These videos were anonymously sent to Educate Truth. In the interest of transparency, we are posting them here for you to review and critique.
Keep in mind the president of La Sierra University was made aware of the contents of these classes in Nov. 2009. Compare the statements from these videos with those made in LSU’s advertisement in the Pacific Union Recorder.
UPDATE: Warren C. Trenchard requested that his lecture be removed from Educate Truth. He told Educate Truth that if his lecture was not taken down he would take whatever action necessary to make sure it was. He claimed that it was unethical and illegal to have this video posted without his express permission – permission he was not willing to grant to Educate Truth or even to the one(s) who produced the video. He did not provide additional reasons for his request.
In this video, Dr. Webster says that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is “not particularly helpful,” and suggests that higher critical methods of interpretation may be helpful.
In this video Dr. Warren Harvey Johns, Loma Linda University, concludes his final thoughts regarding Genesis. Please note that the ardent young-life creationist Warren Leroy Johns, though having a similar name, is very much opposed to the views of Warren H. Johns as presented in this video clip…
We apologize for the inconvenience, but we are currently editing the class lectures down so that you don’ have to watch the whole lecture to see the relevant sections. We hope to have those clips up soon.
May 21, 2010
Dr. Ron Stone, with all your talk of homosexuality I don’t think its approrpriate for you to use “out of the closet” lanugage when you describe other brothers in Christ. I think you’re deliberately trying to infer something that is harmful to others. Geanna Dane(Quote)
May 21, 2010
Tomorrow is every bit as challenging as a long time ago … especially to church leaders prominently featured in The Great Controversy …
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FR87BG3&show_article=1
More to the point, reality is always a threat to mysticism, and vice versus.
Having known Warren Johns for 50 years, with admittedly only occasional conversations over that time since we played trumpet in adjoining chairs in academy band and later had concurrent appointments at an Adventist university, I can attest from that sampling over that time that Warren prepared for his videoed presentation without stopping over his lifetime. He has done so absolutely as prayerfully, thoughtfully, conversationally, and Holy Spirit enabled as any of the founders of this website have come to where they stand.
I admit to smiling when speculating about the possibilities that should the founders of this website come to have studied as much, prayed as much, read Ellen White as much, and observed the world for as long as Warren has. Down the road 25 years from now, should time last, a group of Adventists might well launch a protest movement featuring videos of this site’s founders reprising Warren’s video … and very likely at La Sierra University … over not so much history as some other matter that offers young leaders in search of a following an entrance. Bill Garber(Quote)
May 21, 2010
I have difficulty understanding how any of the professors could be ignorant of the fact that they were being filmed by the university media department. It’s possible though they didn’t see the camera, and it’s possible the university did not obtain their permission. But here we are, they were filmed and the university media department willingly relinquished copies to a number of people who requested them.
I disagree that the way the videos are currently posted is unethical. This class is at the center of a huge controversy, how could they not expect what they would say would eventually get out and be critiqued. Shane Hilde(Quote)
May 21, 2010
@Bill Garber:
I know Warren Johns personally as well and am sure that you are correct. However, the fact remains that despite Johns’ clear sincerity of heart and purpose he is in fact undermining fundamental pillars of the SDA Church.
Sincerity and honesty simply aren’t enough to be a true representative of the SDA Church as an organization. There are a lot of very sincere and honest Catholic believers for instance – good people. However, they obviously wouldn’t effectively represent SDA ideals and fundamentals.
If one thinks that one has discovered something that truly counters the SDA position, and the SDA Church, as an organization, is not convinced, that person should simply promote his/her views elsewhere without expected to be paid by the SDA Church. No hard feelings. It’s simply a matter of practicality – of Church order and government.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 21, 2010
So Shane and Sean,
How is taking and posting class videos without permission, for which students have paid a lot of money in tuition to receive, and giving them away for free to anyone who bothers to access your site, any better than your incessant, year-long insistence that LSU professors are ‘stealing’ from a church institution? (And in this case whether you happen to believe the content is worth anything or not is irrelevant–you didn’t pay the tuition.)
In short, it isn’t — in fact, it’s much worse.
If I were a student who had paid several hundred dollars for that class, I would be very upset that you are giving my class information and materials away without permission, for free.
But more importantly, you are now in a much more ethically challenged position than you have sought to put those professors whom you so love to attack; at least they are teaching their subjects (rightly or wrongly) with the full knowledge and permission of the LSU Board and administration.
You, on the other hand, do NOT have permission to use the materials you have posted; materials that have a real monetary value, at least to those who paid real tuition dollars to gain access to them.
I can already imagine your protestations: as you just stated above, “This class is at the center of a huge controversy [a 'controversy', by the way, largely instigated and fueled by the two of you] . . .”, and therefore you are justified in exposing everything about it to the world.
In which case, your ethical construct must be, the end justifies the means.
Sorry my two friends, what you are doing here is simply wrong, and that pesky Eighth Commandment, which you have been so eager to use to try and pummel a few professors, serves to convict you ever so much more strongly.
Please note that your clear breach of the Eighth Commandment in this instance doesn’t apply to everything on your site, just to those materials that you continue to use, without permission, that students have paid for with significant tuition payments.
Even if I agree with some of what you are advocating on this site, I cannot support your efforts in any way if you are going to continue to employ unethical means to try and make your case.
Have a nice Sabbath — oh, and please do the right thing from now on, and either get the proper permission from the real owners of materials BEFORE you use them, or take them down from your site, and apologize, at least to the students, for your poor judgment.
Oh, and one final thought: hope that you don’t get sued for committing the very real tort of trespass to chattels.
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Luke 6:42 Jim(Quote)
May 21, 2010
Down south in the middle of the night if you go into the kitchen and turn on the light, some little critters just might get caught scampering into the nearest cracks they can find. As John put it:
John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
May we all overcome our fallen human tendency to behave like cockroaches. Bob Pickle(Quote)
May 21, 2010
Another thought: Does Trenchard own the copyright of lectures he gives at La Sierra? If not, why would anyone need to get permission from him? Even if so, would a small excerpt be a violation of copyright, or would it constitute fair use? Bob Pickle(Quote)
May 21, 2010
The United States Copyright office defines fair use by these four criteria:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Observations:
(1) Nonprofit educational purposes were furthered with the videos.
(2) The video used from LSU was from an institution having accepted the commission to “Go ye therefore and teach all nations.” (Matthew 28:19)
(3) The entire class was a payed for unit. According to the BIOL 111A syllabus, what was submitted appears a portion of the entire class lecture, discussion and notes.
(4) Educate Truth is not using this material to drive LSU out of the evolution market by setting up a class teaching evolution with the same material. The portion submitted was used for review of fidelity of LSU to the SDA church hence it is fair use.
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 21, 2010
Does Warren Johns provide any evidence in support of his theory that Gen. 1 to the ancient Jewish mind meant that the temple was inaugurated in seven literal days rather than that the earth was made in seven literal days?
100 people can come up with 100 plausible sounding theories. The question is not whether all the Bible evidence can fit within a particular theory, but whether the theory itself can be found in Scripture.
Certainly Ex. 20:8-11 refutes Johns’ theory, as well as what Gen. 1 actually says, since both texts explicitly state that God made the earth in six days.
