@David Kendall, BMus, MA: David Kendall, BMus, MA says: February 17, …

Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by BobRyan.

@David Kendall, BMus, MA:

David Kendall, BMus, MA says:
February 17, 2010 @Victor Marshall: …

Regarding your first question as to which of the 28 fundamental beliefs I have a problem with, I have an interesting contribution to make to this discussion. I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine) to discuss some of these topics. Since he has been “outed” as a ringleader or instigator of an evangelical evolutionary agenda at LSU (according to some posters here), I thought it would be instructive to hear what he had to say. Among other things, we discussed the 28 fundamental beliefs. Dr. Guy was the secretary of the committee that drafted the document, which of course then included 27 items, and he was instrumental in crafting them. This is sort of like speaking to one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this committee, which met at Andrews University in 1980, was to create a document that would encompass the broad spectrum of Adventist belief.

The above statement is not entirely accurate if one is to actually believe Fritz Guy’s own account of that history. Dr. Guy’s actual role by his own admission was to hijack the process for the 1980 document entirely.

According to Guy – (as Guy himself reported it at Evr Tayor’s web site) there was never any such intention by the GC Exec Committee – to have Guy come in and “draft from scratch” a statement of beliefs for the Adventist church.

RATHER – what actually happened is that the Conference Exec Comm edited the then existing 1930’s statement of belief adding emphasis for creation week and a few other details – but sticking to the format of the then-existing set of beliefs. They then handed it to Andrews for review to be sure they had not inserted some kind of blunder into the text to be voted at the 1980 session.

To their great surprise — what the Exec Comm got back from Andrews was a total rewrite. And as Fritz Guy notes – it was then HE that was “surprised” that the Exec Committee instead of blowing a gasket — simply accepted the AU rewrite letting the 1980 GC session edit and then approve what had rolled off the Fritz Guy assembly line.

So whatever Guy’s motives and agenda was in hijacking the process, and whatever the GC Exec Committee’s rationale for not stopping to look closely at what had come back to them — the deed was done.

As such, it was intended to be a descriptive document (describing the realities already existing “on the ground”) rather than prescriptive (dictates or rules determining membership).

The fact that Guy’s group took that limitting view seriously – may be all that stood between the Church and total disaster. I have breahed a thankful prayer of more than “a little” appreciation regarding God’s overruling providence in that regard.

It was also a truly collaborative document, with no one person able to dictate or “push through” a belief; if there was not consensus in the committee, then it was not included (the issue of unbaptized children taking communion is one example). The beliefs were compiled by the committee, and then forwarded to be read and edited in two GC sessions, one of them the 1980 worldwide GC session, voted and accepted.

It is like amending the constitution – not something you want done in a maverick-leads-the-way model. We can again be thankful that no one person at Andrews was given complete control.

What has not turned out to be funny to those that drafted the document was that the fundamental beliefs have been used as a “litmus test” or as a set of prescriptions, in some cases causing members to be disfellowshipped. This was never the intent of the committee …

Indeed – Dr Guy seems to be the victim of his own handiwork at this point in the story (Given his pro-evolution and pro-gay-agenda public statements in recent years)

The irony in this discussion is that Dr. Guy has been rather maligned for an alleged disloyalty to the fundamental beliefs when he had a part in writing them. He and I both also realize that many of his critics will not take him at his word, or will mischaracterize his statements and/or intentions.

Apparently “critical thinking” is in short supply still at LSU.

The “inconvenient detail” is that Dr Guy himself has published his own statements on the fact that our 28 FB document needs to CHANGE to accomodate his now public pro-evolution and pro-gay-agenda positions. He freely admits that these statements are NOT in keeping with the existing document.

NOW – from your text above – it “appears” that he wants to blame conservatives “for noticing that detail”????

Where is the logic in that??

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Perspectives from alleged LSU students

@David Kendall, BMus, MA:

P.S. This is as confrontational as I ever get in writing or in person (just ask my students). If we want to make any headway on this issue or others facing the church today, we must hold fast to the principle of open and kind discussion with decorum. Otherwise we will devolve into armed camps flinging slings, arrows and broadsides at one another.

Whoah! – no armed camps please. No slings and arrows. I am just looking for “details”. If the details are not there to support the claims that LSU promotes evolutionism as “the right answer” for a doctrine on origins – please show which of them you found to be false.

If the details ARE there to support the claim that LSU religion and biology departments are united in teaching students that evolutionism is “dead wrong” – wonderful. Where are those “details”.

in Christ,


Perspectives from alleged LSU students
Hi David –

Bob said:
Suppose all the first hand testimony from both parents and students that has been posted here about their being brushed aside when they were shocked to discover an “all-for-evolutionism” agenda at LSU

David responds –

I do not deny that there may have been occasions in which faculty members did not respond appropriately to student complaints (I posted about that in another thread). However, if I am to take your “all for evolutionism agenda at LSU” seriously, I would need much more evidence than a couple of syllabus copies of biology classes or unsourced statements attributed to a religion professor. For such an agenda to be pervasive throughout the campus. (and that would have to include me, by the way), I would need to see evidence from multiple faculty in multiple departments across the institution; and that such an agenda is pursued at the expense of all others.

