Obviously they're afraid of the truth.  That's pathetic!

Selene

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man." ~ Albert Einstein, 1936

Hi Danny,

As with all group decisions, there is no definitive "rationale". Since I participated in the process, I can assure you that there were a variety of views. We all wished that the GC could be more open to dissenting critical views. Where we disagreed was on whether the GC's right to be wrong should be respected and accepted. I personally felt that it was not at all unreasonable for the GC to ask us not to be what they perceived as a potentially negative, divisive influence at their party. It was not unreasonable, was it, for Notre Dame to expect President Obama to refrain from expressing his views on abortion when he spoke at last year's graduation ceremony? The GC is a private corporation with the right to control what happens at its events on its property, including the conduct of invited guests. What are the legitimate limits to free speech and expression at private events?

Others felt that, as Church members, it is our party too, and we should not be asked to hide our identity. Criticism - seeking transparency and accountability - is a part of who we are.  By agreeing to the terms set by the GC, would we be implicitly advancing their agenda, and accepting the inference that the books in question are negative influences on the Church.

Pragmatism won out. 

I, also, was part of the decision and Nathan has expressed it well.  If we had not agreed it was very likely that our right to a booth at the General Conference session would have been rescinded.  We felt that we could do more good by going along with the request and getting more people to subscirbe to AT than by refusing.   Paul in 1 Cor. 9 tells us that his strategy with different groups was the following:  When with the Jews I lived as a Jew.  When with those under the law I lived as under the law.  When with those not under the law I lived as one not under the law.   When with the weak I was weak.  He said he did this to reach as many people as he could with the gospel.

To paraphrase Paul, to the General Conference under the law we agreed to live under the law of the General Conference so that we could reach as many people as we could with the gospel of openess and transparency and accountability. 

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

Let's look at the flip side. The GC rep said that they didn't want AT to display these three books. But in so doing, the GC was also saying AT could have copies of all its other publications, including the magazine (that might have ads for these books, as well as some provocative articles), and a book that seems to advance evolution, and a book that praises Desmond Ford, as well as Ford's DVDs and the "RedBooks" DVD. All of these things, I assume, also have this webpage on them, where they can order those books (one of which you've already distributed pretty widely).

I'm trying to understand how that's "censorship."

David, Nate et al:

Maybe in the interests of openness and transparency it would be good to have a prominent sign at the AT booth stating that respecting the GC's wishes you are not selling, advertizing or displaying the following books--(and then list them!)

Wishing to be helpful...

Jonathan

Ok Bill I will try to help you understand. You see censorship is a word which is defined by the act of a censor which is defined as:

I like Jonathan's idea:

 "Maybe in the interests of openness and transparency it would be good to have a prominent sign at the AT booth stating that respecting the GC's wishes you are not selling, advertizing or displaying the following books--(and then list them!)"

That would be honoring  the G.C. requests and not advertising them at the same time.   All those stopping at the booth could fill out a card with their name and address, and later they could be contacted--for subs to the magazine (and any unlisted books). 

Ultimately this is the larger question that every critic or reformer of any organization has to decide.  Will it seek to "change from within" and give in to the demands of the organization and attempt to take "baby steps" in the direction of change, or be unapologietic and take larger steps that, becuase of the organizations censure, may not be seen at all.  One can make arguments on both sides of the equation and ultimately any organization has to decide whether it will work within the structure or outside of the structure in its efforts for reform...

-- Sherman Haywood Cox II