What we have here in this instance is a tactic being used by someone other than Johns who first used it before the earth was even created: “It was his policy to perplex the angels with subtle arguments concerning the purposes of God. Everything that was simple he shrouded in mystery, and by artful perversion cast doubt upon the plainest statements of Jehovah” (GC 497). Bob Pickle(Quote)
May 21, 2010
Rich,
I see that the syllabus states at the bottom, “(c)2009 by La Sierra University.” Is Trenchard trying to claim that La Sierra only owns the copyright of the syllabus, not the copyright of the lectures? But if that were the case, why would not the author of the syllabus retain the copyright of the syllabus?
On the other hand, if LSU holds the copyright of the syllabus because it paid a professor to create it, then why wouldn’t LSU also hold the copyright of lectures given by professors paid by LSU to give them?
I suspect LSU may have a written policy about all of this.
It would also be interesting to see if LSU or Trenchard has an official written policy prohibiting students from recording in any manner the lectures given in classes.
Along those lines, might Trenchard’s hypothetical written policy only prohibit video or audio recordings, not stenographic recordings, lest some student think Trenchard might sue them for copyright infringement because they took notes of his lectures in class?
And if taking notes is permissible, why couldn’t a transcript of choice sentences from Trenchard’s lecture be provided here without Trenchard spending thousands of dollars on attorney fees trying to hide whatever he said that he thinks is so incriminating?
For that matter, why not ask Trenchard for a copy of his written policy as it existed before the videos were posted here, so that it can be posted here? Or would he try to assert copyright protection over his written copyright policy, in order to keep it too under wraps? Bob Pickle(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Carl, again, we are talking about he Seventh-day Adventist “CHURCH.” We put a higher authority in what God has said, as opposed to what man says. Why do you think that the so called “discoveries” of athiests should be able to persuade Christians to abandon the Bibles clear statements, including the very words of Christ Himself? Should we also believe those same atheists when they tell us, “it is impossible to prove that there is a God, therefore we should assume that He does not exist”? If you want to hang with that crowd then please do! The next thing you might tell us is that God did not know how we came to be! Stephen Vicaro(Quote)
May 22, 2010
I’m sorry Geanna, but there is no way that your views and arguments reflect that of a creationist! Stephen Vicaro(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Believe what you wnat Mr. Vicaro. Call me a liar. I do’nt have to answer to you.
Just because I believe this website and the majority of those who post are mean-spirited and also delusional to believe creaitonists have all the answers does not mean I do’nt believe in creation. But hey you got me figured out. You should be more concerned about what God thinks than I think. Geanna Dane(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Geanna says,
So Geanna proposes to be, “a creationist also.” Perhaps Geanna could help some of us by leaving out some sarcasm so we’ll be more apt to take her more seriously on what she wants to be. The alternative could be she confuses us with her sarcasm so that we will never really know what she believes, hopefully not willfully. I fear the proverbial, “I am a prophet also” (1 Kings 13:18) is alive and well today in the the modern day emergent equivalent of, “I too am a Seventh-day Adentist” and “I too am a creationist.”
Kingly spare us the sarcasm – it is wearisome. Let us not be afraid or deviant to hold the standard high. Otherwise, no one has right to be embittered when they are mistaken for ranking with the enemy of truth. (Jn. 8:32; Jn. 17:17/2 Peter 1:20, 21)
God bless,
Rich
P.S.
Pronunciation: \ˈstan-dərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estandard banner, standard, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English standan to stand and probably to Old High German hart hard
Date: 12th century
1 : a conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Mr. Pickle,
I don’t think it’s necessary to ask for that if legal action is not initiated. A short perusal of the no doubt lawyer-rich financial giant YouTube will yield thousands and thousands of works in part for the world to watch and comment. As was stated before, in harmony with U.S.A. Copyright laws, a portion of an entire class which is sold as a unit was posted and it meets the criteria of fair-use, especially as non-commercial/educational.
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Sean,
Neither the history (i.e. article publishing and preaching leading up to and following the 1888 GC session) nor the administrative structure of the SDA Church to this day supports a way to implement your admonition. Furthermore, this website and those supporting it did not attempt to follow this path.
Actually, despite informing the top church administration of the ‘facts in the case,’ you and others became impatient and launched an enterprise designed precisely to incite riotous pressure on the administration of this church to your own private ends, which, if you followed your own admonition quoted above, should be left to their own devisings.
I fully support your ecclesiastical freedom to operate this site, as I do the right of church members to speak freely, even reexamining ‘present truth’ well prior to the church ‘as an organization’ at some future point adding to or changing or rejecting ‘present truth’ in whatever form.
Carry on, Sean, you are young, bright, and seeking. You could well be the Warren Johns in the year 2040. I’d love to hear your confession in a classroom in La Sierra University during that school year!
And I’m hopeful you’ll continue to steer clear of a kind of Koreshism. Knowing the father of a girl who escaped barely before the flames in Waco consumed her mother, salvation does not arise from such flames–nor is it consumed by them either, of course. Bill Garber(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Thank you, Rich, for your kind, thoughtful, loving and nurturing remarks. (1 John 3:23; 3 John 1:10)
God bless,
Geanna
P.S.
Pronunciation: \ˈləv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please
Date: before 12th century
1: strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties Geanna Dane(Quote)
May 22, 2010
Geanna,
Please spare us all of sarcasm so that we can concentrate on the issue at hand without wasting time.
The love that cares for wounded sheep and gently leads those with young applies the rod of correction and protection from wolves. Love is love and doesn’t rejoice in iniquity. (1 Cor. 13:6) If you’re going to compare yourself with John the Apostle you should be ready to give an answer for your faith. We’re waiting.
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Exodus 20:11. Hebrews 11:3. Gotta problem with these?
Please spare us the continuing condescencion. Don’t you have a church to attend to rather than apply the rod of correction to a humble college gal?
God bless,
Geanna
(“In the character of Christ there was no discord of any kind. And this must be our experience. Our lives must be controlled by the principles that controlled His life.” From Devotional: Our Father Cares, p. 15.) Geanna Dane(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Garber: “Carry on, Sean, you are young, bright, and seeking. You could well be the Warren Johns in the year 2040.” I trust, hope, you meant warren LEROY Johns, not Warren HARVEY Johns. A devout creationist and founder of one of the first Adventist ANTI-evo web sites supplementing Sean’s , Warren LEROY Johns is a Creationist as devout and active as they come. Warren HARVEY Johns is a devoted, and active, theistic Evoean. Alas, they are related. Trying to keep the Johnses straight is my self-appointed mission, while Sean and Shane try to straighten out LSU. wesley kime(Quote)
May 23, 2010
I don’t know why I keep expecting to read actual truth in this site, but once again I find a gross exageration. Nowhere in the video did Dr. Webster denounce a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. I understand that you disagree with Dr. Johns, but I don’t think he was being hostile either. I also read the syllabus but fail to see anything objectionable. Like I was always told: “If you can’t say something nice then don’t say anything at all.” Martin Schratt(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Hi this is what my pastor wrote in response to my Question about the statement made by Richard Meyers:
It is written in this note that,
“Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew does not say that planet Earth was created in six days. Genesis 1:1-2 deal very briefly with the creation of the universe, of which planet Earth is a part. My translation: ‘In the distant past …’”
My reply to the author of this statement (Please pass this on to all who got the original message):
So, you translate what is usually translated ‘beginning’ to mean ‘distant past’.
