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.

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:22:22 -0700
From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
Subject: Mormonism

Dear James,

You wrote:

“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:

1-     on the radio on KTKK
2-     on the internet about Ps 82 and Jn 10.34, also at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm (your censured version appears at http://aomin.org/Psalm82.html)
3-     on the internet on “Temples made without hands” at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm

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 athttp://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.  🙂

2-     on the internet about Ps 82 and Jn 10.34, also at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm (your censured version appears at http://aomin.org/Psalm82.html)

That is called an e-mail exchange, not a debate, Dr. Hamblin.

3-     on the internet on ?Temples made without hands? at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm

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?

Awaiting–but hardly expecting–a substantive response.

Bill


At 07:09 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote:

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–a substantive response,

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:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05a.htm

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
>to http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm <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:
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05a.htm <http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05a.htm>
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.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=250&mp=&passthru=T,

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:
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm
You also have lied about the contents of
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05a.htm
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:
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05b.htm
Which is an article by you, not my response to it.
Clicking on the name of your ministry brings you to
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm
>From there one has to make an additional click to get to
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm
which is the crucial part of the debate I think your readers should see.
Once again you are misleading your readers.  If you are an honest man, you’ll place the link to
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm
and
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm
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.

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2004 21:55:29.0154

 

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.

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 Jerusalem Temple
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.

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 04:05:28.0314

JAMES
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?

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:02:07.0589

You’re right, James, there is nothing to discuss. But please stop equivocating. 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.  🙂

James>>>

From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:07:36.0733

Just to make things clear, James:
If you agree to debate the substance of your etract, “Temples without hands,” then we have a debate. If you don’t agree to debate the substance of your etract, “Temples without hands, then we are not going to debate. Everything else is essentially settled.

Right?


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:10:02.0188

 

Ha! Ha! Ha!

That’s very funny James.
Although these exchanges are quite pointless, you do make me laugh sometimes. I take this to mean that you will debate the merits of your etract “Temples without hands.”  I’m ready; Let’s go!


At 03:10 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

I take this to mean that you will debate the merits of your etract “Temples without hands.”  I’m ready; Let’s go!

I take it that you are not rescinding your declination.  Please identify the thesis statement you wish to debate in the format already agreed upon.

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:18:34.0511

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.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm

Agreed?


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:30:43.0199

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.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm

Agreed?

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.

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 22:47:45.0965

You’re being amusing again, James.

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”?

James>>>


From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2004 23:53:18.0341

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.

James>>>


Subject: RE: Blog Post

From: “William Hamblin” <William_Hamblin@byu.edu>

Oh James, but you do make me laugh.

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.

-dcp

0 Comments

Leave a reply

©2020 Alpha and Omega Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?