Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White
"Our ambition...is to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9)
Office
Hours (MT)
Dr.
James White, Director
Richard Pierce, President
Sean Hahn, Vice President
Monday - Friday
10:00AM - 5:00PM
(602) 973-4602
Mormonism
Let the Record Be Known
No matter how hard
you try to cross your t's and dot your i's, if someone wants
to muddy the waters, they can find a way to do it. And
so it is yet again. Below you will find all the
correspondence that went back and forth between myself and Dr.
Hamblin since he contacted me on March 17th as a result, he
says, of someone forwarding him a comment I made about Dave
Hunt on the blog. While the letters speak for
themselves, today I was forwarded a note from Daniel C.
Peterson alleging dishonesty on my part yet again in this
matter! What is amazing about this is that Peterson is
the man who announced on a widely-listened to radio program in
California that he would debate me "anytime, anyplace," but
who, upon being challenged to do so, did not even return the
phone call personally, but had his wife communicate his
unwillingness to stand behind his words. So while there
is little of positive worth in the following e-mails, I
provide them simply to expose the errors of the false charges
of dishonesty being used by certain individuals to hide the
fact that we have been up-front in seeking to challenge these
men to back up their published claims, in public debate before
cameras, in published debate, and even in the form of debate
Hamblin chose, that of an Internet exchange, and that the
reason nothing has come of it is because they are unwilling
for it to happen, period. Any rational person
reading these words will see the truth for themselves, and for
those who have no desire for truth, no amount of arguing will
produce it.
Also, this file represents my correspondence as of 11AM
on the 7th of March. Posting this does not place me in a
position of having to post every follow-up e-mail for the rest
of my life. The accusation of dishonesty has been made,
the material here refutes it for the very few who could really
be interested in the behind-the-scenes dialogue. If I
missed something in investing an hour and a half in compiling
these e-mails, I am sure I will hear about it, replete with
shrill charges of dishonesty.
Update: Within a few
hours of posting this file, Hamblin replied to the last note
below, as did Daniel C. Peterson. I have added Hamblin's
correspondence (he demanded it!) and, since it is the only way
he will ever move on, I will give him the last word. I
include my brief response to Peterson. If there are
further irrational demands to post whatever anyone wants to
post on this website, they will be ignored, and those making
them are invited to post whatever they want anywhere else.
"Listening to a couple of hours of Dave Hunt railing on
Calvinism gave me a royal headache last evening. But, you
will benefit when you listen to the DL this afternoon. I
am simply grieved to hear Dave repeat falsehoods upon
which he has been corrected over and over and over again,
without even trying to get it right. It is simply sad,
very sad."
I reply
"Listening to a couple of hours of James White railing on
Mormonism gave me a royal headache last evening. ... I am
simply grieved to hear James repeat falsehoods upon which
he has been corrected over and over and over again,
without even trying to get it right. It is simply sad,
very sad."
You do have a sense of humor, don't you?
Hope you have fun in SLC this conference!
Bill Hamblin
At 10:22 AM 03/17/2004, you wrote:
"Listening to a couple of hours of James White
railing on Mormonism gave me a royal headache last
evening. ... I am simply grieved to hear James repeat
falsehoods upon which he has been corrected over and
over and over again, without even trying to get it
right. It is simply sad, very sad."
You do have a sense of humor, don't you?
Sure, Dr. Hamblin, however, is this the same Bill Hamblin
who 1) complimented Letters to a Mormon Elder after
the KTKK exchange for "bending over backward" to
accurately document LDS beliefs, and 2) who will not
debate publicly? :-) Humor is always the most humorous
when it is based on truth, don't you agree? And something
tells me you know the difference between Dave Hunt's
rhetorical diatribes and someone who replied to you
("Bill" from "Provo") on the fly from the textual data of
the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia regarding variant
readings in the Hebrew.
Hope you have fun in SLC this conference!
We haven't gone to Conference since October of 2002,
Dr. Hamblin.
James>>>
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2004 21:30:19.0823 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0C267BF0:01C40C67]
JW
is
this the same
Bill Hamblin who 1)
complimented Letters to a Mormon Elder after
the KTKK exchange for "bending over backward" to
accurately document LDS beliefs
WH
Nope. That must have been another
Bill Hamblin.
I can’t imagine that I would possibly have said such
a thing about your book.
JW
is
this the same
Bill Hamblin … 2) who
will not debate publicly?
WH
Nope,
That must have been another
Bill Hamblin, too.
(How many people do you know with my name?)
As you will no doubt
recall, I have debated you publicly three times:
Your most recent Blog
contains a number of items of misinformation.
1- I don’t read your Blog.
A friend sent me an email with your little dig at Dave
Hunt, and I found it quite ironically amusing. Hence
my note to you. Another person sent me a note
saying that I was just mentioned in your
Blog.
Hence this allusion to it.
2- I am not in the leadership of FARMS. I have
precisely nothing to do with FARMS other than
occasionally publishing there.
3- As noted above, I don’t “consistently refuse …
public debate.” I have debated you three times. In
the last two of the three, you have bowed out and
refused to continue when things got hot for you.
Review the record, if you don’t remember.
There are reasons for not debating you besides hiding
in abject terror of your knowledge and debating skill,
James. One, for example, is that I find debating you
a waste of time, since you repeatedly obfuscate, dodge
and distract, refusing to engage the real issues. (see
my objections at
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_01e.html,
letter 56.) Another might be that the timing is bad
for me; the requested debate is right during the last
weeks of the semester, the busiest time of the year
for me. I am finishing a book, and have lots to do.
A fourth reason might be that my Dad has cancer, and
I’d rather spend my free time with him than preparing
to debate you. So, you presume too much, and
misrepresent as usual.
At any rate, if you want a written debate on the
internet, which can be simultaneously posted to a site
of your choosing and another of my choosing, count me
in. Or, if you want to invite me on an all-expense
paid trip on your next
Apologetics
Cruise, I’ll debate you on shipboard, between
shuffle-board games.
J
Bill
At 02:30 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote:
JW
is
this the same Bill Hamblin who 1) complimented
Letters to a Mormon Elder after the KTKK exchange
for "bending over backward" to accurately document LDS
beliefs
WH
Nope. That must have been another Bill Hamblin. I
can?t imagine that I would possibly have said such a
thing about your book.
Really! My recollection, and that of Mr. Pierce, is quite
clear. My how time impacts us!
JW
is
this the same Bill Hamblin ? 2) who will not debate
publicly?
WH
Nope, That must have been another Bill Hamblin,
too. (How many people do you know with my name?)
As you will no doubt
recall, I have debated you publicly three times:
1- on the radio on KTKK
That's called a radio program. Debates (as the folks in
the communication department there at BYU might be able to
inform you) have a particular form to them, including
equality of time (not three Mormons vs. one non-Mormon on
a radio station in Utah with call-ins), moderation, and a
thesis statement. I guess if you can confuse a war club
with a sword drawn from a sheath with a blade made of the
"most precious steel" with which you can scalp or run men
through, I can understand the problem with recognizing the
difference between a call-in radio program and an academic
debate. :-)
Even less of an exchange. Of course, that was the very
topic you were invited to debate in just a matter of
weeks, was it not? And I was willing to do so, in public,
before video cameras, on the campus of the UofU, and you
declined, did you not?
Three strikes, Dr. Hamblin. Perhaps now that you have
come to know that a debate has a particular form, you
would like to reconsider our challenge to you to debate?
Your most
recent Blog contains a number of items of
misinformation.
1- I don?t read your Blog. A friend sent me an email
with your little dig at Dave Hunt, and I found it quite
ironically amusing. Hence my note to you. Another
person sent me a note saying that I was just mentioned
in your Blog. Hence this allusion to it.
Ah, that's a shame. However, it is not misinformation,
since you did not say you were relying on second-hand
information; you cited the materials directly, did you
not?
2- I am
not in the leadership of FARMS. I have precisely
nothing to do with FARMS other than occasionally
publishing there.
I see! So, though your articles appear in their
publications, your books are published by them, and you
almost managed to get "Metcalfe is Butthead" into
publication in a FARMS source as well....but despite all
that, you have "precisely nothing to do with FARMS" other
than "occasionally" publishing there? Fascinating!
3- As
noted above, I don?t ?consistently refuse ? public
debate.? I have debated you three times. In the last
two of the three, you have bowed out and refused to
continue when things got hot for you. Review the
record, if you don?t remember.
Yes, you seem to prefer unsolicited e-mails to academic
debate, Dr. Hamblin. I think it would be so much better,
would it not, for you to test the depth of your replies in
public debate, as we challenged you to do on the subject
of temples within the past few months, and you declined?
If I am so afraid of you, why am I willing to travel to
Utah and appear on the campus of the University of Utah to
debate you before video cameras, and that on one of the
topics you errantly call a "debate"?
There are
reasons for not debating you besides hiding in abject
terror of your knowledge and debating skill, James.
One, for example, is that I find debating you a waste of
time, since you repeatedly obfuscate, dodge and
distract, refusing to engage the real issues. (see my
objections at
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_01e.html,
letter 56.)
Ah, and is not the absolute best way of exposing such
tactics, assuming any validity to the assertion, in public
debate? Surely it is! E-mails are hardly superior to
academic, moderated debate for the exposure of faulty use
of sources and consistent errors in logic and reasoning!
The cross-examination period of a debate between us would
be MOST useful, Dr. Hamblin!
Another
might be that the timing is bad for me; the requested
debate is right during the last weeks of the semester,
the busiest time of the year for me. I am finishing a
book, and have lots to do.