But re’shiyth, means, ‘first’ in time, rank, or order, sometimes, ‘choicest’. Please refer us to the lexicon, Hebrew dictionary where you find it is said to mean ‘past ‘ or ‘distant past’. Something tells me you are not going to be able to come up with strong support for your position. By the way, in answer to a later statement to the effect that re’shiyth is “an undefined time long ago,” it is clear, as one looks at standard lexical definitions of the term, that this is a defined time in the past. In the beginning you offer up the essential foundational point of your argument. If the foundation is faulty (false) then the entire argument falls apart. If the text does not clearly state that shâmayim was created in the ‘distant past’ an undefined time long ago, your position has lost all lift. It cannot fly. That is precisely what happens here. Re’shiyth is not the ‘distant past’ it is not an undefined time long ago. Hence, your whole logical structure crumbles. You are not getting any lift and you had better pull out the throttle and put on the breaks before you crash at the end of the runway.
The following explanation is perhaps just a poor choice of analogy. But, to the Bible believing Christians you are trying to convince it is going to come across as far worse–it is a terrible insult to class even one word in God’s Sacred Book as. ” … roughly equivalent to the well-known opening line of many fairy tales: ‘once upon a time…’ ” Especially since your interpretation of re’shiyth is paraphrase not faithful translation.
Pastor Bradley Williams
Chula Vista SDA Church
———- Original Message ———-
From: “Mary”
To:
Subject: Hi I never heard anything like this before. Is any of this true?
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 22:37:31 -0700
1. Richard Meyers wrote: “The earth was created in six days and while many will believe a lie, many will not.”
While I strongly believe in the creation record of Genesis 1, the sentiment expressed in this statement — that the Earth was created in six days — is actually part of the problem. Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew does not say that planet Earth was created in six days. Genesis 1:1-2 deal very briefly with the creation of the universe, of which planet Earth is a part. My translation: “In the distant past Elohiym created the universe and the Earth. 2The Earth was chaotic and useless, and darkness covered the surface of the oceans, while the life-giving breath of Elohiym hovered peacefully over the waters.” Allow me to unpack this a bit.
In verse 1, this time period is a reference to what Elohiym has already done in the distant past, in an undefined time long, long ago. It is roughly equivalent to the well-known opening line of many fairy tales: “once upon a time…” Moses is telling the reader that at some undefined time in the past, perhaps millions, billions, or trillions of years ago, Elohiym acted to bring the universe and planet Earth into existence. This word sets the context in which the God of the universe turns His attention to planet Earth to change it from an unorganized mud-ball in the universe to a vibrant biosphere.
The word translated heavens is shâmayim, and is not just a reference to the atmosphere where birds fly and clouds move, but can include the wide expanse of the sky in the sense of where all the celestial bodies can be observed. This wide expanse with everything in it is the entire universe. This word is used seven times in the first chapter of Genesis, and in four places it indicates a reference to space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere (vs. 1, 14, 15, 17), while in three places (vs. 8, 9, & 10), the word means the Earth’s atmosphere. This word is used again in Genesis 2:4 after the Earth has been turned into a place suitable to support life and seems to mean the Earth and its atmosphere.
Along with having created the universe, Elohiym created planet Earth where nearly all the action recorded in scripture is about to take place. Planet Earth is about to become center stage of the universe where important events will occur that will reveal the true character of this creator Elohiym.
Verse 2 expresses a contradiction in the observable value of planet Earth before creation week as unorganized, chaotic, desolate, worthless, and useless, and the peaceful contentment of Elohiym in the midst of this. The Earth is tôhû (to’-hoo), which means to lie at waste, in ruin, to be desolate, unorganized, chaotic, or to be worthless. The Earth is also bôhû (bo’-hoo), which means to be empty, vacant, or useless. The Earth is shrouded in thick clouds so that the surface of the Earth is always dark. In contrast to this, the spirit of Elohiym is described as being content with this situation.
The word for spirit is rûach (roo’-akh) and is the ordinary word for wind or breath. This is a way of indicating that the life-giving breath of Elohiym was present during this long expanse of time into the distant past, but had, as yet, not engaged in any commands that would organize the Earth into a place of value.
Elohiym is said to be râchaph (raw-khaf’), that is, hovering or fluttering over the waters. The KJV translates this as moving. However, it is not moving in the sense of having a direction or destination, but in the sense of being present like a mother bird fluttering to cover her nest. The word also conveys a sense of calmness and being relaxed, of being at rest and peaceful.
The final word in verse 2 is mayim (mah’-yim), which is translated to be waters, but also includes all kinds of fluids. The clouds of the atmosphere would also be part of the fluids of the Earth over which the presence of Elohiym presides. Though planet Earth has no obvious value before the six days of creation, the presence of Elohiym surrounds the planet and He is calmly content with its condition.
Verse 3 begins the creative statements and acts of Elohiym to transform the chaotic, worthless, and useless mud-ball of planet Earth into a vibrant biosphere suitable to support all kinds of living things. This is the beginning of the counting of the six literal days of creation week, but it is not the beginning of the existence of planet Earth. While Elohiym is definitely the creator of planet Earth, scripture clearly tells us the Earth itself was already in existence for a long period of time prior to the events that begin with verse 3.
There are all sorts of other interesting things one can learn about the words of Genesis 1 & 2, but this much should aid in helping people understand the Hebrew context of Genesis 1, what we should understand the six days of creation to apply to, and sorting out the controversy between some of the issues in the evolution – creation disagreement. The universe and planet Earth are very old, but the events of creation week are relatively young Mary Kelly(Quote)
May 23, 2010
@Martin Schratt:
You are mistaken. Webster did denounce the literal approach to interpreting the Genesis narrative – contrary to the SDA Church’s position. Also, though very pleasant indeed, Johns is very hostile to the SDA Church’s interpretation of the Genesis account as well…
This isn’t a matter of liking or not liking the individual. I personally known Johns and like him very much. I just don’t agree with his interpretation of the Genesis account of origins and I don’t think he should be presenting his views unopposed in our schools…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 23, 2010
@Bill Garber:
It is part of Church policy that individual members who see a problem that is fundamentally undermining the pillars of the Church should sound the warning alarm. This is what we did and are doing.
Your views on “academic freedom” would not a viable organization make. No organization can long afford to pay any and all people to do their own thing independent of the current ideals and goals of the organized body. That is a recipe for chaos and anarchy, not organized movement. There are simply limits to what can be tolerated from the individual while still recognizing that individual as part of the body – especially as a paid representative of the goals and ideals of the body.
I’m sorry, but your comparison of our efforts to support the Church’s own stated pillars of faith as “present truth” to the insanity of David Koresh at Waco comes across as desperate and uninformed. Surely, at the very least, you must agree with the idea that parents, students and the church constituency at large have a right to know what they are really purchasing and supporting with their hard-earned dollars. Surely you support increased transparency from our Church’s and schools? – at the very least?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Geanna, I do not have a problem with Ex. 20:11 and Heb. 11:3 as you should know. How is asking someone who is so sarcastic toward people on multiple threads who quote texts like those to confirm they in fact believe as they say they do condescending?
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 23, 2010
I think your condescending attitude toward me and others is clear enough for the unbiased objective reader to discern without further comment.
God bless,
Geanna Geanna Dane(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Geanna, Nothing of the sort. I have used the term “closeting” many times on this website to those who HIDE themselves from answering their critics, usually by remaining “hidden” in their academic offices, conference offices, or wherever. “Closeting” is one of the four main ways to avoid facing a problem: Denial, Avoidance, Closeting, and Smokescreening.
