Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

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.

The following is a short 3 minute expert from the lecture showing Dr. John Webster explaining how the Genesis account shouldn’t be taken too literally.

.

Later on, during this same lecture, Dr. Warren Harvey Johns of Loma Linda University, concludes his final thoughts regarding Genesis along the lines of “temple theology” where the creation week described in the Bible is simply a culminating or inaugural week celebrating the vast periods of creation that came before (similar to a graduation ceremony).

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…

[The rest of the video of these two lectures has been pulled until it can be properly edited to meet the requirements of Fair Use Law.]

Syllabus by louiebishop64

Please follow and like us:
6
271
37

229 thoughts on “Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

  1. “Geanna, you seem to be attempting to exhort and preach greater faithfulness to God and righteousness in action. OK, perhaps some speak too strongly at times on this forum. But, doesn’t it seem that you are trying to take the spec out of your brothers eye when you have a beam in yours?”

    I have a huge beam in my eyes. I admit it. God is not saying that I am subscribing to and encouraging “the worst kind of infidelity.” YOU ARE THE ONE WHO JUST SAID IT. And yes, I expect to be saved because I believe God forgives me of my sins, all of them, and can remove the huge beam in my eyes.

    I’m glad that you so readily see the beam in the eyes of others and can identify their infidelity. I’m even more glad that you have no reason to tremble yourself. Good for you!




    0
    View Comment
  2. Funny how all these professors at LSU have an enormous beam in their eyes and because all you people apparently have a smaller beam you feel obligated to set them straight. I have not seen these professors go online and say “so and so is a sinner, a thief, a lyar, and commits the worst kind of infidelity.” Every one of you has a sin that you do not want broadcast all over the internet. But if its okay for Christians to treat people this way through public humiliation and denigration, then what a wonderful place websites like these are. SHARPEN THE KNIVES! GOD LOVES THIS WORK!




    0
    View Comment
  3. I attended LSU stating in 2001 and noticed how the schools main focus had shifted from educating with an Adventist focus to educating with a money focus.

    A few examples:

    1. In my freshmen English class, one of the books we were required to read (can’t remember the title at this time) had many curse words within the text. I was very upset that an Adventist college would have that type of language required for an English class. Now you may think I am just a sheltered Adventist that only has gone to an Academy then right into college. This is far from the truth, I attended public school form 7-12 then went into the military. After the experiences in my life I noticed I was looking for something, something more Adventist focused. So when I went to LSU looking, needing, desiring that focus I was very upset at what I had found. **Note, after talking with the teacher about the book and how I couldn’t and wouldn’t read it, she gave me another book to read.

    2. One of the biology teachers (really wish not to say) I know is an Atheist (I have talked with him/her as well know some of his/her relatives). Now, it doesn’t take away him/her as a person, very nice, always willing to help. He would be greatly suited at A public school system. HOWEVER, why would an Adventist college hire him/her? MONEY. This person has name recognition, famous, people have heard about him/her. I don’t blame him/her for working there, LSU is to blame to keeping them on staff. If he/she isn’t teaching the beliefs of the SDA’s, or doesn’t want to then HE/SHE SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING AT AN ADVENTIST COLLEGE. **Note** I have meet other teachers at LSU during my time there that have the same belief/non belief that this teacher did. So this is not just an isolated incident.

    My final thought. After graduating LSU and going on to public/non sda colleges, I look at the price of what I paid at LSU and think that I was cheated. All that money and all I got a washed out, faded Adventist education, if you could even call it that. I wanted to go to an Adventist college and didn’t care the price becuase I thought it was going to be worth it, I was wrong. I would have gotten near the same Adventist teachings if I went to an public university.

    So this type of washed out Adventist education at LSU has been here for sometime. Finally there has been some sort of moment to change things. To get things back to focus on God and his teachings. I pray that this will lead to change things, until that time, I make sure to tell anyone who might be thinking about going to LSU my experiences and what I believe the schools main focused is.




    0
    View Comment
  4. @Carl

    Don’t be so cross, Carlton. If, as you say, it is “simply impossible” to explain the fossil record within ten thousand years, please tell me how it is “simply possible” for DINOSAUR BONES to have SOFT TISSUES, such as blood vessels. Yes, such bones have been found. No one knows how soft tissues would still be preserved after at least 65 million years. Do you?

    Two separate articles (and there are others):
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5717/1852b

    Pictures of some of the tissue found in the bones:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol307/issue5717/images/large/307_1952_F3.jpeg

    If science is your god, your god is confused. Of course, it’s only a matter of time until scientists find a way to either discredit the soft-tissue find, or explain away its significance.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  5. La Sierra has itself become a fulfillment of Jesus’ own prophecy regarding the condition at the end of the world. Jesus stated that the last days would be “as the days of Noah.” What was it like in Noah’s day?

    Ellen White gives us the following description of Noah’s day.