I just finished my 21st book, have a 10,000 word exegesis
of Hebrews 8 due to the RBTR in two weeks, and have the
two debates myself; I am teaching both Systematic Theology
II and Development of Patristic Theology for Golden Gate
Baptist Theological Seminary this semester, and will be
teaching for five hours the Monday evening after the
weekend in Utah. Surely, Dr. Hamblin, if my views are so
cravenly simplistic to refute, as you seem to think, it
would hardly take a few moments preparation for someone as
skilled as you! :-)
A fourth
reason might be that my Dad has cancer, and I?d rather
spend my free time with him than preparing to debate
you. So, you presume too much, and misrepresent as
usual.
I am sorry to hear of your father, sir; mine is not well
either. However, I find it odd that you would say this,
then, right afterward, offer to do a written debate, which
is FAR more time consuming than the 2.5 hours it takes to
do a public debate! I sense a contradiction here?
At any
rate, if you want a written debate on the internet,
which can be simultaneously posted to a site of your
choosing and another of my choosing, count me in. Or,
if you want to invite me on an all-expense paid trip on
your next Apologetics Cruise, I?ll debate you on
shipboard, between shuffle-board games. J
You know, there are possibilities there, Dr.
Hamblin. The cyber-banter aside, I see possible progress
on *both* accounts, quite seriously. I will discuss the
issue with Mike O'Fallon of Sovereign Christian Cruises.
He organizes all of our trips. The problem would not be
with us, it would be with the cruise line, to be honest.
Most are somewhat less than excited about "debate" on
board ship. But, it is still a possibility, though not
for the next trip (November of this year). We hope to do
Alaska in 2005, however, and if you have ever been up that
direction, it is simply gorgeous. Of course, if you agree
to do a debate on board, you can't back out at the last
moment citing sea sickness. :-) It is surely an idea
worth looking into.
As to a written debate, I have an even better idea. How
about a published one? I just dropped a note to a major
Christian publisher asking about it, and I know of some
smaller ones that might be interested as well. We could
possibly use a format somewhat like what I used with Dave
Hunt in Debating Calvinism. Of course, I would say
that if we were to invest that kind of effort, a DVD of a
public debate to do along with it would make a
tremendously useful addition, a real "package deal."
Again, an idea worth looking into!
James>>>
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2004 02:09:37.0485 (UTC)
Sorry James, I have no interest in debating you about
the meaning of the word "debate." This is precisely
the type of distraction and irrelevant obfuscation
that makes debating you such a waste of time. (How
odd that at the end of your letter claiming I've never
debated you, you want to have a "written debate" in
precisely the format that you claim is not a debate at
all!)
If you want to pick up on our internet debate we began
about your etract "Temple without Hands," I'd be
willing to do so. The initial rounds can be found at
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm.
If you don't want to debate that's fine with me too.
But no more posturing about my refusing to debate you,
please.
My ground rules:
1- We each post the debate on a web site of our
choosing. Each web site must list the web address of
the other.
2- We each post the entire debate. You do not get to
choose which of my materials are included and which
are not included. We will post these ground rules at
the beginning of the exchange.
3- Neither of us will change the text of the other.
4- All that will be included on the web page is a
transcript of the debate. No one gets to include
editorial comments to which the other person does not
have a chance to respond.
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2004
James,
I am not going to debate you about the meaning of
the word debate, nor about who is refusing to debate
whom.
If you would like to continue our debate about your
etract, which you surreptitiously ended when faced
with numerous questions you could not answer, you
have an open challenge.
By the way, how much money are you paid for these
"debates" you do in SLC? I understand it is a tidy
sum. Is there any reason your LDS opponents are not
similarly remunerated?
Sorry James, I have no interest in debating you
about the meaning of the word "debate." This is
precisely the type of distraction and irrelevant
obfuscation that makes debating you such a waste of
time.
Ah, always a ray of sunshine. :-)
It is not irrelevant to point out that it is you, not
I, who refuses to engage in meaningful debate, sir.
You know what a debate is. I know what a debate is.
An e-mail is not a debate. A radio program is not a
debate. We have never debated, and the challenge to
do so in public, with a moderator, a thesis statement,
even time allotments, and most importantly, those
wonderfully useful video cameras, stands. I also note
you did not even touch the idea of a *published*
debate. Amazing. Well, I have a debate on temples to
prepare for. Maybe you'll attend? Details are on our
website. Don't worry, I'll be refuting all your
amazing statements as time allows in the debate, so
you'd feel truly welcome! Come on down. Salt Lake is
nice this time of year. :-)
James>>>
At 11:13 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote:
I am not going to debate you about the meaning
of the word debate, nor about who is refusing to
debate whom.
No need, as there is no question about the
situation. I can document the meaning of the word,
and the challenges to you, and your refusal. No
need to debate, as there is nothing to debate. :-)
If you would like to continue our debate about
your etract, which you surreptitiously ended when
faced with numerous questions you could not
answer, you have an open challenge.
There was no debate; your response is, quite simply,
from the perspective of New Testament scholarship,
childish. It is based upon equivocation, nothing
else. That is why I said I will gladly demonstrate
its errors should my opponent in a few weeks bother
to dredge it up. I hope he is wise enough not to do
so, actually. But it is truly amazing that you can
think that an e-mail exchange is, in fact, a
"debate" of any sort. Evidently, you have never
done any formal ones, hence the confusion on your
part. :-) The challenge still stands to do a
*real* debate.
By the way, how much money are you paid for
these "debates" you do in SLC? I understand it is
a tidy sum. Is there any reason your LDS
opponents are not similarly remunerated?
I have forwarded your note to Jason Wallace. I'm
sure he'd like to know about your allegations. Your
ability to accurately obtain information about this
subject is equal to your inability to use such words
as "debate," or "allow" (see your response to my
tract on temples) within the context in which the
terms natively reside; it is quite similar to your
ability to turn war-clubs into swords, etc. Do you
expend a lot of energy trying to come up with such
things, or do these things just come on you at
certain times? You DID start this correspondence
today, didn't you? Why?
Awaiting, but hardly expecting, you to ever back up
your challenges from any vantage point other than
behind the warm, protective cushion of your
keyboard....
James>>>
From: "William Hamblin"
<William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2004 19:42:12.0848
James,
JW
No need, as there is no question about the
situation. I can document the
meaning of the word, and the challenges to you,
and your refusal. No need
to debate, as there is nothing to debate. ... But
it is truly amazing that you can
think that an e-mail exchange is, in fact, a
"debate" of any
sort. Evidently, you have never done any formal
ones, hence the confusion
on your part.
WH
James, you are really, really amusing sometimes.
But only sometimes. Here is the Webster's
definition of a debate (Unabridged, 1983, p.
467c):
1- contention in words or arguments;
discussion of opposing reasons; arguments or
reasoning, especially between those of diametrical
views; dispute; controversy; as the debates in
Parliament or in Congress.
2- A formal context of skill in reasoned
argument, with two teams taking opposite sides of
a specified question (the resolution)
3- The art or study of formal debate
4- Strife, contention
5- Subject of discussion
Under the primary standard use of the term
"debate", we have debated three times. On second
thought, however, since you never provided any
"arguments or reasoning" for your side, perhaps it
wasn't really a debate after all. (By the way, I
was Utah state champion in Debate in 1972, I do
have some familiarity with formal competitive
debate.)
I again repeat my standing offer to continue our
written internet debate on your e-tract "Temples
without Hands."
JW
I have forwarded your note to Jason Wallace. I'm
sure he'd like to know
about your allegations. Your ability to
accurately obtain information
about this subject is equal to your inability to
use such words as
"debate," or "allow" (see your response to my
tract on temples) within the
context in which the terms natively reside; it is
quite similar to your
ability to turn war-clubs into swords, etc. Do
you expend a lot of energy
trying to come up with such things, or do these
things just come on you at
certain times? You DID start this correspondence
today, didn't you? Why?
WH
I note that in your response you have not denied
that you are paid to debate. A simple denial will
do. No ranting is necessary.
I started the conversation because I was
astonished at your pot calling Dave Hunt's kettle
black. I quite agree with you about Dave Hunt,
but you constantly do precisely the same thing.
You are the one who instantly started challenging
me to a debate. (Is there anyone with whom you
disagree that you haven't challenged to a debate?)
Look, James, I'm not going to debate you in a
setting that allows your "ministry" to make money
to continue its anti-Mormon (and anti-everything
else except strict Calvinism) agenda. I find your
"ministry" to be little more than morally
repulsive bigotry. So, I refuse to engage in any
type of debate that will give you the opportunity
to make money, give you things to sell, rally your
fanatics to your cause, or elevate your marginal
legitimacy. In precisely the same way I would
refuse to debate anti-Semites in any way that
provides them with a means to sell tapes and
recruit followers.
I will, however, engage in a written internet
debate with you on the topic of your e-tract
"Temples without Hands" and with the ground rules
I have described. If you are truly interested in
an exchange of ideas on this important topic, here
is your opportunity. If you are really only
interested in publicity and fund-raising and
rallying your fanatics to your cause, then you
will undoubtedly reject my challenge. That's fine
with me too.
Here is the crucial question, which exposes your
real agenda: If you are willing to debate in a
public oral forum, what possible objections could
you have to a public written forum? Do you need a
moderator? We can find one. Do you insist on
word limits per response? Fine with me. Do you
have other problems with a written forum? We can
try to resolve them as well.
But, please, no more pretentious nonsense about
how I am too craven to debate you. It was funny
the first couple of times you made the claim; now
it is just plain silly.
Bill
At 12:42 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote:
Under the primary standard use of the term
"debate", we have debated three times. On
second thought, however, since you never
provided any "arguments or reasoning" for your
side, perhaps it wasn't really a debate after
all. (By the way, I was Utah state champion in
Debate in 1972, I do have some familiarity with
formal competitive debate.)
Ah, then you have no reason to continue in this
charade. You know what a debate challenge is, and
you know you have failed to take it up.
I read, and replied to, your brief comments on my
temples tract on the Dividing Line today. We even
went about ten minutes over time to give me enough
time to read it all. I have included a public
challenge to you to debate the priesthood against
me at the University of Utah in October. More
below....
I again repeat my standing offer to continue
our written internet debate on your e-tract
"Temples without Hands."
So, you do not wish to even consider doing this
for the widest audience possible, i.e., in a
published form with a major publisher, and on a
wider range of topics? If not, why not?
I note that in your response you have not
denied that you are paid to debate. A simple
denial will do. No ranting is necessary.
I see. You are free to throw out inane charges,
but if someone points out how inane they are, they
are ranting? The double standard is striking.
I started the conversation because I was
astonished at your pot calling Dave Hunt's
kettle black. I quite agree with you about Dave
Hunt, but you constantly do precisely the same
thing.
And I have demonstrated the falsehood of your
assertion. You have ignored the rebuttal.
You are the one who instantly started
challenging me to a debate. (Is there anyone
with whom you disagree that you haven't
challenged to a debate?)
Yes, there are, but you had been challenged to
debate in the recent months, and had declined. It
is greatly hypocritical to write to me, present an
embarrassingly false comparison, when the only
meaningful parallel is between yourself and Hunt:
both like to snipe from afar, but you refuse to
face me in public debate so that people can SEE if
your bluster has substance or not.
Look, James, I'm not going to debate you in a
setting that allows your "ministry" to make
money to continue its anti-Mormon (and
anti-everything else except strict Calvinism)
agenda.
Ah, a new way out. Yes, our huge ministry, which
operates on a tiny little budget in comparison to
BYU or FARMS or whoever you would like to mention,
can now be your scapegoat to avoid standing behind
your assertions. Well, let me remove that
obstacle from you. Debate me on the priesthood at
the University of Utah, before a partisan audience
in support of your position, before the video
cameras, and we will not only give you an unedited
master of the debate (as we have done for Martin
Tanner, Dennis Potter, and everyone else we have
debated in Utah....ask them yourself, if you
wish), but we will make the debate available for
FREE to anyone who wishes to listen to it online;
and in all other forms (mp3, DVD, CD) we will make
it available for COST ONLY (materials and
postage). You, on the other hand, can make it
available for any price you wish. Yet another
road block removed! And, we will pay for your gas
and your dinner in Salt Lake that Friday evening
before Conference as well.
I find your "ministry" to be little more
than morally repulsive bigotry. So, I refuse to
engage in any type of debate that will give you
the opportunity to make money, give you things
to sell, rally your fanatics to your cause, or
elevate your marginal legitimacy. In precisely
the same way I would refuse to debate
anti-Semites in any way that provides them with
a means to sell tapes and recruit followers.
Your diatribe is noted, and its irrationality
catalogued.
I will, however, engage in a written internet
debate with you on the topic of your e-tract
"Temples without Hands" and with the ground
rules I have described.
I wish to first pursue a formal debate given the
removal of your objections, and also wish to
pursue the published format as well. If you find
a way to avoid all of these challenges, such a
format could be utilized, though all
serious-minded individuals will know that one of
the two sides sought a significantly more useful,
scholarly, accessible method of interchange.
If you are truly interested in an exchange
of ideas on this important topic, here is your
opportunity. If you are really only interested
in publicity and fund-raising and rallying your
fanatics to your cause, then you will
undoubtedly reject my challenge. That's fine
with me too.
Your personal and hypocritical ad-hominem aside,
Dr. Hamblin, I continue to press for a meaningful
debate, fully confident that your position is
exegetically indefensible, and that God's people
would benefit from the demonstration thereof.
Here is the crucial question, which exposes
your real agenda: If you are willing to debate
in a public oral forum, what possible objections
could you have to a public written forum? Do
you need a moderator? We can find one. Do you
insist on word limits per response? Fine with
me. Do you have other problems with a written
forum? We can try to resolve them as well.
Written debates lack meaningful cross-examination,
Dr. Hamblin. As 1972 State Debate Champion you
must surely know this. Why did you do the KTKK
radio program? It was not written, was it? You
well know the advantages of a video and audio
taped interchange. The ideal would be the public
debate *and* a published work, not just on the
priesthood or temples, but upon a wider variety of
such issues. Given your constant denigration of
my work and abilities, SURELY you would be
confident of being able to carry the day in such a
combined written and oral exchange! The other
possibility is that your denigration is meant to
protect you from the actual exchange, and that you
know that you could not, in fact, debate me on the
text of Scripture with any serious hope of
defending your position.
But, please, no more pretentious nonsense
about how I am too craven to debate you. It was
funny the first couple of times you made the
claim; now it is just plain silly.
It is not silly, for anyone who would like to hear
a scholarly, moderated exchange between us cannot
find it; they cannot hear me answering your
questions, nor you answering mine, in direct
one-on-one confrontation. You have been offered
that chance a number of times. You have declined
every one of them. I have now taken this to a
wider audience. I have full confidence in my
position. Do you?
BTW, I have not heard from Jason Wallace yet, but
I am sure we will both hear from him soon.
I am now going to post my challenge to you on our
blog, along with links to what you have written on
temples, and my rebuttal thereof on the DL.
James>>>
From: "William
Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2004 23:20:32.0866
James,
I am willing to debate you on the internet on
your e-tract "Temple without Hands." Do you
accept the challenge or not? A simple yes or
no will suffice. Please answer the question;
I tire of your tirades and posturing.
I'm not interested in debating you on the
priesthood in SLC. I am interested in
debating you about your e-tract "Temple
without Hands" in written form on the
internet. You published the article. Defend
it or not as you wish. But your posturing is
getting both boring and amusing.
I much prefer a format which allows one to
think, reflect, reread, study, find sources,
and go into nuanced detail over a format where
posturing and rhetoric obscure the issues. It
is simply incoherent to claim that a written
debate lacks cross-examination. In fact,
cross examination is much fuller and richer in
a written debate than in a few minutes
available in an oral debate. It is also
incoherent to claim that a an oral or
published debate reaches a larger audience. A
written internet debate is available to anyone
in the world at any time for free. To read a
published debate, one must buy the book.
If you are as confident of your position as
you claim, then the format cannot possibly
matter to you. For the last time: I will
debate you about your e-tract "Temple without
hands" in written format on the internet.
Take it or leave it.
By the way, are you paid for the debates you
do in SLC? A simple yes or no will suffice?
(With all your bluster, I haven't seen an
actual answer to this question yet.)
Hoping, but again not expecting, to get a
coherent answer form you,
Bill
At 04:20 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote:
I am willing to debate you on the
internet on your e-tract "Temple without
Hands." Do you accept the challenge or
not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Please answer the question; I tire of your
tirades and posturing.
Dr. Hamblin, an open challenge has been posted
to
www.aomin.org's main page; it likewise
replies to your "Internet discussion" issue.
I understand Mr. O'Fallon has also contacted
you as well. The ball is in your court.
James>>>
From: "William
Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2004
01:04:52.0339
Let's see: you set the time, the place,
pick the moderator, pick the topic, pick
the format, sell the proceedings to
further your anti-Mormon crusade, present
a grossly distorted version of our
correspondence on your blog (without
reference to the full debate on "Temple
without Hands" (no link to
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm),
a typical James White ploy), while
consistently refusing to answer my
question as to whether you will have an
written internet debate defending your
e-tract, and refusing to tell me if you
are paid for your debates. Thanks, James,
for being so predictable.
No, I have no interest in debating you
about priesthood. Nor will I debate you
about astro-physics, creationism, low-carb
diet, US Middle-East policy, out-sourcing
of jobs, the artistic merit of The
Passion, or any of thousands of other
topics. I will not debate you in a format
that allows you to profit from our debate,
and fund your anti-Mormon operation.
I will, however, have a written internet
debate with you on your e-tract "Temple
without Hands." Will you debate on that
topic in that formun? Answer the
question, please: yes or no. You wrote an
e-tract on temples. I responded. You
refuse to defend your position. Case
closed.
At 06:04 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote:
Let's see: you set the time, the
place,
Dr. Hamblin:
I don't live in Salt Lake City. I don't
live in Utah. You do. The time and the
place is determined by the availability of
others who do live there to do the work
necessary to make it happen.
pick the moderator, pick the topic,
The topic is part and parcel of your
response to me, in case it has been a
while since you read it; the moderator has
been the same in each debate for three
years. He pastors the church that puts
out the effort to make the debates
happen. :-)
pick the format, sell the proceedings
to further your anti-Mormon crusade,
I see you didn't read the challenge.
Please re-read it. We said YOU could sell
it for whatever you wished. We would make
it available for FREE on line, and FOR
COST when anyone wished us to make, and
ship to them, CDs or DVDs. So far, you
haven't raised a single logical objection.
present a grossly distorted version
of our correspondence on your blog
(without reference to the full debate on
"Temple without Hands" (no link to
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm),
a typical James White ploy),
Pure rhetorical baloney, of course. The
link, on the blog is:
Which, you will note, IS exactly what you
just said I had skipped. You *really*
need to look a little more closely at what
you are exploding about. :-)
while consistently refusing to answer
my question as to whether you will have
an written internet debate defending
your e-tract, and refusing to tell me if
you are paid for your debates. Thanks,
James, for being so predictable.
1) If you would bother reading what you
are going ballistic about, you will see
that it addresses your desire to avoid
public debate and holds open the
possibility, if you refuse even the offer
provided, which included providing for
your desires regarding OUR not making
money on the sales of videos (are YOU paid
by BYU, or FARMS, for anything you do, Dr.
Hamblin? Just wondering) while offering
the video to you to do with as you please,
of doing just such an internet dialogue.