Maybe you have forgotten or didn’t see those posts? Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
May 23, 2010
Sean,
Actually that is not at all how the church is set up nor how it acts, whether in the pulpit or the magazines of the church, or the books printed by the publishing houses of the church, as evidenced by the run up to 1888 GC, and the impending 2010 GC, of course, where various church entities and individuals are appropriately articulating positions opposed by authority or being campaigned against or for by many, many individuals employed by various church-owned institutions. Some are minor, and some are fundamental, and all are vital to those sharing their opinion.
I’m pretty sure I have not addressed “academic freedom,” though having brought it up, you clearly make a point quite opposed by EGW, namely that the organization takes precedence over the search itself for truth. Do take time to review the historical materials documenting the prelude to the 1888 GC, available from the White Estate and referenced in numerous books, one of my favorites being Tyner’s “Searcing for the God of Grace”
http://www.amazon.com/Searching-God-Grace-Before-Religion/dp/0816321523
To your questions, my answer is Absolutely! Indeed, ever more so!
As for Koresh and Educate Truth, I clearly was not clear. My deep apology. Koresh got drunk on an endorphin rush realizing how easy it seemed to draw a following for his all too personalized mission opposing the church. In his case, perhaps, it only took one defiant lung to trigger a public-support-powered delusional messianic vision with him in the leading role. It ended in self immolation for real, some time after he burned his bridge with the church, to keep the rush coming.
I’m not in the least suggesting Education Truth is an alternate religion, and apologize for not making that clear. And the rush of support you personally experience as the result of your own words and actions in going up against the church and one of its major institutions, may well be giving you a rush not unlike what Koresh clearly became addicted to.
I wish you a safe passage in the weeks and months and years ahead. Bill Garber(Quote)
May 23, 2010
@Bill Garber:
That’s not true. While a personal search for truth is important, Mrs. White clearly understood the role of the Church as an organized body as superior to the personal desires of the individual.
Mrs. White also argued that new truths to be discovered would not undermine the pre-established pillars of the Adventist faith which had clearly been established by the leading of the Holy Spirit; that they were to stand until the end of time…
It’s fine if you wish to disagree with me on these issues, but don’t think to invoke Mrs. White to support a cause with which she was in very clear fundamental disagreement and wrote so earnestly and ardently against…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 24, 2010
4SP 106.1
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Hey! What happened to the two long videos?
These edited ones miss the most important parts!
Please put them back up on the video streaming server. Allen Roy(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Or somehow get me copies. I want to show the flawed foundation that gets them to where they are….. Allen Roy(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Strong work there Sean!
You can quote ‘em with the best. And you’ll note I was not quoting. I am referencing actual church behavior and at a much higher and deeper level than what Educate Truth is addressing. It appears that God clearly endorses what you condemn and did so through EGW’s endorsement by reason of her participatory witness, participation made without God’s intervention by vision during the lengthy run up to, during, or the decades following the 1888 GC conflict over what many at the time, and some today, including the GC president at the time, considered a full-on frontal attack on absolute foundational Biblical truth on which the whole of Adventist history and theology was grounded.
I’m for transparency. I’m for ecclesiastical freedom for Educate Truth and La Sierra University both to operate free of the threat of excommunication (job wise or membership wise), which, of course, is left to those who best know the individuals, their employers or their fellow members at their congregation, who do not answer to any church hierarchy in either regard.
It is not a fundamental theological bedrock of Adventism, this ceding of power locally to accept or dismiss employees or members, but rather a long-standing tradition in celebration of the person over the organization, the congregation over the hierarchy, the Holy Spirit over creeds.
t sense a certain dissonance that Educate Truth it attempting to put its boot to the neck of an organization and hierarchy for not putting its boot to the neck of a lower level institution making far less of a threat to the same hierarchy than Educate Truth.
How confident are you that Educate Truth has not left the amphitheater of discourse and has embraced the field of battle? Bill Garber(Quote)
May 24, 2010
@Bill Garber:
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how the 1888 conflict over righteousness by faith (mainly anyway) was over an established “pillar” of SDA faith or against the idea that the Church must have order and government that is in fact larger than the individual (as noted already by Mrs. White herself).
You do realize that well before and after the 1888 conference that the issue of Church government and order had come up? It was with the full endorsement of Mrs. White that J.N. Loughborough wrote his 1907 work on The Church, Its Order, Organization, and Discipline. As part of this work, he explained the Church’s very selective issuing of “Cards of Commendation”:
I’m sorry, but there would not long be an “organization” without rules and internal discipline that govern action within the Church. The individual simply cannot be completely free to act independent of the organization and hope to remain a paid representative of that organization. That’s just not how it works for any viable organization – the Church or otherwise.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Sean Pitman said……
“That’s not true. While a personal search for truth is important, Mrs. White clearly understood the role of the Church as an organized body as superior to the personal desires of the individual.”
This is false, Sean. Never does any organization stand over and above the individual. This has been the downfall of every movement God has ordained. When any organization claims to be the highest authority over any individual, that organization has historically ended up commiting the unpardonable sin. Witness as an example the Jews, the early church, much of present Protestantism and even many in Adventism hold this false idea.
It always ends up with a false idea of unconditional election for the instrumentality. When people stand before God in judgment, He will not ask, “Did you follow the church I ordained?” “Did you submit to church authority?” “Have you yielded your will to those who run the church?”
No, No. There is only one question. “Did you follow the bible and carefully consider every passage and doctrine and yield yourself to My will in obedience to My word?”
This is the one and only question. The final and ultimate purpose of salvation is not the corporate church. But the responsible freedom God has ordained for each individual. And only those individuals who join together in agreement with this truth will make up the final church. They agree with God and the bible. They agree with each other. And all are in harmony with God’s will in obedience to His commandments.
At no time do they confess the corporate church holds authority over the individual as an ordained idea received from God. Such an idea undermines growth in spiritual matters. It genders a church of lazy and unmotivated Christians who simply sit around waiting for “the church” to tell them what to do and what to believe. And when “the church” makes a decision, they always respond when challenged concerning the validity of any decision by saying….”Well, the church has decided.”
They yield their personal accountability and responsible moral decisions to “the church”.
If an individual errors from bible truth, this is tragic. But it is still only an individual who will answer to God for his faith and practice. But if the church errors from bible truth, and people are taught to yield to church authority as the highest level of accountability, The devil can and will sweep millions into eternity who have willingly abandon their own personal accountability to the human instrumentality. And this is the result of claiming church authority over individual accountability.
Nothing can or could be more destructive to spiritual grown than this false assumption.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen Bill Sorensen(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Geanna,
I’m sorry you think that way.
God bless,
Rich Rich Constantinescu(Quote)
May 24, 2010
Certainly individuals have a right to join together in a common faith and bond. They have a right to state a unity of faith. And each should represent the other as all represent Christ.
And I agree, if and when an individual can not agree and harmonize with the rest, nor convince the others of his personal convictions of what is truth, then he must withdraw. And if not, he must be disfellowshipped because he is immoral to claim to represent the rest, when he does not.
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos.
The obvious answer is no.
People who refuse to leave when they know they do not agree, are wicked individuals who have no morals.
As EGW said, Some would profess to believe in her testimonies to retain and maintain influence over the people. When they knew all the while they did not agree nor support her ministry. Their wicked intent is obvious. To pretend you agree when you know you don’t is infinitely more evil than open disagreement in honest discussion. Not knowing for sure what is truth.
And this EGW dealt with when supporting corporate unity in honest dialogue on various issues. If all would honestly seek truth by way of the bible, then a viable unity will come to be.
We know that many who “hang around the church” have no intent nor desire to understand the historic truth and have a singular goal to spread doubt, unbelief and skepticism. Yes, they are free to believe as they please individually. But, no, they are not free to spread their confusion in the church without reproof and correction and should eventually and ultimately be disfellowshipped if they do not repent.
No doubt it would be better if they simply withdrew. But many will not and should eventually be dealt with accordingly. Religious freedom does not mean you are free to enter any church of your choice and demand the right to spread your own personal opinion in opposition to the unified understanding of the majority. Yet this is how some would like to interpret religious freedom. They have a warped sense of freedom.
Bill Sorensen Bill Sorensen(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Dr Webster argues against the Historical grammatical method that the Adventist Church uses – in his opening comments on the 4 methods.
He then tells us that the “Figurative” or the “Realistic” (What would an anthropologist say) methods are far more helpful than the one the Adventist Church uses to define its doctrines.
In fact his “realistic” lable would have been more accurately labeled “humanism101″ since he describes it as nothing more than “what would an anthropologist say”. Not sure why he called it “Realistic”.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Does Johns ever get anywhere near proving the wild notion that Israel (or Moses) had the Sanctuary BEFORE the book of Genesis was written?
Hmm – I think the answer there is a resounding “no”!
Is there any evidence in all of scripture that “and evening and morning were the first day” is a form of “innauguration langauge”??
hmmm – I think the answer there is a resounding “no”!
Is there any evidence at all that the LSU board of directors considers this drivel to be even remotely a form of compliance with the directives they have given regarding the restoration of the idea of teaching actual Adventist positions at an Adventist institution like LSU?
hmm – again I think the answer is a resounding “NO”!
Is there any evidence that the LSU board of directors is willing to take the steps necessary to end the LSU program of non-stop evangelism for evolutionism over the Word of God?
Any evidence at all?
hmmm…
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
May 25, 2010
@Bill Sorensen:
You misunderstand Bill. I’m talking about the ability of an individual to act independently of the Church and yet still be recognized as a representative of the body of believers. I’m basically talking about Church discipline and order…
So, you see, the individual perspective is not to act independent of the will of the body of believers as expressed in the decisions of the governing body of the Church. However, there is still room for the individual to separate from the Church body if that body moves away from what the individual considers to be “the truth”. It is just that in such a case, the individual should not think to continue to be recognized as part of the Church body much less think to remain as a paid representative of that body…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 25, 2010
From the Opening article for this thread
In all fairness while the Recorder article claims that students would be “introduced” to the Adventist view on creation (presumably even the voted Adventist doctrines on origins) – the article never claims that this class wold “promote” the Adventist doctrine on origins – other than making students aware that it exists.
They are using a key element in the science of propaganda – making it “appear” that they are saying or doing something – that technically they have not actually said or claimed.
Any mention of voted Adventist views on creation or Bible understanding – such as was found in the video clips above stating that Adventists in the past have used the Historical Grammatical approach to Bible exegesis and the doctrine on creation, meets the low-level of actual commitment contained in that Recorder article.
The propaganda element they leverage is that the reader is duped by reading an Adentist publication about and Adventist university and therefore they “suppose” that the “LSU will PROMOTE Adventist doctrine on origins in it’s biology class” that is actually missing from the article – is the implied context for the article and is to simply be “assumed” when not stated.
A number of parents to this date have likely been lead down the rosey path by virtue of “silence” from those in LSU administrative, faculty and staff positions who “knew what has going on” and yet “kept silence”.
2Cor 5:10 says “we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body – whether they be good or evil”.
This is not talking about getting more or less “toys in heaven” – it has a scope much closer to reality than that.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Oh would that the “edit” button were still active on this web site.
BobRyan(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Hello Mary, I am not a “theologian”, but only a Bible student. Whether or not the earth was a blob for millions of years, I don’t know. That is not my concern. The issue is the teaching of evolution to our young people. There are others here who may be able to address the Hebrew and Greek, I an not fluent in either, so therefore cannot comment on what others teach regarding Hebrew and Greek translations in the Bible. I am satisfied to study the KJV. It is consistent regarding the important truths given to us. And, if there is any question, we have been given a modern day prophet that has laid out the important matters in such a manner that all may know the truth as it is in Jesus.
I wonder why it is that some would want to call into question the fact that the earth was not created in six days? That is to say, not evolutionists, but others such as what you present that want to interpret this verse in such a manner that the earth was a ball of nothingness. Why is it important to make this an issue?
It seems that those who teach evolution want to make the animals millions of years old as well as the earth. So, if it is carbon dating, I don’t see that anything is gained by this interpretation. The main concern in this discussion is that there were six literal days when God created the things on this earth, including man. And He rested on the seventh day, the Sabbath. This is the truth that has been perverted by the professors at La Sierra and supported by the president and faculty and allowed to continue by the La Sierra Board of Trustees and the Pacific Union.
I am sure that Dr. Pittman can point you to a better teaching regarding the answer you were given. He has been teaching in this area for some time. Richard Myers(Quote)
May 25, 2010
That is a good point. The glaring issue at LSU is that they flatly deny the Genesis 1 account – denying that all life originated on earth in 6 literal days – denying the Law of God itself in Ex 20:8-11, denying the reliability of God they choose instead the “birds came from reptiles” fictions of atheist evolutionists.
And oh – by the way – the Sun and the moon were created on day 4.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Bob Ryan, Well stated! Promoting secular humanistic philosophy is the root of the problem [edit]. Why does it continue at LSU? Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
May 25, 2010
BTW Bob, The “edit” button as well as the “censorship” button are still alive and well on this website! Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
May 25, 2010
I rest my case!!! Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
May 25, 2010
Sean,
Understandable, perhaps, your unfamiliarity with the 1888 period in Adventism, in terms of both its theological as well as church governance patterns, patterns the Almighty seems to endorse by reason of Ellen White’s visionless participation.
Keep in mind, Sean, the GC president boycotted the 1888 GC session (something you might have approved of?) based on his physical debilitation over his frustration not only with Jones and Wagner’s articles in the Signs of the Times, and their growing support in the ‘field’, but specifically after a 40-page letter to EGW pleading for personal and positional support was met with silence.
He telegrams all of the delegates: ‘STAND BY THE OLD LANDMARKS’ And by landmarks, Butler no doubt agreed with those claiming that in Jones’ and Wagoner’s propositions, the very Sabbath itself was at stake in the debate. It was technical. It was brutal. Attempts to muzzle discussion prior to and during the session was heated and utterly unsuccessful. It might be noted that EGW’s appeal was only to civility. Once again, I recommend Tyner’s account in “Searching for the God of Grace.” It is a short chapter. They all are. It is pretty exciting reading, however.
My thought is that whatever is going on or not going on in the classrooms of La Sierra pales by comparison to the run up to 1888. To my knowledge, no one was fired or threatened to be, but a few left their membership behind in 1888. I think that is how it is supposed to work. Bill Garber(Quote)
May 26, 2010
@Bill Garber:
Although I am by no means an expert on the 1888 conference session, I am not wholly ignorant of it or its struggles and implications either. I simply disagree with your interpretation of it as it relates to the current conflict and Mrs. Whites views of such.
Lots of people were let go by the early Church founders and no longer recognized as paid representatives of the SDA Church as an organized body. That’s one of the reasons why James White and J.N. Loughborough struggled so hard to establish a Church government – to unify the Church through the process of internally enforced discipline and government for those freely choosing to be part of the Church.