    Thus it was that the wise men of this world talked of science and the fixed laws of nature, and declared that there could be no variation in these laws, and that this message of Noah could not possibly be true. The talented men of Noah’s time set themselves in league against God’s will and purpose and scorned the message and the messenger that He had sent. . . . Noah could not controvert their philosophies, or refute the claims of science so called; but he could proclaim the word of God; for he knew it contained the infinite wisdom of the Creator, and, as he sounded it everywhere, it lost none of its force and reality because men of the world treated him with ridicule and contempt. {RC 323.4}
    Noah did not mix the soft, pleasing deceptions of Satan with his message. He did not utter the sentiment of many of his day who declared that God was too merciful to do such a terrible work. Many asserted that God would grant the wicked another season of probation; but Noah did not indulge them in the faintest hope that those who neglected the present opportunity, who rejected the present message, would be favored with another opportunity of salvation. . . . He knew the power of God, and realized that God would fulfill His word. His fear of God did not separate him from God, but served to draw him closer to Him, and to lead him to pour out his soul in earnest supplication.–Signs of the Times, April 18, 1895. {RC 323.5}

    The testimony of Noah, in regard to the judgments that were to fall upon the antediluvian world, was not received by the people as the message of God. The servant of God gave to the transgressors of the law of Jehovah, a warning which announced that in one hundred and twenty years the world would be destroyed by a flood. His warning was scoffed at, ridiculed, and rejected. The preacher of righteousness was proclaimed to be an ignorant fanatic, who had no knowledge of the laws of nature. The wise men of that time argued that it was an impossibility for water to rise high enough to deluge the world. They reasoned from scientific principles, that the world could not be destroyed, and that no attention should be paid to the predictions of Noah. This philosophy, or science falsely so called, exalted the law above the Lawgiver, and things created above the Creator. {RH, September 25, 1888 par. 1}

    Noah stood up nobly in the midst of a world who were disregarding God and were indulging in all manner of extravagant dissipation which led to crimes and violence of every kind. Noah the faithful preacher of righteousness unflinchingly and courageously preached to that generation that a flood of water was to deluge the world because of the unsurpassed wickedness of its inhabitants. He warned that generation to repent, to believe the warning message and find refuge in the ark. What a spectacle to the world as Noah stands forth connected with God, by his obedience in contrast to the world. Numbers was not on the side of right. The world was arrayed against God’s justice and his laws. Men of science and of philosophy used their talents and abilities to oppose the message of God. Satan, when tempting Eve to disobey God, said to her, “Ye shall not surely die.” Great men, worldly, honored, and wise men, repeat the same story. “Ye shall not surely die,” and that God’s threatenings are for the purpose of intimidating and will never be verified. You need not be alarmed, such an event as the world’s being destroyed by God who made it, and punishing the beings he has made will never take place for this is not in accordance with science and philosophy. Be at peace, fear not, Noah is crazy, he is the wildest fanatic. {ST, December 20, 1877 par. 5}

    The fact that most people in the world today mock the Creation story, and call its proponents “the lunatic fringe,” in verity fulfills Jesus’ prophecy. It’s just too bad that La Sierra is happy to help fulfill it!

    In the time of the Flood nearly all the inhabitants of the world thought that they were right and that Noah was wrong. They claimed that they knew more than that faithful servant of God, and thus closed their ears to words of truth, and darkness came upon them. There were those then, as today who explain away the truth by false science. They branded Noah as a fanatic. They explained to the people the foolishness of Noah’s statement that a rain would come upon the earth when no signs of such had ever existed. God’s message was to come to them through Noah, but they laughed and mocked at his words, and said, Does he not speak in parables? But their unbelief did not prevent the Flood, and they finally drank the waters that covered the earth. We do not want to be like them. {3MR 90.1}

    The majority was wrong then, and the majority is wrong now. But look at this next statement. It is especially sobering. What happens when Noah is called a crazy fanatic (lunatic fringe)?

    And when the great men and the wise men had reasoned before the world of the impossibility of its destruction by water, and the fears of the people were quieted, and all regarded Noah’s prophecy as the veriest delusion, and looked upon Noah as a crazy fanatic, God’s time had come….{ST, January 3, 1878 par. 8}

    We are on the very borders of Heaven, folks.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  6. @Erik:

    No one knows how soft tissues would still be preserved after at least 65 million years. Do you?

    Of course not. However, if you read the links that you posted, it’s not so clear that the original finding will hold up.

    But new research challenges that finding and suggests that the supposed recovered dinosaur tissue is in reality biofilm – or slime.

    “I believed that preserved soft tissues had been found, but I had to change my opinion,” said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington. “You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm.”

    So, there will be a lot more testing and the science people will sort it out. It looks like the initial report came out before the results were really conclusive. That’s happened before and will happen again.

    Incidently, there is an explanation for how dinosaur fossils have ended up in Antarctica. So far, no one has figured out how it could have happened not more than 10,000 years ago. If you know of a possible suggestion, there are many scientists who would be really excited to hear about it.

    Of course, it’s only a matter of time until scientists find a way to either discredit the soft-tissue find …

    Yup. And, it kind of makes sense. It really did seem unlikely even for something that was only 10,000 years old.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Carl,

    I know how dinosaur bones could be spread to any part of earth’s surface, just the same as I know how we can find coal beds today that are hundreds of feet thick. Do you know how much organic matter that requires, and what kind of conditions are required to make coal? (Not to mention all of that oil underground and undersea.) There’s a reason, by the way, that scientists refer to such energy sources as “fossil fuels.”

    One-word Hint: Deluge

    It’s too bad that at La Sierra, they don’t believe the Bible means what it says. It’s worse that they would teach falsehoods as being “better” than Bible evidence.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  8. I hope that it will be abundantly clear that there is nothing “Judgmental” (in a negative sense) about raising public protest to a public matter that involves the eternal welfare of untold thousands of Adventist young people. It would be a sin against heaven, and a sin against our young people to keep our mouths quiet about this undermining of the Faith of God’s people. Satan is out to destroy the faith of every Adventist Youth before they ever take up their position as bearers of the truth. This was how he moved to destroy Jesus when he was yet a baby. If the devil can destroy us early, then he succeeds. That’s why he’s infiltrated our colleges through false teachers…all he can do to destroy the truth. If we dared to do so foolish of a thing as to hold our tongues, then God would require their blood at our hands(Ezek. 3:18). And woe to any man who destroys the faith of one of God’s little ones. It were “better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the depths of the sea” (Luke 17:2).

    In a time of war (which we are in-Spiritual combat until Christ comes) only an extremely confused person or a Traitor would tell the watchmen not to sound alarm at the obvious advances of the enemy.

    God says, “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence…” (Is. 62:6).

    Satan may call it “Judgmental” to speak out against his wicked schemes, but God calls it faithfulness. He says, “Cry loud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet and show my people their transgression…” (Is. 58:1).

    Let the sound of alarm never cease, until every ear is alert to the enemies advances, and all firmly take their stand to the battle at hand! I would say to Satan, call it whatever you want…”Judgmental”…if that makes you happy, but we will not cease to speak the truth until every ear in Zion heeds the sounding alarm!




    0
    View Comment
  9. @Shane Hilde:

    This is not the appropriate thread for a science debate.

    If this site is not willing to educate its readers on both sides of the argument, you have chosen the wrong title. You provide a place for people to speak no matter how much or little they know, and then you prevent the introduction of relevant information.

    The average SDA knows almost nothing about geology becasue we’ve been afraid of it for many years. Now, people get on this forum and pool their ignorance and you come in and say that’s the way it should stay.

    For years, I have feared that Adventism is intellectually dead. No one has been willing to discuss our lack of scientific evidence for a recent Creation. And, here you are making sure that nothing will change.




    0
    View Comment
  10. I just watched the first presentation with Fritz Guy. I wouldn’t say there’s anything particularly wrong with what he’s saying about God giving us evidence for our faith (as quoted in Steps to Christ)–certainly there’s nothing wrong about that. It’s not wrong to say that we allow our beliefs to be re-evaluated by Scripture. The truth will not lose any of it’s glory as we continue to study it out. And it is true that the Bible is our creed and the statements at the General conference my be amended if needed to more accurately reflect the Bible’s teaching and our belief about it. His notion of “Present Truth” may not be entirely accurate as far as I understand it though. The phrase “Present truth” comes from 2 Peter 1:12. It does not imply that the truth is liquid and always changing as we might see fit (as some may be purporting), but rather, that it has a direct relationship to time. It’s like saying, the “Present time” is 6pm. Three hours later the “present time” will be 9pm. The present truth of Noah’s day was that a flood was coming. If you said that today you’d be about 4,000 something years too late. The present truth in the Apostles day was that the Messiah had just showed up–now the system of animal sacrifice had been fulfilled. The present truth of 1844 was that the heavenly judgment had started…we are still living in this present truth. The Bible says, “In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman…” (Gal. 4:4). The fact is, the term “Present truth” runs according to God’s time clock and tells us what hour of this earth’s history we are living in. It does not however mean or imply, “this was popular for that crowd then, this is popular for our crowd now” “We all like this, they all liked that…”. Present truth is not subjective to whatever we feel we want to believe as the truth. Present truth is an objective truth that relates to the time of history according to God’s clock. It’s not about the changing popular beliefs, it’s about the current status of reality to which God has determined the bounds. We are to understand and live by the “Present truth” that God has made specific to our generation. Present truth is not the so called popular consensus of our day. This is what I fear has perhaps been advocated here in this lecture (forgive me if I’m wrong, but I’m see people misapply the concept in this way).

    When people start using these ideas to say that we need to perhaps change our doctrines they really go out on a very thin edge, and are pushing ideas (without being too specific as to what they are suggesting) that prepare the way for people un-knowledgeable about our faith to throw up objection to what really is the truth, when it doesn’t suit their fancy or meet their very limited understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.

    Some who wish to make our doctrines more liquid to meet their personal understanding or that of the evolutionary science community may quote a few of sister White’s statements to get some ground for their radically different ideas from our faith. This is as Satan would have it. Lies mingled with some kind of truth can make his deceptions all the more powerful. Those who do this, often fail to quote the other statements of sister white, such as, “It is as certain that we have the truth as that God lives; and Satan, with all his arts and hellish power, cannot change the truth of God into a lie. While the great adversary will try his utmost to make of none effect the word of God, truth must go forth as a lamp that burneth.”{Maranatha p.127.3}

    “Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. God’s people are now to have their eyes fixed on the heavenly sanctuary, where the final ministration of our great High Priest in the work of the judgment is going forward,–where He is interceding for His people.–Review and Herald, Nov. 27, 1883.” {Evangelism, p. 223.1}

    Sister White states clearly that these Pillars of our faith are to stand no test, but the Bible. “If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it, for it is foolish to become set in our ideas, and think that no one should interfere with our opinions. Let everything be brought to the Bible; for it is the only rule of faith and doctrine.” {ST, February 6, 1893 par. 6}

    Scientific consensus of our day is to hold absolutely no molding power upon our faith in these great Bible teachings (See Great Controversy, p.595.1).

    I fear these professors to be insinuating just such a notion…as that we ought to change our current biblical beliefs to make some room for the ever changing evolutionary theories of modern science. No thanks! Divine revelation will take no backseat to erroneous human and satanic assumptions about our origins.




    0
    View Comment
  11. @Carl:

    If this site is not willing to educate its readers on both sides of the argument, you have chosen the wrong title. You provide a place for people to speak no matter how much or little they know, and then you prevent the introduction of relevant information.

    The average SDA knows almost nothing about geology becasue we’ve been afraid of it for many years. Now, people get on this forum and pool their ignorance and you come in and say that’s the way it should stay.

    For years, I have feared that Adventism is intellectually dead. No one has been willing to discuss our lack of scientific evidence for a recent Creation. And, here you are making sure that nothing will change.

    Your statements are false. I’ve discussed your assumed “lack of evidence” with you extensively already. I’ve presented you with numerous examples that necessitate a dramatic reduction in the assumed age of life on Earth compared to the mainstream perspective, to include evidences that strongly suggest that life on Earth is extremely young indeed – even less than 10,000 years.

    If you want to present your “scientific evidence” to the contrary, countering the SDA perspective on origins, you can do so under a different thread in this forum that is more in line with presenting such a discussion – as in the thread dealing with the presentation that David Asscherick and I gave on what we consider to be evidences in favor of a literal interpretation of the Biblical account:

    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  12. Erik, You got it right! The Pacific Union Conference and its leaders have done nothing to correct these matters. We are in the “days of Noah” and they go around as if nothing is wrong. This is why this website has been formed. Somebody has got to stand up for God’s Truth!




    0
    View Comment
  13. One thing that stuck me was the vast difference between what passes for a lecture in a biology class at La Sierra in 2009, and what constituted a lecture in my biology classes at PUC 40 years ago. Back then the time was spent discussing biology, not philosophy or Hebrew chronological methods. And no one questioned the literal interpretation of Genesis, either. There was no need to. Science has discovered nothing that contradicts what we read in Genesis 1-11.

    I submit that too many modern biology teachers are cowards. They’re more concerned with being laughed at than at arriving at truth. The evidence against evolution and its chronology is overwhelming. But such evidence is usually ignored or explained away.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Wally, in fairness, this was not a biology class but a special seminar for incoming freshman on science and religion.

    What happened was that when this story broke a little over a year ago, with David Asscherick’s open letter, one of the ways that LaSierra reacted was to say, “okay, we’ll have a special seminar for freshamn where we help them to integrate what they will learn in science class [Darwinism] with their Adventist background.”

    Well, we’ve now seen that LaSierra has used the new seminar class as just another opportunity to undermine traditional Adventism and inculcate the idea that Adventism must change its views on origins, must change its “paradigm” of origins, and must change its biblical hermeneutic.

    This issue has been public for over a year, and yet LaSierra is still openly in rebellion against traditional Adventism. I’m starting to worry that I overestimated the extent of support for traditional Adventist views and underestimated the power of the Seventh-day Darwinians in the Pacific Union. I fear the church is headed toward something like civil war on this and other issues.




    0
    View Comment
  15. David Read said…..

    “This issue has been public for over a year, and yet LaSierra is still openly in rebellion against traditional Adventism. I’m starting to worry that I overestimated the extent of support for traditional Adventist views and underestimated the power of the Seventh-day Darwinians in the Pacific Union. I fear the church is headed toward something like civil war on this and other issues.”

    Like I said, David, LSU will thumb its nose at the church and do as they please. I am surprised that people seem to think otherwise.

    The church has no power or authority over LSU. They know it, and so does LSU.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  16. The second video lecture advocating the days of creation being days of “inauguration” rather days involving (creative) “initiation” is really nothing but evolution in disguish. How cunning.




    0
    View Comment
  17. How long shall we continue to donate tithe dollars to the conferences who will enable LSU? Is there any tangible tact that we can take to stop what is going on? These are the questions that have crossed my mind – what is going on must be stopped – there are no two ways about it.




    0
    View Comment
  18. We could wonder why God allows all the rebellion and duplicity in the church today. There is a good reason that we sometimes do not discern. It is a parallel to the rebellion in heaven. No doubt at least some of the angels who understood the issues of Lucifer’s position asked God why He did not simply either destroy him or at least expel him from heaven sooner than He did.

    There were many in heaven who still did not see the results clear enough to make a viable choice. So God tolerated Satan’s work longer than some would have. Sin must run its course until all who want to see and know will be able to. All misunderstanding must be avoided so there will be no loose ends to deal with in the future.

    Just so, we must also be patient as many of the issues are still not discerned by all and some would not understand the end result of many things going on in the church today. What I see clearly, and you may see as well, is not so easily discerned by others. Of course, some don’t know and don’t care. Nothing can be done about that. Some are so fully deceived all of heaven could not persuade them otherwise. But we can not know which is which and who can and will eventually see the light.

    With this in mind, we must continue to protest and expose false teaching on any and all levels. And if and when you do this, you will be accused of being devisive, just as Lucifer accused the loyal angels who would not join his rebellion.

    With this in mind, it is somewhat easier to tolerate the issues knowing God will eventually seperate the sheep and goats. No doubt life circumstances by way of persecution will define the loyal vs. the dis-loyal. But don’t look for Rome and apostate Protestantism to be the leaders in this persecution. It will start in the church just as it always has historically. It was always God’s professed people who eventually exposed themselves as being His worst enemy.

    Not only did the Jews kill and persecute Jesus, they were the main force in attacking the church and plagued Christanity for years. It was not pagan Rome that began the persecution. They picked it up years later and carried it forward often under the instigation of men like Alexander the copper smith who was a Jew that was instrumental in Paul’s final arrest and final death.

    Thus, EGW has told us the worst enemies of the truth are apostate SDA’s who work earnestly to destroy those who defend true bible Christanity. The point is this, don’t look for persecution from without before you look for persecution within. Stand firm and keep the faith. Defend the word and you will hear the dragon roar, and it won’t be Rome.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  19. Bill, I think this answers your question as to why God would allow this… It is because we are lukewarm and happy to rest upon our lees in the final hours of earth’s history.

    “God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold. God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear.”

    This quote along with others that have been presented in this thread thus far (for example, the days of Noah) clearly point to the fact that we are, indeed, on the borders of Canaan and ought to diligently study the Scriptures for ourselves to know what we believe, as the above quote states. Brothers and sisters, this is no practice test, we are headed for the real thing.

    Lee Folkman




    0
    View Comment
  20. Virtually every one of you considers it fact that the speakers are undermining Adventist beliefs. But is your opinion a fact or is it a hypothesis?

    Geanna,

    I am really trying to understand your view. I mean this as gently as I can possibly state it. It appears that you really don’t know what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches at all. These professors would not just openly state, “The Bible cannot be trusted” or “Science is superior to the Bible.” However, everything they appear to be standing for undermines what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy teach about origins.

    Geanna, if you understood the original, you would recognize the counterfeit. You have not gotten a Christian education in the Biology department. And according to Fritz Guy’s demonstration you obviously have not gotten a Christian education in the Theology department either. This is not obvious to you because you do not have the foundation of the truth to guide you. I’m afraid my statements will only anger you more. I am sorry that you can’t see through the deception that LSU has fed you.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Carl,

    We don’t change our Biblical beliefs on theories based in scientific interpretation. The interpretations change too frequently for that.

    If you really find no satisfaction in what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes, then why are you one? I am certainly NEVER going to join the Masons, the Harry Potter’s Fan Club or the Communist party because I am diametrically opposed to what they stand for. Why would anyone insist on forcing themselves to be a part of an organization that it is fundamentally opposed to at its foundation, and then try to change it? That seems illogical for a group of people who claim to be so logically based.

    The SDA Church is founded upon the Bible as the infallible Word of God, the Atonement of Christ as the solution to the death problem that our sins brought upon us, and that God is the Creator of all things Who can make something out of nothing without the necessity of the laps of time. No of these beliefs can cohabitate with theistic evolution.

    Carl, please explain to me how we are saved if we are to accept geological interpretations that originated with atheists? Yes, it matters!




    0
    View Comment
  22. It is quite telling that the Ellen G. White quotes used in the videos left out critical portions of the quotation, which would refute the theories being put forward. Here are some quotes which came from the E. G. White Notes for this quarter’s Adult Sabbath School Lessons (very timely, I might add):

    Sunday, May 16: The Creation
    Here is the portion quoted:

    In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God, for both have the same Author. A correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony. Truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is harmonious with itself in all its manifestations.

    (Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258)

    Now, here is the following few paragraphs (not quoted in the video, to my memory):

    But the mind not enlightened by God’s Spirit will ever be in darkness in regard to His power. This is why human ideas in regard to science so often contradict the teaching of God’s word.

    The Work of Creation

    The work of creation can never be explained by science. What science can explain the mystery of life?
    The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter.

    And, from Education, Chapter 14, “Science and the Bible”, pp. 128, 129:
    (quoted in the video)

    Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.

    (Left unquoted in the videos)

    They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works. {Ed 128.1}
    Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years.

    Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word?




    0
    View Comment
  23. Carl, please explain to me how we are saved if we are to accept geological interpretations that originated with atheists? Yes, it matters! 

    The key word is “interpretations.” Thankfully we have an arbiter which is not of private interpretation as it is so clear on this much mentioned subject. (2 Peter 1:20-21; Gen. 1:31; Ex. 20:11; Rev. 4:11 etc. etc.)

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  24. Warren, thank you for looking up the passage from the book “Education,” p. 128 (first paragraph of chapter entitled “Sciene and the Bible”). If you read the paragraph in context with the next two paragraphs, not to mention the rest of the chapter, it is clear that Ellen White explicitly forecloses any accommodation with long ages geology or Darwinism.




    0
    View Comment
  25. I am sure some of you either read or post on some of the liberal forums like A-today and Spectrum. Here is where people get massive doses of affirmation in attacks on the historic SDA faith and the Bible. And yet these same ministries will have a booth at the GC sessions.

    If the church leaders have no will nor intent to stop these ministries and actually support them by letting them have an influence at the GC sessions, then we can say “small wonder the church is becoming so weak in evangelism”.

    Evolution is only one error being supported. [edit]

    The church should not be a clearing house for every wind of doctrine and error the devil can advocate and present to the church as a viable explanation of what is truth. The church of today is to a large degree a product of the Dr. Ford rebellion and his false gospel he advocated and his attack on EGW and her ministry.

    After the 1980’s it was pluralism and academic freedom with a political agenda that emulates the world and not the word of God. LSU is a product and the fruit of the administrations failure to clearly define doctrine and discipline those who refused to follow the Bible and EGW on basic SDA and Bible truth.

    It started with a basic attack on the Investigative judgment and soon branched out into every fundamental teaching of the Bible. In many cases, SDA’s hardly know more than what day to go to church on. And even this is being undermined by the present spirituality.

    Are we really preparing people for the true second coming, or, the antichrist who precedes this event? This is no radical question in light of the present spirituality in much of Adventism. Where we have seen hundreds abandon the faith in the last few decades, we may well see thousands in a short period of time follow the same path. [edit]

    No doubt, we are near the end.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  26. Stephen,

    You wrot “everything they appear to be standing for undermines what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy teach about origins”.. The first 3 of the 4 speakers in the videos said next to nothing about origins, particularly the first 2. Of course, most of you want to believe otherwise.

    You also wrote ” It appears that you really don’t know what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches at all” and “Geanna, if you understood the original, you would recognize the counterfeit. You have not gotten a Christian education in the Biology department.” What? I was taught and believe in the 28 FBs. Counterfeit? What exactly do I understand incorrectly? I’m intrigued by your knowledge of my understanding! Do explain!

    To be clear I am not attending LSU. I did take a quarter’s worth of classes some years ago including some from their biology department and heard nothing about evolution/creation issues. Guess I was in the wrong classes which seems strange fora department suposedly totally commmitted to indoctrinating evolutionary theory.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Professor Kent emailed me a post he made at Adventist Today in response to Shane’s assertion in particular that Dr. Webster undermined SDA interpretation of the Bible.