1. I agree that no one has claimed that the agenda for evolutionism has gone “throughout the campus” as in the notion that every faculty member is bought in. We have had a number of discussions here pointing out that such a thing is unlikely.

2. As for Bradley’s “sourced” statements – they can still be found here

3. As for Fritz guys statements published and otherwise — my understanding is that you have said he is in an office very near your office. Surely your talking to him about those statements is not “out of the question”.

Is there something specific in what I have attributed to him that you question?

Bob said:
Then WHERE is the evidence?

Given that we have had LSU members posting here from time to time. Why have they not brought to light their stellar creationist, 28 FB affirming Biology program evidence. Certainly THEY should have been “aware” of it.

Thus the – “there is no truth to the complaints” style argument never really gets off the ground.

David responds:

David said:
The fact that LSU members (I assume you mean students) have not shown overwhelming evidence of a creationist agenda is not evidence that such an agenda does not exist, or that it does (this is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” argument). I am sure the students did not assume that providing such evidence was expected of them here.

Actually I was referring to faculty. For example Erv Taylor is listed as a guest speaker in one of the biology courses. He has some posts here too as it turns out.

And we have had other faculty members and former LSU faculty members post here as well.

There is much more coming from them about the fact that Evolutionism IS being taught as the “right answer” than anything of the form “Oh no – we teach the students that evolution is dead wrong”.

What am I missing?

Bob said:
At best you get “it is not nice to complain about evolution being in conflict with the Bible and the 28FB”. OR maybe even “when you complain about evoutionism some here do not always put the best possible face on it”.

If that latter form is the point you are making, then let me ask you this.

And then I asked for a comparison between what we find posted on these web pages and 3SG 90-91.

in Christ,


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

@David Kendall, BMus, MA:

That is the knowledge I have at first hand, and if any of these faculty are purged from the institution and the church (as happened at Southern, PUC and Walla Walla in recent times), it will be Adventism’s deep, deep loss.

In the case of Walla Walla – the Union stepped in (at the direct request of the GC president to the Union president) to address a raging fire of evolutionism that had taken over both the religion department and some of the sciences.

Neutrality in a Religious Crisis: Condemned

In the full light of the sun, surrounded by thousands,–men of war, prophets of Baal, and the monarch of Israel,–stands the defenseless man, Elijah, apparently alone, yet not alone. The most powerful host of heaven surrounds him. Angels who excel in strength have come from heaven to shield the faithful and righteous prophet. With stern and commanding voice Elijah cries: “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” Not one in that vast assembly dared utter one word for God and show his loyalty to Jehovah. {3T 280.2}

What astonishing deception and fearful blindness had, like a dark cloud, covered Israel! This blindness and apostasy had not closed about them suddenly; it had come upon them gradually as they had not heeded the word of reproof and warning which the Lord had sent to them because of their pride and their sins. And now, in this fearful crisis, in the presence of the idolatrous priests and the apostate king, they remained neutral. If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God. {3T 280.3}

Principle of corporate Guilt: explained

I saw that many souls will sink in darkness because of their covetousness. The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins. …{3T 269.2}

Attacks on Fundamental Beliefs exposed

Satan is now doing, through individuals like Thomas Paine, what he has been trying to do since his fall. He is, through his power and lying wonders, tearing away the foundation of the Christian’s hope and putting out the sun that is to light the narrow way to heaven. He is making the world believe that the Bible is uninspired, no better than a storybook,.. {EW 265.1}

Attacks on Fundamental Beliefs coming from INSIDE the church

What influence is it would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith–the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation?

Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years. Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, “Meet it!” . . . {1SM 207.3}

I must bear the messages of warning that God gives me to bear, and then leave with the Lord the results. I must now present the matter in all its bearings; for the people of God must not be despoiled. {1SM 208.1}

We are God’s commandment-keeping people. For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word–especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the message of Heaven for these last days, as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.
{1SM 208.2}

That is the work that was belatedly done at Walla Walla.

That is the work that will be necessary at LSU.

When Moses came down from Sinai and saw rebellion in the camp – the first question he asked was “who is on the Lord’s side”.

But what is fascinating is that the Levites were told to go to their relatives and close neighbors — they were not instructed to go to tribes at the far end of the camp from where they lived. Thus it was a very hard thing for them to do for it cost them personally. How much better it would have been had the priests – including Aaron – stood up to the rebellion early on and spared everyone all that pain.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind