Thank you Randal...

For your ever spirit of graciousness and your mature response in times of tough leadership. I believe your letter to reflect the true Spirit of Christ. It is a "Press Together" message and I thank you for its healing content.

David

My reactions to this statement are mixed. On the one hand, it is a model of Christian kindness, generosity and non-defensiveness. On the other, it strikes me as overly vague about the substantive and procedural issues.

Suppose I own a restaurant and that I am accused of serving meals that cause food poisoning. It won't be enough for me to respond to this charge in a Christlike manner. Neither will it be sufficient for me to remind the public that all my employees are model citizens and to invite them to visit my restaurant to see for themselves that this is true.

I fear that this is how some who are on the other side of these debates than I am will react to this most recent LSU statement.

If the charges against my restuarant are sufficiently serious and widespread, I have to either (2) demonstrate that they are false, (2)change what I serve if they are true, (3) or explain that some things that might initially taste dangerous are actually nutritious.

Likewise, more than I am aware of it doing so far, LSU needs to respond to the concerns that have been expressed with candor and conviction. It is too much to expect its administration to know and defend what every teacher says in every moment of every course. But it can, and in my view it should, explain what procedures are in place to deal with such matters and how they are being implemented in this case.

This restaurant analogy breaks down at several points. One of them is that there is more consensus about food than theological poison. In this case, all one can do is make one's case as best one can and let the decisions and wellbeing of the customers decide.

Thus, it would also be helpful if LSU could express itself with the candor, clarity and Christian charity of Doctor Larry Geraty's statement on another thread which, though this might surprise some, is being praised by a number of people with differing positions.

Southern Adventist University does not try to be all things to all people and from my perch in Southern California it appears to be thriving. I am confident that La Sierra University can do the same thing in its own way. Its growing enrollment suggests to me that this process is already underway.

Thanks Randal for responding with love. I especially appreciated: "We will find joy in the dynamic interplay between faith and learning." SDA universities need to teach more and shelter less. Thanks La Sierra for setting a good example of that.

What steps did LSU take to "address the bumpy terrain that characterizes the faith-science landscape"?

Is there something they're doing that they're not telling anyone?

Davids post is SO spot on. Really the core.

The LSU response soft peddles many issues not the least of which is that Ella Smith Simmons, a general vice president of the Seventh-day Adventist world church; C. Garlan Dulan, education director for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; and Larry Blackmer, North American Division education director made the time to attend the recent the recent constituency meeting. Also it is generally a public forum for Adventist institutions, however, it was closed to the public this time. That aint peanuts. They must have talked of something substantial though one would never know by the melba toast with tofu response.

Perhaps a clandestine olive branch was offered in selecting the new provost. The LSU Board of Trustees appointed education Professor and Administration and Leadership Chair Steve Pawluk as university provost effective July 1, 2010.
Pawluk, came to La Sierra in 2007 following five years as an administrator at Southern Adventist University.

I'm sure someone from the dreaded SAU as provost made many LSU professors hearts leap with joy.

I wondered on the other thread if the response would be to diffuse or escalate the issue. Apparently it was to kick the can down the road with some politician placebo speech that means nothing or was pertinent or responsive to the issue at hand.
Ella Smith Simmons said, "My fear is the possibility that La Sierra could move away from our Christocentric perspective.”

If his response is the best he can do to assuage peoples concerns then he has failed spectacularly.

Its not the time for political obfuscation.
Matthew 5:37
37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Thanks Randal for your measured and graceful response. I am proud to be a LSU alumnus and believe that God is absolutely working on campus. Defining moments like these can be the awakening of a new and exciting chapter for LSU, especially as it relates to the spiritual development of the faculty and student body (individually and corporately). Please know that you and the entire staff are in my prayers.

Hopefully other conferences follow Michigan's lead!

Jody ;

Shane,

The time has come to answer candidly. Do you and EducateTruth seek to bring about change by publicly humiliating and shaming individuals and institutions, calling them out by name?

If you choose not to answer, your silence will be telling.

A class act and a well thought-out, grace-filled response. I've never been to LU, but now I kind of want to after reading a letter like this! If I was still a young person (I'm 53), this type of learning and supportive atmosphere would be very attractive.

Good for them!

Jeff

when either side forgets that, organizations like Michigan Conference on the right or Spectrum on the left, our church loses value and is in trouble!
Posted by: Chad Stuart (not verified) | 29 May 2010 at 5:06

Chad, The Association of Adventist Forums or Spectrum's goals are to give all Adventists an opportunity to voice their views. To be true with these objectives, Spectrum by definition has to be exactly in the middle between the two extremes that you mentioned and not take sides! I do not understand why Spectrum is attributed this "left" or "liberal" label when equal opportunity is given to all to write whatever they want to. I would say that this freedom is healthy for the church.

Professor Kent, the Adventist Church is not officially tolerant toward divergent views. I don't mean that there is an inquisition that quizzes everyone in the pews. I mean that insofar as our official publications--the Review, the Sabbath School Quarterly, etc.-- are concerned, there is a right and wrong view, there is orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. When the official church starts to say, "there are two acceptable Adventist views of origins: creationism and theistic evolution," then I will leave the church. That's not a bluff. But that hasn't happened, and I pray it will never happen.

What is troubling about the LaSierra situation, and the reason why there is widespread controversy, is that LaSierra is an official Adventist institution that is promoting evolution and denigrating our historic doctrine. But if there really were the type of tolerance toward divergent views that you suggest, there would not be the white-hot controversy over LaSierra. There would be a collective yawn.

"To be true with these objectives, Spectrum by definition has to be exactly in the middle between the two extremes that you mentioned and not take sides! I do not understand why Spectrum is attributed this "left" or "liberal" label when equal opportunity is given to all to write whatever they want to."

That's new to many of us who have followed Spectrum thru the years. Why do we see such a proliferation of articles espousing the liberal left? Why do we seldom see one that is truly representative of the church's teachings about various issues so often debated almost endlessly on the Spectrum blog?

I will agree that in this blog we see both sides represented although few from the conservative persuasion take time to write here.

Your Friend and Chad: I appreciate both of your comments. I too would like to see more articles from people like Herbert Douglas, and Angel Rodriguez - just to name a few. I would like to see more good-will cultivated towards those of differing views.

RE David Reade et al I thought we were counseled to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest?

I wonder why God allowed the great controversy to happen if it wasn't so we could all learn to think and do for ourselves. There is no CHOICE without alternatives. The bible itself is written in such a way as to allow for differing veiwpoints. Did God throw Satan out of heaven or did satan choose to leave? God gave us a Brain with which to THINK and to DO and has allowwed us an opportunity to develope our knowledge about all the possibilities invovled in life and death and it's inherent dangers. Life is an expereince that allows us to CHOOSE.

Jay

truth seekers

Truth seekers stand on the horizon looking outward and upward whereas truth protectors stand on the brink of the abyss looking downward in fear and trembling. Some stand round the base of the mountain(ie Sinai)in fear of being shot through with an arrow or stoned while others come boldly before the throne of grace so they can be helped in their time of need Hebrew 4:16.

Fear paralyzes the mind, robs us of health and joy, makes us emotionally unstable, stops our growth and investigation. Fear is based on ignorance. knowledge is power to overcome fear. Life is an expereince and a journey. The joy is in the journey. Let the journey go on without the neurotic fear produced by ignorance. Question all and learn from the quest.

God/Jesus has promised to Convict(forensic veiw/convince relationship veiw) the WORLD of "sin and of rigtheousness". Can we trust HIM to do that. That is what the great controversy is all about. It does involve his creatures salvation but at the same time it must result in a people who can think and decide to "do what is right because it is the right thing to do" and that is what will make Gods universe a safe and secure place. Robots can never choose freely! God did not creat robots and he will never turn us into robots.

Eternal Life is to know God! This knowledge could never be acquired without going through this life experience. Birth & Rebirth requires a STRUGGLE. It is what makes us strong.

For truth seekers, Do not be discouraged, you believe in God believe also in ME(Jesus)

Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation shall be past.

He exhorts the faithful to be patient in their afflictions and to wait on God's work.

Isaiah 54:7-9 (New International Version)

7 "For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with deep compassion I will bring you back.

8 In a surge of anger (Gods wrath)
I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness
I will have compassion on you,"
says the LORD your Redeemer.

God is allowing us to go through the FIRE to refine and purify HIS people, to reveal himself and the principles of HIS kingdom of LOVE. LOVE never fails. LOVE always wins but do we believe it?. Some say it is not very practical but what is the alterantive. Hatred and violence just generates more hatred and violence, that is a law of human behavour. 2 Corinthians 3:18 18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The NEB reminds me distinctly of a choice quote from our own EGW:

(Re Romans 3:24-26). "A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is
not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for
the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the
Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906)." {6BC 1074.2}

Jim Roberts. Issues about homosexuality and women's roles in the church are nothing compared to evolution. Creation is the foundation for the entire Bible and the Christian religion.

One Simple Question:

It all boils down to one simple question:

Are LSU science professors still promoting modern theories of evolution, with a theistic twist perhaps, as the true stories of origins? - contrary to the "fundamental" SDA position on a literal creation week?

Why doesn't Wisbey ever answer or even address this question? After all, it is a very simple straight forward question.

We already know that LSU does a lot of very good stuff for the local community, church, and world at large. There's no debate there. That's all fine, good and wonderful. However, it really doesn't matter how much good stuff LSU does if it continues to attack a fundamental Pillar of the Seventh-day Adventist faith (as it has done for decades now) - and not even admit it openly.