    Shane,

    I beg to differ with your conclusions, which I think suffer from more than a little bias.

    First, Dr. Webster described four methods of biblical interpretation:

    Literal (historical-grammatical)
    Mythological (historical-critical)
    Figurative (literary-critical)
    Realistic (cultural-linguistic)

    Second, from the METHODS OF BIBLE STUDY link you provided(http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc4.html), I read: “Adventists are committed to the acceptance of biblical truth and are willing to follow it, using all methods of interpretation consistent with what Scripture says of itself.” This VERY CLEARLY means that the literal (historical-grammatical) approach is not relied upon exclusively (sorry to burst your bubble). Curiously, there is no mention of “historical-grammatical” in this document. Moreover, the one mention of “literal” is in the statement: “In the New Testament application of Old Testament prophecies, some literal names become spiritual: for example, Israel represents the church, Babylon apostate religion, etc.” So much for the literal approach, which this website itself seems to undermine. Of these four approaches, only one is mentioned at all, which the authors clearly object to: the mythological (historical-critical) approach.

    Third, I don’t believe Dr. Webster condoned the mythological (historical-critical) approach, but instead suggested that the 3rd and 4th approaches might be useful. The METHODS OF BIBLE STUDY is silent on those methods. Thus, I’m not convinced Dr. Webster said anything at all that undermined SDA doctrines other than to mention Dr. Warren’s talk about temple theology.

    Fourth, Dr. Warren apparently talked at length about temple theology. Whether he believes in it or not, what, pray tell, is wrong with telling students about a plausible approach to interpreting Genesis. Do you really believe the students are stupid enough to believe everything he said? Much of his talk was apparently benign. He is not an LSU professor. Are you really going to characterize the entire course based on a portion of this one individual’s talk? The first two course speakers CLEARLY SUPPORTED SDA DOCTRINES, but neither you nor Louie Bishop seem willing to concede this.

    I’m sorry, but if you believe the class undermines SDA beliefs, you will do whatever it takes–being selective as needed–to support your view. That’s the way propaganda works. Is your website not a propaganda site?

    I wish to add tha Richard Davidson of Andrews University has a very informative article at http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf which validates that Adventists welcome newer approaches (though not all aspects) including the literal-critical, which “usually do not deny the results of historical-criticism, nor abandon the central principle of criticism, but rather bracket out the historical questions concerning of the historical development of the biblical text and concentrate upon its final canonical shape.”.

    Again, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DR. WEBSTER UNDERMINED ADVENTIST BELIEFS. Unless of course one STARTS with the supposition that because he is a LSU professor surely he must be undermining Adventist beleifs, in which case ANYTHING he says will be subjected to dissection and scorn. Many of you people eagerly take this position.




    0
    View Comment
  28. Bill Sorensen, I agree with you entirely. [edit]

    Hey, is Kinship going to try to sneak in to the GC too?! Remember Toronto and Carroll Grady?




    0
    View Comment
  29. @Geanna Dane:

    I wish you would pay more attention to the content of the video.

    I agree that we should use “all methods of interpretation consistent with what Scripture says of itself.” There might be some aspects of mythological, figurative, and realistic that can that are consistent with what Scripture says about itself. I’m just going to address figurative and realistic since Professor Kent already pointed out that neither Webster or the SDA Church adhere to the mythological method.

    Here are the points of contention that I have with figurative and realistic:

    During his presentation, Webster puts up a slide of the four methods along with their qualities. Here is what was under figurative:

    ” GENESIS TO BE TAKEN AS RELIGIOUS ‘CLASSIC’, POETRY, NARRATIVE, INSIGHTFUL STORY.”

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church has always understood Genesis 1-11 to be depicting literal events. The Genesis account of creation is not just a figurative story.

    Here is what was under realistic:

    “GENESIS TO BE TAKEN A THE SOPHISTICATED THEOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY/COSMOLOGY/WORLDVIEW/OR EVEN ‘PROTO-SCIENCE’ OF THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES, RESULTING FROM THEIR ENCOUNTER/REJECTION/REVISION OF THE GREAT COSMOLOGIES OF THEIR TIME (PARTICULARLY THOSE OF THE BABYLONIAN AND EGYPIAN EMPIRES), IN LIGHT OF THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, FORMULATED IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CONVICTION OF THE ACTUALITY OF THE SELF-REVELATON OF GOD IN HISTORICAL TIME AND SPACE.”

    These two aspects of realistic and figurative both undermine the Seventh-day Adventist’s understanding of Genesis and our official position on creation and the Word of God. The philosophical and theological presuppositions of both of these methods are in opposition to FB #1 and FB#6.

    Here is what Webster says about these two methods:

    “THE FINAL TWO, THAT I THINK MAY BE HELPFUL, IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A FIGURATIVE READINGS, USING LITERARY-CRITICAL METHODS.

    WHERE WE TRY TO SEE THE BIBLICAL TEXTS IN THE CONTEXTS OF OTHER PARTS OF SCRIPTURE.

    AND WHAT’S GOING TO COME NEXT IS GOING TO BE ONE EXAMPLE, I THINK, OF THIS KIND OF WAY OF READING OF SCRIPTURE.

    AND IT’S MUCH MORE USEFUL AND FRUITFUL.

    AND UH IT SUGGEST TO US THAT UH THE OPENING CHAPTERS OF GENESIS MIGHT NOT REALLY BE ABOUT HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING. BUT MIGHT BE ABOUT HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AS GOD’S DWELLING PLACE AS THE TEMPLE OF GOD.”