Again, do try to read a little more
closely. Your response is just
embarrassingly silly in light of what was
offered to you.
2) I had hoped Pastor Wallace would have
replied to these e-mails by now, but since
he hasn't, I will tell you that he has
tried, to the best of his abilities, to
cover our travel, hotel, and food costs.
If you consider covering said costs being
"paid," then I have, but not consistently,
been "paid." If you do not consider
remuneration of such basic necessities
"pay," then no, we do not ask Pastor
Wallace to take from his small church any
kind of "payment" for what we do. Would
you like to compare what you are paid by
BYU with what I earn with A&O, Dr.
Hamblin? Do you ask a particular
honorarium when you travel and speak? If
so, how much? :-)
No, I have no interest in debating
you about priesthood. Nor will I debate
you about astro-physics, creationism,
low-carb diet, US Middle-East policy,
out-sourcing of jobs, the artistic merit
of The Passion, or any of thousands of
other topics. I will not debate you in
a format that allows you to profit from
our debate, and fund your anti-Mormon
operation.
OK, that is up to you. As everyone knows
who has read the blog, that is a class A
cop-out, but if it is the best you can
come up with, I leave that to you. :-)
I will, however, have a written
internet debate with you on your e-tract
"Temple without Hands." Will you debate
on that topic in that formun? Answer
the question, please: yes or no. You
wrote an e-tract on temples. I
responded. You refuse to defend your
position. Case closed.
I refuted your response on the Dividing
Line today. If you wish to respond to
those comments, do so. Possibly after our
trip to Salt Lake we can discuss further
exposure of your exegetical errors. But
since you refuse to do scholarly debate
before an audience, and offer no
substantive or rational reason why, I
shall move on to more useful things.
Remember, Dr. Hamblin, you were
challenged, fairly, to debate a topic you
raised, on your home "turf," and we even
offered to make the debate available for
free. You refused. You know in your
heart of hearts why, and so do I.
James>>>
From:
"William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2004
02:33:12.0414
JW
>present a grossly distorted version
of our correspondence on your blog
>(without reference to the full debate
on "Temple without Hands" (no link
Which, you will note, IS exactly what
you just said I had skipped. You
*really* need to look a little more
closely at what you are exploding
about. :-)
WH
Check again. Try the links. The link
you give ends in "a". The other ends
in "c." You do not provide a link to
the full debate. No one reading your
Blog would ever know that the debate
continued to the topic of God's
commands to build other temples than
Jerusalem.
JW
are YOU paid by BYU, or FARMS, for
anything you do, Dr. Hamblin? Just
wondering
WH
I am paid by BYU for teaching history
classes. My teaching and research
responsibilities do not include
debating anti-Mormons. I am not paid
anything by FARMS. Like I said,
although I have done editing work for
FARMS in the past (unpaid, by the way)
I have nothing to do with FARMS now.
I am not on the FARMS board. I do not
edit for them. I do not run projects
for them. I do not advise them. I am
paid nothing by FARMS. I have never
been paid for any lecture I have given
on LDS-related topics, and never
expect nor want to be.
Thanks for the information about your
reimbursement for your debates.
JW
Remember, Dr. Hamblin, you were
challenged, fairly, to debate a topic
you
raised, on your home "turf," and we
even offered to make the debate
available for free. You refused. You
know in your heart of hearts why,
and so do I.
WH
Ha! Ha! Ha! That's very funny,
James. A topic I raised? Where?
When? My home turf? An evangelical
church with anti-Mormon tendencies?
Ha! Ha! That's very funny James; you
really do have a sense of humor!
Look, James, let me make this
perfectly clear. I have no interest
in legitimizing your anti-Mormon
activities by attending your
anti-Mormon rallies, nor in creating
contention so you can rally your
anti-Mormon fanatics and engage in
fund raising activities. I will not
debate you in the anti-Mormon forum
you suggest. I will debate you in
writing on the internet.
For the last time: are you willing to
defend your e-tract "Temple without
Hands" in a written internet debate.
I've asked the question nearly a dozen
times. In typical James White
fashion, you obfuscate, distract and
change the topic, but will not answer
the question. Yes or no? If you do
not respond this time, I can only
assume that you refuse to debate me
and defend your "Temple without Hands"
tract.
From:
"William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
To: <Jasonopc@aol.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2004
04:56:19.0407
Dear Pastor Wallace,
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Let me clarify a few things.
1- I am not interested in debating
James White in any anti-Mormon
forum. I have repeatedly offered
to debate him in writing on the
internet. He has thus far
refused. I understand you don't
view your organization or debates
as anti-Mormon. We will have to
differ on that matter. I'm glad
others have had a good experience
there.
2- James and I do not get along.
I have had nothing but unpleasant
experiences in dealing with him.
If you'd like an example, I'd be
happy to forward to you his latest
emails to me. I think you'll get
the idea.
3- I have not been engaged in
opposing your debates. As far as
I'm concerned, everyone is free to
do what they like, participate or
not participate, attend or not
attend. I have never attended,
and am not particularly interested
in doing so. I have said nothing
to anyone about your debates,
encouraging or discouraging them
to go.
4- I have never called you nor
sent you any hate email; I know of
no one that has. However, given
the behavior of the street
preachers on Conference, you can
understand why some people might
be upset about anti-Mormon
preachers. It is unfortunate that
you get associated in the minds of
some with the unstable and
emotionally disturbed street
preachers, but that is their
fault, not mine. I understand the
difference between you and the
street preachers; perhaps if you
would be more vocal opposing their
activities, people would be more
able to distinguish between you
and them. I suspect being
associated with the street
preachers creates an enormous
problem for you.
5- Thanks for the clarification on
James White's remuneration.
Best wishes,
Bill Hamblin
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
To: <Jasonopc@aol.com>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2004
20:05:33.0332
Dear Pastor Wallace
Thanks for your efforts at
moderating the misbehavior of
the street preachers. I
wasn’t aware you had done so
much. (I don’t really follow
the issue that closely.)
You ask: “If
respectful disagreement in a
neutral setting is
"anti-Mormon," then am I fair
in calling you
anti-Presbyterian?” The cases
are hardly analogous. If I
wrote books, published tracts,
had a radio program, and made
my living in a “ministry” in
which I attacked the beliefs
of the Presbyterians, you
would certainly be justified
in calling me an
anti-Presbyterian. Of course,
I have done none of those
things. James has done all of
those things in relation to
Mormonism.
You ask: “If it is simply Dr.
White that makes our debates
"anti-Mormon," I challenge you
to show me how his behavior in
our debates has been anything
but exemplary.”
Let me explain my problem with
the situation by a parable.
Imagine
New York City.
There, a Jewish synagogue is
frequently picketed by
anti-Semite street preachers
who shout obscenities at the
Jews in megaphones, cause
disturbances as the Jews
peacefully try to enter the
synagogue, claim all Jews are
satanic, call Jewish women
“whores,” disrupt weddings and
bar
mitzvas, and pretend to
wipe their bottoms with pages
from the Torah.
Now in
New York
there is also a man with an
apologetic ministry. This
minister does not approve of
the street preachers’ behavior
and has condemned it; he has,
however, been involved in more
moderate forms of street
preaching against the Jews,
which most Jews also find
offensive. On the other hand,
his ministry is overtly
anti-Semitic. He publishes
books, tracts and a web page
in which he attacks Judaism
and Jews, regularly claiming
that those who defend Judaism
are dishonest. He has a radio
program in which he regularly
attacks Jewish beliefs and
practices, frequently with
what the Jews see as gross
distortions of their religion.
He brashly trumpets
“challenges” to Jews to
“debate” him, and then sends
insulting email when they
decline, calling them
dishonest cowards. (He also
claims to have a doctorate in
theology, which turns out to
be from an unaccredited
diploma mill.) He makes his
living by running this
ministry, and consistently
tries to stir up controversy
in order to rally other
anti-Semites to his cause so
they will give donations to
support his ministry. All
Jews agree that this man an
anti-Semite,
even thought he rejects the
title, insisting instead that
anyone who disagrees with his
ongoing assaults on Judaism is
an anti-Christian.
Now there is also a
Presbyterian church in
New York,
which has engaged in none of
these anti-Semitic activities,
and, in fact, has denounced
the excesses of the street
preachers. But the same
church, even though it has
done nothing overtly
anti-Semitic, repeatedly
invites the anti-Semitic
minister to teach against the
Jews in their meetings. Can
you understand why many Jews
would be unwilling to
participate in these “debates”
with a notorious anti-Semite?
Can you understand why they
don’t want to provide a forum
for stirring up controversy,
which the anti-Semite minister
will use to try to kindle more
anti-Semitism and raise funds
for his anti-Semitic
activities?
Perhaps if you called your
meetings “an exchange of
ideas” and got someone other
than James White to
participate on the
Presbyterian side, Mormons
would be more willing to get
involved. As it is, James
White is clearly an
anti-Mormon (if he is not,
there is no such thing), and I
am not going to be involved in
legitimizing his anti-Mormon
activities.
I hope this clarifies my
position. Once again, thanks
for your efforts at moderating
the problem of the radical
street preachers.
Bill Hamblin
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar
2004 20:42:30.0928
James,
You apparently believe
that it is perfectly
reasonable for you to be
able to pick the topic,
time, venue, format, and
moderator of the debate,
and that I must accept or
reject your selection
without any consideration,
reservation, or input on
my part. Very well, in
that case I challenge you
to a public oral debate in
which I, alone, am allowed
to pick the topic, time,
venue, format, and
moderator of the debate,
with no consideration,
reservation or input from
you; do you accept the
challenge?