Note again that one of the main purposes for establishing an organized Church government was to “eliminate uncredentialed ministers” – credentials that were given out in a very selective manner as already noted above in this thread.
I’m sorry, but the even the early Church founders realized that those who are in active opposition to what the Church as a body considered to be “present truth” regarding fundamental pillars of faith, especially after careful consideration by the Church body, can no longer be supported financially by the Church for their efforts.
Remember now, the doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week is based not only on a straightforward reading of the biblical text (clearly indicating what the author was intending to convey), but is also based on what Mrs. White claims was a direct revelation from God showing her in vision the literal nature of the creation week – a week like any other as far as duration is concerned.
This was not the case for the “righteousness by faith” controversy in 1888 as you yourself point out – a controversy that was new to the Church at that time and had yet to be carefully considered by the Church as a body. This is not true of the SDA fundamental doctrine on a literal 6-day creation week – a doctrine which forms the basis for the very name Seventh-day Adventist. Therefore, if one rejects the literal creation week, one must also reject the claim to direct inspiration by Mrs. White and any sort of reasonable appeal to her as an authority of any kind in the interpretation of biblical texts and in Church government…
At this point pretty much everything else unique about the SDA Church, doctrinally speaking, fails to have a reasonable basis as well…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
May 26, 2010
This current event is similar to what happened with John Kellogg. Kellogg had begun teaching pantheism while associated with the Medical work. He had to be stopped and was. The same thing is going on to day. This time it is an attack on Creation, the Sabbath, and Jesus as savior. It has to stop. And those who will not repent, must be let go. Even if that means loosing an institution, as happened back then.
This is not trivial. It must be done now. Allen Roy(Quote)
May 27, 2010
While Christ would lead his servants out into the highways, into the homes of men, to seek and save the lost, Satan is employing his agents to lead souls to ruin. His most effective agents for this work are those whose names are on the church records, but fail of a record in “the Lamb’s book of life.” There are many who are blind leaders of the blind, and leaders and those who are led will come to destruction at last. Satan is ever on the alert that he may lead men into idolatry, that those who profess to love Christ may bow down to rivals of the Lord of heaven. The success which Satan has achieved in leading the religious world into idolatry, has made him bold, and much of what the world calls, “advanced thought” is simply progress into error and darkness. {RH, March 24, 1891 par. 9} Nathan(Quote)
May 28, 2010
Butler understood that if you warp the teaching of Galatians, you would eventually warp the whole bible. In fact, he predicted the demise taking place in the church today because of a warped view of Galatians.
EGW did not endorse everything Jones and Waggoner presented nor their interpretation and application of the law in Galatians. Obviously, many of their conclusions and ideas were false. The both attack the basic message of Adventism. Jones left completely and Waggoner did little better.
If you think it is easy for people to misunderstand and misapply the law, you can be doubly sure it is more likely to happen with a false application of the gospel.
This whole issue of creation vs. evolution is a direct result of the Ford fiasco in the 1980′s when he attack the IJ, EGW, and the bible. All in the name of the gospel. He warped Galatians just like Jones and Waggoner.
“The curse causeless shall not come.” Solomon
The church still follows a slavish attitude concerning the 1888 fiasco with the understanding that somehow Jones and Waggoner were essentially correct and Smith and Butler were wrong. That Jones and Waggoner were agitating an important issue should not be denied. That they had a clear preception of the subject should be denied. Especially in the way they applied its meaning and application.
Now we have creation debates, investigative judgment debates, EGW debates and obviously are soon to be confronted more and more about Sabbath and its meaning, time and application in the New Testament.
Many in Adventism are embracing a type of dispensationalism that is the fruit of a false gospel. When the Spirit and love are placed above the objective written word, we can know apostacy is close behind. And when “have a relationship with Jesus” is placed above sound doctrine it will produce the same results.
The Sabbath may be the final issue that seperates and divides the church. But you can be sure that a false philosophy has preceeded this final conflict and many are embracing a false spirituality.
Those who receive the mark of the beast, will have first embraced the spirit of the beast. And that spirit has made strong inroads into modern Adventism. Apparently few really recognize its infiltration and seem paralized by its deceptive agenda. And fewer yet are willing to put all on the line to defend the faith at all cost.
Truth has never been popular either in the church or the world. Don’t be duped into thinking loyalty to the church is ipso facto loyalty to Christ. Often times it is not. And it is fatal to think so.
Keep the bible faith,
Bill Sorensen Bill Sorensen(Quote)
May 28, 2010
@Bill Sorensen: Thank you for you comment Bill. I always enjoy reading your posts either here or on Spectrum, you stand up for truth whether people like to hear it or not. I like people that are willing to stand up for the truth no matter how much adversity they face…even in their own church. My brother and I are constantly being harassed by fellow adventist’s on our beliefs becuase they feel we are crazy. We were called to stand apart, the majority of the SDA church is not doing what it is was called to do. Instead we are following the ways of the world.(not to mention the fact that most people we come across “claiming to be adventists hate EGW and her writings)
[edit] Nathan(Quote)
May 28, 2010
Concerning legality, ALL educational institutions protect the right of their teachers to control the distribution of class content…to prevent this exact thing–taking snippets and creating theories about it.
The following is an excerpt from the legal opinion as articuated in an article of the Journal of Higher Education:
“Classroom lectures are the product of a professor’s thought and study. They belong solely to him…Any unauthorized recording or use of the materials constitutes a violation of the professor’s copyright at common law and may constitute a form of larceny.
Common law copyrights are recognized in the United States. They are based on the principle that “every man is entitled to the fruits of his own effort, mental as well as physical”…Of course a person may invalidate his common-law interests by assigning [ownership to another entity]. In absence of such alienation, however, he loses his copyright only upon publication. Upon publication, a product becomes part of the public domain unless it is copyrighted according to statutory law.”
If you have permission to post and wish to do so, don’t take down the entire lectures to “edit” them for our convenience…let the entirety of the context speak for itself so people have the benefit of discerning on their own instead of just your pre-selected sound bites. Courtney(Quote)
May 29, 2010
@Geanna Dane:
I would consider your comment to be among the most hateful here. David(Quote)
May 30, 2010
NM previous quote. This is the one I meant.
Well said Courtney! If somebody posts a lecture, I want them to post the whole thing. I don’t want to see “edited” version for my “convenience”. I have a feeling that people on this website are trying to dig as much controversy on LSU as possible. It is very unfortunate.
Ivan(Quote)
June 5, 2010
I support the intent of this website. Employing the copyright law to coverup Evolution teachings which is against the reason why Adventist educational institution are established is morally wrong and an obstruction of evidence. Copyright law is usually applied against monetary damage, unjust enrichment and other punitive damages. The people who volunteer on this website, I assume are not being paid or they do not solicits funds.
We need proofs if there is concern. What this website has offered so far is to protect the eternal salvation of our students and probably provide commercial ads and popularity to the Darwinian professors. These professors could easily find job elsewhere.
May your tribe increase, Sean and the Student who was disciplined for daring to challenge the higher education academic freedom.(in biblical term “deception”). Academic deception.