There's a gorilla in the room that no one at LSU, not even Dr. Wisbey, wants to substantively address. At least Dr. Geraty, former LSU president, was recently forthright enough to honestly present his own position against the importance of the literal creation week and in favor of long-ages for the evolution of life on this planet. It would be refreshing if Wisbey would simply follow suit and be honest about what is really going on at LSU with regard to this particular issue (without bringing up all the other good stuff that LSU is doing in an effort to avoid talking about the real question here).

I don't usually say this, but I actually agree with David Larson on something ; )

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

"If you have trouble accepting the Biblical account of the creation story, wait till you get to the story of immaculate conception. Oh, my."

Ah, that one may be next and should be a killer! Let's see the "explanations" for that one. For those who would not believe their teen-age daughter's "explanation" for an unexpected pregancy, how can this ever be taught to high school freshmen biology students with a straight face? Wonder how it's taught at LSU academy??

Sean Pitman,

You said it comes down to one simple question...and then you asked three. I'll answer the question I think is the one simple question, but why can't you answer mine?

MY QUESTION: Are you, Shane Hilde, and EducateTruth engaged in cyberbullying? The National Crime Prevention Council's definition of cyber-bullying is "when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person." You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying.

YOUR ANSWER: "Why doesn't Wisbey ever answer or even address this question? After all, it is a very simple straight forward question."

Normally, adults need to advise kids on how to deal with cyberbullying, so you should not be surprised that Dr. Wisbey recognizes and understands your tactic. According to Nancy E. Willard, author of the book, Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Cruelty, Threats, and Distress, the very first step is as simple and straightforward as your question: "do not respond or retaliate, no matter how tempting it may be to fight back."

Interesting enough, when Dr. Wisbey responds, he chooses to defend his institution, ignores your specific charges, and refuses to take up your own tactics by attacking your character and motives.

Cyberbullying and cyberharrassment have become such an acute problem among the youth of our nation that, in August 2008, the California state legislature passed one of the first laws in the country to deal directly with cyberbullying. The legislation, Assembly Bill 86 2008, gives school administrators the authority to discipline students for bullying others offline or online. This law took effect January 1, 2009.

What an irony that EducateTruth was developed by a California schoolteacher--of all people! But consider the dozens upon dozens of adult SDAs--many of them physicians, lawyers, and even pastors--who gleefully engage in this behavior at EducateTruth.com. What a great embarrassment to the denomination.

The immaculate conception is not a good analogy because one time miracles that leave no evidence are not the same as a history laid out that we can study.

Maybe if we had video of Mary and Joseph engaging in carnal relations every night for weeks nine months before Jesus was born, and we had her diary talking about it and we had her mother's letters to a friend worrying about how Mary was going to get pregnant if she didn't knock it off - and then we were asked to simply accept that Mary was a virgin and God was the father of her baby, not Joseph. That might be more similar.

Beth

Please

The immaculate conception has absolutely nothing to do with the virgin birth. The immaculate conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church to explain the lack of original sin in Jesus. If Jesus was without the taint of sin, then Mary must also have been without the taint of sin. The idea of immaculate conception was hatched due to Paul's comments to the Church at Rome on how the sin of Adam was confired upon all the issue of Adam.

Mary was concieved of the Holy Spirit not Joseph according to Scripture. We really don't need a diary. Tom

I believe that this is an embarrassment to the church and its educational system. But more importantly, the nature of the Michigan conference letter is more astonishing and embarrassing to me. The tone is that of speaking to a child. It either directly or indirectly accuses members of La Sierra University of apostasy which is not their right to declare in a public setting such as that in my opinion. Furthermore the declarations within the letter seem bent on punishing the university in any means it may, and not of correcting what they perceive has gone wrong within the school. It seems to me that love and reconciliation was left out of the letter- which is what the letter should have been all about. If this must be an issue within the Church it should be handled in gentleness, humility, and not of one looking down upon another but of picking up and shouldering those who may have fallen down.

Regardless of the position one may hold on the issue of evolution taught within the church's schools I would hope that people recognize that the Michigan Conference letter was out of line and poorly written.

Evidently Dr. Wisbey does indeed care much more about a great many other things besides the long-standing and very determined attacks that his professors are making against the foundational Pillars of the SDA faith. This isn’t some new thing at LSU. This has been going on for decades – and Wisbey knows it.

It is fine to worry about “accreditation, academic freedom, academic integrity, avoiding schism, and helping to make the church open to all.” These are actually concerns of mine as well. However, these concerns do not trump the right we all have to transparency – to know what we are actually paying for with our hard earned dollars to send our sons and daughters to what we think is a school that actually promotes SDA ideals. Wisbey is being decidedly opaque here. That’s clearly not right. It is not right to mislead parents and the Church membership at large on this issue.

Beyond this, of course, all employees of any institution have a primary obligation to give the employer what the employer is paying for on the employer’s dime. This is not happening at LSU. And, this obligation also trumps everything on your list of other potential concerns. If you can’t be honest toward your employer, it really doesn’t matter what other reasons you may have – it’s still called stealing in my book; a robbery of the employer’s time and money.

Another reason why your list of concerns are secondary concerns in my book is because of the primary purpose of having a Church school to begin with. The SDA Church didn’t build and fund schools in order to simply reflect what could be obtained for much less cost and effort from secular schools or from other denominational schools. One’s “academic freedom” is therefore limited when one freely volunteers to work for the Church as a teacher or pastor. After all, no one would think to maintain a pastor who decided that he should start promoting the doctrine of “eternal hell fire” or the virtues of “worshiping the Virgin Mary”, or “Sunday Sacredness”. Such a pastor would be asked to resign from being a SDA representative and work elsewhere for an organization that was actually willing to pay him for his services. Our teachers should be held to no lower a standard than our pastors.

If this sort of requirement eventually results in a loss of accreditation (which it will not – at the present time at least), then so be it. Why fund an accredited school that ends up undermining your main goals and ideals? Is this not a self-defeating strategy for any organization?

As far as academic integrity is concerned, if one cannot in good conscience teach in line with the clearly stated goals and ideals of one’s employer, what is the most honest thing for that individual to do? Where’s the integrity for someone to undermine the stated goals and ideals of their employer on the employer’s dime? Hmmmm?

Oh, and remember good ol’ Neville Chamberlain? How well is he remembered for his efforts to avoid schism at all cost? Compromise has its limitations if one really stands for something worthwhile. There is a time to join together and a time to separate. How can two really walk much less work toward a common goal of any real importance unless they be agreed on at least some fundamental level?

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

David R Larson said:
"Suppose I own a restaurant and that I am accused of serving meals that cause food poisoning. It won't be enough for me to respond to this charge in a Christlike manner. Neither will it be sufficient for me to remind the public that all my employees are model citizens and to invite them to visit my restaurant to see for themselves that this is true.

I fear that this is how some who are on the other side of these debates than I am will react to this most recent LSU statement.

If the charges against my restuarant are sufficiently serious and widespread, I have to either (2) demonstrate that they are false, (2)change what I serve if they are true, (3) or explain that some things that might initially taste dangerous are actually nutritious."
===============================================

Indeed David you are right.

Randal Wisbey is not even remotely trying to address any of the substance in the issues over LSU and "evolution being promoted as the right answer for the doctrine on origins".

His statement simply reduces to

"yes but we are nice people"

and "if you could only see our faces you would agree"

and "after all we do community service and have a lot of students".

Which as you note - is not the kind of response that a serious University President would offer IF the charges of teaching evolution "as the right answer for the doctrine on origins", were in fact false and there any interest at all by LSU administration in effectively refuting the charge.

His answer may be "politically correct" but it is totally lacking in substance when it comes to the issue at hand.

As every reader can tell by now - Nobody is arguing that "there are no nice people at LSU". And yet - astonishingly - that is the charge that Randal Wisbey addresses - "as if" that was the issue the Michigan Conference raised.

Obviously - it was not the issue raised in the first place.

As long as the LSU administrative response is to duck and dodge the actual issue - and to "play for time", the problem only gets worse. It is transparently obvious to any serious reader - we need some actual leadership in the administration of LSU.

in Christ,

Bob

The fireball from hell lobbed by the President and Executive Committee of the Michigan Conference across the country at the campus of LSU is a disgrace.
How dare they sit in judgment and use the loaded word "apostasy" so glibly?
According to the Master's own instructions in Matthew 18,NO ONE is to speak negatively of another person unless they first speak to them face to face and present their greivance in person. What do the Michigan judgemtalists not understand
about this simple, ethical procedure?
They could have addressed the issues much more relevantly and helpfully if they would have sent a delegation to frist go and speak with the biology teachers in question and with the administration of LSU and then made their decision.

This conference president is the George Bush of Adventism. He took it upon himself to act unilaterally instead of discussing such an important decision with his consituents,
his Union Conference President and the General Conference President. He needs to apologize at once to the teachers, the administration and the students of LSU. He also should seriously consider a career in real estate.

Hopefully we will see some real leadership on this controversy from Don Schnieder and President Paulsen. They need to quickly and clearly rebuke the outrageious inappropriate and unethical behavior of the Michigan presdent and his committee.
A far more serious problem must not be lost sight of in this controversy.
The real issue at stake in this controversy is NOT evolution.
The real issue at stake in Doug Batchelor's recent tirade against the ordination of women pastors was not ordaining women pastors.
The real issue, the real elephant in the church that no body wants to talk about and nobody wants to admit is there is the issue of INSPIRATION of scripture. All this fussing about various issues, policies and doctrines is only a symptom of our not facing squarely and honestly and open-mindly what inspiration is and how it works.
If we do not take on this task, we can expect our church to be
weakened and perhaps even split apart.

Only a few have had the courage to gingerly approach this loaded topic. (Alden Thompson and Chuch Scriven to name two
brave souls) They have spoken their truth on this vital subject. Let's hope that along with Alexander Carpenter and Chris Blake, they have not painted targets on their backs for the brethern in Michigan to direct their ecclesiatical fire at and find an excuse to declare Walla Walla College or Pacific Union College or Union College or Kettering Hospital
as institutions embedded with apostasy also, and not worthy
of denominational support. Once this can of worms, this ecclesiastical McCarthyism begins it is hard to say where it will stop.

Here are a few of my feeble reflections on inspiration to help get the ball rolling on what really needs to be discussed.

Fundamentalists, literalists, fail to understand that the Bible is the love letter, not the marriage. It is the map, not the journey. In his book The Blue Parakeet, Scott McKnight speaks of the importance of regarding the Bible relationally and not authoritivly. “The relational approach distinguishes God from the Bible. God existed before the Bible existed; God exists independently of the Bible now. God is a person; the Bible is paper. God gave us the papered Bible to lead us to love his person.” 5. Ibid. p.87. McKnight suggests that instead of viewing the Bible as an inerrant and authoritative we should see it as a profound guide to personal relationship with God. He says that the psalmist did not say to God, “ ‘your words are authoritative, and I am called to submit to them.’ But rather, “your words are delightful, and I love to do what you ask” The difference between these two approaches is enormous. One of them is a relationship to the Bible; the other is a relationship to God.” 6. Loc cit p.85
The Bible is not a book of science. We abuse if we try to make it so. It was Galileo’s colleague, Cardinal Baronio who attempting to support Galileo during his time of persecution by the church said, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” The Bible is not even primarily a book of history. It is to be read for one main purpose; to enhance one’s relationship with God. It was given to bring us to God consciousness and to love and to salvation.
Fundamentalists forget that all of the Bible’s writers were imperfect human beings. They forget that these men (and yes, all of them were male) wrote primarily for their own people in their own time and in their own language for their own culture. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” wrote the Psalmist. Note however, that the scriptures while helpful are not the path. There is only one Path, the one who said He was “the Way”.(Ps 119:105 KJV) (from the manuscript "The Wind")

Douglas Cooper

What you guys are doing is ILLEGAL for your children to do; now grow up and be an example to them.

The physical action required to create a child is also illegal for that child to do. So what. There are a myriad of actions that are perfectly legal for an adult while simultaneously being illegal for a non-adult.

Maybe you could also scream at your targets that they are able to vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, AND join the military while its ILLEGAL for their kids to vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, and join the military!!!

Douglas Cooper I have a question for you. Have you ever written a love letter? If so did you fill it full of lies, deceptions and half truths? I hope the answer is a resounding no, because when you love someone you desire to be honest with them. And yet you expect us to believe that God wrote us a love letter that was full of lies and further more that then God came down here and lived with us and told us more lies? How could I love a god who intentionally deceived me? What kind of god would intentionally deceive me? You think that God would woo us to Him with lies? Would you wife have faith in you if you deceived her? You don't build a relationship with someone with a series of lies, that destroys any chance of a relationship.

The great deceiver is not God, it is Satan.

One thing I agree with you on, the Bible is a love letter, but it's a truthful one, and because of that I can have faith in God. I can trust Him and love Him, because He is truthful. Love never deceives, especially the love of God.

Jonathan Taylor wrote: "I am wondering why La Sierra continues to be officially non-responsive to the controversy other than to say 'we're nice people.'"

Cyberbullying 101: do not respond or retaliate, no matter how tempting it may be to fight back.

One of the issues that has had little mention is the issue of accreditation. To be accredited the university has to include evolution in the courses requiring it. What do the critics of La Sierra University want: to convert it into an Amazing Facts Bible College?

Mike, no one is suggesting that our schools should not teach evolution. Just that it should not be taught as truth while the Biblical account is relegated to being a fairy tale.

Professor Kent, I didn't realize I was cyberbulling Obama and Sarah Palin. lol I respect your points even if I disagree.

Surely the Michigan Conference has loaded the gun, and shot themselves in the foot... or more seriously, sprayed us all with their scatter gun. The North American Division should talk calmly with their Board, and take their gun away.
A literal view of scripture is often a dangerous naivety, and although a simple faith is to be envied, it does not necessitate the abandonment of common sense.
It seems to me that in the minefield of explaining creation the one constant is the awesomeness of our God. What this action has done is to concentrate on the smallness of man. La Sierra has responded with charm and grace: Michigan would do well to learn from that.

La Sierra is suffering from a failure of Crisis Response 101. It doesn't matter if some people consider EducateTruth cyberbullies. Welcome to 2010 and the internet--this is how people respond to issues -- they post them. So EducateTruth is not the issue. La Sierra's response to EducateTruth is the issue. La Sierra and all our institutions should be adequately prepared to deal with websites and internet posters. Accusing posters of being cyberbullies doesn't make the issues go away.

Due to failure to address the issues raised, this has now become a firestorm in the church. The perceptions are way out of control, and even very perceptive people cannot tell if La Sierra's professors are or are not really promoting things that are contrary to the church's position.

La Sierra has failed to adequately address these issues promptly and clearly. Who is advising La Sierra on how to handle a crisis? This is a PR crisis of mammoth proportions, and I don't think La Sierra is getting good advice. It seems that someone is advising them to ignore the situation, sugarcoat the issues, and hope it all goes away. That's not how it works in the field of public perception. Things are no longer rational if you let the fires burn and ignore things. Public perception can run rampant in all kinds of uncontrolled ways if you don't take control. I implore La Sierra to do what good companies and institutions do in response to crisis -- put out the truth, even though it's painful,sunlight what's going on, communicate vigourously, and take corrective action promptly. This is the church's oil spill and no one's capped the leak yet.

Hello Bob S.: I would suggest that you take Dr. Wisbey's invitation seriously and go personally to LSU and get your information first hand. Also it seems that you haven't even read what he wrote above that "we affirm, as consistently declared by our university and by our Board, our strong belief in God the Creator and Redeemer, as revealed in our Church’s Statement of Fundamental Beliefs."

The videos posted by EducateTruth gave play to over an hour of LSU's teachings on the subject of how they view church doctrine. Even if everything else posted on EducateTruth were patently untrue and false, the videos speak for themselves and are the reason I arrived at my position on the issue of La Sierra.

That the professors at La Sierra University and Dr. Geraty doubt the prophetic ministry of Ellen White is beyond question. Why are they Adventist? They should be happy to find themselves outside the realm of the church where their teachings will not be questioned by the "ridiculous" fundamentalists. This issue is broader and deeper than most would dare say - it is fundamentally incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism.

Note the following from Patriarchs and Prophets:

Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God Himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and He then blessed this day and set it apart as a day of rest for man.

In the law given from Sinai, God recognized the week, and the facts upon which it is based. After giving the command, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," and specifying what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh, He states the reason for thus observing the week, by pointing back to His own example: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11. This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the days of creation to be literal. The first six days of each week are given to man for labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. On the seventh day man is to refrain from labor, in commemoration of the Creator's rest.

But the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. It represents the Creator as commanding men to observe the week of literal days in commemoration of vast, indefinite periods. This is unlike His method of dealing with His creatures. It makes indefinite and obscure that which He has made very plain. It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible. [p. 112]

Jonathan Taylor, before this snowballs anymore, I would urge you to take seriously the invitation of Dr. Wisbey and personally talk with them. I believe that they would vigorously deny the accusations that you have posted against them.
P.S. Do you think that our colleges and universities should be like Wildwood and Weimar?

A cultural Adventist is someone who identifies, usually because of family and upbringing, with the Adventist Church but does not believe, or no longer believes, its doctrines to be truth. The cultural Adventist is not a problem for the church, and unavoidable anyway.

But the phenomenon of the militant cultural Adventist is something else again. The militant cultural Adventist is not only unorthodox himself, e.g., "I do not believe in creation in a literal week", but also denies the existence of Adventist orthodoxy, e.g., "I'm an Adventist, and I'm a Darwinist, not a creationist, therefore Darwinism is just as 'Adventist' as creationism."

But even this is not enough to meet my definition of a militant cultural Adventist. There must be one thing more: the militant cultural Adventist insists that even if there were an Adventist doctrinal orthodoxy, which he denies, it is absolutely out of bounds and hideously "un-Christlike" to try to enforce it.

It is primarily this third position--denial of the legitimacy of enforcement of orthodoxy--that makes a militant cultural Adventist, and makes this phenomenon so dangerous to the church. If this position prevails, then eventually only cultural Adventism will exist, and Adventism as a belief system or a coherent doctrinal system will simply cease to exist in an organized, institutional form.

Mike MacLennan:

There is no point to going to La Sierra - they haven't refuted anything that's been said. They've just tried to change the subject. Also, the way they treated the students who challenged them is reprehensible. They have no regard for the students who they blatantly censored. They have no regard for real academic freedom.

Bob S. said -

"La Sierra is suffering from a failure of Crisis Response 101. It doesn't matter if some people consider EducateTruth cyberbullies. Welcome to 2010 and the internet--this is how people respond to issues -- they post them. So EducateTruth is not the issue. La Sierra's response to EducateTruth is the issue. La Sierra and all our institutions should be adequately prepared to deal with websites and internet posters. Accusing posters of being cyberbullies doesn't make the issues go away.