For the eighth time: will
you accept a challenge for
a written debate on the
internet to defend your
e-tract "Temple without
Hands." Yes or no,
please. Do more dodging
and equivocating. Your
statement: "A written
Internet-style dialogue
would be only marginally
useful, and surely we
would all be left to
wonder what would really
happen in a real debate
where real
cross-examination would be
expected and undergone,"
does not answer the
question. It evades, as
usual. The fact that you
don't like written debates
does not say whether you
will accept the challenge
or not. Give me a yes or
no answer, James. Don't
tell me you'll think about
it, or maybe do it later.
Will you have a written
debate on the internet
defending your e-tract
"Temples without Hands"?
(Your claim that a written
debate does not include
cross-examination is sheer
nonsense; a written debate
includes much more
cross-examination than an
oral debate.)
You also write: "[Hamblin]
has tried to defend
blatant errors in the Book
of Mormon as well (see my
CRI article)."
http://www.equip.org/free/DM755.htm.
I note, with interest,
that you have never
responded to the response
to your claims by Matt
Roper, "On Cynics and
Swords," FARMS Review of
Books 9/1 (1997):
146-158.
despite the fact that I
sent you the reference
years ago. Here is
another example of an
written debate where you
drop the topic in the
middle of a debate, but
continue to pretend that
it is we who cannot and
will not defend our
position. This is
deceptive at best.
By the way James, you
contradict yourself on
your blog. On 8/18/04
(accessed 1 pm on 3/2-/04)
you state: "The URL Dr.
Hamblin then said we
should have cited is THE
EXACT ONE LINKED BELOW:
evidently he didn't notice
it, but has no problems
making false accusations
anyway." This is a lie,
as you yourself note in an
addendum: "Dr. Hamblin
pointed out that he
thought I should have
linked to a slightly
different link." It is
true the address differs
by a single letter. But,
James, that difference
takes one to a completely
different web page. You
still have not put up the
like to the site in
question:
You claim "if you go to
the one we gave, click on
our name, the one he says
would have avoided a
"gross distortion" is
immediately displayed."
This is untrue. There is
no link on your name.
Clicking on the title of
your article brings you
to:
directly on your Blog and
let your readers see the
entire debate.
At any rate, please stop
claiming that I am
distorting the situation.
The only link you provide
on your web page does not
take people to the crucial
part of my argument found
in
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm,
the part where you
conveniently refuse to
answer my questions and
sureptitiously stop
debating.
I also think if you are an
honest man you will stop
shadow boxing on your
blog, misrepresenting my
position over and over
again. Let's put our
entire correspondence
about who will debate or
not debate up on your blog
so people can see what is
really going on. If you
believe you have
accurately represented my
position in your
paraphrases on your blog,
put the whole
correspondence up and let
everyone read it for
themselves. I've
collected it all together
and can send you an html
file. The only work you
have to do is make a link
to your blog. Will you do
it? Will you let your
readers see the uncensured
and undistorted version of
the debate about debate
case and find out what
really is going on? I
greatly doubt it.
Hoping, but not really
expecting you to do the
right thing,
Bill
At 01:42 PM 03/20/2004,
you wrote:
By the way James, you
contradict yourself on
your blog. On 8/18/04
(accessed 1 pm on
3/2-/04) you state: "The
URL Dr. Hamblin then
said we should have
cited is THE EXACT ONE
LINKED BELOW: evidently
he didn't notice it, but
has no problems making
false accusations
anyway." This is a lie,
as you yourself note in
an addendum: "Dr.
Hamblin pointed out that
he thought I should have
linked to a slightly
different link." It is
true the address differs
by a single letter.
But, James, that
difference takes one to
a completely different
web page. You still
have not put up the like
to the site in question:
Dr. Hamblin, I will let
you have the last word, as
you always do. I provided
a correction to the
original post, just to
keep things honest. It
wasn't a contradiction, or
a lie: it even points out
it was posted after YOU
pointed out the
difference, a difference,
I note that was no basis
for an accusation of
"gross distortion." Your
accusation is so silly,
you feel fine to post all
the correspondence: I'll
gladly link to it. You
seem to have no idea how
badly making accusations
of "gross distortions" are
when the link takes you to
the very material you
originally provided, and
two clicks give you
everything else. If you
really want to embarrass
yourself that way, feel
free. The fact that you
have avoided every
possible way of making the
debate challenge work will
be clear to any and all
who wish to observe it.
The fact is, you won't
debate. Fact is, you have
jumped to conclusions
about me, about Jason
Wallace, and about a lot
of things, without the
first reason to do so.
And the fact is, Dr.
Hamblin, I think I know
why.
Now, if you will read what
is on the blog, everyone
else already knows that I
will see if I have time to
engage in your internet
discussion after the
debates over Conference
weekend. If the word
limits were such as to
make it brief, I might,
though my editing,
writing, teaching, and
traveling schedules would
probably say otherwise.
But, we will see. As for
now, you feel free to do
your "I get the last word
and we will post it on
SHIELDS with that
notification as if that
means something" thing. I
have a 10,000 word article
due for a scholarly
journal on the subject of
the New Covenant, and I
assure you, it is
significantly more
enjoyable to work on that
than it is to go round and
round with you.
James>>>
From: "William Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21
Mar 2004 02:41:27.0864
Thanks for once again
failing to answer my
questions, distorting
the nature of my
objections and
concerns, and dodging
the real issues.
Bye
Bill Hamblin
4/04/04:
Regarding an Internet
Debate on Temples with Dr.
Hamblin
A few weeks
ago Dr. William Hamblin,
associate professor of
history at Brigham Young
University, declined the
invitation offered to him
to debate the thesis, ?The
Building of Temples is
Consistent with New
Testament Christianity? in
a public setting before
video cameras. Shortly
thereafter a discussion
occurred, referenced on
this blog, regarding
debates, etc. On April 2,
2004, I debated Richard
Hopkins on the same
subject on the campus of
the University of Utah in
Salt Lake City (audio and
video recordings will be
available soon). During
the conversation with Dr.
Hamblin prior to the Salt
Lake debate, I indicated
that, after the weekend of
debates in Utah (I also
debated the issue of
homosexual marriage the
next evening, also at the
University of Utah), I
would consider his
challenge to ?debate? the
issue in written form on
the Internet. I remind
the reader that we have a
standing challenge to Dr.
Hamblin and to others who
have been, or currently
are, associated with
F.A.R.M.S., to join in the
dialogue that has been
taking place now for a
number of years in Utah.
In cooperation with Jason
Wallace and Christ
Presbyterian Church in
Salt Lake City, we have
now done ten moderated,
public debates in the Salt
Lake area. Those who have
taken the time to either
attend (we had one couple
drive from Texas for the
two debates April 2-3) or
to view the debates on
video know well that the
debates are handled
respectfully and
properly. All accusations
made against the debates
that we have heard have
come only from those who
did not attend or have not
actually viewed the
debates. Also, please
note that I also suggested
to Dr. Hamblin that if we
are going to invest the
time to write our
positions in a debate
format, we should consider
pursuing a publication
project with a major
publisher. Dr. Hamblin
has not shown any interest
in following that route,
either. Hence, I respond
now to the challenge to
debate the topic of
temples in written form to
be posted on the Internet.
Both Dr.
Hamblin and I teach in
undergraduate and graduate
contexts, he for Brigham
Young University, I for
Golden Gate Baptist
Theological Seminary and
Columbia Evangelical
Seminary. I am currently
teaching Systematic
Theology II and
Development of Patristic
Theology, and I?m sure Dr.
Hamblin has a busy
teaching schedule as
well. I do not know of
his current publishing
schedule, but I know that
I have hundreds of pages
of publishable material to
produce this year, along
with at least four more
debates, along with
teaching during the summer
session at the main campus
of GGBTS in Mill Valley,
CA, and teaching an
apologetics class in the
Fall as well. Hence,
simply due to time
constraints, I propose a
very controlled, concise
exchange on the topic that
allows for sufficient time
to write our responses
without cutting too deeply
into class preparation
time, etc. Hence, I am
proposing the following
format and thesis. I am
doing so in public, and
propose that the debate be
posted ?in process,? i.e.,
as it takes place, so that
our readers can follow
along. We invite Dr.
Hamblin to provide a
counter-proposal. Once an
acceptable format for both
sides has been agreed
upon, we can proceed with
the exchange.
Proposed Thesis:
The Building of Temples
for Worship and Priesthood
Activities is an Essential
Element of New Testament
Christianity
Proposed Outline:
Opening Statements:
Hamblin: 3000 words
White: 3000 words
First Cross Examination:
Each participant will
provide three questions of
less than 250 words, to
which the respondent will
answer in less than 750
words.
First Rebuttal: Hamblin:
1000 words White: 1000
words
Second Cross Examination:
Same format as first.
Second Rebuttal:
Hamblin: 500 words
White: 500 words
Closing Statements:
Hamblin: 1500 words
White: 1500 words
I propose doing the debate
in two-week segments; that
is, the opening statements
would be posted two weeks
from the agreed upon
initiation of the debate;
cross-examination
questions due four days
later, with responses due
ten days later; first
rebuttals due two weeks
later; etc.
The debate would be
posted at
www.aomin.org and a
website of Dr. Hamblin?s
choice, concurrently. We
hope to hear from Dr.
Hamblin regarding his
counter-proposal by April
9th, 2004.
Thanks for writing.
How are you and your
family doing? I hope
they are all fine.
I should remind you
that once again you
are attempting to set
the time, venue,
structure and topic of
the debate, without
consultation with me.
Do you really think
this is reasonable?
Is there not a less
confrontational way to
go about this? I
suppose not.
I should also remind
you that I originally
offered to debate you
on your etract, “Temples
without hands.” You
again are apparently
refusing to do so.
Instead you want to
debate about “The
Building of Temples
for Worship and
Priesthood Activities
is an Essential
Element of New
Testament
Christianity.”
