|
If I hadn't received these
notes myself, I'd question their validity. But, since these
very same notes have been posted on the SHIELDS web page (http://shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_01.html), you can verify for yourself that these are indeed
the writings of leading LDS scholars Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgely.
Here's the background: My son and I spent four hours on
KTKK radio in Salt Lake City on the Sunday night of General
Conference on April 5th, 1998. From 5PM to 7PM Van Hale
hosted his program, Religion on the Line, and then
Richard Hopkins came on and we continued as guests until 9PM,
taking calls all the way through. It was a profitable
time. Toward the end of Van Hale's show, a caller, who
identified himself only as "Bill," called in and we
began talking about Deuteronomy 32:8. It was a rather
technical discussion, and was rather rushed due to time.
Upon returning home, I received the first in a series of posts
from Dr. William Hamblin of Brigham Young University, a
participating member of FARMS, an author, and, as he informed me,
the "Bill" who called in at the end of the radio
show. As the resulting correspondence with Dr. Hamblin did
not, originally, take on the strange, harsh tone of what follows,
I have included it in a separate page (click here to view that
correspondence). But I very quickly discovered that if
you write to a BYU professor, you are writing not only to all
interested BYU professors, but really to the entire world, for
what you write will end up on the SHIELDS web page. I'm
thankful for the opportunity to post there and help spread God's
truth, but the resulting e-mail messages have been most
interesting---and enlightening.
Below you will find the messages of two BYU professors, Dr.
Daniel C. Peterson, and Dr. Louis Midgley. Their attentions
were not solicited by me. They began writing to me as a
result of Dr. Hamblin passing around my response to him.
Eventually, as you will see, I stopped even replying to
them....which has not, to this date, stopped them from sending me
their nastigrams. Most of these messages arrived while I
was ministering on Long Island, NY, and preparing for, or
engaging in, a debate with Fr. Mitchell Pacwa on the Papacy (click here for information on that debate).
Amazingly, while they are intent upon accusing me of angry words,
insults, and the like, anyone reading their notes can see who is
doing what. I am more than happy to allow the reader to
judge the motivations, and the words, of both sides.
The first message came from Louis
Midgley:
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:17:06 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Subject: THE QUALITY OF ANTI-MORMON LITERATURE
Dear Jim:
I have been observing and enjoying the exchange you have been
having
with Bill Hamblin. And since, in an essay I am about to
publish on
anti-Mormonism, I will be quoting (with approval I should
add) language
found on page 17 of your IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? in which
you grant
that Latter-day Saints have "have little difficulty
demonstrating
inconsistencies and half-truths" in anti-Mormon
literature. There are
something like twenty or more lines on that page in which you
set the
rhetorical stage for your book, which will, you imply, not be
guilty of
the kinds of problems you attribute to those "many who
would provide the
strongest denunciations of LDS theology and practice"
but who fail to
take seriously what Latter-day Saints write in defense of the
Church of
Jesus Christ.
Given the language found on page 17 of your book, I wonder if
you
consider any anti-Mormon literature to be of a quality
similar to or
approaching your own. And by that I mean is there any other
anti-Mormon
literature, other than your own, of course, in which, from
your
perspective, the authors have mastered and evaluated the
arguments of
those you label "Mormon apologists" or "modern
LDS apologists and
scholars"? And if so, which authors could you list as
having more or
less been willing to take seriously what Latter-day Saints
have been
saying in response to anti-Mormonism?
I trust that you will not be offended but perhaps please to
learn that I
take your comments of page 17 or your recent book as an
effort on your
part to indicate you (and your book) belong in a category
apart from the
run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon book or pamphlet. And your
observations, at
least from my perspective, seem to have been intended to
indicate that
the reader of your book could expect to find one who has paid
the price
and who is therefore both willing but also anxious to have a
serious
conversation with Latter-day scholars, where other
anti-Mormons have not
done what is necessary to engage in such a conversation.
I am anxious to know if there is an anti-Mormon literature
that comes up
to your standards. Would you recommend, as companions to your
own work,
say the writings of Walter Martin? If not, who might be in
your league?
Or who might come close to your standard? Or should I read
what you have
written on page 17 of your book as an attempt to distinguish
your
writings in crucial ways from all previous anti-Mormon
literature? If
not, then I would assume that you will be anxious to indicate
who among
the current stable of anti-Mormons is not guilty of the
complaints you
direct against your anti-Mormon associates in your recent
book.
I thank you in advance for your efforts to address openly and
honestly
the questions I have raised.
Grace and peace,
Louis Midgley
At this time, I was not aware of the SHIELDS page, nor a
little inter-BYU list called "skinny-l," so I wondered
how Midgley got hold of the Hamblin correspondence. I
replied:
>I have been observing and
enjoying the exchange you have been having
>with Bill Hamblin.
May I ask how you have done this? I'm getting notes from
people all over the place, so I assume they are being posted publicly. Where might this be?
>And since, in an essay I am about to publish on
>anti-Mormonism, I will be quoting (with approval I should
add) language
>found on page 17 of your IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? in
which you grant
>that Latter-day Saints have "have little difficulty
demonstrating
>inconsistencies and half-truths" in anti-Mormon
literature. There are
>something like twenty or more lines on that page in which
you set the
>rhetorical stage for your book, which will, you imply,
not be guilty of
>the kinds of problems you attribute to those "many
who would provide the
>strongest denunciations of LDS theology and
practice" but who fail to
>take seriously what Latter-day Saints write in defense of
the Church of
>Jesus Christ.
Actually, I do hope you do not hack up the quotation when you
publish your article. This is what I have with me on my
computer system (I am far from home at the moment, and don't
even have a copy of that book with me):
There are many others, however, who have no doubts whatsoever
about the LDS faith in general, and Mormons in particular.
"It's a devil-inspired cult" they say, "and
that's all there is to it." For many, Mormons are simply
polygamous cultists, out to destroy the souls of anyone
unwary enough to be caught in their clutches. Yet many who
would provide the strongest denunciations of LDS theology and
practice are the very ones who have done the least work in
seriously studying LDS writings, and interacting with LDS
viewpoints. Therefore, a large body of literature exists that
is based not so much on fair, even-handed study of primary
source documentation, but upon a very large dose of emotion
and bias. Such literature normally emphasizes the
sensational, seeking to arouse the emotions of the reader
against the LDS faith. Modern LDS apologists and scholars
like to focus upon such literature, often treating it as if
it is the "norm" for all Christians, and have
little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and
half-truths, thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS
claims and evangelizing the LDS people. But for those who
find in Mormonism the very embodiment of evil itself, there
is little reason to even ask the question, "Is Mormonism
Christian?" And there is even less reason to spend any
time at all fairly evaluating the arguments of LDS scholars
on the topic.
If *that* is what you are citing, what *I* intended, and the
way you are using it, seem to be at odds. The sentence you
cite in its original context states, "Modern LDS
apologists and scholars like to focus upon such literature,
often treating it as if it is the "norm" for all
Christians, and have little difficulty demonstrating
inconsistencies and half-truths, thereby dismissing all
efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS
people." That is more of a criticism of Peterson and
Ricks for _Offenders for a Word_ and other FARMS folks for
their "reviews" in RBBoM than it is anything else.
>Given the language found on page 17 of your book, I
wonder if you
>consider any anti-Mormon literature to be of a quality
similar to or
>approaching your own.
Of course I do. I was referring primarily to non-specialized
books and writers, not to those who focus on the field. You
can look at the endnotes and if I cite the writer favorably,
take your cue from that. I would include the Tanners, Bill McKeever, Wes Walters, etc., as excellent writers on the
subject. And, I have publically criticized elements of Ed
Decker's work, and William Schnoebelen (we include articles
on our web page on the subject as well).
>And by that I mean is there any other anti-Mormon
>literature, other than your own, of course, in which,
from your
>perspective, the authors have mastered and evaluated the
arguments of
>those you label "Mormon apologists" or
"modern LDS apologists and
>scholars"? And if so, which authors could you list
as having more or
>less been willing to take seriously what Latter-day
Saints have been
>saying in response to anti-Mormonism?
>
>I trust that you will not be offended but perhaps please
to learn that I
>take your comments of page 17 or your recent book as an
effort on your
>part to indicate you (and your book) belong in a category
apart from the
>run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon book or pamphlet.
I don't know what a "run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon
book" is, and I reject the label "anti-Mormon"
to begin with. If you will identify yourself as an
anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon. If not,
please refrain from doing so.
James>>>
Well, that must have been my first tactical mistake....I
mentioned Dan Peterson. It wasn't long till this arrived:
From: Daniel Peterson
<dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Newspeak
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Dear Mr. White:
Prof. Midgley shared with me a copy of your e-mail to him. I
shall
offer just a few observations:
a) I have never ever, ever, suggested, let alone explicitly
said, that
Decker and Ankerberg and Weldon and people like that
represent "the
'norm' for all Christians." How could I have done so? As
you surely
should have noticed by now, I deny that evangelical
Protestantism is
"the 'norm' for all Christians." So I am scarcely
likely to grant that
status to the tiny but noisy faction of evangelical
anti-Mormons. While
I am at it, though, I have never ever said that the
Ankerbergs and the
Weldons and the Schnoebelens and the Deckers were
representative, even,
of all critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. Please, if you
are going
to read me, read me more carefully. And less inventively.
b) You criticize me and others at FARMS for allegedly
concentrating on
the more zany anti-Mormons, while apparently neglecting such
reputedly
respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley
Walters. But,
of course, we have critiqued them, too, as you should be
aware. (I
understand that we have not dealt with them to your
satisfaction, as is,
I suppose, signaled by your use of quotation marks to refer
generally to
our "reviews." But that does not alter the fact
that we have responded
to them, as well as to your . . . "books.")
c) There is absolutely no reason for Dr. Midgley or any
Latter-day
Saint I am aware of to describe himself as an
"anti-Baptist." Not a
single one of us makes a living attacking other religions, in
any
medium. We don't have professional disdainers of Baptists,
Buddhists,
Muslims, Shintoists, or anybody else.
"Anti-Mormons," however, are
legion, and the term is entirely appropriate to describe
them. If,
though, they will find other jobs and give up their radio
shows,
television programs, tabloid newspapers, pamphlet presses,
lecture
series, book contracts, picket signs, and web sites
assaulting my faith,
I will happily, as a quid pro quo, surrender the term
"anti-Mormon."
They can go on preaching their own faith to their hearts'
content, as we
do.
Daniel Peterson
Meanwhile, Louis Midgely was busy as well:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:04:09 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Organization: TE ARIKI.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
CC: skinny <skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: "ALL OF BYU" AND OTHER ODD THINGS
Dear Brother Jim:
I have read all of IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? But before I
would
venture more than a preliminary opinion about it, I would
have to read
it several more times. But, I must admit, even at the risk of
offending
you, it bores me. For one thing, you seem to assume that the
JD is
official Mormon doctrine. And you want to make Latter-day
Saints
responsible for every opinion of anyone whose words you would
like to
use against the Church of Jesus Christ. That is simply not
fair. And you
should know it. Are you bound by every statement of every
Protestant
preacher? Or every Baptist pastor? Or everyone who happens to
teach in a
Bible school, or seminary? Of course, the answer is no. But
if I played
your game, I would sort through whatever I could find to
locate
something that I would declare you are bound to defend or
that is part
of your faith, whether you know it or not. Now I suppose you
would
respond to such a silly game by saying that you are bound
only by the
Bible. But even there we have different interpretations. You
may or may
not think that the Bible sort of interprets itself, with a
little help
from the creeds, or you may have some other notion about
biblical
interpretation. But you must have some sense that yours is
but one of
many possible interpretations of the Bible. But, the fact is
I am not
the least interested in your interpretation of the Bible, so
please do
not inflict any of that on me, other than try to deal with
the problems
you got yourself into with Professor Hamblin. I am not
interested in
your interpretation of the Bible because I have my own. And I
think that
mine is superior precisely because I do not try to make the
Bible fit
the creeds. Nor am I especially interested in trying to make
our
scriptures fit some notion held by some Latter-day Saint. The
reason is
that I have some notion of what constitutes the canon. And I
can sense
when a prophetic charism is present, as can Latter-day Saints
most of
the time.
When is your book on the trinity coming out. I phoned Bethany
and
whoever answered had no idea that you had a book coming out.
They ask
around and looked at their literature and found nothing. Is
this book,
which I cannot wait to read, forthcoming this year?
Grace and peace,
lcm
First, my reply to Dr. Peterson:
>Prof. Midgley shared with me a
copy of your e-mail to him. I shall offer just a few
>observations:
Shall I assume that anything, sent to
anyone, at BYU, is sent to ALL BYU staff? :-) Given recent
e-mail adventures, I think so.
Since we are talking about *my*
sentence, then *my* use is in question---and what *I* meant
is defined by the sentence, Dr. Peterson: I spoke of
Christians in that sentence as follows:
Modern LDS apologists and
scholars like to focus upon such literature, often
treating it as if it is the "norm" for all
Christians, and have little difficulty demonstrating
inconsistencies and half-truths, thereby dismissing all
efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS
people.
I believe Christians will, if they
are serious about their faith and about truth, engage in
"refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS
people." That obviously isn't how you use the
word---indeed, I have criticized the redefinition of the term
in _Offenders_ as rendering the term utterly meaningless. And
hence, as I used the term, I was referring to books such as
your own, and works such as that by Richard Hopkins, that are
guilty of lumping all evangelical works into a single pile,
not discerning the important differences in approach,
background, and belief, that they represent.
As to a tiny group of
"noisy" evangelical "anti-Mormons," I
repeat what I said to Professor Midgely: if you will start
calling yourself an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an
anti-Mormon. If not, I'd suggest honesty would require you to
discontinue the use of the term.
>b) You criticize me and
others at FARMS for allegedly concentrating on
>the more zany anti-Mormons,
while apparently neglecting such reputedly
>respectable folk as the
Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley Walters.
Really? Where did I do that? Midgely
asked me for some folks whose writings I respect, and I
listed a few. Please cite the specific place in my post where
I said the above. And as one person put it, please try to
read my writings a little more closely, and a little less
inventively. :) What I wrote was, "That is more of a
criticism of Peterson and Ricks for _Offenders for a Word_
and other FARMS folks for their "reviews" in RBBoM
than it is anything else." I hadn't even gotten to
mentioning the Tanners or others at this point, so how you
managed to invert my statement and so completely miss the
context, I really don't know.
I used the quotes around
"reviews" to indicate that in reality, most of the
books you respond to in RBBoM really don't have much to do
with the BoM to begin with, and they are not really reviews,
but rebuttals. I have not seen a response to ITMMB from
FARMS, and if the fellow from AOL with the screen name
LDSApolog is writing the review (as he indicated), I don't
expect it will rise much higher than Norwood's attempt. At
least to my knowledge that fellow hasn't tried calling
(without identifying himself or his purposes) to inquire if
his company can print the book in the future.
I see. So disagreement with, and
refutation of the claims of, another religious group does not
amount to being an "anti." Very good. Then, since I
spend the vast majority of my time presenting the Christian
faith in a positive light, and simply provide a refutation of
the claims of those groups that pervert the gospel message, I
would not, likewise, qualify as an "anti-Mormon."
I'm glad that is worked out, though, Norwood said I came from
the "anti-Mormon cookie cutter," so I guess he
might not agree.
The long-standing portrayal of the
Protestant minister in the endowment ceremony
notwithstanding, of course. That would not qualify as
"professional."
When you stop telling people that
Joseph Smith was told that the Christian faith, embodied in
the ancient creeds of the Christian Church, are an
"abomination" and those of us who teach those
divine truths are in fact "corrupt," possibly we
can talk some more. But it strikes me, sir, that you are
operating on a very strong double-standard. I have just as
valid a reason to call you an anti-Baptist, or even more, an
anti-Christian----since you deny the very doctrines that
*define* the Christian faith. But I do not, simply so as to
avoid undue emotional clouding of the issues. So why do you
use the term anti-Mormon? When I write on other issues, such
as Roman Catholicism, the same issue comes up: they like to
use the term "anti-Catholics" but will never call
themselves "anti-Protestants." The hypocrisy is
glaring in both cases, is it not?
Finally, Steve Mayfield told me that
you have not read ITMMB. Hence, you have not read my
documentation of the teaching of the physical parentage of
the Son by the Father in the book. Since you are
*specifically* cited from _Offenders_ in the book, as is Dr.
Robinson, and refuted by a mountain of statements by the
General Authorities, I *do* hope that a *serious* response
might someday be forthcoming on that topic.
James>>>
Then, my reply to Midgley. As the reader
can see, I was quickly realizing that reasoning with the good Dr.
Midgley was not going to go anywhere. One of the reasons I
knew this was that I had corresponded with him, briefly, by snail
mail (the USPS) a few years earlier:
> I have read all of
IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? But before I would
>venture more than a preliminary opinion about it, I would
have to read
>it several more times. But, I must admit, even at the
risk of offending
>you, it bores me. For one thing, you seem to assume that
the JD is
>official Mormon doctrine. And you want to make Latter-day
Saints
>responsible for every opinion of anyone whose words you
would like to
>use against the Church of Jesus Christ. That is simply
not fair.
Yes, sir, you *do* need to read it again....many times. If
you can make a statement like this, you didn't read it very
well at all. I discussed the Journals in the book....how
about someone up there responding to what I write, rather
than your feelings? I'm truly amazed.
> When is your book on the trinity coming out. I phoned
Bethany and
>whoever answered had no idea that you had a book coming
out. They ask
>around and looked at their literature and found nothing.
Is this book,
>which I cannot wait to read, forthcoming this year?
It is scheduled for September/October. I have the cover art
sitting right next to me here. I doubt any knowledgeable
person at Bethany House would not be familiar with it.
James>>>
Dan Peterson replied voluminously, and very
quickly:
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998
21:49:58 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Newspeak
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
You write, "Shall I assume that anything, sent to
anyone, at BYU, is
sent to ALL BYU staff? :-) Given recent e-mail adventures, I
think
so."
As so frequently, you think wrongly.
You respond, "Since we are talking about *my* sentence,
then *my* use is
in question---and what *I* meant is defined by the sentence,
Dr.
Peterson."
But your sentence is about me. And since we are talking about
ME, it is
my thinking that is in question. And what I mean is defined
by me, Mr.
White.
You continue, "I spoke of Christians in that sentence as
follows: Modern
LDS apologists and scholars like to focus upon such
literature, often
treating it as if it is the "norm" for all
Christians,
and have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and
half-truths, thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS
claims
and evangelizing the LDS people."
You are wrong. I do NOT treat your amusing colleagues as
"the 'norm'
for all Christians." The only "norm" for all
Christians that I
recognize is the will and word of God -- something I do not
confuse with
the will and word of any anti-Mormon. I do NOT think that, by
refuting
Decker and his cronies, I have refuted all efforts at proving
my beliefs
incorrect. Where do you come up with such stuff?
You continue, "I believe [conservative Protestant]
Christians will, if
they are serious about their faith and about truth, engage in
'refuting
LDS claims and evangelizing
the LDS people.' That obviously isn't how you use the
word---indeed, I
have criticized the redefinition of the term in
_Offenders_ as rendering the term utterly meaningless."
I assume, although you do not say so explicitly, that
"the word" to
which you refer is "Christian." If so, you clearly
misunderstand the
argument in Offenders for a Word. For, since that book gives
an
explicit meaning and a demonstrable historical semantic range
for the
term "Christian," it cannot plausibly be argued
that the definition of
the word there -- which is not by any reasonable stretch of
the
imagination a redefinition -- is, as you assert,
"utterly meaningless."
Your unfortunate failure to discern meaning in a quite clear
definition
is a curious and interesting phenomenon, but scarcely lethal
to it.
You further write, "And hence, as I used the term, I was
referring to
books such as your own, and works such as that by Richard
Hopkins, that
are guilty of lumping all evangelical works into a single
pile, not
discerning the important differences in approach, background,
and
belief, that they represent."
The "differences in approach, background, and
belief" in the works I was
discussing were entirely irrelevant to the issue under
consideration. I
prefer to focus on the question I am dealing with, rather
than running
off on tangents. A consideration of the various kinds of
anti-Mormon
ideologies loose in our cities might well be interesting, but
that was
not the book I was writing.