With much prayer, Lito Guines Lito Guines(Quote)
June 5, 2010
You’re correct, Bob, although I would use the term “Secular Humanism 101.” This is what is being taught at LSU. Ron Stone M.D(Quote)
June 11, 2010
@Jim: The problem about claiming that tuition was paid for the material is problematic also: The professors who, if the charge is true, are teaching contrary to Adventist doctrine are stealing money from an institution they do not support by teaching what supporting teachings they are not supposed to support. Luis(Quote)
June 18, 2010
@Jim: Those who get caught doing wrong always try to cloud the issue. The issue is not permission to post the lectures, it is what will sacrificing tithe paying members do when they see professors at our schools to teaching Biblical and scientific errors? And as a tithe paying church member you better be teaching our fundamental beliefs or go work somewhere else. This is not judgmental it is practical. Oh and by the way I think all of the lectures ought to be publicly available to the stake holders that are funding them. Our schools are in serious trouble and need to reform or the storm that is coming will make Battle Creek look like a camp fire. Cousins BS, MA(Quote)
June 29, 2010
The argument against posting portions of class lectures because it is “stealing,” and students paid good money to attend the classes is just plain silly. Students get academic credit, and that’s what they really paid for, because all the information is available elsewhere for free.
Furthermore, most classes may be “audited” for a nominal fee, without receiving credit.
The issue is more one of “fair use,” as defined by copyright law. The brief videos above appear to fit the criteria. Inge Anderson(Quote)
June 30, 2010
@Bill Garber:
Don’t be patronizing. Babies smile when they pass gas; it’s no sign of wisdom. With the passing of time, some characters only worsen. You will indeed see where all this leads, with deepest regret, unless you embrace God’s foreknowledge and the teachings (not just your favorite) of his prophet. He who sits in judgment of God’s Word, that Word shall judge him the same. Adam Hendron(Quote)
June 30, 2010
@Shane Hilde:
Unethical? Look who’s talking! Turn the tables, will you? It is the PROFESSOR who has breached trust.
“Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops” Luke 12:3 Adam Hendron(Quote)
June 30, 2010
@Bill Garber:
“The Holy Spirit enabled…”? [edit] The Spirit NEVER contradicts Himself. These teachings plainly violate the Bible and SOP. Adam Hendron(Quote)
June 30, 2010
@Jim:
Shane’s a HERO; not a hypocrite.
(I’ll bet that’s your favorite, oft quoted Bible text.)
I suppose you think Ellen White plagiarized, too?
Is that the best you can do–threaten a law suit? Then I guess the REAL issue stands uncontroverted: Professors teaching heresy. [edit]
Adam Hendron(Quote)
June 30, 2010
@Stephen Vicaro:
You believe in creation. What kind? A literal, 6-day creation? With Lazarus and many healings, did Jesus impart life instantly by His Word, or did it require a long time to take effect? …same power at work in the beginning. When He comes in glory, will your corrupted body be changed in the twinkling of an eye, resurrected with a shout, or left to evolve for, say, a thousand years? Adam Hendron(Quote)
July 12, 2010
After watching the videos above of Biol 111A. I have come to othe same conclusion that I came to at the beginning of this debate: It is better to send my child to UCR where they will learn evolution from atheistic evolutionists than to hear this drabble from Adventist professors that parce everything in the Bible to harmonize to their current scientific theory.
At least then I can reasonably explain that the theory of evolution is the off-spring of atheistic thinking and not the contrived massaging of the Holy Word. It is much more difficult to explain why these men parce the words of Genesis 1 and believe in evolution than it is the average UCR professor. Roger Seheult(Quote)
July 13, 2010
Roger, You’re absolutely right. Why spend tens of thousands of dollars to attend a pseudo-SDA university when you can get the same humanistic philosophies a few miles down the road, for thousand LESS.
The profs at UCR and other secular universities will also not try to “reinterpret” the bible in their classes to rationalize their views. Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
July 13, 2010
I can’t speak to UCR, but I took a world literature course from a community college. We were required to read the first two chapters of genesis, and then we listened to a blistering criticism of those chapters. The professor’s voice dripped with mockery and contempt. I could see anger on the faces of some of my classmates, none of whom I knew personally, but there was no point in challenging the views of this know-it-all. It really opened my eyes to critically reevaluate my beliefs, and I had no one at the college to turn to. No one.
At this point in my college career, I have taken a lot of classes at a community college, even more at a major state university, and a good number at several Adventist colleges including La Sierra. Apart from this nasty literature professor, I heard no spiritual talk whatsoever at public universities. I occasionally heard biology faculty speak among themselves about creationists, and they used language that can’t be repeated here. These faculty were nice to me personally, but there’s no question how they felt about my beliefs. I mustered the courage to share my beliefs and they politely listened, but I could tell from their expressions they thought I was an idiot to believe such things. When I pointed out some objectionable material in a geology course that I took, this professor countered me firmly and effectively and made me regret voicing my alternative views. I didn’t have fellow Christians to hang out with or date while at these secular institutions. Yes, they saved me a lot of money, but I felt alone with God much of the time while my academy friends were at Adventist colleges. Many of my secular friends just wanted to party, which was a scene I wanted no part of.
At Adventist colleges, including La Sierra, there was a very warm and supportive Christian atmosphere. Many classes began with prayer. I didn’t hear any teaching of evolution as fact, not even in the few biology classes I took at La Sierra. Most of the students were very sincere Christians who lived their faith and for whom issues of origins were the furthest thing from their mind (and they took no classes in which they could have been “lead astray”). I developed wonderful friendships and dated some terrific Adventists who would have made a fine spouse had I chosen to go that direction. I went to church with my friends and could talk about deep religious issues much more pertinent than six days and 6,000 years. No one in my group of friends though much of anything about six days and 6,000 years, except that some of these are now quite angry about the treatment of La Sierra by many of you (word gets around).
I don’t understand why anyone would call for the closure of an Adventist college or even to suggest that students would be better off going to a secular school. There are many individuals like me who greatly valued their experiences at Adventist colleges. Most students never take a course where they are confronted with issues of origins. Origins is not the holy grail of Christianity and should not be for Adventism. Some of you seek to destroy the many positive experiences of thousands of young Adventists who are completely unaffected by the evolution-creation debate. I was impressed by what Dr. Osborn had to say. Recent studies suggest that relationships, not doctrines, are most likely to help retain young people in the church. I totally believe that. Rather than forcing faculty to sign statements of doctrinal belief, perhaps a better approach would be to screen faculty who understand how to relate to students and encourage their faith building. I took classes from quite a few such faculty.
I don’t understand the fixation on this one issue and the hatred toward an entire school based on the unfortunate actions of a very few individuals. Thank you for reading this with an open mind.
In His arms,
GD Geanna Dane(Quote)
July 14, 2010
On the other hand – the evidence of a pro-evolution scorched-bible policy in both the religion and biology departments at LSU is pretty hard to ignore as we saw here.
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/lsu-cant-deny-the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-16275 BobRyan(Quote)
July 14, 2010
On the other hand – many LSU students know nothing about this “evidence” and are completely unaffected by it. Geanna Dane(Quote)
July 14, 2010
@Geanna Dane:
So, no big deal right? Since most are not affected nothing needs to be done for those that are?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
July 14, 2010
I didn’t say either, Sean. I respectfully pointed out that it was unnecessarily cruel, in my humble opinion, to shut down a university (as some have argued), ship it to Europe (as one individual suggested), or tell parents to send their children elsewhere when so many students have no exposure to the lies and theft that you have diligently brought to our attention and receive blessings from an Adventist college that are very difficult to get from a secular college.