First, I should note,
there are two topics
here: Priesthood and
Temples.
I am willing to debate
about temples. I’m
not particularly
interested in
priesthood issues.
Second, the way you
phrase your statement
is not a debatable
issue. There is no
proposition in your
statement. A debate
topic requires a
proposition on which
one can be in favor or
in opposition.
Third, I think there
is nothing to debate
about “building
temples” in “New
Testament
Christianity.” The
Christians did not
build temples during
the New Testament
period. They had
neither the means nor
opportunity. Unless
you want to argue they
did, there is nothing
to debate on your
topic. They did,
however, continue to
worship at the temple
in
Jerusalem,
have visions of and
ascents to the
heavenly temple, and
prophesied of an
eschatological temple.
Topics of interest in
NT Temple ideology
might thus include:
1-
Continued
Christian
participation in
worship and visions at
the
JerusalemTemple
2-
The Christian
concept of
Temple
in Heaven and heavenly
vision and ascent to
worship there
3-
The biblical
views of the
eschatological temple.
But, I rather suspect
there is no point in
going off on another
topic until we have
resolved the
outstanding issues
associated with your
etract. So, if you
want to pick up on our
old debate about your
etract, I’m willing to
go for it. Why don’t
you tell me clearly,
once and for all, if
you will defend your
etract or not?
I also have some
issues with your
proposed format. We
can discuss those if
we can agree on a
topic.
I also have a problem
with the fact that you
have not agreed to my
earlier terms. They
are:
1- We each post the
debate on a web site
of our choosing.
[You
seem to have agreed to
this one.]
Each web site must
list the web address
of the other.
2- We each post the
entire debate. You do
not get to choose
which of my materials
are included and which
are not included. We
will post these ground
rules at the beginning
of the exchange.
3- Neither of us will
change the text of the
other.
4- All that will be
included on the web
page is a transcript
of the debate. No one
gets to include
editorial comments to
which the other person
does not have a chance
to respond.
Do you agree to these
ground rules?
Due to finals and
papers at the end of
the semester, I can’t
engage in any debate
until late April.
Sincerely,
Bill
At 02:55 PM
04/05/2004, you wrote:
James,
Thanks for writing.
How are you and your
family doing? I
hope they are all
fine.
I should remind you
that once again you
are attempting to
set the time, venue,
structure and topic
of the debate,
without consultation
with me. Do you
really think this is
reasonable? Is
there not a less
confrontational way
to go about this? I
suppose not.
Sir:
Your objection is
unreasonable. The
article specifically
states that this is my
preliminary proposal,
and that you have the
opportunity to respond
with a
counter-proposal.
Please do not seek to
obscure the issues
with irrelevant ad-hominems
such as this. You
wanted to do the
Internet interaction,
I am simply replying
as I promised I
would. Let's keep
this professional,
shall we?
I should also remind
you that I
originally offered
to debate you on
your etract, ?Temples
without hands.? You
again are apparently
refusing to do so.
Instead you want to
debate about ?The
Building of Temples
for Worship and
Priesthood
Activities is an
Essential Element of
New Testament
Christianity.?
The thesis statement
is significantly more
specific and clear.
If you have an
alternative thesis
statement, please
offer it. A tract is
not a thesis
statement, and I have
never seen a written
debate based upon a
tract, have you?
First, I should
note, there are two
topics here:
Priesthood and Temples. I
am willing to debate
about temples. I?m
not particularly
interested in
priesthood issues.
I see. Perhaps it is
a matter of ignorance
on my part, but the
priesthood issue and
temple worship seem,
in LDS theology, to be
intimately connected.
Every Latter-day Saint
with whom I have
discussed the issue
agreed, but the
possibility exists
every single one of
them was wrong.
Second, the way you
phrase your
statement is not a
debatable issue.
There is no
proposition in your
statement. A debate
topic requires a
proposition on which
one can be in favor
or in opposition.
Richard Hopkins
managed to understand
it. If the LDS Church
is the "restoration"
of the church, and if
temple-building is a
constituent part of
the worship of the
restored priesthood,
the statement seems to
be quite fitting for a
Protestant/LDS
debate. Unless, of
course, you do not
claim your faith is,
in fact, the
restoration of
apostolic
Christianity, or that
temple building and
endowments are merely
optional.
Topics of interest
in NT Temple
ideology might thus
include:
1- Continued
Christian
participation in
worship and visions
at the Jerusalem
Temple
In the worship of the
Jews in the temple,
specifically, such as
animal sacrifices for
sin? No one argues
prayers and
proclamation in the
temple courts by
Jewish Christians who
lived in Jerusalem.
2- The Christian
concept of Temple in
Heaven and heavenly
vision and ascent to
worship there
Irrelevant, of
course. No one argues
to the contrary.
3- The biblical
views of the
eschatological
temple.
Also irrelevant to
anything I have said.
The particular LDS
teaching concerning
temples and the claim
to restoration of
apostolic Christian
practices (including
priesthood ordinances
and the like) was that
which prompted the
tract to which you
replied: and though
you expanded your
response far beyond
the intention of the
tract, that was still
its purpose and
intention. The only
reason we seek to
dialogue with the LDS
people is to present
to them the truth
about the one true
God, His perfect work
of salvation, and His
true worship. The LDS
concept of temples,
ordinances,
priesthoods, and the
like, is part of a
complex of beliefs
that keeps men in
darkness and
deception. The only
reason for me to
engage in a written
Internet-based
"debate" on the
subject is to allow
LDS to know what the
Bible teaches about
these things, and to
equip believers so
that they, too, can
proclaim truth.
But, I rather
suspect there is no
point in going off
on another topic
until we have
resolved the
outstanding issues
associated with your
etract. So, if you
want to pick up on
our old debate about
your etract, I?m
willing to go for
it. Why don?t you
tell me clearly,
once and for all, if
you will defend your
etract or not?
Since the thesis
proposed IS the basis
of the e-tract,
obviously, that is why
I have invited you to
interact in a formal,
scholarly fashion.
The thesis of the
tract is that
Christians do not
build temples. But a
tract does not a
thesis for a debate
make.
I also have some
issues with your
proposed format. We
can discuss those if
we can agree on a
topic.
I also have a
problem with the
fact that you have
not agreed to my
earlier terms. They
are:
1- We each post the
debate on a web site
of our choosing. [You seem to
have agreed to this
one.] Each web site
must list the web
address of the
other.
That's fine.
2- We each post the
entire debate. You
do not get to choose
which of my
materials are
included and which
are not included.
We will post these
ground rules at the
beginning of the
exchange.
That was included in
what was said.
3- Neither of us
will change the text
of the other.
Obviously.
4- All that will be
included on the web
page is a transcript
of the debate. No
one gets to include
editorial comments
to which the other
person does not have
a chance to respond.
Fine.
Do you agree to
these ground rules?
Outside of posting the
URL of the second
site, all of that was
already contained in
what had been
suggested.
Due to finals and
papers at the end of
the semester, I
can?t engage in any
debate until late
April.
Since I will be gone
most of May and June,
that does not provide
any benefit to me, to
be sure.
The only reason we
seek to dialogue
with the LDS
people is to
present to them
the truth about
the one true God,
His perfect work
of salvation, and
His true worship.
The LDS concept of
temples,
ordinances,
priesthoods, and
the like, is part
of a complex of
beliefs that keeps
men in darkness
and deception.
The only reason
for me to engage
in a written
Internet-based
"debate" on the
subject is to
allow LDS to know
what the Bible
teaches about
these things, and
to equip believers
so that they, too,
can proclaim
truth.
BILL
James, you can do
this perfectly
well without my
help. This
statement is
enormously
revealing, and
your attitude is
precisely the
reason I find it
utterly pointless
to attempt to have
any reasonable
discussion with
you. Your latest
email once again
degenerates into
debating about
debating rather
than addressing
any issue that is
significant and
interesting. Life
is short, and,
quite frankly,
I've wasted more
than enough of
mine on you.
At 09:01 PM
04/05/2004, you wrote:
James, you can do
this perfectly well
without my help.
This statement is
enormously
revealing, and your
attitude is
precisely the reason
I find it utterly
pointless to attempt
to have any
reasonable
discussion with
you. Your latest
email once again
degenerates into
debating about
debating rather than
addressing any issue
that is significant
and interesting.
Life is short, and,
quite frankly, I've
wasted more than
enough of mine on
you.
OK, thanks, Dr.
Hamblin. I assumed
your "challenge" was
only meant to try to
distract from the
upcoming debates
anyway, and that you
would never put
yourself in the
position of truly
having to interact,
but, hey, I said I
would respond after
the Utah trip, and I
did. I surely would
not wish to have to
defend that position
in written format,
either!
James>>>
From: "William
Hamblin" <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
To: "James White"
<NA27@aomin.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime:
06 Apr 2004
21:04:22.0121 (UTC)
FILETIME=[BBF30590:01C41C1A]
X-MIME-Autoconverted:
from quoted-printable
to 8bit by
host5.visualpresence2000.com
id i36L4MqR032135
James, you are a
remarkable piece
of work.
I didn't challenge
you to a debate.
You challenged
me. All I did was
send you a brief
note teasing you
for your
inconsistency.
The rest is
your fault. If
you didn't want to
be distracted you
shouldn't have
challenged me.
You said you
wanted to debate.
I, in fact, have
no absolutely
desire to
debate you.
None. Period.
But, nonetheless,
since you
challenged me,
I said I would
debate you in
writing on the
internet about the
errors in
your etract
"Temples without
hands." I have
made that offer
nearly a
dozen times in the
past few weeks.
You have never
once responded to
that offer with a
simple yes or no.
So, my offer still
stands, and I
ask you again:
Do you want to
defend your etract
"Temples without
hands" in a
written
internet debate?