Due to failure to address the issues raised, this has now become a firestorm in the church. The perceptions are way out of control, and even very perceptive people cannot tell if La Sierra's professors are or are not really promoting things that are contrary to the church's position."
===============================================

EducateTruth includes course material, videos of lectures, LSU professor's giving press releases, eye witness accounts, former teachers, students, parents all admitting to this problem at LSU - all showing that the school is in fact teaching evolutionism as the right answer for the doctrine on origins.

If the objective unbiased reader simply went to that web site and allowed themselves to "see" the direct first hand evidence - ignoring all the posts and comments, the conclusion is still overwhemly and transparently obvious to the reader.

The wishful thinking among those that are not actually looking at the published evidence is of the form "I hope this is just a he-said she-said misunderstanding".

Hopefully the serious Adventist constituency will view the idea of preaching evolutionism "as the right answer for the doctrine on origins" in both religion and biology departments as a serious enough matter - to at least "look" at the first-hand evidence and decide for themselves.

in Christ,

Bob

EducateTruth does indeed have videos.

It also has mischaracterizations of those videos.

For example they write "In this video, Dr. Webster denounces a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 in favor of higher critical methods of interpretation.", whereas the video itself on http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/presentations/biology-sem... does NOT show Dr. Webster "denouncing" anything.

/Bevin

Bevin wrote

"For example they write "In this video, Dr. Webster denounces a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 in favor of higher critical methods of interpretation.", whereas the video itself on http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/presentations/biology-sem... does NOT show Dr. Webster "denouncing" anything."
===================================

In that video Webster (speaking for the religion department - in a biology class) says that the literal 6 day creation option is wrong. He states that the "Realistic view" is right and that this view is the view that an "anthropologist" would take when reading the book of Genesis. He says that the only other reasonable option is the view that Genesis is simply a style of writing that relies more on poetry conveying high level theistic concepts rather than conveying accurate details about a literal 6 days of creation.

Again - this is a good place for the objective unbiased reader to see first hand evidence and listen carefully to "the inconvenient details" of what is actually said in that video by professor Webster.

in Christ,

Bob

The "deep insecurity" is the fact that an Adventist University, using tithe dollars, as a matter of policy has refuted the basic tenets of Seventh-day Adventism. They have refuted literal 6-day creation which is the bedrock or Adventist belief - believe it or not.

In my humble opinion, unless there is a major change, La Sierra should not be considered Adventist any longer.

If Wisbey would prefer to be like Aaron at Sinai and help the Israelites make a golden calf and descend into apostasy, it would be far better if he would simply resign and let someone else take the lead during this great crisis.

I heard that Wisbey refuses to say whether or not he believes the Genesis account of creation. Is this true?

LSU’s argument is, in short, "If we do enough good stuff it’s Ok if we let our professors attack the Fundamental Pillars of the SDA Faith…"

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

As a fourth-generation SDA parent of three sons (the youngest of who we thought may have been a bit young, but by his insistence, was baptized two weeks ago) who will someday have to choose a college or university and may consider an Adventist institution, my concern with Adventist higher education was/is the potential of its science courses being unduly influenced by Adventist theology, whether “right” or “wrong” (no, not even SDAs are infallible), and Adventist theology being unduly influenced by administrators and influential but not theologically-trained board members, alumni, parents, and financial benefactors.

With this latest “LSU controversy” and all the surrounding brouhaha, I am surprisingly relieved that Adventist higher education doesn’t have its head in the sand with respect to the best and latest advancements in academic thought and practice. If science and theology, as taught at LSU, is a general indication of what is the trend in Adventist higher education, I am encouraged.

I do worry about the effects the witch-hunters and orthodoxy police will have on the spiritual health of the church, intellectual curiosity in Adventist education, and a healthy learning environment and morale of our college and university students and staff.

Thank you, President Wisbey, and others like you who serve the church!

BobRyan writes

>>> In that video Webster ... says that the literal 6 day creation option is wrong

>>> He (Webster) states that the "Realistic view" is right

Bob then writes

>>> Again - this is a good place for the objective unbiased reader to see first hand evidence and listen carefully to "the inconvenient details" of what is actually said in that video by professor Webster.

Professor Webster lists 4 schools of interpretation.

The first two (Literal and mythological) he describes as "not particularly helpful". The second two he lists (figurative and realistic) he says "may be helpful".

I challenge Bob to point to a ten second interval in the 5 minute presentation where Professor Webster says "the literal 6 day creation option is wrong".

I also challenge Bob to point to a ten second interval where Professor Websters says the Realistic View is "right".

Bob, like EducateTruth, is seriously misrepresenting the video and hoping that you will not look at it for yourselves but will instead believe his spin on it.

/Bevin

Bob Ryan has implored us to visit EducateTruth to examine the "all-for-evolutionism" agenda for ourselves as an "objective unbiased reader."

No one should believe that the "evidence" at EducateTruth.com is either "objective" or "unbiased." It represents less than 1% of 1% of that which is taught in the biology department, and a much smaller portion of that which is taught across the entire campus. As such, the so-called "evidence," clearly one-sided, constitutes propaganda--defined as "communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position."

Bob, we all know that you yourself cannot be an "objective unbiased reader." (But feel free to continue insisting that we must be that which you yourself cannot be...)

Why didn't Wisbey address the question or point of controversy? I can't believe or, maybe I can, that some Adventism has gone this way. It just reassures my faith in the SOP. We are definitely near the great crisis of the end and the intense shaking time. LOOK, God created the world in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th day Sabbath. As far as I'm concerned Satan's lies have entered La Sierra and they should not be considered Adventist anymore. Professors sound like a bunch of philosophical, non-humble people. That's the problem with higher learning, the more degrees you have the more you question God. Maybe that's why Jesus chose such humble unschooled disciples. We can't be playing with our salvation, I don't care how smart you think you are La Sierra or any other Adventist University. Read your Bibles and Pray for the Holy Spirit. Or, do you not believe in the holy Spirit either?

I agree with Neville.

It is amazing to me that LSU is denigrated in such a fashion. Young adults need to be taught how to think, not what to think.

Whatever your opinion of LSU, it seems to me that it at least achieves this.

What is the problem? Are worried that free thinking will lead people away from orthodoxy?

ej, maybe you hit on something. Evolution says that life started as a ball of slime and slowly over billions of years pulled itself up by it's boot straps, killing and beating others into submission to became man. And of course since we are still evolving maybe we will become a perfect being.

Creationism says we were created perfectly in six days by a perfect God and placed on a perfect earth. But we fell miserably but our own creator loved us enough to die for us and restore us to the perfection He desires for us, if we so desire.

Two concepts that are totally incompatible with each other, and yet there are those within the church who are trying to force a unnatural marriage of these two. It's like trying to mix water and steel, it can't be done successfully.

Lenden, no one is objecting to the teaching of evolution in our schools. The objection comes when our young people are being taught that the God given Biblical account of origins is false but the teachings of man are true.

something amazing just happened! When I was 3 I through a bunch of trash and scrap metal in my back yard, I PUT IT THERE-SOMEONE HAD TO, and just today (40 years later) amazingly, there is a cool robot walking in my backyard just moving smoothly by and repeating some robotic sounds...wow!

Raul,

Did not Jesus curse the tree that brought forth no fruit? The wrong fruit is probably worse and deceiving. There are consequences eventually to a wrong course of action, have you thought of that? God is in control! Thank God we aren't. Stick with the truth though the heavens fall!

"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would to into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue was better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." 1SM 204, 205

Brothers and Sisters, we are so very close to our Lord's coming. Get ready. Submit your hearts to the Holy Spirit.

Bevin said

"The first two (Literal and mythological) he describes as "not particularly helpful". The second two he lists (figurative and realistic) he says "may be helpful".

I challenge Bob to point to a ten second interval in the 5 minute presentation where Professor Webster says "the literal 6 day creation option is wrong".
=========================================

Bevin asks that our trivial exercise in critical thinking ignore the inconvenient detail that Webster claims the literal 6 day creation view is not helpful and that by contrast the "realistic" view may in fact be the one that is helpful - it is the one that Webster claims any "Anthropologist would have" (presumably when reading the texts and considering the myths available at the time of Moses's writing).

Working through this tiny detail is left as an exercise for the reader. Watch the video, pay attention to detail.

Likewise - take a look at Professor Bradley's own press release - and "pay attention to detail".

Also - read Erv Taylor's comments as guest speaker for one of the LSU biology courses - and "pay attention to detail".

The wishful thinking of those not looking at the evidence but trying to imagine that LSU is not promoting evolution as the right answer for the doctrine on origins - never gets off the ground.

It is all there.

in Christ,

Bob

Paul set the standard when he said with such a man, don't even eat. It's not about being unchristian. If it were, Paul was sure unchristian, wasn't he? Makes no difference about outside people. LSU is an inside operation. If they err, of course it is the churches right and responsibility to correct them. Or, as Paul said, keep them out of the church. The church is not politically correct. How can it be? Like I said, what's next, Jesus being raised from the dead? At what point do we say, "NO! You must believe this way or you are not an SDA!" If we never get there, then all beliefs will be reasoned away.
Jesus said this, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Where's the evolution?

I fear for our future..God forgive us

I really think that folks who want to promote the idea that it's all right for evolution over millions of years to be taught as fact at LSU should push that idea somewhere else other than at Spectrum, UNLESS the idea wants to be promoted that Spectrum is part of the scandal.

The issue is black and white, and cut and dried. It is indisputable that LSU's science classes cannot teach as truth fallible human theories such as evolutionism and still be true to LSU's mission of providing a Seventh-day Adventist Christian education.