Why is it that I can’t say even one acceptable thing here? No one should object to anything I’ve written in the past few posts above this one. Can’t you simply say, “Thank you Geanna for sharing your experiences and views. You raise some valid points.” Geanna Dane(Quote)
July 14, 2010
Exactly Sean. You are probably aware that this is an extremely common argument, “Not everyone is affected, harmed, doing this, etc.” The idea that nothing should be done until “everyone” is affected or whatever is totally ridiculous! Simply a way to avoid doing anything at all. Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
July 14, 2010
Sean,
Thank you for your concerns about the education of Adventist young people and for trying to find solutions to save them from losing their faith. We need them and they need us.
Thank you for attempting to share with Adventists your understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports our belief in God, the Bible, Genesis, 6 days, 6,000 years, the spirit of prophecy, the nonexistance of the flying spaghetti monster, and the like. It’s refreshing to know that faith is not enough.
Thank you for bringing the importance of “transparency” and “on the church’s dime” to our attention. Your concepts are like manna to the faithful.
Thank you for pointing out individuals and institutions by name, and making clear to us how they continue to undermine the fundamental values and beliefs of our church and how our administrators have utterly failed to correct them. They must surely be a part of the much-anticipated omega apostasy.
Thank you for taking so much time to correct those of us who disagree with you. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.
Thank you for adhering so vigorously to what you believe to be God’s will for your life. We admire your fidelity to your stated positions and family and spiritual values.
Thank you for defending the faith of those who do not understand or agree with your views but still believe in many of the same spiritual truths that you do. We can only hope that they too can find their way to the kingdom of God.
Thank you for being so patient and respectful toward those who hold to different views than you do. Your example will perhaps inspire these individuals in ways that only God can understand.
May God bless you abundantly. Geanna Dane(Quote)
July 14, 2010
Geanna, Your idea that because there may be some “good things” going on at LSU, we should not continue to press for correction of what many consider to be “bad things” is not logical.
Should we wait until LSU is totally “bad” until we correct something? I certainly hope not! Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
July 14, 2010
@ Geanna (I’m belatedly responding to a statement on May 16, since the principle is still relevant)
This is written to demonstrate that there should be no division among God’s people because a divided house will fall and that pleases Satan.
The corollary, judging by other statements by Deanna, would presumably be that God should have acceded to Satan’s requests so that the angelic host would not be “rent apart.”
Is this what you mean, Geanna?
If not, how is your illustration of the war in heaven applicable to the current situation, in your view? (I don’t deny that it’s applicable, but your manner of referencing doesn’t seem to fit the context.) Inge Anderson(Quote)
July 14, 2010
@Inge Anderson:
I think Geanna considers Shane and I to be the divisive ones. She doesn’t seem to consider that perhaps the actions of LSU are divisive. Several LSU professors in both science and religion departments have been in direct long-standing and open rebellion against the stated goals and ideals of the SDA Church. Despite the concerted efforts of many to privately address and turn the course of LSU, there has been strong resistence and even outright denials of the obvious truth of the situation. Yet, Geanna pins the blame for division, not on LSU, but on those who are striving for increased transparency from our schools and to correct the fundamental division that is already there and has been tearing the Church apart for decades…
I’m sorry Geanna, but if you really value the experience you have had in SDA schools, as compared to your public school education, you should be supporting us on this issue – not attacking us for producing increased transparency here. After all, without some sort of resistance to what is taking place in schools of ours like LSU, there would be no school for you to attend that would be significantly better than the secular schools you attended where professors were obviously scornful of your “ludicrous” beliefs in the literal Genesis narrative – to include a literal creation week.
This very same thing has long been taking place at LSU, especially in the upper division science classes. For decades now LSU science professors have openly scoffed at the literal SDA interpretation of the Genesis account – publicly discounting such a nonsense position as equivalent to believing in something like a “flat Earth”…
And you’re attacking us for our efforts to maintain what you admittedly value so much?!
I believe your focus and passion are misplaced…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
July 14, 2010
@Geanna Dane:
If you agree that this issue is important and something needs to be done to correct what is being promoted at LSU, promoted as a direct attack on the clearly stated Pillars of SDA Faith, what is your recommendation to solve the problem? I’m very curious to hear what you would recommend…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
July 14, 2010
I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me. It doesn’t matter how nice or agreeable I am, everything gets interpreted from an extreme point of view that I am seldom able to anticipate. If I have misplaced anything, it has been my time spent here. I agree on many issues about the message, but I don’t share the personal vendetta and punitive approach that others articulate here.
I wrote a very nice, very sincere reply to Sean, thanking him for the many positive things he does for the church. There was no anger or sarcasm in the message. I don’t know why it has not been approved for posting yet, but he is welcome to treat and interpret the message as he wishes. I’ve made my peace and I am finished for good.
Good-bye Geanna Dane(Quote)
July 14, 2010
@Geanna Dane:
You really don’t see how anyone who has read many of your posts would reasonably interpret much of your reply here (@Geanna Dane) as being the least bit sarcastic?
Anyway, all the best to you. Again, my father remembers you and your family fondly from your time at BMA and wishes you well. I think he even baptized you if I am remembering correctly?
I just want to say before you go that, if nothing else, you certainly got people thinking and talking on this forum. ; )
Sean Sean Pitman(Quote)
July 15, 2010
@Geanna Dane:
Actually, Geanna, I believe you’ve been good for this blog. It gets boring when everyone is in total agreement. In a discussion, mind sharpens mind, and, if we are open to it, we can clarify our own thinking in the process.
You’ve asked some good questions and brought up some valid points. Please don’t take it personally when we don’t just swallow them whole.
As for your note to Sean – I read it first without seeing your name, and thought that someone was offering high praise, not altogether undeserved. And then I saw your name at the top and figured that it could be read very differently too.
You’ve used sarcasm in the past, so it’s really hard to know when you appear to say something out of character with past statements and actually mean it.
We’ve grown rather fond of you here and will really miss you if you leave…
Heaps of blessings,
Inge Inge Anderson(Quote)
July 15, 2010
BobRyan said:
Thus pointing to the problem that LSU professors themselves admit to –
So this places biology and religion majors at LSU at “highest risk”.
It places other students “at risk” only as they are required to take courses in those departments as “electives” and then only to the extent that professors in those departments feel inclined to “indoctrinate for evolutionism” even in the 101 and 201 level general coursework. So who knows how often that might be?
@Geanna Dane:
True – many of the art, history, business, chemistry, math, education majors etc could be oblivious to what is being taught in the biology and religion departments if they do their best to avoid those departments outside of electives, do not talk to other students who are neck-deep into those departments and are not overly influenced by the much more prevalent “I am not an evolutionist but evolutionism is no big deal after all we teach that it is fact here, nobody should care if it is promoted by our universities or not” crowd.
Ellen White has an interesting comment on the general idea.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
July 15, 2010
Thus if we had a religion department teaching the immortality of the soul, praying to the dead, infant baptism and straight Calvinist arbitrary selection — one “could” argue that since only the upper division classes included this information ‘it is no big deal’.
If LSU biology science departments entered into religious areas other than origins and “belief” in evolutionism, embracing the way that Tesla combined spiritualism with his “science” for example — but confined that apostasy to just upper division courses – we “could argue” that most studenst at LSU would not be affected by it directly so ‘take no action’.
But if administrators really took such a hands-off no-concern attitude towards their job – then soon we would have an LSU goal of “being the best public university that Adventist tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy” and nothing more.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)