No more
obfuscation,
please. No more
evasion, please.
No more
attempting to
change the time,
place, topic or
format, please.
No more
berating me for a
failure to defend
a position I have
never taken,
please. No more
absurd
mind-reading about
my malicious
motives, please.
A simple yes or no
will do nicely.
If you do not
answer this
question clearly
and unequivocally
in your
next email, I can
only assume-after
asking the
question ten
times--that
the answer is no,
and won't bother
you further.
At 02:04 PM
04/06/2004, you
wrote:
If you do not
answer this
question clearly
and
unequivocally in
your
next email, I
can only
assume-after
asking the
question ten
times--that
the answer is
no, and won't
bother you
further.
Sir:
I have offered you
a clear, usable
format for the
discussion of the
issue of temples
and Christianity.
I agreed to your
posting
requirements. You
have declined.
What else is there
to discuss?
Although you
will not
explicitly
state it, you
clearly refuse
to defend
your etract
"Temples
without Hands"
in a written
internet
debate.
That's fine
with me.
At 03:02 PM
04/06/2004, you
wrote:
Although you
will not
explicitly state
it, you clearly
refuse to defend
your etract
"Temples without
Hands" in a
written internet
debate.
That's fine with
me.
If you have to
twist the facts in
that way to
assuage your
conscience, I'm
sorry, but you and
I both know it
isn't true. :-)
I think
your most
recent
Blog is
premature,
if not
entirely
deceptive.
We'll be
sure to
put the
full
correspondence
up on
SHIELDS to
clarify
matters.
4/6/04:
Dr.
Hamblin
Declines
Internet
Debate
Despite
Dr.
Hamblin's
constant
reiteration
of his
desire to
debate
the topic
of temples
on the
Internet,
when I
responded
to his
very first
counter-proposal,
accepting
all his
conditions,
but not
yet
arriving
at
an
acceptable
thesis
statement,
he ended
the
negotiations
and said
he
was not
interested.
Hence, our
challenge
to debate
publicly
before
cameras,
in written
form in
published
venues,
and even
in the
form he
himself
promoted,
on the
Internet--all
have been
declined
by Dr.
Hamblin.
At 03:18 PM
04/06/2004,
you wrote:
Then we
are agreed.
We are going
to debate
the accuracy
of your
claims
in your
etract
"Temples
without
hands." We
will pick up
where we
left
off, on the
question of
whether God
commanded
the
Israelites
to build
temples
other than
the one in
Jerusalem,
as found on
the Shields
web
page.
Sir, a debate
requires a
thesis
statement.
Please forward
a usable
thesis
statement upon
which opening
statements can
be written as
per the format
agreed upon.
Thank you.
Here are
three
issues you
raise in
your
etract,
which I
dispute.
1- "Under
the Old
Covenant,
the one
true God
of Israel,
Jehovah,
allowed
His people
to build a
single
temple,
located in
Jerusalem."
I believe
God
"commanded"
temple
building,
rather
than
merely
"allowing"
it.
2- "Never
did God
allow His
people to
build
multiple
temples
such as
those of
the pagan
religions
that
surrounded
Israel."
I believe
God
commanded
the
building
of several
contemporary
temples,
and
accepted
worship
from
others as
well.
3- "The
early
Christians
did not
seek to
build a
temple in
Jerusalem,
or
anywhere
else, for
that
matter.
Christians
have never
built
temples."
I believe
that
temple
ideology
remained
central to
New
Testament
Christianity.
Furthermore,
there are
numerous
examples
of non-LDS
Christians
building
temples in
history.
3- "The
early
Christians
did not
seek to
build a
temple in
Jerusalem,
or
anywhere
else, for
that
matter.
Christians
have never
built
temples."
I believe
that
temple
ideology
remained
central to
New
Testament
Christianity.
Furthermore,
there are
numerous
examples
of non-LDS
Christians
building
temples in
history.
Then
would you
debate the
thesis, in
the format
offered,
"Temple
Ideology as
Seen in the
Temples of
the
Latter-day
Saints is
Central to
New
Testament
Christianity"?
You're
so
transparent,
James.
Once
again,
you
refuse
to
defend
what you
wrote,
and try
to shift
the
topic.
I
readily
admit
that LDS
temple
rituals
are not
explicit
in the
NT. LDS
should
not
expect
them to
be,
since
they are
some of
the
"things
unutterable,"
to which
Paul
alludes.
Furthermore,
for
obvious
reasons,
I will
not
discuss
LDS
temple
rituals
with
you.
Finally,
LDS do
not
believe
in
sufficiency
of
scripture;
the NT
does not
contain
the
entirety
of
Christ's
first
century
revelations.
So, do
you want
to
defend
your
claim
that
"The
early
Christians
did not
seek to
build a
temple
in
Jerusalem,
or
anywhere
else,
for that
matter.
Christians
have
never
built
temples"
or not?
The
choice
is
yours.
At 04:53
PM
04/06/2004,
you wrote:
So, do
you want
to defend
your claim
that "The
early
Christians
did not
seek to
build a
temple in
Jerusalem,
or
anywhere
else, for
that
matter.
Christians
have never
built
temples"
or not?
The choice
is yours.
Sir, I am
sorry you
refuse to
step up to
the plate
and defend
the Mormon
position on
temples. I
am sorry you
misunderstood
and
misrepresented
my tract and
its
intentions
years ago as
well. I
have asked
you to
present a
meaningful
and useful
thesis for a
written,
internet-based
debate that
would be of
some level
of interest
and
usefulness
to those
would take
the time to
read it (let
alone worth
the effort
needed to
produce
it). The
Apostles did
not build
temples in
Jerusalem,
or anywhere
else, for
that matter,
in which
they were to
engage in
priesthood
based
endowments.
They did not
seek to
rebuild the
temple in
Jerusalem,
nor did they
seek to
build
temples as
Mormons
build
temples
today. THIS
WAS THE
POINT OF THE
TRACT.
These are
facts, but
it is now
self-evident
that you
have no
intention,
and I doubt
ever *had*
any
intention,
to actually
address
these facts
in any
meaningful
fashion. I
have asked
you to
suggest a
thesis that
would
address the
real issues
about
temples, but
it is clear
you have no
intention of
doing so.
I am sure
you will be
posting our
correspondence,
as always,
and when you
do so, I
will link to
it. Should
you change
your mind
and actually
wish to
engage in a
meaningful
and useful
internet-based
debate, the
following
thesis would
be the only
one I would
now care to
pursue with
you:
Melchizedek
Priesthood
Authority
and Temple
Endowments
are
Essential to
Christianity
If you would
care to
defend such
a thesis in
the agreed
upon format,
please let
me know.
Otherwise,
this
correspondence
has become a
waste of
time for
both of us.
You
write:
"I am
sorry
you
refuse
to step
up to
the
plate
and
defend
the
Mormon
position
on
temples."
Really?
Here are
the
three
theses
you have
suggested
for our
debate:
1- "The
Building
of
Temples
for
Worship
and
Priesthood
Activities
is an
Essential
Element
of New
Testament
Christianity"
I have
never
claimed
that New
Testament
era
Christians
built
temples.
I do not
believe
that New
Testament
era
Christians
built
temples.
(Note,
there is
no
reason
LDS
should
believe
this.
Our
scriptures
explicitly
state,
"this
ordinance
[i.e. of
the
temple]
belongeth
to my
house,
and
cannot
be
acceptable
to me,
only in
the days
of your
poverty,
wherein
ye are
not able
to build
a house
unto
me." (DC
124.30)
In other
words,
the Lord
commands
his
people
to build
temples
only
when
they
have
the
means
and
opportunity
to do
so. New
Testament
era
Christians
did
not have
the
means
nor
opportunity,
and were
therefore
exempt
from
building
new
temples.
The fact
that
they did
not is
perfectly
consistent
with LDS
temple
ideology.)
So, why
should I
be
expected
to
affirm
this
proposition
in a
debate?
2-
"Temple
Ideology
as Seen
in the
Temples
of the
Latter-day
Saints
is
Central
to New
Testament
Christianity"
I have
never
claimed
that LDS
temple
ideology
is
explicitly
found in
the
New
Testament.
I do not
believe
that LDS
temple
ideology
is
explicitly
found in
the New
Testament.
(We
should
not
expect
it to be
found
there.
It is
one of
the
"things
unutterable."
I do,
however,
believe
there
are
quite a
number
of
interesting
allusions
to
temple
ideas in
the NT.)
So, why
should I
be
expected
to
affirm
this in
a
debate?
3-
"Melchizedek
Priesthood
Authority
and
Temple
Endowments
are
Essential
to
Christianity"
I have
never
claimed
that
Melchizedek
Priesthood
Authority
and
Temple
Endowments
are
Essential
to
Christianity.
(Why
would I
affirm
such a
preposterous
idea?
Only an
anti-Mormon
could
come up
with
this
formulation.
The vast
majority
of
Christians
in the
world
today
and
throughout
history
have had
neither
Melchizedek
priesthood
authority
nor
endowments.
This
does not
make
them
non-Christian.
What is
essential
to
Christianity
is the
belief
that
Jesus is
the
Messiah.)
I do not
believe
that
Melchizedek
Priesthood
Authority
and
Temple
Endowments
are
Essential
to
Christianity.
(Rather,
they are
essential
to
exaltation,
which is
quite a
different
matter.
You see
James, I
even
think
that
you, in
your own
way, are
a
Christian,
and
therefore
part of
Christianity;
and you
clearly
don't
believe
in
Melchizedek
priesthood
and
temples.)
So, why
should I
be
expected
to
affirm
this in
a
debate?
In other
words,
you have
proposed
three
topics
asking
me to
defend a
position
in a
debate
that I
do no
believe!