Interesting how EGW is more reliable than the Bible:

Mark 11:13:

"And seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, FOR IT WAS NOT THE SEASON FOR FIGS."

I have fig trees in my orchard, and can assure you that this whole valley was once the fig capital of the U.S., and leaves do NOT mean fruit! Some years there is nothing but leaves, and especially when out of season there would be no expectation of fruit. Evidently EGW was not familiar with fig tree production.

Re Bob Ryan, David Reade, Pat Travis, Sean pitman, shawn hilde and others. Are you "paying attention to detail" when you read or have you read?

John 16:25-33
25 "Though I have been speaking FIGURATIVELY, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you PLAINLY about my Father.--------------------
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without FIGURES OF SPEECH. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

In the development of human understanding God's very own children were not ready to grasp the principles of God's kingdom so he spoke to them in FIGURES of speech. How much of the Bible is in "figures of speech" we are still trying to find out. The bible's message is progressive. GOD doesn't change but our understaning of HIM and the law of human behaviour does. It is called present truth by many adventists but many aadventist have given up on present progressive truth. WE either progress or we regress. That is a law of the human mind. By beholing we become changed (growth) 2 corinthians 3:18.

Paul in Ephesians Said "I keep asking that the God of our lord, Jesus Christ, give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation that you may KNOW HIM Better.

Psalms say his word is a light that lightens our path and it ggets ever brighter if we don't hide it under a bushel of our preconceived idea's.

"Christ reproached His disciples with their slowness of comprehension. . . .
After His resurrection, as He was walking to Emmaus with two of the
disciples, He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures, so explaining the Old Testament to them that they saw in its teachings a meaning that the writers themselves had not seen.

Christ's words are the bread of life. As the disciples ate the words of Christ, their understanding was quickened. They understood better the value
of the Saviour's teachings. In their comprehension of these teachings they
stepped from the obscurity of dawn to the radiance of noonday. So will it be
with us as we study God's Word (Signs of the Times, Apr. 4, 1906).

The work of explaining the Bible by the Bible itself is the work that should
be done by all our ministers who are fully awake to the times in which we
live (letter 376, 1906).

>From Lift Him Up - Page 115truth seekers

Truth seekers stand on the horizon looking outward and upward whereas truth protectors stand on the brink of the abyss looking downward in fear and trembling. Some stand round the base of the mountain(ie Sinai)in fear of being shot through with an arrow or stoned while others come boldly before the throne of grace so they can be helped in their time of need Hebrew 4:16.

Fear paralyzes the mind, robs us of health joy, makes us emotionally unstable, stops our growth and investigation. Fear is based on ignorance. knowledge is power to overcome fear. Life is an expereince and a journey. The joy is in the journey. Let the journey go on without the neurotic fear produced by ignorance. Question all and learn from the quest.

Jay

Sincerely

Jay

Creationists believe in evolution that actually dwarfs some aspects of ancient earth evolutionary theory.

Here's why:

In the beginning all animals were vegetarians and didn't eat each other. Because in the original creation all was peaceful and there was no death. Genesis 1 says herbs with seeds were given to the creatures to eat. This is how it will supposedly revert to in heaven where the lamb will lie down with the wolf and the lion will eat staw. (See Isaiah) Sounds like lion hell to me.

Now here is where the creationist believe in evolution on a grand scale:

Soon after the fall, creatures began to eat each other. Have you considered the dramatic implications in the ecosystem as a whole and in the inner biology of the creatures? And the interspecies interactions. Within a few short years, or simply 100s, at the most a thousand, years, the whole nature of a cheetah (to use one example) meant it went from chasing one blade of grass to another, to developing speeds of over 100mph. What did it need this speed for before. It's teeth went from cow-like molars to ones in which there were no grass-grinding teeth left, but rather its whole mouth evolved rapidly to ripping and tearing, with teeth of a totally different shape, different root systems, and entirely different shape of mouth and jaws, muscles and tendons to accommodate the changing nature of how and why they did their chewing. They hadn't needed paws and claws before, but now they evolved these to do high speed racing and scratching and ripping things to bits.

Eyesight changed dramatically. Compare the digestive systems of a cow or goat to a cheetah. grass eating animals have particularly designed stomach systems - a cow has four- so it can chew the cud and each stomach has functions to digest not-easily-digestible grass. They have a particular ph of juices to cope with the vegetation and cellulose. In contrast, carnivores have massively different stomach and digestive systems, and their intestines are of a different order entirely. A cheetah would die eating grass, just as a cow would die eating sheep - or gazelles.

So frogs ate seaweed, then learned to like mosquitoes. Snakes ate nuts then turned to mice. Crocodiles munched on bullrushes, then turned to buffalo calves. I

It's a huge revolutionary and evolutionary (although mightily rapid) total reorganisation and redesign of every single aspect of the ecosystem, and total transformation of every aspect of just about every creature. Massive, massive short-term evolution. So in a creation perspective, God is the ultimate evolutionary manipulator and instigator. Creation scientists will have to get into gear to explain the mechanisms that would need to be in place in order to cause that all to happen without the entire planetary biological order collapsing into annihilation.

Go 6-day young earth Creation Evolutionists! You've got a challenge on your hands...!

Great insight Gabe I love it and your earlier comments as well.

Beth said:

Are they promoting it as the right theological doctrine for origins or are they promoting it as the right scientific explanation for the diversity of life? There's a difference between a church doctrine and a scientific explanation.

YEC makes a wonderful theological doctrine, especially if you are SDA. However, it makes for really lousy science (and not just because it involves the supernatural.) Evolution is great science but very difficult theology.

I'm sure that the SDA scientists caught in this bind understand the difference all too clearly.
==============================

1. Evolution is not science. It is junk-science and the publically confirmed history of outright fraud lasting in many cases over 3 decades - duping the public into taking evolutionism "seriously" is pretty hard for the objective unbiased reader to ignore.

2. Atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, Provien, P.Z Meyers and yes even not-quite Atheists such as Charles Darwin himself admit that this is an alternate to the Bible on the subject of "origins" that is soooo extreme as to flatly undermine faith in God. All of the above claimed to have had faith in God prior to fully embracing "belief" in this alternate story for the doctrine on origins.

3. "Explanation for the diversity of life" could mean anything thing from "why so many dogs?" to "I believe rabbits came from swamp gass and birds come from reptiles".

Pick one.

In the end - both the atheist and the Bible student believe that they have found the right "doctrine on origins".

Which is why in 3SG 91 we find the statement that theistic evolutionism is nothing less than "disguised infidelity".

4. As for Bible-believing scientists - I have yet to find even one that was the least bit "disturbed" or "confused" over the fact that a reptile in the lab - turned into a bird while he was away on vaction. Or a scientist led to a crisis of faith by the fact that amino acids self-organized into a living cell while he was out to lunch.

In essence the salient points central to "belief" in evolutionism simply aren't verified in the lab.

And the doctrine on origins that the evolutionist evangelists like to preach - flatly contradicts what our Creator says about origins.

5. I am reminded of a rather well known atheist evolutionist who lamented something like "Stories based on the fossil record about how one thing comes from another - are easy enough to make up - but they are not science".

Sadly - as an atheist evolutionist he had no other choice but to simply "believe in it anyway" - but at least he was not totally blind to the problems that confronted such a belief system.

in Christ,

Bob

Thank-you, Dr. Wisbey for your response. It reaffirms my commitment to LSU as an one of our best hopes for Adventist Higher Education. As someone who has pondered the value of an Adventist education at the University level, it is refreshing to see an institution committed to providing a spiritual environment with a commitment to the faith traditions of the Adventist church - traditions that value the honest intellectual struggle our young people must face to make this faith truly their own, integrating the realities of life with a personal faith experience. This is what I want for my children - a faith grounded in truth, reality and a personal relationship - a strong faith that will continue to grow throughout their lives. Thank-you for partnering with me in thier education.
You, the faculty, staff and the students of La Sierra University have my support! God Bless. May the love and grace of God bring you peace and soothe those so anxious to hurl condemnation.

"If you stand up straight, your shadow will always be straight. If you stand up a little crooked, your shadow will always be a little crooked." - Chinese Proverb

The issue is not whether it is wrong for an organization to feel humiliated by the facts that what they are delivering contrary to public promise is the antithesis of the stated essence of their parent organization. It is an illogical argument that says a subordinate organization can be misinforming the public about delivering dishonest goods but shouldn't be accountable because they'll be "embarrassed."

"Our community is rooted in the Christian gospel and Seventh-day Adventist values and ideals...We pursue this mission with excellence, integrity, compassion, and
mutual respect." LSU Bulletin 09-10 p. 4

“Whereas belief in a literal, six-day creation is indissolubly linked with the authority of Scripture, and; Whereas such belief interlocks with other doctrines of Scripture, including the Sabbath and the Atonement, and; Whereas Seventh-day Adventists understand our mission, as specified in Revelation 14:6, 7, to include a call to the world to worship God as Creator...We strongly endorse the document’s affirmation of our historic, biblical position of belief in a literal, recent, six-day Creation." General Conference Executive Committee 2004

"Reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are as follows: 1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same." SDA Church Manual p. 195-196

God bless,

Rich

Sources: (http://www.lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/academics/bulletins/ugradbul...)
(http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html)
(http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Chu...)