"As to a tiny group of 'noisy' evangelical
'anti-Mormons,' I repeat what
I said to Professor Midgely: if you will start calling
yourself an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an
anti-Mormon. If not,
I'd suggest honesty would require you to discontinue the
use of the term."
Yours is a strange use of the term "honesty," that
would require me to
describe myself as something I am not, or to mischaracterize
the works
of others. Are you meaning to accuse me of writing books
against the
Baptists? Of running an anti-Baptist ministry? Do I have a
television
show in which I denounce fundamentalist Protestantism, or a
radio
program devoted to criticizing the beliefs of the Baptists?
Have I ever
written a pamphlet against the Baptists, or picketed one of
their
meetings? Do I even care one tiny little bit what they are
doing or
what they think, as long as they are not attacking my
religious
beliefs? No. So why should I be considered anti-Baptist any
more than
I am anti-Confucianist? What in the world are you claiming?
You quote me as follows, "You criticize me and others at
FARMS for
allegedly concentrating on the more zany anti-Mormons, while
apparently
neglecting such reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners,
Bill
McKeever, and Wesley Walters."
This statement does not please you, and you respond:
"Really? Where did
I do that? Midgely asked me for some folks whose writings I
respect, and
I listed a few. Please cite the
specific place in my post where I said the above. And as one
person put
it, please try to read my writings a little more closely,
and a little less inventively. :) What I wrote was, 'That is
more of a
criticism of Peterson and Ricks for _Offenders for a
Word_ and other FARMS folks for their 'reviews' in RBBoM than
it is
anything else.' I hadn't even gotten to mentioning the
Tanners or others at this point, so how you managed to invert
my
statement and so completely miss the context, I really don't
know."
I will explain it. Please try to follow the steps. To refresh
your
memory, this is what you said in your earlier posting:
Speaking of the "bad" kind of anti-Mormon writing,
of which you do not
approve, you wrote, "Modern LDS apologists and scholars
like to focus
upon such literature, often treating it as if it is
the 'norm' for all Christians. . . . That is . . . a
criticism of
Peterson and Ricks for _Offenders for a Word_ and other FARMS
folks for
their 'reviews' in RBBoM."
Now, if we "focus" on the bad stuff, we must
necessarily do so to the
exclusion of something else (apparently, to the exclusion of
the good
stuff). That is what "focusing" means. And "to
focus on" means very
much the same thing as "to concentrate on." Which
must mean, in this
context, that we "concentrate on" the bad stuff,
and, necessarily, by
the very nature of concentrating, avert our attention from
the good
stuff. Moreover, if we claim that the bad stuff is the
"norm," we must
be excluding the good stuff from being normative. That is
what
"normativity" means.
How, in a book or a collection of book reviews, does one
"focus" or
"concentrate" on something? By devoting attention
to that something,
and, by that very act, averting attention from --
"neglecting," if you
will -- something else.
So what is the good stuff that we are failing to concentrate
on,
neglecting to focus on? What is the good stuff that we are
treating as
non-normative, while we mischaracterize the bad stuff as
"the norm"?
You answer that question very helpfully, identifying
"the Tanners, Bill
McKeever, Wes Walters, etc., as excellent writers on the
subject." If
there is some other body of "good stuff," in which
these people are not
to be included, kindly tell me what it is.
So you can see that my reading of your posting was both very
close and
quite non-inventive. Your message very clearly implies that
we are
"concentrating on the more zany anti-Mormons, while . .
. neglecting
such reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill
McKeever, and
Wesley Walters."
You go on to say, "I used the quotes around 'reviews' to
indicate that
in reality, most of the books you respond to in RBBoM really
don't have
much to do with the BoM to begin with, and they are not
really reviews,
but rebuttals."
Let me see if I understand this. Since the title of the
journal was
Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, a review published in
it of a
book unrelated to the Book of Mormon would, by reason of its
subject
matter, not really be a book review? By the same reasoning,
if a
Rembrandt turned up, by some chance, in a museum of modern
art, would it
not really be a painting? If, by some computer glitch, a
review of a
book on engineering turned up in the review section of a
journal of
molecular biology, would it thereby cease to be a book review
at all?
I will have to meditate on this new principle.
By the way, have you not noticed that the Review of Books on
the Book of
Mormon no longer exists under that title? That, in fact, it
has been
the FARMS Review of Books since the beginning of 1996?
Your distinction between "reviews" and
"rebuttals" is a rather arbitrary
and artificial one. But take it to the Times Literary
Supplement or the
New York Review of Books, and see how far you get with it.
I'll be
interested to hear how it goes.
You complain, "I have not seen a response to ITMMB
from FARMS, and if the fellow from AOL with the screen name
LDSApolog is
writing the review (as he indicated), I don't expect it will
rise much
higher than Norwood's attempt."
Don't fret. When we get around to it, we will review your
book. And,
by the way, I don't know who "LDSApolog" is. And I
didn't expect you to
like Ara Norwood's review.
Next, you trot out your tired old warhorse: "At least to
my knowledge
that fellow hasn't tried calling (without identifying himself
or his
purposes) to inquire if his company can print the book in the
future."
This one wasn't very impressive on its first appearance, and
age has not
improved it.
You then quote me again: "There is," I quite
rightly pointed out,
"absolutely no reason for Dr. Midgley or any Latter-day
Saint I am aware
of to describe himself as an 'anti-Baptist.' Not a single one
of us
makes a living attacking other religions, in any
medium."
"I see," you remark, almost correctly. "So
disagreement with, and
refutation of the claims of, another religious group does not
amount to
being an 'anti.' Very good."
Well, let's not feel TOO satisfied. It's not VERY good, but
it's worth
a passing grade.
You are right. Mere disagreement with x does not make you
anti-x. I
disagree with existentialism. But I lose very little sleep
over it, and
only give the subject about sixty seconds' thought every year
or so.
Thus, it would be ludicrous to describe me as an
"anti-existentialist."
So, likewise, with literally hundreds of possible positions
and
ideologies. I disagree with -- oh, let's see -- Keynesian
economics,
poststructuralism, Sikhism, predeterminism, Freudian
psychoanalysis,
revisionist theories of the Kennedy assassination, and
technical
analysis of the stock market. But since I do not campaign or
crusade
against any of these, it would be very implausible to call
me, say, an
anti-Sikh or an anti-Keynesian.
You continue, "Then, since I spend the vast majority of
my time
presenting the Christian faith in a positive light, and
simply provide a
refutation of the claims of those groups that [in my opinion]
pervert
the gospel message, I would not, likewise, qualify as an
'anti-Mormon.'"
Almost! You almost have it! To the extent that you
affirmatively
present a view, any view, on any subject, you are not
"anti-" anything
else. But to the extent that you oppose something else --
this is
really not very difficult, you know -- you are
"anti-" that thing.
"I'm glad that is worked out, though, Norwood said I
came from the
'anti-Mormon cookie cutter,' so I guess he might not
agree."
Oh, no. I am sure that Mr. Norwood and I agree entirely about
your past
behavior, which has been -- at least so far as I have
monitored it --
far more about opposing certain things (e.g. Catholicism and
Mormonism)
than about affirming your own positive beliefs. Quite
clearly, you have
been an anti-Mormon, because you have been against Mormon
belief and
practice. But now that you understand the distinction,
perhaps you will
be able to mend your ways. (I will admit, of course, that, to
the
extent you are merely affirmatively presenting your own
beliefs, you are
of rather little interest to me. You only draw my attention
when you
attack MY beliefs. I am perfectly content to leave you to
yours.)
As I said, "We don't have professional disdainers of
Baptists,
Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, or anybody else."
To which you rather irrelevantly reply, "The
long-standing portrayal of
the Protestant minister in the endowment ceremony
notwithstanding, of
course. That would not qualify as 'professional.'"
You're right, of course. It wouldn't. Unfortunately, for
reasons that
I am sure you know, I will not discuss the ordinances of the
temple with
you. I will simply say that I think you misread the situation
there
even more fundamentally than you misread me. But I will not
argue that
position, and you can dismiss it as you wish.
Nearing the end of your epistle, you write, "When you
stop telling
people that Joseph Smith was told that the Christian faith,
embodied in
the ancient creeds of the Christian Church, are an
'abomination' and
those of us who teach those divine truths are in fact
'corrupt,'
possibly we can talk some more."
You misunderstand. I have really very little interest in
talking with
you. If you would leave my beliefs alone, I would gladly
leave you to
your circle of friends and acquaintances in Arizona.
You misunderstand. I have never told anybody that "the
Christian faith
. . . are an abomination." Since I am a Christian, I
could never say
any such thing. Nor do I think that the Christian faith, as
such, of my
Lutheran extended family is an abomination. Nor do I think
that the
faith of my Catholic friends is an abomination. I don't even
think that
YOUR faith is an abomination.
I do think that the creeds, to the extent that they blind
people to the
truth revealed to prophets ancient and modern, are an
abomination.
Primarily, I think that because God said so, and I am
hesitant to
challenge him on it.
You misunderstand when you imply that I think you corrupt.
You may or
may not be. I haven't thought about it. That would be a
matter for
your wife, or perhaps for the legal authorities to look into.
Do I
think your theological beliefs have been corrupted by various
extra-divine influences? Certainly. And I regret it very
much. But do
not equivocate between that kind of corruption and moral
corruption.
They are quite distinct.
You write on: "But it strikes me, sir, that you are
operating on a very
strong double-standard."
Wrong.
"I have just as valid a reason to call you an
anti-Baptist, or even
more, an anti-Christian----since you deny the very doctrines
that
*define* [my particular view of] the Christian faith."
Wrong. I also deny the cardinal doctrines of Jainism. But I
am not
anti-Jain. I can't recall ever having met one. I have never
written a
pamphlet against them, or picketed a Jainist meeting, or
denounced them
on the radio. Surely you can understand this
not-overly-subtle concept?
"But I do not, simply so as to avoid undue emotional
clouding of the
issues."
That is very kind of you.
"So why do you use the term anti-Mormon?"
Because it is precisely accurate.
"When I write on other issues, such as Roman
Catholicism, the same issue
comes up: they like to use the term
"anti-Catholics" but
will never call themselves 'anti-Protestants.'"