    The two methods that clearly undermine our understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 are “helpful,” according to Webster. He explains that the temple theology is “one example” of how to read the Scriptures. Mind you he didn’t even promote the church’s position or advocate our interpretation. None of the professors did. He then suggests doubt in our interpretation by suggesting that the “opening chapters of Genesis might not really be about how the world came into being.”

    Note also that using capital letters in your posts is equivalent to yelling – not usually needed to make your point.




    0
    View Comment
  30. So Dr. Webster was yelling?

    What happened to Sean Pitman’s post earlier today in which he agreed taht the first three of four speakers were nothing to make a big deal of? Guess you disagreed.




    0
    View Comment
  31. @Geanna Dane: I didn’t say Webster was yelling. Why would you ask that? Is it because everything in the quotations is caps? Ya, I don’t like the all caps, but it takes too long to change. It’s a cut and paste job from the transcript of the video.




    0
    View Comment
  32. @Geanna Dane:

    What happened to Sean Pitman’s post earlier today in which he agreed taht the first three of four speakers were nothing to make a big deal of? Guess you disagreed.

    I subsequently realized that I had been mistaken in some of my comments; that there were in fact several somewhat subtle statements made by the earlier speakers that do in fact undermine SDA ideas on how to interpret Scripture.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  33. QUESTION:…no, wait a moment here…let me rephrase that just a little…VALID question: Precisely WHAT does Warren Trenchard have to fear from having the video of his lecture posted on this website??? Does he somehow perceive some sort of threat to his tenure or pedagogical credibility??? Is it that he fears being missrepresented??? In what WAY??? Would there not be even greater danger of missrepresentation, Mr. Trenchard, now that you have denied us the opportunity to HEAR your own words, and having now to limit ourselves to QUOTES (by OTHERS, who may or may not agree with you) from your lecture, which may or may not be accurate??? Please have the courage and courtesy to reply DIRECTLY to this, Mr.Trenchard, and retrieve whatever may now be left of that very credibility which you seem so determined to protect…




    0
    View Comment
  34. If every SDA science teacher had a webcam in the classroom so that every word could be monitored by the general public, who would ever want to teach?!? I certainly wouldn’t.

    As it is there are very few SDA biology professors with graduate degrees who are even interested in teaching in SDA colleges and universities. Just ask Southern Adventist University, which found only one suitable applicant for three openings as biology professors–and the applicant to be hired was already teaching at Union College, which is now looking for a new biology professor. I’m telling you, there is a critical shortage of applicants for science professors in SDA higher education. And the reason why is obvious. In some SDA colleges and universities the faculty with PhD degrees earn as much as 15-20% less than teachers with bachelor’s degrees in nearby SDA primary and secondary schools–even on the same campus! Nobody teaches at SDA colleges and universities for the money.

    Not surprisingly, the vast majority of science students in SDA colleges and universities aspire to a career in the health sciences–and many explicitly for the money. If you shut down science programs in SDA colleges and universities, which are the source of most of the students at Loma Linda University, what are you going to do with Loma Linda University? And who are you going to staff SDA hospitals and clinics with?

    I’m all for reform at LSU, but not posting videos online without a professor’s consent.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Eddie-

    If a teacher(paster etc) doesn’t want to be held accountable for what they say, they are in the wrong line of work. This should go for all of us, but especially those paid to teach our students.
    If we speak the truth we have nothing to hide.
    Many say this debate is being fueled by lack of good evidence. I agree there should be more evidence, but it’s clear from that from the evidence we have that the teachers are hiding as much as possible because they know they are teaching things many SDA’s would be troubled by.
    It’s also very clear many are decieved and think they know our historical beliefs are wrong. They are waging a internal war with this and various other issues(homosexuality, womens roles, inspiration of EGW etc) that they think should be changed to accomodate “progressive knowledge”.
    While we as a people and a church should always be open to additional insight, any “new insight” should add clarity to our beliefs, NOT tear the old ones down.




    0
    View Comment
  36. Sad indeed when the thought leaders and educators give themselves over to the doctrine of devils. Since these professors often speak of God, I assume they are teaching from a theistic evolutionary view which is so threadbare of logic it hardly deserves to receive a label. Far better for them to speak from a strict materialistic evolutionary standpoint because its logic can be stretched out a bit more. But, even that one goes cold with just one small question: “Was everything created by nothing?” Every bit of science falls flat at that point making it appear for what it is— mere superstition. I thought the first lecturer brought up some good ideas such truth based on evidence. But, as these professors show, it is much easier to ignore evidence while at the same time professing to address it. Kudos to you folks who are providing this documentation. Keep up the good work and maybe, just maybe it will do some good. The fact is, however, Laodiceanism as stolen a march on our church. The leadership is indifferent if not totally asleep. I fear they (inclusive of us all) may not wake up until it will be forever too late.




    0
    View Comment
  37. G. Stansal, Please do not “hold your breath” waiting for a reply from Trenchard. I don’t think he’s gonna come out of the closet!




    0
    View Comment
  38. Doug, I’m not saying people should not be held accountable for what they say. They should. I just don’t think it is ethical to post videos of a professor’s lecture without the professor’s consent. I would be upset if somebody videotaped a lecture of mine in a classroom and posted it online without having the decency of asking me for my consent. Not because I have anything to hide. It’s just the civil thing to do and I believe SDAs should always be civil.

    Ron, why are you so fascinated with closets? Civil people don’t taunt others to come out of closets.




    0
    View Comment
  39. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  40. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  41. I just don’t think it is ethical to post videos of a professor’s lecture without the professor’s consent.

    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.