In another thread, Citing apostasy..., I asked:
"Why can't Young Life creationists and Theistic evolutionists work side by side on one campus? Same with those who espouse the historical-grammatical method alongside practitioners of HC or the literary-historical approach (what Dr Webster of LSU labels as the figurative-realistic perspective)?"
Thanks to Richard Sherwin and Bob Helm for their replies.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/26/citing_apostasy_michigan_con...

I posed the question with two well-known conservative Christian institutions in mind, namely: Fuller Seminary (California) and Regent College (Canada). Correct me if I'm wrong but these are two examples of multi-denominational schools where faculty and students with divergent views co-exist. I'd like to think of LSU as one such center of Adventist higher education that's a welcome place for both faculty and students who may not completely agree with our official teachings.

About Fuller's history, George Marsden wrote:

What is most striking about Fuller Seminary during the Hubbard years [1963-93] is its diversity. I recently saw a letter from a Fuller graduate commenting on my book and remarking that he could have added to the stories. He was already a veteran missionary when he was there in 1974, and he recalled eating lunch with a fellow student one day. He was eating a pork sandwich, and the other student, a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, was eating his vegetarian meal, while at the table next to one side of them a group of barefooted, long-haired, Fuller students were praying in tongues and laying their hands on the head of a weeping student and at the table to the other side another group of Fuller students was smoking cigarettes. He remembers thinking, “Wow, can’t I get some seminary credit for sitting through this?”

That diversity has increased in remarkable ways since 1974. Particularly striking is the institution’s new ethnic, racial and gender diversity. It amounts to a good deal more than just the mix of Methodistic, Baptist, and Presbyterian traditions that has always characterized major evangelical coalitions. I think a case can be made that Fuller Seminary is one of the most meaningfully diverse institutions in the country. And it is particularly noteworthy that this diversity is not an end in itself but a sign of a commonality in the visions and goals of a variety of types of evangelical Christianity.
[snip]
The inauguration of Richard J. Mouw to be the fourth president in 1993 was celebrated with an “all nations” service that impressively combined a celebration of Christian multiculturalism with the spirit of the Old Fashion Revival Hour. Fuller Seminary must be one of the few academic institutions in the world that hold faculty to university standards of scholarship and yet still allows these other emphases to come through with uncontrived genuineness. The roots of all these emphases that so effectively preserve the spirit of the founders can be found in the early history.

Fuller Seminary’s accomplishments did not come without struggles.

-Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism By George M. Marsden, Eerdmans, 1987
pp. xiv-xiv (Preface to the Paperback Edition)
http://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Fundamentalism-Fuller-Seminary-Evangelic...

The college years are the time in a student's life when he makes choices: about his life work, about his life companion, and about his life religion. Up until this time he has been solely a product of his environment. This is part of the maturation process; and without maturation he would not become a fully formed member of society.

Occasionally we encounter human beings who are mature physically but immature emotionally and spiritually. They are not productive members of society and are usually ineffective in other ways as well. The ability to make CHOICES is part of the whole process. If we can't make a choice for or against an idea which has been presented to us, we're not a complete person.

In the 1950s my sister attended Washington Missionary College [now called Washington Adventist University, I think]. During that time she wrote a letter to my parents asking to have her name dropped from membership in the Adventist church. My dear mother always held a grudge against the college, thinking it was the teachers there who had instilled doubt in my sister's mind. Well, perhaps that was true. But my sister would have made those choices sooner or later, whether or not she attended WMC. She is today a lovely mature woman whom I'm happy to call my sister, and who is a productive member of society. She is a member of a different denomination [actually this changes periodically, from New Age to Lutheran, to using her A.A. group as her only church family], but she functions in society and with her Adventist family whenever she's in town with us.

I believe God "knows the pit from which we were digged" and that He will save and redeem us with Him in heaven.

I'm glad Sis had that 4 years at WMC in which to make choices. She's a mature woman now because of it [even though she and I don't worship in the same manner, she truly does believe in God nevertheless].

There's a difference between teaching a theory and recommending it as truth.

tuningin

Bob Ryan said -
>>> Evolution is not science. It is junk-science and the publically confirmed history of outright fraud lasting in many cases over 3 decades - duping the public into taking evolutionism "seriously" is pretty hard for the objective unbiased reader to ignore.
-----------------------------------------

Bevin said -
If a history of publically confirmed bogus papers is to be used as the measure, then Recent Life Creationism wins hands down. There are whole websites on the internet devoted to publishing such papers (eg: answersingenesis) and the papers are all easily discredited.
==========================================

Bob Ryan said --

At best Bevin's unproven accusation represents his own diehard fraudulent evolutionists arguing on the same "by faith alone" basis for evolutionism and producing fraudulent deceptions in the process as you "would like to think" of the Answers In Genesis people.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

------------------------------------------

Bevin said:

"The difference is that these organisations DON'T try to discredit their own work, whereas the study of evolution (being a real science) is all about building better instruments, making more measurements, and refining and discarding earlier hypotheses that don't fit the new facts.
===============================================

Bob said:

Again - you are merely placing a "nice face" on fraud on behalf of evolutionists - by misdirecting to the practices found in real science "AS IF" the frauds of evolutionism were nothing more than "a learning process".

But the hard facts are that Ernst Haeckle's 50 year long fraud was fraud from the very start. Haeckle's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny argument was based on his own fraudulent representations which he later admitted were simply made up to make it look convincing to an unsuspecting public. In the same way Othaniel Marsh's 50 year long fraudulent horse series was an "arranged" fossil sequence "to make it look good" - that had nothing to do with how things are found in nature.

Evolutionists "wanted to believe" so their own practitioners gave them the fraudulent stories they so wanted to hear.

Just a few tiny examples of NOT following the scientific method at all - merely attempting deliberate hoax after deliberate hoax to try and dupe the unsuspecting public.
-------------------------------------------

Bevin said:

"I note the same is true about traditional SDA theology. They assume it is right, and search for facts that fit - rather than looking for the problems."

===================================

Bob said:

Your third-person reference to SDAs would make it appear that you are not Adventist

I guess I need to back up a bit before assuming that you actually have an SDA background

in Christ,

Bob

>>> During the intervals between Sessions of the General Conference, the Executive Committee is delegated the authority to act on behalf of the General Conference in session.

That does NOT include the authority to create new Fundamental Beliefs

"During the intervals between Sessions of the General Conference, the Executive Committee is delegated the authority to act on behalf of the General Conference in session."
Bevin says, "That does NOT include the authority to create new Fundamental Beliefs"

That is correct. In this 2004 GCEC action, the SDA fundamental belief "Creation" (6/28) which was affirmed by the GCEC, which included the NAD stands and there should be no more talk about anyone embarrassing anyone. This is fundamental to the name and therefore essence of the church to which LSU belongs and is expected to enlarge, not diminish.
God bless,

Rich

"In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work." FB6; cf. Sabbath FB20
Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

If you want to use Haeckel as fraudulent evolution science, you should tell the whole story – that evolutionists are the ones that cried foul – Wilhem His, Sr, a contemporary of Haeckel and most recently Michael K. Richardson, an evolutionary zoologist. Both critique Haeckel because they are searching for an accurate representation of the evolutionary process. This is science at its best when we critique and refine our interpretations of what we think we know based on new information or additional study. I would argue that such an approach to scripture is also Adventism at its best as well.

It is interesting to scan these blogs and see how various human interpretations of scripture are touted as IRREFUTABLE, FOUNDATIONAL, and GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE. Christ came to demonstrate the true character of God, the God of love, compassion, grace and community – the character we strive to emulate. Sometimes it seems that spirit is lost within this discussion – and I find it hard to find the spirit of grace, love or community in the actions of the Michigan executive committee.

Which disciple did Jesus kick out of his community because she/he misinterpreted the meaning of Messiah, Kingdom, Savior? Yeah – that’s right he didn’t. Not even Judas. Isn’t it amazing – that people with this good news about the character of God would prefer to hold what they consider to be FOUNDATIONAL as the criterion of faith -.i.e, required to be in the club. Is our interpretation of “truth” more important than God’s love and forgiveness? What is really the Good News of the Gospel? What is more relevant to the world we minster to? And what was the list of requirements or fundamental beliefs to be in Jesus’ club?

I find the reference to "choices" interesting, as given from pro-evolutionary arguments. I see the problem being one of no real choicesgiven to biology students at LSU. They are presented with the evolutionary world view as fact, period. And that doesn't leave any choice. I mean who would choose a fanciful story over actual fact?

The problem, as I see it is that the instructors at LSU have too narrow a world view - a view that does not look beyond the current scientific paradigm of naturalism to see that there are other ways of interpreting the same data.

I would want to see our grand-children attend a university where they would be taught to understand the evolutionary paradigm of science and the creationist paradigm. It's a whole lot more work, and it demands a whole lot more study/education from the professors. Unfortunately it appears that the LSU admin and biology department is not up to the challenge -- probably because they are so convinced that only their view is correct.

All this talk of "academic freedom" is absurd, when students are not even allowed the freedom to disagree, much less the freedom to investigate how the same data fit into a different paradigm.

Remember, folks, that the evidence/data is the same for the evolutionist and the creationist. The difference lies in the philosophical framework on which each hangs the data.

The Adventist church provides a philosophical framework, but LSU has chosen to ignore it and to substitute what essentially amounts to a naturalistic framework for science, in spite of all the "God-talk."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inge Anderson

Inga - I appreciate the perspective, and agree it does take a lot more work to consider how scientific and faith paradigms are different and yet integrate. However, if we are to accomplish this difficult work - we have to recognize the accumulated data on the subject and not dismiss the concept of the evolutionary process as inherently evil. The concepts of "evolutionary" adaption and ancestral relationships are actively used in a variety of biologic disciples including genetics, medicine and development. What I find narrow mined is the inability to accept differences of opinion as Adventist scientists struggle to integrate their faith with the mounting data supporting an evolutionary process. If we want scientist to have integrity, as I hope Adventist Christians would expect, discussion, not abandonment, is vital to the process. From my own personal experience the Adventist philosophical framework is alive and well at La Sierra University.