You see? THEY understand.
"The hypocrisy is glaring in both cases, is it
not?"
No. It is not. The Catholics are precisely right. They are
NOT
anti-Protestant, at least to the extent that they are simply
preaching
their doctrines. And even when they are defending their
doctrines
against your attacks -- as opposed to going after your
beliefs -- they
are not being anti-Protestant. I understand them quite well,
and only
marvel that you apparently cannot.
"Finally, Steve Mayfield told me that you have not read
ITMMB."
Quite correct, although I have skimmed through portions of
it.
"Hence, you have not read my documentation of the
teaching
of the physical parentage of the Son by the Father in the
book. Since
you are *specifically* cited from _Offenders_ in the book, as
is Dr.
Robinson, and refuted by a mountain of statements by the
General
Authorities, I *do* hope that a *serious* response might
someday be
forthcoming on that topic."
It might well be. Someday. I have a lot of things to do. One
of the
portions of the book that I have skimmed is that wherein you
attempt to
refute me. As I say, it was a cursory glance. Maybe your
arguments
will appear more solid after a careful reading. As it is, I
think you
rather missed my point. And you certainly did on the question
of
deification. Ah well. I'll just have to buck up my spirits
and live
with it.
Daniel Peterson
The reader will notice the tremendous escalation in the
"sarcasm factor" that fills Dr. Peterson's post.
The arrogance that fills this kind of post is evident in much
that is produced by FARMS as well. And, scarcely two hours later,
Dr. Midgley fired back:
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:53:01 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Organization: TE ARIKI.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>, skinny
<skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: ANTI-MORMONISM
Dear Brother Jim:
I did not write to you to pick a fight. And I am not
responding to
your letter now in an effort to do so. I appreciate your
response to my
modest inquiries. What I would like is some additional
clarifications.
But before I get to my additional questions and observation,
I must
point out that I do not intend to strike some deal with you
on the use
of the label "anti-Mormon." Nor do I think that you
can legislate on how
or whether I use that label. You may, of course, reject that
label if
that is your desire. But from my perspective, it fits you and
your work.
Just look at your recent book. You proclaim that people like
me are not
your brothers. Instead of asking whether the Church of Jesus
Christ is
like a faction of Christians who identify themselves as
evangelicals or
whatever the proper designation happens to be, you
personalize the issue
by asking IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? The assumption is that
you somehow
get to determine who is or is not authentically Christian. Be
that as it
may, you leave no doubt about the answer to the question the
title of
your book asks. From my perspective we are all children of a
common
Father, though currently we may be more or less alienated in
various
ways from him. But you want to insist that your God--the real
God--is
not my God, hence that I am not your brother. Now, I ask
myself, why
would an otherwise intelligent person want to fashion set
forth such a
stance? The answer must be that you are against or opposed to
my faith,
and my faith so irritates you that it makes us less than the
children of
a common Father.
Now before getting up in arms over the label
"anti-Mormon," I
suggest that you consult the entry under "anti" in
a dictionary. This
prefix simply means "against" or "opposed
to." If you are not against or
opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of
Latter-day
Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth claims
of Joseph
Smith, then have I entirely misunderstood you. But I am
confident that I
have not misunderstood you. Are you for all of these things?
Or are you
simply disinterested or neutral? It seems to me to be
entirely
reasonable to say that you are against my faith, and hence
anti-Mormon.
Perhaps you could explain exactly why you do not like being
known as
anti-Mormon.
On the other hand, I have little interest in Baptist things,
and
little knowledge of them. I have never published a word about
Baptist
religiosity. I have not been critical of Baptists. I have not
attacked
their faith. And I certainly do not make my living operating
a tax
exempt public foundation dedicated to attacking the faith of
anyone,
including Ratana, Ringatu, Jews, Roman Catholics, or anyone
else for
that matter.
Now if, for what ever reason, you do not like being
identified as an
anti-Mormon, what label would you suggest for people like
you? I think I
understand the desire of some to avoid the label anti-Mormon.
In what
are essentially political disputes, where truth is not the
issue, and
where every effort is made to manipulate an audience with
slogans, one
can expect enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ to try to
avoid
negative labels. And, of course, critics of my faith always
just love
the Mormon people, it is just the faith that they detest.
In my initial letter, I was not, as you suggest, hacking up
that
paragraph oddly entitled "How Can Anyone Really
Wonder?" that appears on
page seventeen of your recent book. I merely tried to quote
sufficiently
from that paragraph so that you would be able to see
immediately what
portion of your book had led me to raise some questions with
you. In
your response, you quote the entire paragraph. In my
forthcoming essay I
will quote virtually this entire paragraph.
I have been trying to figure out what the language found in
this
paragraph means. What you have now told me is that what you
intended to
say is actually somewhat different from what you actually
wrote. Instead
of addressing the bulk of the paragraph (about twenty lines),
you focus
on what appears to be a sub-text constituting, as you say,
"more a
criticism of Peterson and Ricks...and other FARMS folks for
their
'reviews' in RBBOFM than it is anything else." I trust
that you realize
that you do not mention any essays published by FARMS. How is
the reader
supposed to figure out what you were getting at? I will grant
that what
you may have intended was a criticism of OFFENDERS FOR A
WORD, and the
various essays responding to anti-Mormon literature published
by FARMS.
If that was really your intent, then you wrote very
carelessly. Instead
of offering substantive criticisms of anything published by
FARMS, you
seem to be saying that Latter-day Saints have had an easy
time
responding to much or most of the literature critical of
their faith.
Hence, I prefer to think that what your language must mean,
if it means
anything, is that Latter-day Saints have been able to respond
to much or
most anti-Mormon literature for exactly the reasons you set
forth. Of
course, you claim that Latter-day Saints see as typical the
kind of
literature to which they have responded. Well, why not? The
question is:
is there any anti-Mormon literature of any substance to which
we have
not responded? If there is such a literature, in addition, of
course, to
your own book, please let us know about it so that we can
examine it.
Your point seems to be, if there is a point, that your book
will
offer a criticism of Mormon things that is superior to the
stuff that
Latter-day Saints have previously been able to deal with
rather easily,
which they take to be the norm among anti-Mormon literature.
But you do
not present either evidence or argument supporting the notion
that
Latter-day Saints brush aside all anti-Mormon literature on
the
assumption that it is all the same. Even a glance at the
journal
Professor Peterson edits will show you that we distinguish
between the
very bizarre stuff and the somewhat less irresponsible stuff.
And also
please notice that you only cite OFFENDERS FOR A WORD, and a
recent
video and never mention a single additional response to any
anti-Mormon
literature by a Latter-day Saint scholar in that note on page
seventeen
of your book. Please explain exactly how the reader to know
that for the
most part your remarks were intended by you to be critical of
essays
published by FARMS? That is, that your point was not really
that most or
much anti-Mormon literature is of such a low quality that
Latter-day
Saints have been able to deal with it easily? I assumed that
you cited
Professor Peterson's book and the video as evidence of how
easy it has
been for Latter-day Saints to deal with the typical
criticisms of their
faith. If I am wrong about this, how is a reader to tell that
your
having cited OFFENDERS FOR A WORD was a criticism of that
book?
I will grant that you may have intended that paragraph on
page
seventeen to be a criticism of what has been published by
FARMS and a
criticism of OFFENDERS FOR A WORD, but I am at a loss to know
how the
reader is supposed to figure that out. I assumed that you
were a more
thoughtful person and a more careful writer than your
explanation
indicates. Or have I missed something?
Given what appears on page seventeen of your book, I wondered
whether you might think that all anti-Mormon literature (or
whatever you
may want to call it), until you came along with your book,
has been such
that Latter-day Saints, if they bothered, could easily deal
with it. I
assumed that you were claiming that, unlike previous
anti-Mormons, you
have paid the price and hence can enter into a real
conversation with
Latter-day Saints, since you have mastered our literature. I
am, I must
admit, somewhat pleased with your clarification. But what you
have
written, since you apparently see a number of other critics
of the
Church of Jesus Christ as worthy colleagues in your
endeavors, raises
some additional questions. For instance, you indicate that
you are fond
of the "Tanners. Bill McKeever, Wes Walters, etc."
And you direct me the
notes in your book for additional indications of those
anti-Mormon
writers who you think have done at least satisfactory or
perhaps even
commendable work.
In addition, you indicate that you were "referring
primarily to
non-specialized books and writers" in your seemingly
critical comments
on page seventeen of your book in which you seem quite
critical of
anti-Mormon writers and their literature, but "not on
those who focus on
the field," whatever that may mean. Please explain what
you are getting
at? I am not sure what field you have in mind. Latter-day
Saints? Or is
the field somehow the countercult world? I wonder whether you
have in
mind countercultists generally--are they the vulnerable ones?
Or is it
those who focus their attacks on the field, meaning on
Latter-day
Saints? I would appreciate a clarification.
As I have indicated, I do not wish to pick a fight with
you--I am
merely somewhat puzzled by your explanations. Why? One reason
is that
the work of the Tanners, Walters and McKeever has not stood
up well to
careful inspection. You may disagree, but from our
perspective the
Tanners are just modestly better than Ed Decker. Nor is the
work of
Charles Larson and the few others you cite in your notes for
your book
all that impressive. Among those whose work has been shown to
be badly
flawed are a number of those who you have suggested that I
should
identify by glancing at the notes for your book. Please ask
yourself if
it has been any more difficult for Latter-day Saint scholars
to identify
flaws in Charles Larson's book than the stuff written by Bill
Schnoebelen, Dean Helland, Ed Decker, Mr. Weldon and
Ankerberg, or any
of the others dealt with in essays published by FARMS?
In addition, if that paragraph on page seventeen of your book
was
primarily intended as a criticism of Dan Peterson (and others
who may
have published responses to attacks on the Church of Jesus
Christ) for
not confronting and effectively answering those you consider
the really
big names in anti-Mormonism (or whatever you wish to call
it), let me
remind you of the names of those that Peterson dealt with in
OFFENDERS
FOR A WORD. These include Walter Martin, Gordon Lewis, Josh
McDowell,
Robert McKay, Bob Larson, William Irving, Dave Hunt, Dean
Helland,
Gordon Fraser, Bill McKeever, Bob and Gretchen Passantino,
John L.