Then, on
your
absurd
blog,
you
triumphantly
and
quite
deceptively
proclaim
that,
because
I won't
defend
propositions
I do not
believe
that I
refuse
to
debate
you at
all.
Why
should I
possibly
want to
defend a
proposition
I do not
believe?
Imagine
the
following
hypothetical
scenario.
Two
people
decide
to
debate
the
holocaust.
The
first
proposes
a
thesis,
"The
Holocaust
never
occurred,"
and
tells
the
second
that he
has to
debate
the
affirmative.
"But,"
the
second
rightly
object,
"I
actually
believe
the
Holocaust
occurred."
"You
coward,"
triumphantly
proclaims
the
first on
his
Blog,
"you
refuse
to
debate
me."
Don't
you
think
the
second
person
would
have
a
reasonable
objection
that he
should
not be
forced
to offer
arguments
in favor
of a
proposition
he
doesn't
believe?
Contrast
this
with
your
situation.
You have
posted
your web
page
your
etract
"Temples
without
hands."
In it
you
affirm,
among
other
things,
three
propositions
with
which I
disagree.
1-
"Under
the Old
Covenant,
the one
true God
of
Israel,
Jehovah,
allowed
His
people
to build
a single
temple,
located
in
Jerusalem."
2-
"Never
did God
allow
His
people
to build
multiple
temples
such as
those of
the
pagan
religions
that
surrounded
Israel."
3- "The
early
Christians
did not
seek to
build a
temple
in
Jerusalem,
or
anywhere
else,
for that
matter.
Christians
have
never
built
temples."
(I
note
that in
your
most
recent
letter
you
significantly
back-peddle
on
your
original
position
by
claiming
that
"The
Apostles
did not
build
temples
in
Jerusalem."
I agree
with
this
reformulated
statement.
But
this is
a
significantly
different
proposition
that the
claim
that
"Christians
have
never
built
temples."
In other
words,
you have
conceded
my
original
point,
no?)
Now here
we
actually
have you
affirming
propositions
and me
disagreeing.
This are
three
historical
questions
which
can be
clearly
answered
with
available
historical
evidence.
I am
willing
to
debate
you
about
these
three
propositions.
But
after a
dozen
offers,
you have
consistently
refused
to ever
clearly
answer
the
question
of
whether
you will
defend
you
etract
or not.
You
dodge,
obfuscate,
posture
and
change
the
subject.
You try
to get
me to
debate,
affirming
propositions
I don't
believe
in. But
you
NEVER
explicitly
answer
my
question.
So I
will ask
it
again:
Will you
have a
written
internet
debate
defending
your
etract
"Temples
without
hands"?
Yes or
no,
please.
All they
while
you are
proclaiming
on your
blog
that I
have
refused
to
debate
you!
This
situation
is so
surreal
that I
feel
like I'm
living
in
a
Twilight
Zone
rendition
of a
Salvador
Dali
painting.
I have
also
proposed
three
other
topics:
--
Continued
Christian
participation
in
worship
and
visions
at the
Jerusalem
Temple
-- The
Christian
concept
of
Temple
in
Heaven
and
heavenly
vision
and
ascent
to
worship
there
-- The
biblical
views of
the
eschatological
temple
You
don't
want to
debate
these
either.
That's
fine
with
me. As
I have
said
repeatedly,
I have
no real
desire
to
debate
you.
James,
it would
be
absurd
for me
to ask
you to
defend
Arminianism,
or
the
veneration
of the
Virgin
Mary, or
that
scripture
is not
inerrant,
because
you
don't
believe
in these
things.
Your
proposed
topics
are
equally
absurd,
but not
nearly
as
absurd
as your
blog
posturing
about my
unwillingness
to
debate
you.
(As I
was
finishing
this
email I
noted
your
recent
blog
posting
all our
correspondence.
Thank
you. It
was a
nice
piece of
damage
control,
since
you knew
it would
be
appearing
on
SHIELDS
soon. I
think it
will
show
interested
readers,
however
few they
may be,
that
your
claims
that
your
invitations
to
debate
have
"been
declined
by Dr.
Hamblin,"
and that
I have "dodge[d]
every
rational
attempt
to
establish
grounds
for
debate"
are
manifestly
false.
Hence
Dr.
Peterson
charged
you with
dishonesty.
I hope
you will
also add
this
letter
to your
web
page.
If not,
it will
certainly
go up on
SHIELDS.)
I am
ready to
debate
you on
your
etract
"temple
without
hands".
I have
always
been
willing
to do
so. I
will
not,
however,
debate
you on
propositions
which I
do not
believe.
I hope
we can
now end
this
charade.
It has
been
somewhat
amusing,
but
it grows
tiresome,
and it
is
obviously
a
pointless
waste of
time.
Sincerely,
Bill
Date: Wed,
07 Apr 2004
13:57:28
-0600
Subject: One
More Notch
on the Belt
From:
"Daniel C.
Peterson" <daniel_peterson@byu.edu>
Mr.
White:
My
attention
has been
drawn to
the
newly
posted
references
to me
featured
on
your
Website.
Though,
admittedly,
I have
enjoyed
your
thoroughly
predictable
antics
from a
distance,
I have
quite
deliberately
refrained
from
involvement
in this
latest
burst of
correspondence
between
Dr.
Hamblin
and
yourself.
I have
not
the
slightest
appetite
for any
more of
your
personal
malignity.
I have
no
desire
ever to
have
anything
to do
with you
again.
It
appears,
however,
for
reasons
best
known to
you,
that you
seek to
drag me
in
against
my
wishes.
Several
times in
recent
years,
Pastor
Jason
Wallace
has
attempted
to
persuade
me to
participate
in one
of your
debate
shows.
I have
always
responded,
first of
all,
that
debating
you
holds no
intellectual
interest
for me
(I share
Dr.
Owen's
estimation
of your
academic
accomplishments),
and,
second,
that I
have, on
the
whole,
found
you so
unpleasant
that I
will
never
consider
sharing
a
platform
with
you.
You have
nonetheless
gratuitously
(and
redundantly)
added
yet
another
unpalatable
experience
to the
chronicle.
I do not
appreciate
your
(futile)
attempt
to draw
me into
your
most
recent
campaign
of
self-aggrandizement
and
self-glorification.
You are,
of
course,
free to
market
yourself
and your
wares in
any
manner
you
choose
-- I'm
aware of
the
pressures
on
entrepreneurs
such as
yourself
in our
competitive
economy
-- but
it
surely
would
have
been
more
gracious
on your
part had
you
shown
the
simple
courtesy
of
omitting
me from
your
marketing
plan.
Daniel
Peterson
At
12:57 PM
04/07/2004,
you
wrote:
You
have
nonetheless
gratuitously
(and
redundantly)
added
yet
another
unpalatable
experience
to the
chronicle.
Dr.
Peterson:
1) You
did not
have to
openly
challenge
me to
debate
on the
radio in
California.
Yet, you
did.
2) You
did not
have to
write
Offenders
for a
Word
and thus
place
yourself
in the
apologetic
realm.
Yet, you
did.
3) You
did not
have to
participate
in
previous
e-mail
"barrages"
with all
your
friends
on the
"skinny-l"
list.
Yet, you
did.
4) You
did not
have to
post on
an
e-mail
list
today
that I
was
"spinning"
the
situation
and
being
dishonest.
Yet, you
did.
Hence, I
find
your
complaints
about
being
drawn
into the
situation....ironic.
It seems
LDS
scholars
believe
themselves
to live
in a
land
where
they can
make any
statement
they
wish, no
matter
how
outrageous
it might
be (such
as your
own
statement
that the
LDS
teaching
concerning
the
physical
parentage
of Jesus
Christ
by the
embodied
Elohim
is
nothing
but a
"19th
century
speculation,"
or
Hamblin's
turning
of
swords
into war
clubs),
and yet
bear no
responsibility
to
substantiate
it;
indeed,
anyone
who
would,
out of
concern
for the
truth,
dare to
question
you, let
alone
refute
you, is
automatically
labeled
an
"anti-Mormon,"
and his
credibility
and
morals
questioned.
The
double-standard
is
striking
indeed.
The fact
of the
matter
is, sir,
you have
placed
yourself
in the
position,
voluntarily,
of
acting
as an
apologist
for the
LDS
faith.
YOU said
you
would
debate
me,
"anytime,
anyplace"
in a
public
forum
FIRST.
Seemingly,
you do
not wish
to back
up your
own
bravado,
but
likewise,
are
unwilling
to admit
this
openly.
Instead,
to
maintain
your
impeccable
standing
in the
eyes of
the
adoring
throngs
of LDS
who look
to FARMS
for a
reason
to
continue
to
believe
in the
mythology
developed
by
Joseph
Smith,
you seek
to cast
aspersions
upon me,
knowing
that in
the eyes
of the
majority
of such
folks
(especially
for the
likes of
men like
Stan
Barker),
such an
activity,
no
matter
how
vacuous
it might
be on a
rational
level,
surely
maintains
your
standing
with the
audience
that
concerns
you.
I am
thankful,
sir,
that
there
will be
a day of
judgment,
when the
thoughts
and
intentions
of the
heart
will be
made
known,
and
every
false
accusation
of
dishonesty
will be
exposed.
James>>>
Date:
Wed, 07
Apr 2004
16:54:47
-0600
Subject:
Re: One
More
Notch on
the Belt
From:
"Daniel
C.
Peterson"
<daniel_peterson@byu.edu>
CC:
skinny
<skinny@lyris.mhcc.cc.or.us>,
LDS
Apologetics
<lds-apologetics@lists.dcomp.com>
Sir:
What a
remarkably
verbose
note,
sir,
to
someone
who
has
explicitly
stated
his
lack
of
interest
in any
further
communication
from
or
with
you,
sir.
Goodbye,
sir.
