@ Geanna I’m sorry I upset so many people but I’m …

Comment on Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know by Inge Anderson.

@ Geanna

I’m sorry I upset so many people but I’m not so far off as many might think. I am appalled by so many things that happen here. I mostly write to say “wait a minute, think what you guys are saying and doing and how damaging it could be at so many levels.” Most of you don’t appreciate that at all.

Geanna, you would do well to re-read Christiane’s counsel to you again and to take it more seriously. You don’t seem to realize how you have come across – kind of like an attack dog with biting sarcasm.

I don’t see you “upsetting” people so much as showing yourself in a very negative light. If I were an employer and saw your postings here, I would be very hesitant to employ you. You are clearly intelligent and verbal, but that is not an asset when combined with a combative personality intent on pointing out the faults of others. Yet that is the picture your posts paint of you. (I realize that this picture may be far from the reality.)

The post from which I took the quote above is one of the few exceptions.

I am sometimes embarrassed by the comments others on “my side” (supportive of a recent creation by divine fiat) post on this site, but they start looking almost reasonable when compared with your posts – particularly your attacks on Sean Pitman. And now you admit to tending to believe in a recent creation – making another embarrassing addition to “my side.” 😉

Your description of Sean and Shane as “cyber bullies” is unjustified by the definition. Both Sean and Shane have consistently called for transparency: If La Sierra is proud of teaching the process of evolution as the truth of our origins, then let them be plain about it, rather than obfuscating and letting people believe that they really support a recent creation, as has been a fundamental belief of Adventism since its inception.
I believe it’s also fair to suggest that integrity demands that teachers who are paid by a church entity should not undermine the very foundation of the church’s teachings.

By now, you should also know that this internet call for transparency and integrity comes after decades of trying to get the same results behind the scenes. There comes a time to follow the biblical admonition, to “Cry aloud” and “spare not.” It is apparent that many folks believe this time has come.

I have some experience teaching in a Protestant school that is not Adventist. My beliefs differ significantly from those taught at that church – not on the issue of origins, but on such topics as spiritual gifts, state of the dead and day of worship. But integrity demanded that I do my best not to undermine the teachings of the church directly, while upholding the beliefs we hold in common. Once I found myself responding to a creative writing assignment by a student with a bit of an essay of my own. I had second thoughts about my response (involving state of the dead), but I had written it on the back of the student paper. So, in the interest of transparency, I showed it to the head pastor and told him why I had written it. We had a good conversation, and he allowed that “some” texts supported my view, and others his. So he was okay with what I had written. (I believe the Holy Spirit was at work in the situation. I then gave him a small booklet I had written to address the subject of the state of the dead.)

I believe that the information on this site demonstrates reasonable commentary/criticism/freedom of speech on Shane’s and Sean’s part. Their judgment may not always have been faultless (they aren’t translated yet, either), but the general tone has not been of the “bullying” sort. I believe you diminish the seriousness of real “cyber bullying” by attaching the label to these men.

Just for future reference — your avowed purpose of fighting fire with fire does not usually work in verbal exchanges, even if it does work in forest fire situations with “back fires.” Those setting back fires have to be very careful to do things just right, noting the direction of the wind, the weather, etc., so as not to make the situation worse. Your method has been more akin to what used to be called “flaming” in the early days of the internet. That sort of thing usually escalates until there’s little real conversation taking place. A lot of moderators would have banned you. The fact that things have not escalated on this site, demonstrates that others have not responded to you “in kind.”

I do remember seeing a couple recent posts in which you sounded genuinely apologetic and reasonable. Perhaps you have already turned over a new leaf?

Heaps of blessings on you
from another sister in the Lord 🙂

Inge Anderson Also Commented

Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know
@Geanna Dane

First, the Bible makes clear that Christians should not sue each other in court, the principle being that it brings public reproach upon our cause. When church squabbles spill over into the public arena, as has happened with this particular quarrel, Adventists appear to others to be anything but Christian and it embarasses the church.

That’s a legitimate point. But then we have the uncomfortable stories in the Bible that demonstrate that God sometimes calls people to do things that do not “appear Christian” to the world. Even God Himself did stuff like that, if you believe the biblical record of God’s various judgments. Sometimes in order for a larger good to be gained, the usual rules do not work.

Second, there is a “do no harm” principle that the Western World has championed (and in many ways failed) in its practice of law. … this website has already smeared more than a dozen church leaders, school administrators and university faculty. Gleefully, I might add.

“Do no harm” is also a principle to which physicians subscribe. Yet they perform operations, sometimes amputating whole limbs. You could say that this is doing great harm. But it saves the life of the patient.

It seems to me that the intent on this site is to save the patient.

I wonder how you can know that posters feel “gleeful” when they post. Could it be that you are projecting feelings that are not theirs. (That’s a type of “smearing.”)

Furthermore, I believe I missed the “smearing” of “more than a dozen” individuals. “Smearing” conveys the thought that bad behavior/motives are falsely ascribed to individuals. What I have seen on this site, by contrast, is hard evidence of what has been going on in classrooms at LSU.

Could it be that you are indulging in gross hyperbole?

Third, the church is compelled to maintain internal order. There is a due process for dealing with complaints about individuals and the elected leardership is charged with this responsibility. This website undermines the authority of the church to conduct its own governance.