Smith, James Spencer, Wally Tope, James Walker, Wesley
Walters, the
Tanners, Floyd McElveen, Charles Sackett, Peter Bartley, Dave
Breese,
Thelma Geer and others. Did Peterson miss anyone important, I
wonder,
other than you?
And if you will glance at the anti-Mormon works you cite, you
will
notice that four or five of the six or seven names you
include in your
notes have been handled rather easily by Latter-day Saints.
So I doubt
that you were trying to say that Latter-day Saints always
pick the wrong
targets among their various critics--that they aim too low.
It is
difficult not to aim low, given what it out there. And, from
our point
of view, we have to deal with all the odd stuff out there,
since
evangelicals, to whom most of this literature is aimed,
cannot tell the
bad stuff from the really, really bad stuff. When you claim
that "modern
LDS apologists and scholars like to focus on such literature
[where you
clearly have identified the work of cranks who can and have
been easily
answered by pointing out, among other things, inconsistencies
and
half-truths and various other problems], often treating it as
the norm,
and have," as you admit, "little
difficulty...dismissing all efforts at
refuting LDS claims and evangelizing LDS people," you
might be on to
something important. But notice your equivocation.
"Often," but now
always, treating "it"--the stuff written by
cranks--as the norm. Which
evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ have not
shown to be
full of inconsistencies, half-truths, logical blunders, and
so forth,
and who seem to us to be driven by anger and resentment?
There are some
evangelical who are responsible, and I suspect that Professor
Peterson
would even publish their work. FARMS and BYU STUDIES has
published
Massimo Introvigne. That may not mean anything to you, since
Introvigne
is a Roman Catholic. If I am wrong about this matter, then
please
identify the responsible evangelical authors and their books
so that we
can begin to give them the needed close attention. I will
immediately
pass your list on to Dan Peterson so that work can begin on
those
authors and their works. We are, as a matter of fact, looking
for a
literature that stands above the rather dismal
run-of-the-mill
anti-Mormon literature that you yourself have criticized on
page
seventeen of your book.
I ask specifically for your opinion of Walter Martin. You
must be
familiar with the praise this fellow still gets from people
in the
countercult industry. Do you consider him among those that
Latter-day
Saints overlook? Is his MAZE OF MORMONISM or his chapter on
the Church
of Jesus Christ in his KINGDOM OF THE CULTS within the
category of
criticism that you consider superior? Would you cite Martin
with
approval on much of anything? Do you include Martin along
with Bill
McKeever, Charles Larson, Wes Walters, and the Tanners, as
outstanding
examples of critics of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Did
McKeever (and
Kurt Van Gorden) do a good job of updating and revising
Martin's
opinions on Mormon things in the most recent edition of the
KINGDOM OF
THE CULTS? You seem to like McKeever's work, what about his
work in
bringing Martin's criticisms of Mormon things up to date?
I am looking forward to further clarification on the issues I
have
raised. And I thank you in advance for your response. I
assume that you
will not object if I share this letter with a few other
interested
parties. And I trust that you will not be offended if one or
more others
feels inclined to express their opinions. FYI, Skinny is not
extensive,
nor is it a BYU list, as you assumed. The fellow who operates
it lives
in Portland, Oregon. There are Latter-day Saint scholars
(your
apologists, I suppose) in places other than Provo, Utah.
Grace and Peace,
Louis Midgley
At this point I knew Dr. Midgley was pushing his limits,
having corresponded with him before. I knew the "other
shoe would fall" before long. It only took an hour or
so, actually:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:47:14 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Organization: TE ARIKI.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
CC: skinny <skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: GETTING MIDGLEY'S NAME RIGHT
Dear Brother White:
Right after I had sent my response to your recent letter, in
came
your response to Professor Peterson, and his reply. I enjoyed
reading
both, except when I noticed your habit of being just a tad
bit
discourteous. I have in mind your unfortunate habit of
garbling my name.
Midgley is not all that difficult. But neither is
anti-Mormon, as I
think both Professor Peterson and I have pointed out.
Professor Peterson (and others) seem to know you as
anti-Mormon and
anti-Catholic. Without knowing anything about your attacks on
Catholics,
I must say that I feel some sympathy for them. And I can even
sense some
of their frustration when they find themselves being attacked
and their
faith attacked by one who cannot or simply will not see that
he is
anti-Catholic. But others who have given you even less
attention that
Professor Peterson and me may not realize that you have been
down in the
gutter--so to speak--with the strange KJV-only types. Now I
wonder if
you are anti-Ratana (a Maori Christian church). If not, why
not? Well,
let me explain. You know and hence presumably care not a bit
about a
Maori Christian church. You may not have even heard of the
Maori. Good.
I am sure that they are thankful for your neglect. But the
point is that
you are not anti-Ratana precisely because you know nothing
about the
Ratana and hence could not care less. That is exactly the way
I feel
about the Baptist faith or faiths, or about the various
evangelicalisms
that have become popular recently. I smile when I see that
some of those
on the margins of contemporary Protestant evangelicalism
claim that
their ideology is the only authentic, historic, trinitarian,
biblical
Christian faith. I do not mind evangelical believing whatever
it is that
they want to believe, but I find it odd that they claim the
right to
determine whether others can have their own opinions on such
matters.
Now, if you had not guessed, one reason for asking about
Walter
Martin is that he did not exclude Roman Catholics from
authentic
Christianity. You, I assume do. Do you then also exclude
Walter Martin
from authentic, biblical Christianity on the grounds that he
made a
terrible mistake about who are real Christians or what is
biblical
Christianity?
And then there is your friend, or at least one you feel is
competent, that is, Bill McKeever, editing and updating an
essay on
Mormon things and including within it the absurd Spalding
explanation of
the Book of Mormon. Well, I assume that McKeever and his
associates
could have removed that bit of nonsense, if they had (1)
courage, (2)
honesty, (3) any understanding of the issues. So much for the
good,
rather than the bad, anti-Mormons.
Now I must admit that I had determined before I wrote to you
that I
would not pick a fight with you. But your response to
Professor Peterson
has softened my resolve. Please, no more nonsense about not
being an
anti-Mormon or insulting language about others not being able
to read
what you write carefully. I think that if you will look again
at that
paragraph on page seventeen of your recent book, and then
examine your
explanation of what you intended to say, you will see that
you have done
poor job of interpreting your own text. And please do not try
to tell me
that you get to determine what you meant on page seventeen by
reference
to what you now claim were your intentions. It is a mistake
to confuse
intention with meaning.
Grace and peace,
Louis Midgley
My reply to Dr. Peterson was
very short, very simple, and was intended to communicate the
basic truth that I had no intention of playing school-yard games
with him. I don't have that kind of time:
>Ah well. I'll just
have to buck up my spirits and live
>with it.
>
>
>Daniel Peterson
I've only a few times received a post that took so much time
to completely twist every syllable I had written. And the
little arrogance meter over on the right hand of my screen is
now completely broken. I have no idea how to get it
fixed....but I know when not to give credibility to such
silliness and spend my time on worthwhile pursuits. You have
fully substantiated that subtitle in the CRI Journal article:
Farms Out of Control.
James>>>
I tried one last time with Midgley, though I
ended the note with an indication that I realized that there was
nothing more I could do for him:
> But before I get to
my additional questions and observation, I must
>point out that I do not intend to strike some deal with
you on the use
>of the label "anti-Mormon." Nor do I think that
you can legislate on how
>or whether I use that label.
Of course not. It is quite evident that you, and Dr.
Peterson, are intent upon using it, whether it is glaringly
hypocritical to do so or not. I can't stop you, but I can
point out the blindness you show toward the topic, and many
others will benefit from the demonstration. If LDS scholars
are unable to see this basic issue and how they are
prejudiced beyond logic regarding it, how much easier is it
to explain their willingness to embrace the wildest theories
creating entire societies in Meso-America?
>You may, of course, reject that label if
>that is your desire. But from my perspective, it fits you
and your work.
OK, that's fine. Then please don't complain when others say
Mormonism is anti-Christian on the very same grounds. I'd
appreciate at least some level of consistency there.
>Just look at your recent book. You proclaim that people
like me are not
>your brothers. Instead of asking whether the Church of
Jesus Christ is
>like a faction of Christians who identify themselves as
evangelicals or
>whatever the proper designation happens to be, you
personalize the issue
>by asking IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER?
Actually, the book fully explains the issue....I'm more than
slightly amazed at how little you seem to have understood it,
when so many others have understood it without the slightest
problem. The issue is that we worship different
gods----period. The book could not have made the point any
more clearly than it did. (BTW, I don't title the books.
That's done at the publisher).
>The assumption is that you somehow
>get to determine who is or is not authentically
Christian.
No, the assumption, seemingly rejected by LDS in general, is
that what is means to be a real Christian *can* be answered,
and that fully, without reference to Joseph Smith or
"latter-day revelation." If we worship different
gods, and Christians have never worshipped *your* god before,
then it follows, logically, that Mormonism is as Christian as
I am Mormon---and I'm no Mormon.
>Be that as it
>may, you leave no doubt about the answer to the question
the title of
>your book asks. From my perspective we are all children
of a common
>Father, though currently we may be more or less alienated
in various
>ways from him. But you want to insist that your God--the
real God--is
>not my God, hence that I am not your brother.
And I substantiated that insistence rather fully. So far, no
one to my knowledge has even attempted to interact in print
with the biblical argumentation presented on monotheism.
>Now, I ask myself, why
>would an otherwise intelligent person want to fashion set
forth such a
>stance? The answer must be that you are against or
opposed to my faith,
>and my faith so irritates you that it makes us less than
the children of
>a common Father.
As the book said, idolatry is a dangerous sin. I guess, using
your argument, Moses was an "anti-Baalite," right?
I mean, he had people KILLED for believing in Baal! So, by
believing in absolute truth, so that one says that denials of
that truth are in *error,* I must be
"anti-untruth." OK, I guess that follows, right?
> Now before getting up in arms over the label
"anti-Mormon," I
>suggest that you consult the entry under "anti"
in a dictionary. This
>prefix simply means "against" or "opposed
to." If you are not against or
>opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of
Latter-day
>Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth
claims of Joseph
>Smith, then have I entirely misunderstood you.