    0
    View Comment
  42. @Bill Garber:

    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 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




    0
    View Comment
  43. 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




    0
    View Comment
  44. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  45. 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?




    0
    View Comment
  46. 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




    0
    View Comment
  47. 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).




    0
    View Comment
  48. 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?




    0
    View Comment
  49. For years, I have feared that Adventism is intellectually dead. No one has been willing to discuss our lack of scientific evidence for a recent Creation. And, here you are making sure that nothing will change.

    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!




    0
    View Comment
  50. I believe in creation and I have no iidea what your imaginary circle is and see no relevance whatsoever..

    I’m sorry Geanna, but there is no way that your views and arguments reflect that of a creationist!




    0
    View Comment
  51. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  52. Geanna says,

    does not mean I don’t believe in creation. But hey you got me figured out.

    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




    0
    View Comment
  53. 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




    0
    View Comment
  54. 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,

    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.




    0
    View Comment
  55. 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




    0
    View Comment
  56. 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




    0
    View Comment
  57. 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.)




    0
    View Comment
  58. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  59. 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.”




    0
    View Comment
  60. 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




    0
    View Comment
  61. @Martin Schratt:

    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.”

    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




    0
    View Comment
  62. @Bill Garber:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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




    0
    View Comment
  63. 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




    0
    View Comment
  64. 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




    0
    View Comment
  65. 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?




    0
    View Comment
  66. Sean,

    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.

    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.

    Your views on “academic freedom” would not a viable organization make.

    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

    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?

    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.




    0
    View Comment
  67. @Bill Garber:

    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”

    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.

    God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead…

    Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.

    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…

    When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…

    [Satan] knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, and make them believe that the work the Lord designs for them to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe…

    We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

    Ellen White, Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)

    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




    0
    View Comment
  68. Crafty ecclesiastics, interrupted in their work of sanctioning crime, and seeing their gains endangered, were enraged, and rallied to uphold their pretensions. The Reformer had bitter accusers to meet. Some charged him with acting hastily and from impulse. Others accused him of presumption, declaring that he was not directed of God, but was acting from pride and forwardness. “Who does not know,” he responded, “that one can seldom advance a new idea without having some appearance of pride, and without being accused of exciting quarrels? Why were Christ and all the martyrs put to death?–Because they appeared proud despisers of the wisdom of the times in which they lived, and because they brought forward new truths without having first consulted the oracles of the old opinions.”

    4SP 106.1

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  69. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  70. 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…

    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?




    0
    View Comment
  71. @Bill Garber:

    I 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.

    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”:

    Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with anyone,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.”

    One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: “Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

    – J.N. Loughborough with his quotes from Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. I, page 650.

    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




    0
    View Comment
  72. 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




    0
    View Comment
  73. 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




    0
    View Comment
  74. 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




    0
    View Comment
  75. @Bob Pickle:

    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?

    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




    0
    View Comment
  76. @Bill Sorensen:

    “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.” – Sean Pitman

    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.

    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…

    The matter of private judgment and union with the body is plainly stated in “Testimony for the Church,” Vol. III, page 492, published in the year 1875: “I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man, but when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority God has upon earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered.” – Ellen White

    These words are not be understood that a conference of men who were led by human wisdom and had the “mold of men,” was the “highest authority of God on earth.” Nay, verily; for such assemblies have been declared “not the voice of God.” It is rather an assembly of representatives of the work, “gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” with them ( 1Cor.5:4, 5), whose decisions are ratified by the Lord.

    – J.N. Loughborough

    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…

    Q. – In whom , or in what body, is the discipline for a church vested? Can one church make tests as they choose on tobacco using, liquor drinking, profanity, etc., and still be in harmony with the conference, or the body of Adventists?

    A. – It has never been recognized by the Seventh-day Adventists that it was the province of an individual church to make tests of fellowship, independent of the conference, and the body of Seventh-day Adventists. The following Testimony, already printed in a previous chapter, has a direct bearing on this question: “God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angel is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading this people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead.” – “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. I, page 207.

    – J.N. Loughbourogh

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  77. From the Opening article for this thread

    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.

    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




    0
    View Comment
  78. 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 WilliamsChula Vista SDA Church———- Original Message ———-
    From: “Mary”
    To:
    Subject: HiI never heard anything like this before.Is any of this true?
    Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 22:37:31 -07001.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……

    The universe and planet Earth are very old, but the events of creation week are relatively young  

    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.




    0
    View Comment
  79. 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.

    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




    0
    View Comment
  80. Oh would that the “edit” button were still active on this web site.   

    BTW Bob, The “edit” button as well as the “censorship” button are still alive and well on this website!




    0
    View Comment
  81. Sean,

    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).

    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.




    0
    View Comment
  82. @Bill Garber:

    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.

    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.

    By 1853, James and Ellen White were urging church organization to eliminate “uncredentialed” ministers and to establish a stable basis for owning church property.

    But this plea for organization was met with strong resistance. Organization for many was a “return to Babylon.” Opposers to organization still felt the sting of the organized churches that refused the Millerite call. The religious freedom that Adventists had been enjoying for a few years, they did not want to exchange for the cold blanket of an organized church. Organization, for them, was inconsistent with the freedom of the gospel.

    http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt17.html

    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




    0
    View Comment
  83. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  84. 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}




    0
    View Comment
  85. 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




    0
    View Comment
  86. @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]




    0
    View Comment
  87. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  88. NM previous quote. This is the one I meant.

    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.  

    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.

    [Note that it is the lecture in its entirety that is protected by copyright. Small portions that are used as part of commentary or debating purposes can be used under “fair use”. We did have the full videos up for a while, but decided to move to the fair use concept for the very reasons cited above under copyright law.] – Sean Pitman




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.