You have a point here. However, you seem to surmise that “proper channels” were not followed previous to going public with this site. Are you sure your surmising is correct?

If Adventists the world over formed multiple special interest groups intent on “exposing” individuals and institutions for every perceived wrong by publicizing them on the internet and in the secular media (and there are MANY issues ripe for attack), church leadership would be controlled by fear and church order would break down altogether. This website has become a model for circumventing internal discipline and order, which most of you take great pride in.

Parents and constituents of the LSU have been deceived regarding what has been going on in the classrooms. This site is informational, functioning like a news source. Facts are reported.

If the facts were in harmony with what is advertised to the constituency, there would be no problem. So the fault seems to lie with the discrepancy between the promotional materials of LSU and the actual facts, not with the reporting of the facts. (If you don’t like what you see in the mirror, smashing the mirror isn’t all that helpful.)

If professors are doing their job with integrity, they should not feel “smeared” by having this truth publicized. Ditto for the administrators.

This website does not undermine the authority of the church to do its own governance. It has no power to discipline or do “governance.” Only church members and their elected representatives can do that. Rather, this site informs members and elected representatives of problems that need to be addressed at a major institution. Admittedly, it seems as though this site has given those in charge of “governance” a little prod to do the job they were elected to do.

That’s not a bad thing at all, in my opinion.

Nor is it a bad thing for leaders to “fear” exposure of behavior that is inappropriate for the positions they hold. It is far better, in my opinion, to fear to do wrong than to walk confidently down a deadly path.

What is being addressed here is something that is contrary to church order. It is disingenuous to suggest that if people should fear to go contrary to church order, church order would break down!


Recent Comments by Inge Anderson

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, while I don’t currently have time to address all the issues in your post, one thing concerns me greatly – that, as head elder, you would recommend that your church members should use their tithe as a tool of political action.

If your recommendation were followed by others, hundreds of thousands of people would be justified in not turning in tithe at all because they believe that the General Conference is out of line, being manipulated and controlled by a very small number of people. (But that’s another story.) And, really, anyone who disagrees with something done in the conference or the GC would be justified to withhold or re-direct tithe, following your reasoning. I do hope that you will decide that you “just cannot go there.”

When Jesus commended the widow who gave her last two coins, the “church” was as corrupt as it ever was or will be. Yet God recognized the gift as given to *Him,* and He blessed her and millions of people since then.

When we return our tithe to the Lord, I believe we must do it in faith, letting go of any control of how it is used. If administrators misuse it, they must answer to God. When we don’t return to God what already belongs to Him, we must answer for it. The way I see it, since the tithe already belongs to God, it is not ours to manage.

Offerings are another matter. If you feel your local conference is out of line, you are free not to send them the usual percentage for the conference budget and send it elsewhere.


God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy
The direct URL for Cindy Tutsch’s article is http://ssnet.org/blog/2011/09/does-it-matter-how-long-it-took-to-create/


God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy

Lydian: There is something else I would like for someone to tell me—

Where in the world is the GRI in all of this? I have searched the internet and find virtually nothing there that would attract anybody to what it has to say–if it has anything to say.

Good question.

There are a number of Adventist sites that deal with science supportive of the biblical world view, Sean Pitman’s among them.

It seems that the only Adventist university that has a site supportive of a biblical world view in science appears to be Southwestern Adventist University.

Their Earth History Research Center features research papers as well as material quite understandable to lay persons. I recommend clicking through their links to see what is there.

Perhaps this is where we should look (and perhaps send our dollars) instead of the GRI. You will see that Ariel Roth, former director of the GRI (when it was more supportive of a biblical world view) is part of the Earth History Research Center.

May God abundantly bless the efforts of all who are connected with this project.

PS Currently http://ssnet.org is featuring an article by Cindy Tutsch entitled, “Does It Matter How Long God Took to Create?”


The Heroic Crusade Redux

Professor Kent: This is but only the faith of Sean Pitman’s straw man. This is not the faith of the Adventist who accepts God’s word at face value.

Sean is correct in his characterization, because that seems to be the kind of “faith” that has been championed here by a number of individuals who have faulted Sean for presenting evidence in favor of creation having happened just thousands of years ago.

If you accept the interpretation of evolutionists who believe (by faith) that life began on this planet some billions of years ago and then “by faith” believe that God created the world a few thousand years ago, you are essentially asserting “faith” in what you intellectually recognize as being a falsehood. That’s a good sight worse than a child’s “faith” in Santa Claus, because the child doesn’t “know from evidence” that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

I do accept God’s Word at face value, and because I accept it at face value, I know that all the evidence, rightly interpreted, will support the historical account in God’s Word. It is an intellectually consistent stance, whereas asserting belief in both evolutionism and biblical creation contravenes all rules of logic and intellectual integrity.

If you really do believe that the Genesis account is a true account of history, why do you characterize Sean’s presentation of scientific evidence to support the Genesis account as being anti-faith??


La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
This is encouraging, IMO.

However, the survey of students probably presents a more favorable picture than is realistic, since a significant percentage of the students may not even know what the Adventist position on creation is — considering the kinds of homes they are coming from. But even if they all knew, a 50% rate of believing that SDA views were presented is pretty dismal. That’s a failing grade, after all ..