Hello all, I am back after an extended absence due to …

Comment on LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation by David Kendall, PhD.

Hello all,

I am back after an extended absence due to a research trip to many parish churches in the Philippines and the defense of my dissertation.

I thought I might contribute something useful to this conversation.

The article above is only referenced to show the disparity between what LSU allows and does not allow to be distributed to students.

This quote is, unfortunately, an apples-to-oranges comparison. While on the surface, it appears that one student is allowed a platform for the expression of a controversial opinion while another is denied the opportunity, this is not the case. In the case of Ricky Kim’s article in the Criterion, the piece was submitted through proper channels, and edited and approved by the appropriate faculty or staff sponsors. In the case of Louie Bishop’s letter, it was not submitted and approved by the Office of Student Activities, which is responsible for reviewing and approving posters, flyers, etc. for general distribution. One can see any number of posters on the LSU campus with an “Approved by OSA” stamp. As a freshman at LSU in 1998, I had to submit my monthly newsletter (a conservative publication calling for a return to true Adventism, as I saw it then) for review and approval by the Office of Student Life, as OSA was then known.

Regarding the actions of a Judicial Committee, this is likely (though I do not have intimate knowledge of its workings) an ad-hoc committee created when needed for a specific purpose, i.e. infractions of rules (as laid out in the Student Handbook; incidentally, the rules regarding distribution of leaflets, etc. is covered on p.57).

In my opinion, the Criterion paper is the best forum for the distribution of Louie Bishop’s letter, and I would encourage him to further prepare and expand the manuscript for submission. That is the way we behave at an academic institution.

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University

David Kendall, PhD Also Commented

LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation
Re: MLB

I am not personally familiar with the details of the disciplinary action or (as I stated) the intimate workings of University ad-hoc committees; as an adjunct professor, I do not sit on any of them. Neither are (I venture to assume) any commentators here familiar with those details, such as the possible number of infractions incurred, warnings given, if any, etc. The University is generally barred by law from releasing such information, so it appears that conjecture on this topic will not ultimately be fruitful.

The point of the post (to which the statement regarding the committee was an aside) was to point out that the assertion that the University is inconsistent regarding student speech is not tenable. In my own classes, students are free and encouraged to speak up on topics that interest them, and even to challenge me on my own assumptions, provided the discussion is conducted in a respectful and non-disruptive manner. Again, this is how we behave at an academic institution like LSU. It was like that when I attended the University as an undergraduate, and this excellent state of affairs remains the standard today.

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University


Recent Comments by David Kendall, PhD

Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
@Hope Sekulic

Goldstein, not to long presented a talk at Weimar Institute. I watched him talk, He appeared perplexed his subject of presentation was all mixed up and confusing. It had not foundation and point. He was jumping from subject to subject, he was moving all over the platform, scratching his head, looking in to his I-phone or what ever it was in his hand, passing up and down with a disruptive spirit.
I was sad to see him so discordant and so disorganized in his talk.

Hope,

Are you suggesting that Goldstein’s difficulties in speaking at Weimar are a result of Satan sowing discord and confusion in the church generally, or an attack on him specifically? I was not sure.

Read and see Who are the Wolfs in the Sheep’s skin and where they like to graze.

I am familiar with the theories stating that Jesuit infiltrators are everywhere, seeking to destroy the church. An SDA pastor friend of mine had his church’s website “denounced” by the “Adventist Liberation Front.” I am familiar with Fr. Alberto Rivera’s testimony that the Jesuit order is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Interestingly, I get testimonies from a number of friends who have left the SDA church asserting that Adventism is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Which am I to believe, as both sides have equally heart-wrenching horror stories to tell? Maybe both of them, or maybe neither. I am friends with a number of Jesuit and other Catholic priests through my research in the Philippines (my wife is Jesuit-educated), as well as very many Adventists of different backgrounds (having been a life-long SDA in Arizona, Southern California, Taiwan and the Philippines). I have to say in all honesty that when I look for Christ-centered attitudes, kindness and service towards one’s fellow man, I have often noted these attributes to be significantly stronger among the Catholic priests. Some have told me that this is their deception, their apparition as Satan as an angel of light. However, I have only Christ’s statement, to know them by their fruits. This does not cause me to want to leave my church, but rather expect it to be better; to bear sweeter fruit.

