Typical - can't find it now. I know I read somewhere that many of the participating scientists felt that they'd been railroaded and that the findings of the conferences and the affirmations they led to were not at all a fair representation of the discussion at the conferences. I'm still searching, because I know I read or heard that somewhere.

This snippet was found on the atoday site (different page):

" I was pleased that the last word at the conference was neither strictly theological nor scientific. It was pastoral. For those who believe orthodox theology to be the most important characteristic of the church, these conferences offered reassurance: The church will not change. Your truth is secure. But for those who prize people, progress, and science, the president speaking as a pastor offered this reassurance: "The church needs you and values you". If a church works best when it is defined by a clear, explicit theology but is led by a compassionate, humane leader, maybe we're not in such a bad spot after all."

Since, imho, Theology and Science are both equally creations of the human mind, the best activity for the church is pastoral, as the GC president demonstrated, and not dogmatic theology, let alone science.

Adventist Today is not an official publication of the Adventist church. John McLarty, a progressive mentioned in the story, is one the the contributing editors of the magazine. Obviously some of the progressives that attended the conferences were not happy with the outcome. Catholics trying to get the Vatican to change its position on priests marrying, homosexuality, abortion or females entering the priesthood get frustrated too. That is how I read this news. Some progressive Adventists that wanted the church to change its position on creation didn't get their way and left the conference crying foul. Somehow, that seems doesn't seem too surprising.

That's one possible reading of the situation, but I think the participants were more worried by the process even than the outcome. The question was "Is this a good faith effort to look at all of the relevant and available evidence, and use that evidence to come to a conclusion, or is it a 'fixed' show trial with a predetermined outcome?" I think many of the scientists who participated felt strongly that they participated under the assumption that it was the former and reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was the latter.

If the determination had already been made that the current position was unassailable, then it seems to me dishonest to hold a discussion about it, because the natural assumption in a discussion of this kind is that change is possible.

You may also be interested in this AR interview with Lowell Cooper, chair of the organizing committee for the FSCs. The tone of some of his comments indicated that there was a lot he wasn't going to be specific about.

The Lowell Cooper interview is quite a contrast to the Adventist Today article. The two sound like there were attending two different conferences. That may be because the progressives at Adventist Today wanted to use the conferences to change church doctrine and left disgruntled. The GC, on the other hand, wanted to use the conference to create a dialog.



The "natural assumption" of progressives that want to change church doctrine may be that kind of change is possible but the stated purpose of the conference was to create dialog, not initiate any change. That is probably the reason the progressives left so frustrated. One doesn't go to a Jewish restaurant to get a cheese burger. If they do, they are setting themselves up to leave frustrated.

dialog=An exchange of ideas or opinions

So, it would seem that the idea, "because the natural assumption in a discussion of this kind is that change is possible.", is not an unreasonable assumption! Nothing is being said about makeing changes but that they may be possible. Other wise, why the dialog? Both sides already know the others position!

The same happens here on CA. We don't discuss to make change ... we discuss to dig in our personal ideas.