OK, then you are an anti-Baptist. That's fine. As I said, as
long as you are consistent in identifying yourself that way,
that's OK. It's just that we need to be consistent. If I'm an
anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic, anti-JW, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu,
etc. and etc. and etc. (because I believe Jesus Christ is the
way, the truth, and the life, I must be opposed to all
systems that would say otherwise), then you are likewise
anti-Baptist. Again, just a simple matter of logic.
> On the other hand, I have little interest in Baptist
things, and
>little knowledge of them. I have never published a word
about Baptist
>religiosity. I have not been critical of Baptists. I have
not attacked
>their faith. And I certainly do not make my living
operating a tax
>exempt public foundation dedicated to attacking the faith
of anyone,
>including Ratana, Ringatu, Jews, Roman Catholics, or
anyone else for
>that matter.
If you embrace Joseph Smith, you are anti-Baptist. His
beliefs are directly opposed mine, and he identified my God
as a "monster" and my beliefs as an abomination. It
is almost amusing (if it were not so serious, and sad), to
watch LDS scholars swing wildly between internal
contradictions in their beliefs at this point, with one hand
agreeing that my beliefs are an "abomination," but
with the other saying you are not opposed to them. If you
aren't, you should be ashamed of yourself, taking an attitude
of indifference toward something God says is an abomination!
> Now if, for what ever reason, you do not like being
identified as an
>anti-Mormon, what label would you suggest for people like
you?
If you read my book, you know that I refer to LDS apologists.
I refer to Roman Catholic apologists when writing on that
topic. How about "Protestant apologists" or
something like that? My faith is not defined by YOURs, sir. I
respond to YOUR claims because they impact MINE. See the
importance in that?
> I have been trying to figure out what the language found
in this
>paragraph means. What you have now told me is that what
you intended to
>say is actually somewhat different from what you actually
wrote.
Of course not. I said you had badly misread the passage.
>Instead
>of addressing the bulk of the paragraph (about twenty
lines), you focus
>on what appears to be a sub-text constituting, as you
say, "more a
>criticism of Peterson and Ricks...and other FARMS folks
for their
>'reviews' in RBBOFM than it is anything else." I
trust that you realize
>that you do not mention any essays published by FARMS.
< sigh >
>How is the reader
>supposed to figure out what you were getting at?
Well, don't be too offended, but no one else has had a
problem getting the point of the entire paragraph.
>I will grant that what
>you may have intended was a criticism of OFFENDERS FOR A
WORD, and the
>various essays responding to anti-Mormon literature
published by FARMS.
I really don't have the inclination to play word games with
you, sir. The intention of the paragraph is simple,
straightforward, and can only be missed by someone who either
wants to miss it, or is attempting to find something to pick
at, rather than dealing with the thesis of the book. There is
good literature responding to Mormonism, and there is bad
literature responding to Mormonism. When someone responds to
the bad, and makes it appear that they have, by so doing,
vindicated their position, they are engaging in deceptive
behavior. And when someone writes poor literature about
Mormonism, they only help Mormonism's defenders to keep up
the appearance of a vital apologetic. It's really that
simple.
> Given what appears on page seventeen of your book, I
wondered
>whether you might think that all anti-Mormon literature
(or whatever you
>may want to call it), until you came along with your
book, has been such
>that Latter-day Saints, if they bothered, could easily
deal with it.
I'm afraid I can be of no assitance to you beyond this point,
sir. Such a question can only be identified as
"absurd," and I don't really have any desire to
engage in absurd correspondence. I will allow my book to
speak to those who are prepared to hear it, and I knew when I
wrote it that some, no matter how clearly I wrote, would find
a way of missing the point.
James>>>
Seemingly, Dr. Peterson did not like my brief
response. Rather quickly this came back. Note the
title he chose for his message:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998
17:49:54 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Mr. Charm
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
Thank you for withdrawing from the exchange; I was worried
that this was
going to cost me a lot of time. Backed into a corner, eh?
Beating an
ungraceful retreat?
I'm sorry you broke your arrogance meter. Was it a gift from
your
mother?
I really don't understand why you feel the need to be so
hostile.
Perhaps you should add a contact sport to your cycling, so
that you can
work out your aggressions in a more socially acceptable
manner. I have
always told people that you were relatively polite when we
met on the
radio some years ago, and several have assured me that such
polite and
unaggressive behavior must have been an aberration. I guess
they were
right, and your reputation is not unearned.
Too bad. I have had respectful interchanges with several
critics of my
faith. But you don't seem capable of such things. You have
evidently
chosen the right career.
Daniel Peterson
Take careful note of the tactics being used here: Dr. Peterson
has been about as impolite and aggressive as one can be in the
preceding posts. He has used sarcasm and insult in almost
every paragraph, yet, when I choose not to respond in kind, what
does he do? He accuses me of the very things he has been
doing himself. Throw in a little school-yard taunting, and
one is amazed to realize that such messages are being written by
one of the leading LDS scholars at Brigham Young University, a
man who has often criticized Christians for their attitudes in
dealing with Mormonism. My response was brief and to the
point:
>Mr. White:
>
>
>Thank you for withdrawing from the exchange; I was
worried that this was
>going to cost me a lot of time. Backed into a corner, eh?
Beating an
>ungraceful retreat?
Do remember, Dr. Peterson, that since you have been passing
around my posts to others, your own posts, including this
wondrous example of FARMS mentality, will be archived and
readily available to anyone who wishes a glimpse into the
world of LDS apologetics.
James>>>
His responses only got more shrill:
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998
12:42:49 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Mr. Charm]
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
You seem to think you have me. "Do remember, Dr.
Peterson," you write,
"that since you have been passing around my posts to
others, your own
posts, including this wondrous example of FARMS mentality,
will be
archived and readily available to anyone who wishes a glimpse
into the
world of LDS apologetics[?]."
Go ahead. I am puzzled that you do not seem to see how
unpleasantly YOU
come across. My lengthy post to you contained arguments and
serious
positions, however cheekily expressed. For you to respond
merely by
denouncing my arrogance and silliness and pronouncing me not
worth your
time was, among other things, (a) not a cogent
counterargument, (b)
disrespectful, (c) uncharitable, and (d) exactly what I
expected from
you.
I am quite capable of having a calm and well-tempered
exchange. I have,
as I say, had pleasant and respectful conversations with
numerous people
of other faiths, including several who are overtly critical
of my
beliefs. If you would like to do so, please shelve the
hostility.
Please cut the tendency to assume that your opponent is
acting in bad
faith, or from evil motives.
Perhaps you do not recognize how alienating your
hyper-confrontational
style is, and how personal you tend to make the dispute
between
Latter-day Saints and evangelicals. Perhaps you do not
realize -- oh,
but surely you must! -- how off-putting your aggressiveness
is, and how
(for many of us) it gets in the way of the message that, I
presume, you
sincerely want to preach. Sensing that you would react badly,
I tweaked
you. I was having fun. (You know, teasing somebody who
responds in
satisfying ways to such teasing.) It was perhaps wrong for me
to do so,
but you reacted precisely as I had anticipated.
It still appears to me that you fled a discussion when you
realized that
you were in a corner. Quite seriously, quite sincerely, that
is how it
appears to me. Leaving aside the question of my viciousness
and my
depravity, it seems so. Perhaps I am wrong, although I think
not. But
if I am wrong, it would be fitting -- certainly it would be
the act of a
disciple of Christ -- to correct me, not to assault me.
Others had
predicted that you would withdraw from the discussion. They
are people
who have followed your career somewhat, and they described it
as your
modus operandi whenever you seem to be losing control. (I am
told that
it happened at Temple Square earlier this month, when you
were presented
with evidence to which you had, in their view and in mine, no
cogent
answer.) You may despise me all you like, but your actions
truly seem
to me to be as I have characterized them, and as others had
foretold.
Yet others, however -- and I am merely passing on what they
told me --
predicted that your ego would never allow me to have the last
word.
Which, I admit, worried me, because I really don't have the
time to get
into a lengthy and quite futile e-mail catfight, especially
with someone
who evidently cannot even grant that I am a decent human
being. And now
that their prediction also seems to be coming true, I am
worried again.
(Attacking Mormonism may well be an important component of
your
employment; defending the gospel of Jesus Christ is something
I do in
spare moments.)
What, by the way, is the "FARMS mentality"? Are you
into faulty
generalizations and stereotyping? FARMS did not write my
posting to
you. I wrote it. I am not FARMS, and FARMS is not Daniel
Peterson.
FARMS is a number of people, with widely varying styles,
personalities,
and approaches. There is no more a "FARMS
mentality" than there is a
"Jewish mentality" or a "black
mentality." Latter-day Saints are
individuals, as are Jews and blacks. As are fundamentalist
and
evangelical Protestants. (I know, because some are nasty and
unpleasant, and some are very nice.) If generalizations like
this
really are permitted, there seems no principled ground on
which you
could criticize me for taking Ed Decker as the
"norm" for anti-Mormonism
-- if, indeed, I had ever thought to do so stupid a thing.
Daniel Peterson
Then, right on the heels of this lovely missive,
comes another:
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998
13:05:45 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mr. Charm
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
Going through my e-mail, I came across a posting containing
the
following, from someone who has been monitoring our exchange:
"By the Bye, never have I seen such arrogant rhetorical
ranting with
absolutely no substance behind it as in the White letters.
Absolutely astonishing!"
I share it with you not to hurt your feelings, nor to make
you angry
(although I am certain that it will, since you seem to be in
a state of
almost perpetual anger anyhow), and not as evidence that my
estimate of
you is true, but as an indication that I am not the only
person out here
in cyberland who views you in this way.
Daniel Peterson
Evidently, Dr. Peterson was not getting the idea
that I had no intention of playing this game with him. I
tried one more time:
No, sir, I believe it is the other
way around. And I'm more than glad to let others judge that.
I have no interest in you continuing to provide me with
further examples of this kind of school-yard behavior. If you
wish to continue writing long e-mails (while complaining
about wasting your time), I won't stop you, but don't expect
any replies.