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@BobRyan

unbiased objective readers

objective unbiased reader

Bob,

I have made this query before, but as I have noticed your increased use of the above term (and related variants) both here and in other forums, and I ask again: Who is this unbiased objective reader? How does this reader remain objective and free from bias? I understand that you are using the phrase as a rhetorical device to impart value to your arguments and responses vis-a-vis opposing arguments; by appealing to a supposed authority (objectivity). The only truly objective authority to which we can appeal is God, and as none of us can claim that identity, I am unsure as to the reasoning behind your continued and consistent use of the term.

@Ron Stone, M.D.

Professor Kent, You’re right–there is no point in your “sharing” anything here, as you are pointedly shot down whenever you do! Good bye!

Dr. Stone,

This statement does not, to my mind, seem to be a very efficient process toward convincing others of the rightness of your position. It is this very type of discourse that proves to non-Adventists, non-Christians, and other interested observers that our faith and the commands of Christ to love one another are of a low priority in our everyday lives. I am asking my delegate to the GC session to call for a broad-based, civil, open and honest discussion on origins in the Adventist church, without polemics, threats, and un-Christian language. This is the very minimum we should expect of ourselves and of others who call themselves by Christ’s name.

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University


Catholic School Fires Math Teacher for Expressing Atheistic Views
Geanna,

I encourage you to go get a PhD, if you can find a good, supportive department (and some funding, hard to come by these days, at least in California), either inside of or outside of the SDA system. I found all of my graduate work to be incredibly rewarding and I strongly recommend it to my own students, though they should always be prepared to open their minds and question their assumptions, despite what others have warned about the dangers of such a route (reading infidel authors, engaging in philosophical debates in the religious sphere, etc.).

One suggestion for working at an SDA institution is to prepare a syllabus and approach a department chair and offer to teach an introductory class, a lab or something else in an adjunct capacity. Working for the church is likewise very rewarding (but not usually in a monetary sense!), though a bit less so in the current environment. Having the privilege of helping to guide and mentor students in an Adventist Christian environment (just as I was in turn guided and mentored) is enough for me. Go for it!

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Former LSU Student

I am interested in when you attended LSU, because it sounds like you must have been there around the time I was a student (1998-2002). I remember the land sale, etc. that you mentioned, though I may have been serving as a student missionary in Taiwan (2002-2003) when the sale was final. I also do not know what floor of Sierra Towers you lived on (I was on 2nd floor from 1998-2001, then South Hall), but my experiences there, as well as everywhere else on campus, were very different from yours.

Also, not to be confrontational, but it would not be wise to suggest that Dr. Geraty served at LSU due to his inability to perform in the public, secular academic world (if that is what you were suggesting). A cursory glance at his CV will show that he would be a very big fish in any pond.

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University


Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
@ Kevin Paulson

David Kendall seems to view the “teasing out” of various viewpoints in the present controversy as a harmless exercise–the necessary full airing of a particular concept in the name of fairness. This is fine if we are talking about human theories and philosophies or some debate in the secular realm (e.g. politics).

Pastor Paulson,

I did not mention that the “teasing out” of viewpoints is either a harmless exercise or that it is done in the name of fairness or for any other reason; I said simply that this is what scholars do as part of a venerable (or venerated) academic tradition.

In matters spiritual we are not dealing with the harmless interchange of ideas, where any number of varied conclusions might be embraced with innocence.

No mention was made of embracing varied conclusions, be they innocent or otherwise, but rather I advised that “we should keep in mind that philosophers and other scholars often discuss and theorize concepts at great length without necessarily espousing those concepts as truth.”

Do you consider certain lines of inquiry to be off-limits? What kinds of scholarship should be forbidden when our primary concern is the salvation of our souls? Is the very knowledge of “wrong ideas and wrong practices” that which can and will lead to eternal damnation? What do you propose we do about this?

Pax,

David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University