Rich Constantinescu writes
>>> That is correct. In this 2004 GCEC action, the SDA fundamental belief "Creation" (6/28) which was affirmed by the GCEC, which included the NAD stands and there should be no more talk about anyone embarrassing anyone. This is fundamental to the name and therefore essence of the church to which LSU belongs and is expected to enlarge, not diminish.

but he ignores

(a) the preamble that clearly says that all SDA do not have to believe all of the 28FB

(b) the Church Manual which lists the things SDA have to believe and it does NOT include a recent creation of life, a literal reading of Genesis, or the authority of EGW

All of these points have been covered over and over and over in these blogs. It is time the Sabbath School classes started teaching something.

/Bevin

Kent, are you saying the Sabbath wasn't in effect before Israel's exodus was negotiated? Wishful thinking, for whatever reason.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 1:31-2:3

In Exodus 20, God is speaking. In Deuteronomy 5, Moses is speaking a sermon/exhortation. In the midst of referring to God's law which God spoke and wrote in stone, he reminded Israel of the reason why God delivered them from Egypt, to serve God and be able to keep His Sabbath. That the Sabbath was from the beginning in memorial of creation is incontestable.

Moses quoted Exodus 20:1-2 while recapitulating the fourth commandment or that because God gave them liberty, they are bound by His law and His covenant. Thus it is the law of liberty. Exodus 20 has God's Words which were written in stone, Deuteronomy 5 was a sermon.

The Ten Commandments as spoken audibly by God on Sinai were written in stone and historically accounted for in Exodus 20, referred to by Moses without damage and additional mention of a previous experience in Deuteronomy 5 - namely that of God releasing His children to keep His law.

God bless,

Rich

Bevin says,

"(a) the preamble that clearly says that all SDA do not have to believe all of the 28FB
(b) the Church Manual which lists the things SDA have to believe and it does NOT include a recent creation of life, a literal reading of Genesis, or the authority of EGW"

Please provide us with the page numbers. It would be appreciated. Thank you kindly.
God bless,

Rich

Kerbyco, it seems I did not make myself clear enough because your response indicates that you do not understand my foundational argument.

You wrote:

• I appreciate the perspective, and agree it does take a lot more work to consider how scientific and faith paradigms are different and yet integrate. However, if we are to accomplish this difficult work - we have to recognize the accumulated data on the subject and not dismiss the concept of the evolutionary process as inherently evil. The concepts of "evolutionary" adaption and ancestral relationships are actively used in a variety of biologic disciples including genetics, medicine and development.

I was not addressing the integration of scientific and faith paradigms as much as I was addressing two different scientific paradigms and arguing that students need to be familiar with both. The problem at LSU appears to be a narrow-minded view of science that assumes that only the current naturalistic paradigm of science is "real science," and your response appears to assume the same. That is, you assume that anything outside of the evolutionary paradigm of science must necessarily be a "faith paradigm."

I suggested the importance of studying the philosophy of science. This would allow students to understand that science, as a human endeavor, is as fallible as all other human endeavors.

In our world today, too many make a god out of science, and that includes Adventists.

As Adventists, including Ellen White, we have always held true science in high esteem. And we actively promote "hard science" (the kind that can be tested in the lab) in our publications and our institutions, particularly our health institutions. No one is arguing against changing our attitude towards hard science.

The science of origins is not "hard science." It cannot be tested or verified. Thus it is based on philosophical presuppositions -- presuppositions that necessarily involve belief/faith. These presuppositions result in different interpretations of the evidence.

My argument was that students in our universities need to be thoroughly educated in the philosophy of science and how it determines the interpretation of the evidence. They should understand the evolutionary paradigm, including the competing evolutionary scenarios. They should also understand the creation paradigm, including the competing creation scenarios. That takes more effort and a broader education of our professors than required in universities that choose to coast along with the scientific paradigm predominant in the world today -- namely the evolutionary paradigm.

It appears to be the unfortunate reality that professors at LSU are only educated in the evolutionary paradigm and believe it to be the only way to do true science. Thus they are not qualified to teach either a course on the philosophy of science, nor any other courses which should distinguish between the evidence and the interpretation thereof.

As you can discover, if you dig deeper into the subject, evolutionists themselves disagree on major points. A number of them have freely admitted that evolutionary science is not "science" in the strict sense, and that it cannot be rationally demonstrated to be so. (That is in reference to origins).

That said, Adventists believe and have always believed in changes of organisms over time -- so-called "micro-evolution" to distinguish it from the slime-to-man evolutionary scenario. Such "evolution" is demonstrable and real science. But it takes a great leap of faith from demonstrable evolution to the evolution, over billions of years, from slime to man. Unfortunately, LSU teaches the latter, based on faith in chance rather than faith in a divine Creator -- despite all lip service to a "Creator." (It would help to read more of what some great evolutionary scientists such as Stephen Hawkings wrote. He clearly said that his paradigm leaves no room for a Creator.)

Again, let me be clear: Neither origin by divine fiat nor origin through evolution over billions of years is subject to scientific verification. Both presuppositions provide a philosophical framework on which to hang the geological and biological evidence. It is impossible to do science without some such philosophical framework, and only the naive argue for such a possibility.

Only God can be truly "objective" in science.

Inge Anderson
The Sabbath School Network

Posted by: Rich Constantinescu

>>> Please provide us with the page numbers. It would be appreciated.

These things were discussed over the last few weeks in the obvious LSU-related notes here.

If you aren't prepared to look over four or five notes for them, then you are not really interested.

/Bevin

Bevin says,

"These things were discussed over the last few weeks"

"Things"? "Preamble"? "Notes"? Are you talking about, 28 FB Beliefs of the SDA Church? Seventh-day Adventists Believe..., SDA Church Manual? In an article? In a comment? What's a note?

I searched this thread for related terms to decipher your source before I made the mistake of counting on your good will to reveal the source of your referenced information. Which effort is interpreted as disinterestedness. I am disinterested in citation-less references but I love the truth.

God bless,

Rich

Bravo to Brittany Smith. You said it WELL. Thank you and thank you Spectrum for providing this open forum. I love the opportunity to openly discuss the issues of life and death.

Sincerely

Jay

Jay, I don't have time to respond to all your questions, but hope to later.
God bless,

Rich

"6. Do you accept the Ten Commandments as a transcript of the character of God and a revelation of His will? Is it your purpose by the power of the indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation?"
Baptismal Vow, SDA Church Manual; pp. 32-33

"14. The seventh day of the week is the eternal sign of Christ’s power as Creator and Redeemer, and is therefore the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, constituting the seal of the living God. It should be observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:23-31; 20:8-11; John 1:1-3, 14; Eze. 20:12, 20; Mark 1:21-32; 2:27, 28; Isa. 58:13; Luke 4:16; 23:54-56; 24:1; Acts 17:2; Heb. 4:9-11; Isa. 66:22, 23; Lev. 23:32.)"
Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs, SDA Church Manual; p. 220

Here, all the commandments, and not the least of which the fourth commandment is stated as one of the doctrinal beliefs necessary for membership in the SDA church.

The fourth commandment says, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

Not too hard to see, or hear.
God bless,

Rich

The choice of the tree of good and evil was also included in "good" because free will is good, very good as God said. Yet this tree was only placed in Eden because there was a Satan or Fallen angel counteracting or questioning God's law or principles. If there never would of been a Satan or fallen angel to counteract God, the tree would of never been a test, though free will existed then it will always be. That's the great God we serve, out of love. While Satan wants to deceive us into serving him out of force.

Satan has deceived the whole world. You see, God created the world in 6 literal 24 days and rested on the 7th day Sabbath. We have a Sabbath, on Saturday, every week to commemorate our loving God as creator. That all this confusion is all of a sudden entering our SDA ranks is a sure sign the Lord is near, even at the doors. The Omega of apostasy? part of it maybe?

"REMEMBER the SABBATH DAY to keep it Holy...six DAYS shalt thou labor and do all thy work BUT, the seventh DAY is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God..."

The SOP is clear that God created the world in six literal 24 hour days and rested on the 7th day, Sabbath. Why all the commotion...here is the SOP on it...

"God made the world in six literal days, and on the seventh literal day He rested from all His work which He had done, and was refreshed. So He has given human beings six days in which to labor. . . . By thus setting apart the Sabbath, God gave the world a memorial. He did not set apart one day and any day in seven, but one particular day, the seventh day. And by observing the Sabbath, we show that we recognize God as the living God, the Creator of heaven and earth.—Letter 31, 1898. {CTr 18.5} "

this is what happens when we do not listen to God's prophets. Some other amazing SOP comments:

"One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4}
The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through
different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}
The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}
It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211. {LDE 178.2}"

"As trials thicken around us, both separation and unity will be seen in our ranks. Some who are now ready to take up weapons of warfare will in time of real peril make it manifest that they have not built upon the solid rock; they will yield to temptation. Those who have had great light and precious privileges, but have not improved them, will, under one pretext or another, go out from us. Not having received the love of the truth, they will be taken in the delusions of the enemy; they will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, and will depart from the faith. {LHU 211.4}"

>>> I searched this thread for related terms to decipher your source before I made the mistake of counting on your good will to reveal the source of your referenced information.