James>>>
Seemingly, asking him to stop has the exact
opposite impact. In fact, he now began to forward
nastigrams to me that he had actually written to other
people! This kind of behavior is tremendously rude and
childish, but as of the date of this writing, it still hasn't
stopped! Here comes the first example of the "I'll
send White something nasty I've written about him to someone
else":
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998
08:02:38 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: SKINNY: [Fwd: Re: Mr. Charm]
To: skinny-l@teleport.com
Cc: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Malin:
Thanks for the comments. I agree with what you say, and
actually had
some of those things in mind as I wrote. I know that James
White quite
literally believes me to be vicious and depraved. (That is
the first
element in TULIP, after all.) And I'm sure, since I am
unregenerate,
that he believes me to be acting in bad faith.
The question then arises, Why does he bother to argue with
Mormons at
all? If we are all depraved and dishonest, we'll never accept
or
recognize the truth. And those who will, are fated to do so
regardless
of whether White evangelizes them or not. Of course, it is
impossible
to act practically, in everyday life, on the basis of
predeterministic
assumptions. You have to act as if you are free, even if you
are
convinced that you are not. So White is, I suppose, simply
fated to
evangelize Mormons and Catholics, and to be nasty and
insulting. It all
seems utterly pointless.
It also seems, to me at least, quite unsuited to a free and
democratic
society. Why should a population largely depraved and vicious
be
allowed to vote? Should the Saved EVER treat the depraved and
vicious
multitude politely or respectfully, even in a town council
meeting or a
PTA gathering or on a Little League committee? Why? Shouldn't
people
like James White move to the Balkans, their natural home?
dcp
I ignored that one, but the hits kept coming:
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 07:50:05 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Being a Christian Means Never Having to Say You're
Sorry?
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Mr. White:
"School-yard behavior"? You're the same sweet and
Christian fellow as
ever! I have offered you a civil conversation, but I take it
that is
not the kind of thing that interests you. I have offered you
serious
arguments and considered positions, but it seems THOSE sorts
of things
frighten you off (even on the rather minor issues we were
discussing).
You seem to prefer the kind of correspondence with a
"Mormon elder"
where you get to write both sides.
Please post the exchange. I plan to do so.
Daniel Peterson
The term "obsession" begins to take on
new meaning as the unsolicited, and unwanted messages pile up:
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998
18:51:24 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: On James White as a Christian Paradigm
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
You wrote the following to some fellow or other, and I was
privileged to
see it: "I've gotten messages from people who teach at
BYU that sounded
like they were written by someone on an 8th grade
playground."
I assume you are referring to me. You outdo yourself! I had
heard it
said that you have a vicious temper, that you ignore the
issues when
they don't go your way, and that you frequently
mischaracterize your
opponents in demonstrably inaccurate and remarkably
uncharitable ways.
But I had never personally experienced it. Thank you for
remedying that
gap in my personal history.
Daniel Peterson
That one got ignored, too. Did that stop
Dr. Peterson from his campaign? No, it didn't.
Instead, more "let's make sure I send this note I wrote to
Louis Midgley to White so that he knows I'm insulting him
again" posts arrived:
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998
16:59:33 -0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: (John) Calvin and (Thomas) Hobbes
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Lou:
Mr. White was a bit less obnoxious in this last
communication. I wonder
why? Perhaps he realizes that he overdid it in his previous
few
postings. Probably not, though. Self-scrutiny does not seem
to be one
of his strengths. Did you notice that he is still going on
with his
silly generalizations about "the attitudes of FARMS and
BYU professors
in general"? He really does seem to be incorrigible. But
then, what
incentive does he have to change? He is one of the world's
winners, and
there seems little reason for him to be held to the rules
(e.g., of
evidence and logic, let alone of civility) that bind the
terminally
depraved masses.
He ought, though, to try to see things from our perspective.
He is far
more brilliant than we are. He is a far better person than we
are --
noble and courageous where we are craven, a model of mature
manhood to
be universally emulated (as his recent notes have strongly
hinted),
forthright and bold where we are sniveling and dishonest,
inevitably
victorious where we merely manage to stumble pathetically
from defeat to
ignominious defeat. Furthermore, as if all of his enviable
natural
qualities were not enough, he enjoys supernatural advantages
as well:
God loves him, and has predestined him to paradise, whereas
God hates
us, holds us like loathsome insects over a fire, patiently
but happily
waiting to plunge us into the flame, and, in fact, quite
justly
condemned us to hell before we were even born.
Mr. White ought to pity us -- although, on second thought,
God evidently
doesn't, so perhaps he shouldn't either. But at least he
could indulge
our sad little attempts to enjoy ourselves before we commence
upon our
foredoomed eternity of torture and agony.
Incidently, hearing that Mr. White is debating the Catholics
rather
warms me up to the Church of Rome.
dcp
Enough is enough, so I tried the direct approach:
>Lou:
>
>
>Mr. White was a bit less obnoxious in this last
communication. I wonder
>why? Perhaps he realizes that he overdid it in his
previous few
>postings. Probably not, though. Self-scrutiny does not
seem to be one
>of his strengths.
Please, it is considered childish and rude to continue to
send messages to those who have shown clearly that they do
not desire such communication. As I have said, you have
communicated your viewpoint clearly. I need no further
examples of your expertise at ad-hominem argumentation. I
will gladly post all your lovely messages when I return from
speaking.
James>>>
Even the direct approach has no impact upon a person on a
crusade:
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:40:51
-0700
From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: (John) Calvin and (Thomas) Hobbes
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: Skinny-L <SKINNY-L@LISTS.TELEPORT.COM>
Reply-to: Daniel_Peterson@byu.edu
Organization: BYU
Mr. White:
Thank you for your latest note. It was, as usual, a model
of
graciousness and the Christian spirit. My tardiness in
acknowledging it
comes only from my having been out of the state and away
from my e-mail.
You say you plan to post our exchange. Good. You may be
interested to
know that your self-revealing messages to me -- naturally
including
their forthright refusal to have a real dialogue with a
Latter-day Saint
on legitimate issues and their resort instead to
unembarrassed evasion,
personal insults, and ad hominem attacks -- have already
been posted for
some time.
Daniel Peterson
Now, as anyone can see, Dr. Peterson was never interested in a
"real dialogue" with anyone, let alone me. What I
have refused to engage in is not a dialogue, but a spitting
contest. The fact that Peterson is intent upon sending me
second-hand posts containing glaring insults and swipes, all the
while accusing me of being mean-spirited, is so self-evident that
it makes one wonder about the pride he shows in knowing that
these posts would be made available on our web page and on the
SHIELDS page (which just happens to be operated by a group of men
I knew well when a regular on the old "MORMON Echo"
back in the days of BBS's; two of the three men who run the page
have engaged in the very same kind of emotionally-laden
ad-hominem argumentation provided here by Dr. Peterson). He may
not understand what I meant by "FARMS mentality," but
other folks do.
Now, Louis Midgley, likewise, did not give up his
writing. I return to his missives. I had indicated to
him with my last response that I did not feel I could be of any
more assistance to him. That didn't stop him, however:
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998
08:40:44 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Organization: TE ARIKI.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
CC: skinny <skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: MODERN LDS APOLOGIST...HAVE LITTLE DIFFICULTY
DEMONSTRATING...
Dear Brother White:
Once again I must insist that I do not wish to pick a fight
with
you. I did not write to you to engage in some unseemly,
insulting
quarrel. I wrote to you to get some information--that is all.
The
controversy over the nice little shorthand label
"anti-Mormon" was your
doing. Unfortunately I took the bait.
What I requested, if I remember correctly, were a few
clarifications
on one paragraph in your IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? Even in my
request
for clarification you saw signs of my having hacked up your
words and
then later of having misinterpreted them. The fact is that
all I want is
your opinion about your words, so that I can be confident I
understand
your language the way you do.
In order to see if I understand you correctly, I will
paraphrase
what I think you are trying to say in the paragraph on page
seventeen of
your recent book. You seem to me to be saying something like
the
following: modern Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists
have little
difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths in
the
literature written by critics of their faith. Now why do you
think that
this is so? Well, at least for many critics of the faith of
Latter-day
Saints, those they like to call "Mormons" are
simply polygamous cultists
who are out to destroy the souls of anyone unwary enough to
be caught in
their clutches. Yet, it turns out, many of these critics of
the faith of
Latter-day Saints who would provide the strongest
denunciations of the
beliefs and practices of Latter-day Saints are the very ones
who have
done the least work in seriously studying LDS writings and
they have
also not interacted with LDS viewpoints. The result is that a
large body
of literature exists that is not based upon a fair,
even-handed study of
primary source documentation but is, instead, based upon a
very large
dose of emotion and bias. The resulting literature normally
(that is,
regularly, usually) emphasizes the sensational, seeking to
arouse the
emotions of the reader against the LDS faith.
I believe that something very much like this is found in that
paragraph on page seventeen of your recent book. In addition,
you
acknowledge that many of these incompetent critics of the
faith of the
faith of Latter-day Saints still maintain that the Church of
Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is a devil-inspired cult and that
is about
all there is to it. For such people the question of
interacting with
genuine LDS points of view simply does not arise. Why? For
those who
find in what they call "Mormonism" the embodiment
of evil itself, there
is little reason to even ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is
Christian.
There is even less reason to spend time fairly evaluating the
arguments
put forth by Latter-day Saint scholars.
You add one small caveat to this rather grim picture of the
literature produced by emotional, sensationalizing and
incompetent
critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints. You claim that
contemporary,
I believe you say "apologists and scholars,"
Latter-day Saints, who have
little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and
half-truths in the
literature critical of their faith that you have just
negatively
characterized, like to focus on such dismal literature and
that they
often treat it as if it were the norm for all of the critical
literature
produced by those claiming to represent the true, historic,
biblical,
trinitarian version of Christianity. At this point you attach
a note to
a recent LDS video and to Professor Peterson's book,
presumably to
indicate how Latter-day Saints easily deal with the bad
literature
produced by critics of their faith.
That is all I see in that paragraph. I see nothing critical
of
anything published by FARMS. In fact, FARMS is not mentioned.
