY. I said THE SPECIFIC DETAILS of what was said on the recording are not any of your business, or the business of anyone else, besides the actual principals.

None of us are principals with anything to do directly with any of the specific contents of the recording.

I didn’t say the overall situation at LSU didn’t have a legitimate impact on many of the rest of us. There are many parts of the creation/evolution dialogue that are certainly worthwhile to be discussing in a public forum.

I was simply pointing out that any effort to gossip about any possibly salacious details of the actual recorded private conversation was simply not any of your concern, or that of anyone else.

Unless your explicit desire and intent is to continue to feed the prurient interests of yourself and others, you (and everyone else) should focus your interests elsewhere. What other people may irresponsibly do or say does NOT give you or anyone else the license to behave likewise. We should be better people than that.

In closing, I would point out the following: NO ONE (again, except the principals in the matter) should even be listening to the recording. What possible good, or value, can listening actually have? The individuals involved have already been confronted with the details, and decisions have been made and actions taken.

At this point it can only be morbid curiosity and a very unholy prurient motivation that would drive someone to even listen to the details, let alone insist on gossiping about them all over the internet.

Please, just stop–for your own sake as well as the sake of others.

---

LSU statement regarding resignations and Bradley’s email
The fact is, Ron, the information on the recording is not AT ALL your business or the business of anyone else (save the principals directly in the situation), no matter how interesting or salacious you or anyone else may find it to be.

If, God forbid, you found yourself in a situation similar to these four unfortunate individuals, would you want complete strangers–with no prior knowledge or legal interest in the matter–listening to and then gossiping about the embarrassing contents of the recording?

This is not to say there shouldn’t be consequences for their actions; there should be, and there have been. It’s being handled, however rightly or wrongly, by those with a direct interest in the matter.

And that doesn’t include you, or me, or practically anyone else. And just because others can’t contain themselves on this site, or on Spectrum or wherever, doesn’t give any of the rest of us any license to behave likewise.

You and many others have been agitating for matters to be addressed at LSU; it’s been awhile in the making, but obviously they are currently being dealt with by those in charge. Let them do their jobs, without unnecessary interference.

You and I and everyone else have absolutely no direct ‘interest’ in the details of the recording, other than a purely prurient fascination, and I can’t believe that is a path God would want any of us to follow.

---