I too tried to find it using the "search" box - and discovered how weak that box is.

The relevant portion of the SDA manual is

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Chu...

pg 31

Baptismal Vow and Baptism

Baptismal Vow—Candidates for baptism or those being received into fellowship by profession of faith shall affirm their acceptance of the doctrinal beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the presence of the church or other properly appointed body.

The doctrinal beliefs are listed near the end at

APPENDIX
Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs
This summary of doctrinal beliefs is especially prepared for the instruction of candidates for baptism. (See pp. 31-35.)

No requirement for a literal interpretation of Genesis there.

Re: The fundamental beliefs, try
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1681

ej said:

Posted by: ej (not verified) | 03 June 2010 at 9:27

"Satan has deceived the whole world. You see, God created the world in 6 literal 24 days and rested on the 7th day Sabbath. We have a Sabbath, on Saturday, every week to commemorate our loving God as creator.

That all this confusion is all of a sudden entering our SDA ranks is a sure sign the Lord is near, even at the doors. The Omega of apostasy? part of it maybe?"
=========================================

The alpha of apostasy that was dealt with in early Adventism - was Kellogg's pantheism.

Now compare current problems with evolutionism - to pantheism in Kellogg's "Living Temple" at Battle Creek - what do you get?

1. Our schools today that do not tow the line in service to evolutionism - STILL have to teach evolution to the biology students at some modest level - just to inform them about the jargon, the mythology - they will meet when they graduate and seek jobs.

There was never any such thing as "teach the Living Temple basics to the students even though we don't believe them - because the whole world is using that system as a frame of reference". It simply was not there in the late 1800's.

2. In the recent U.S Presidental election - we had all the presidential candidates of one of the political parties asked "do you believe in evolution" on national television during a debate - and the few that said "no" were then pummeled by the press over the next week or two with demands that they recant combined with insistance that nobody could be president that did not "believe" in evolutionism.

By comparison - there was no such "you must believe in Kellogg's Living Temple or you cannot be elected to political office" nonsense in the 1800's or early 1900's.

3. In America - government grant funding is fully behind evolutionism as is the National Academy of Sciences. So anyone going into a field of research that might be remotely related to a field that evolutionists are interested in - will find a lot of jobs helping to promote an evolutionist agenda and none for Creation. Imagine for a moment that this were the case for Kellogg's "living temple".

Simply no comparison. Do we get out of science? I don't think so. Well then where will this end up?

4. Acceptance of Evolution by the general public in Europe is reported to be well above 90% - and it has already destroyed Christian church attendance in Europe (it is down about 90% from what it was in the 1950's in terms of % of population attending services) and will soon reach that point in Canada, and American acceptance of evolution is on the rise.

By comparison - there was no such world wide momentum behind Kellogg's Living temple at the time the Adventists were dealing with it. Having all of society line up behind the mythology of evolutionism applies peer pressure at the grass roots level before students even get to college.

5. All indications are that if time continues long enough - almost all of our Universities will eventually fall, if our denominational response to this crisis is no more "insightful" than what we have seen over the last 12 years.

So while it is true that some "Worse thing" could always show up in the next few years - this one is plenty bad enough to be an "Omega of a most shocking nature".

in Christ,

Bob

Jay wrote:

• Inge maturing, growing people who have been taught to "question", and think for themsselves will always have another Choice. ... That is the best thing we can do for our children, teach them to think for them selves.

It was precisely my point that it is the job of university professors to teach students to think for themselves. One good way to do this is to present the evidence and teach them how it is interpreted according to two very different paradigms.

My objection is that this is not done at LaSierra. The interpretation of one particular paradigm, the evolutionary paradigm, is presented as the factual account of how our present world came to be. That is not offering students a choice.

Jay wrote further:

• Apperantly you feel that the creation story is only a "fanciful Story"

Quite the contrary!

My point was that by presenting the evolutionary scenario as fact, the biblical creation account is denigrated to the place of a "fanciful story." And, even if rejection of the biblical account were not specifically taught, it would be the sure result of the teaching of the evolutionary scenario as scientific fact, because the two accounts are diametrically opposed and significantly impact our understanding of the God we serve.

However, I see it as entirely possible that the principals in this scenario have not thoroughly thought through all the ramifications of their teachings in this area. Some people are perfectly capable of holding contradictory viewpoints in their minds, but others are not. And it is those others who will lose their faith in God altogether, and I am very much concerned about those, because it is not a necessary result of studying science.

Inge Anderson
Sabbath School Network

As I wrote
>>> I still think the SDA have some great theological ideas, and for many people provide a pleasant social circle.

If three things were changed, I would rejoin the SDA denomination.

1) An acceptance at all levels (GC/NAD/Union/Conference/local ) church levels that SDA can have a range of understandings of Genesis.

Today this acceptance is practiced by some people at all levels, while they tolerate others at all levels who attack evolution with a range of down-right stupid arguments bringing discredit to both God and their denomination, and extreme discomfort both to their target and to others watching the attack.

2) A recognition that the equality of women in the western world's business sphere makes it inappropriate for the SDA denomination in such countries to discriminate against them.

3) A more scientific understanding of gender, sexuality, and bonding resulting in the condemnation of promiscuity and the acceptance of gay marriage

Today the SDA denomination puts more effort into condemning monogamous gay partners than it does into condemning adultery - think about this. In a country where 50% of marriages break up, many due to adultery, and where less than 10% of the "marriages" are gay, the SDA don't focus on the adultery...

/Bevin

Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com

This controvery could have been ended before it started if Dr. Wisbey had had the courage of answering the following question: "Does LSU support the Creation story found in Genesis and its official interpretation by the Adventist Church as being done in seven literal days of 24 hour each?"

My guess is that Dr. Wisbey will never answer said question. He prefers to talk about the wonderful Chriatian spirit we find at the LSU campus. Well, this has nothing to do with the reason this storm started. Dr. Wisbey keeps answering a question nobody has raised and insits on repeating what nobody has questioned.

Dr. Wisbey? Did you really fail to understand what the question was and is? Do your teachers believe and affirm what the Adventist Church is officially teaching, that the world was created in seven literal days of 24 hour each?

The question is simple. Were those days of creation literal or symbolic of long ages? Is this question that difficult to grasp? Why don't you put an end to this controversy? You have the power to do this with a simple answer.

If your teachers believe that each day of creation symbolizes long ages, can you admit this and explain why your teachers believe and teach long ages of creation instead of literal days of 24 hours? Transparency requires that you do this!

The desire for a simple "yes" or "no" to any question infers more on the questioner than the one who answers.

Many questions cannot have a simple yes or no.

"When did you stop beating your wife" is only one classic example.

To ask if someone believes in the literal "interpretation" of Gen. 1 ignores that fact that there are two, distinctively different creation stories in Genesis. If one believes the second, is he not adhering to the biblical account? Can he choose which one to answer "yes" to? Why not, they are both accounts in the same Bible?

Why must one choose one story over the other? There are many accounts in the Bible that have been told of the same incident, and they vary. Claiming that one is the correct one automatically negates the other.

If Dr. Wisbey agrees with the Creation story in the book of Genesis, why must he choose which one? By choosing one does he deny the other?

The only reason the SDA church has preferred the Gen. 1 account is because of Sabbath. If one believes the creation as described in the book of Genesis, why must the SDA church choose only one for its interpretive belief? No one should be made to choose a church's official statement over the Bible story, but isn't this what is being done?

Bevin....above you opined that you might be inclined to reestablish your church membership is a few changes could be made:

including:
2) A recognition that the equality of women in the western world's business sphere makes it inappropriate for the SDA denomination in such countries to discriminate against them.

it might be a good time for us all to take the quiz here to understand where all good Christians including "baptists" should stand on that issue based on the Good Book.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/roleofwomen.html

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/roleofwomen.html
Posted by: john alfke (not verified) | 05 June 2010 at 1:53
That was a good laugh John! The scary thing is that it does represent the thinking of some fundamentalist Christians who ignore the context of the passages of the Bible.

Michael G your story of what happened does not correspond to Dr. Wisbey's published account. See http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3304 for everything that he wrote.

wow, what a furor?

We from down under do not understand the issues as they are not clear. LCU needs to explain clearly what is going on that has upset the conference? I understand that in context evolution thoery could be presented as an exercise in understanding it. What context is it taught though? Is it taught by the lecturers as if it were true or even possible? If so then this places a clear indication of what needs to be done. Ethically, is it right to take a pay cheque from people who trust you to espouse their belief system to our up and coming generations? For me, I would be honest and come clean - whatever the persuasion.

Kent,

You asked which Bible chapter you can believe and which you must disbelieve. This question has false premise. Can you scientifically show that disagreement with a premise is rudeness?
God bless,

Rich

Jeffery,

I took "one explanation" and "offers another" to be different than if you had noted, "further explanation." All our conversation aside on Educate Truth, the above quoted phrase, "offers another" can be understood that only one can be believed to the exclusion of the other. For example, if you had said, "apparently offers another" or "additional explanation" the thought is changed.
God bless,

Rich

Bravo, La Sierra! What a beautiful response.

Now that LSU has admitted (after the investigation of the AAA) to having numerous professors promoting Darwinian evolution as the true story of origins in their science classrooms (for decades), undermining the SDA position on origins, and belittling those students who dared to question Darwinian dogma in class, the action of the Michigan conference to protect its own constituency from this blatant anti-SDA influence of LSU's science (and even religion) professors doesn't seem so extreme...

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com