And I see
nothing that indicates that there is a good literature--a
competent
literature by critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints--in
this
paragraph. This is the reason I asked you if you see yourself
as the
only author to do the job right or whether you think that
there is a
body of competent criticism of LDS faith. And I also asked
you to
indicate who might have written this competent literature, if
such
exists in your estimation. You have more or less responded to
these
questions. If I understand you correctly, you think that
there is a
competent literature and you indicated three authors who have
presumably
helped produce it. And you suggested that I inspect the notes
to your
book for additional names.
Now I have tried to point out that Latter-day Saints do not
take
Decker and Schnoebelen as the norm among their critics. We
are what
might be called equal opportunity critics of what we call
anti-Mormon
literature or whatever you might wish to call it. It seems to
me, and I
believe I am entirely correct on this matter, that we have
dealt with
virtually all of the even remotely significant authors of
criticisms of
our faith, including you. And so it turns out that your
remark about how
we take the really bad stuff as the norm is simply not true.
We do not
focus just on the really bad stuff, but we deal with all of
our critics.
If I am wrong about this, you can easily correct me by naming
the
significant, less incompetent authors whose works we have
neglected.
Now I have just one other tiny little point to make. I
suppose I
will agree to you describing me, in our correspondence and
for purposes
of conversation only, however, as "anti-Baptist,"
if you will allow me
the courtesy of using the nice little shorthand label
"anti-Mormon" in
our correspondence as an easy way of saying something like
"critics of
the faith of Latter-day Saints." And I might add that I
did not attempt
to deal with or even characterize the general thesis or IS
THE MORMON MY
BROTHER? I merely cited one tiny thing that makes the book,
for me at
leas, boring. So I will just ignore all that stuff about my
not
understanding what you were up to in that book. I see all
that abusive
rhetoric as just your way of picking a fight and thus seeming
scoring
some points.
Finally, I am interested in your relationship with, that is,
your
opinion of, the work of Walter Martin. Please address this
question. Do
you include Martin among those who did competent work or is
he one of
those we Latter-day Saints see as the norm for criticisms of
our faith?
This is a simple question. It should not be hard for you to
express an
opinion on Walter Martin's work. Why am I interested in
Martin? I am
writing an essay on his work. There are several reasons I
would like to
know what you think of Martin. One is that he was not, as you
obviously
are, anti-Catholic (ops, critical of Roman Catholicism
because it is not
Christian, or however you would put it). This is a way of
trying to find
out whether people are competent and Christian who disagree
with you on
your stand on Roman Catholicism. In addition, Martin always
advanced the
old Spalding theory to explain the Book of Mormon. But the
Tanners, who
you seem to think are competent, strongly disagreed with
Martin on this
important issue. Where do you stand on this issue and on the
conflict
among your associates on this issue.
Please remember that I am not trying to pick a fight with
you. All I
would like is clarification on some matters. If I have not
paraphrased
your stance on page seventeen of you book, please do not
insult me, but
just adjust what I have written so that it reflect exactly
what you
intended to say. I will accept anything you say about your
intentions in
that paragraph, since you are the only authority on this
matter. I
appreciate your responding to my importunings and I thank you
in advance
for dealing with what is contained in this letter.
It was becoming self-evident that this conversation was going
nowhere, either, so I tried to make
it clear:
> Once again I must insist that I do not wish to pick a
fight with
>you. I did not write to you to engage in some unseemly,
insulting
>quarrel. I wrote to you to get some information--that is
all. The
>controversy over the nice little shorthand label
"anti-Mormon" was your
>doing. Unfortunately I took the bait.
Bait assumes I wished to draw you into the conversation. To
be honest, ever since you wrote a few years ago about the
"plan of salvation" being Joseph Smith's idea, I
haven't had any desire at all to have further interchange, I
assure you. And I shall end this one now. Thanks for writing.
James>>>
Dr. Midgley's true feelings finally broke through:
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:22:17 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Organization: TE ARIKI.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
CC: skinny <skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SWEET REASONABLENESS?
Dear Brother White:
I must admit that I have enjoyed your messages to me and to
others
as well. I kind of enjoy seeing an anti-Mormon self-destruct.
Yes,
anti-Mormon. After all you are against, remember that is the
meaning of
that prefix, the faith of Latter-day Saints. I believe that
you publish
books attacking the Church of Jesus Christ, you come to the
General
Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ and pass out
literature and
engage in conversations attempting to lure Latter-day Saints
into
abandoning their faith for your particular brand of
Protestant
religiosity, you make your living at least in part engaging
in these and
other similar and related activities. That would seem to
qualify you as
a card-carrying anti-Mormon, would it not?
I must admit that I was somewhat stunned and also very amused
to get
something from you in which you claimed, if I remember
correctly, that
you are not anti-Mormon. I do not believe you offered an
alternative
label to describe your business. However, you were willing to
accept the
label, if I would agree to be known as anti-Baptist, even
though I have
never made my living creating or spreading anti-Baptist
propaganda, have
never written anything attacking any brand of Baptist
ideology and so
forth and so on.
Now what has brought you to mind is that right now I am
looking at
the page-proofs to my essay entitled "Anti-Mormonism and
the Newfangled
Countercult Culture." And I mention and quote you on
pages six and seven
of this essay. I quote the bulk of that paragraph on page
seventeen of
your recent anti-Mormon book, the meaning of which we have
been more or
less discussing. By that I mean that I have been discussing
the meaning
of that passage and you have been opining about your
intentions. And it
turns out that your opining is not supported by what is found
in that
paragraph in your book. That much seems obvious. Be that as
it may, I
have described you as "one of the more gifted among the
current crop of
anti-Mormons." I am tempted to change this to read
"one of the more
belligerent (or pugnacious) among the current crop of
anti-Mormons."
But the fact is that you appear to be brighter than the
average
anti-Mormon. So I must give you that much credit. But you are
also one
of the nastier anti-Mormons that it has been my displeasure
to
encounter. And I find that others share my opinion. I wonder
if you
could supply the name of a single Latter-day Saint with whom
you have
corresponded who has not found you just plain nasty. I would
be willing
to provide you with a list of those Latter-day Saints who
have indicated
to me that they have found corresponding with you unpleasant.
In person,
Professor Peterson tells me, you seemed at least not enirely
unpleasant.
The unpleasantness seems to come more often in correspondence
where
it turns out you end up typically throwing what amounts to a
fit when
you get corned. You end up blasting away with insults and
then fall
silent. I cannot believe that you do not regret firing back
what amount
to thoughtless replies to those you consider your enemies. In
fact, I am
confident that you are bright enough to know when you are in
intellectual trouble. In this regard it will be interesting
to see if
you respond to Professor Hamblin. But you have seem to have
such a dose
of pride that you simply cannot ever even appear to concede a
thing or
ever to back down.
I suggest that you try admitting when someone has gotten the
best of
you. Merely because you are or imagine that you are
regenerated does not
mean that you automatically win every debate. I have wondered
if you are
attacking and insulting others because lurking behind your
posture of
certainty there may be a kind of cosmic uncertainty that you
need
desperately to drive away by blasting others. In the large
sense this
might explain your anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon endeavors.
But it also
might explain you lack of civility in correspondence. By the
way, is it
true that Professor Blomberg has a special message on his
telephone
answering machine just for you?
I am, of course, expecting to hear from you. I will, I must
admit,
be disappointed if you have not only suddenly fallen silent
but remain
silent. But, on the other hand, if you really were to fall
silent, that
is, cease attacking my faith, then I would be very pleased.
And I think
that God would also be pleased if such were to happen.
Grace and peace,
Louis Midgley
The terms "taunting" and "goading"
accurately describe this kind of behavior. For me, I will
allow such statements to stand on their own. It would be
silly of me to respond to such personal attacks by dredging up
the names of those who could give witness either in my defense,
or in support of anyone who would point to the out-of-control
antics of some at BYU. Personally, I think these messages
speak far more clearly than anything I could ever say. I
replied to Midgley:
>Dear Brother White:
>
> I must admit that I have enjoyed your messages to me and
to others
>as well. I kind of enjoy seeing an anti-Mormon
self-destruct.
Thanks for writing, Dr. Midgley. I think I've made it fairly
plain that I have no interest in the continued provision of
evidence concerning the attitudes of FARMS and BYU professors
in general. I'm not sure why you and Dr. Peterson feel such a
drive to continue providing these gems, but I assure you, I
have more than enough to convince the even semi-unbiased
observer. Thanks for writing, but you really don't need to
continue to do so. As I've informed everyone up there, I'm
busy preaching, teaching, and debating here in the New York
City area. Last evening we had a tremendous time debating the
Papacy against Dr. Mitchell Pacwa, and I yet have eight more
speaking engagements before I head home on Monday. I note
with great humor your reference to my "falling
silent." I can only guess that BYU doesn't keep you
folks very busy. As for me, I really am glad to have work
that keeps me quite absorbed.
James>>>
At this point I included a note about attaching future
nastigrams. Much to my chagrin, Dr. Midgley took that as an
open invitation to continue sending me nastigrams. Dr.
Peterson sent me one more note and finally got the clear idea
that I had no intention of giving in to his taunts. But Dr.
Midgley decided that he now had the right to have anything he
writes posted here. I never considered that possibility,
but, I should have. Sorry, Dr. Midgley....you'll have to
post your nastigrams elsewhere. What has already been
provided is more than sufficient to give anyone who is interested
a unique insight into BYU apologetics.
James White
Addendum:
As amazing as it is, months after making it very
clear that I had no intention of joining in the "fun,"
Dr. Midgely, without the slighest bit of provocation, fired off
the following note in mid-June.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:54:58
-0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley"
<midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
To: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Cc: skinny <skinny-l@lists.teleport.com>
Subject: JIMMY WHITE'S FAILURE TO REPLY
Dear Jim:
I am astonished and just a little disappointed that I have
not
heard heard a single word from you concerning my brief
mention of
your opining in the essay I recently published. It can be
accessed at
http://www.farmsresearch.com/frob/frobv10_1/midgley.htm or
through the SHIELDS web site.
Certainly one with your rather obvious passion for
controversy
will not let this opportunity to ventilate pass you by. Or
have
you finally noticed that you have not served your interests
well
by pouring out venom on those you obviously consider your
enemies? I trust that you now regret posting the first
portions
of the correspondence you had with Professors Hamblin and
Peterson, and perhaps even my little exchange with you.
Grace and peach
lcm
"Amazing" is about the only word that works.
|
