SEARCH

JAMES
Letters 8 and 9 were your attacks upon biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, mentioned before, and not a part of the Psalm 82 materials.

BILL
Obfuscation!  You raised the issue of biblical inerrancy and sufficiency in your defense of your position on Psalm 82.  I was merely responding to your position on the matter.  If the matter was relevant for your argument in favor of elohim = judges in Ps 82, why is my response not relevant?

JAMES
Letter 10 was what you sent after I posted your reply to my last reply.

BILL
Obfuscation!  My reply was not finished.  You simply decided to refuse to debate further, and to not post my full argument.

At 01:32 PM 6/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>Post what letters you think were a part of this discussion that 
>>have not been posted on our web page.
>
>Thanks for your kind offer to post the unposted letters I sent you.
>The first attached as an html file.  It is letters 37 to 40 on the SHIELDS
>register.

I have no idea what is causing your confusion, Dr. Hamblin.  I have posted the letters that were exchanged between us on the topic of Psalm 82.  You sent me three letters, two of which were on a different topic (and to which I have not replied), and one that you wrote after I had already posted your final comments.  Hence:

1)  If you demand they be posted, it seems you believe that I have, for some reason, agreed to engage in unlimited e-mail debating with you, on any topic you so choose, for as long as you choose, for as nasty as you wish to get, and, further, I must post anything you send to me on any topic whatsoever on our web page.  Which means,

2)  That you believe you have been made honorary webmaster of our website.

Neither #1 nor #2 logically follows from engaging you in a discussion of Psalm 82 and its meaning, based upon your call to KTKK radio in April.  The address to the SHIELDS page is on our own.  If someone wants to read all the rabbit trails you might wish to present, no matter how interesting they may be, they can easily do so.  We prefer to keep the conversation limited to what we *said* we were going to discuss at the outset.

James>>>

At 01:40 PM 6/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>BILL
>I have a few things to say about your concluding comments, which, for
>some unknown reason, you did not have the courtesy to forward to me.
>I'm afraid that you are seriously distorting matters.
>
>JAMES (introduction to correspondence)
>In April of 1998, James White appeared on radio station KTKK in Salt
>Lake City, Utah.  One of the callers to the program was Dr. William
>Hamblin of Brigham Young University.  Dr. Hamblin did not identify
>himself when he called in,

That's nice, Dr. Hamblin.  Steve Mayfield said nothing about it, nor did Van Hale, and I cannot read Steve Mayfield's mind.

[SHIELDS Editorial note:  This is a silly issue.  Giving the first name and city is standard operating procedure for radio talk-shows, as James should know: 1) James has called into numerous talk shows, 2) James has been a guest on numerous talk shows, and 3) James hosted his own talk show.  Anything else is an exception and is very rarely done, and usually only when the caller happens to be a well-known public figure, such as a senator, mayor, etc.]

As to concluding remarks, yes, so?  Am I to assume that you cannot provide concluding remarks on SHIELDS?

>JAMES
>The same material can be found at
>http://www.aomin.org/welcome.html

That is NOT what the page reads.  It has the SHIELDS address there, not ours.

>BILL
>I strongly urge all interested in this correspondence (however few you
>may be), to consult the SHIELDS archive at this web address, since
>you have consistently refused to post several of my letters to you.

I have consistently refused to do no such thing.  Your demand that anything you write to me, on any topic, even if it is not related to the exegesis of Psalm 82, is unreasonable and ridiculous.  You may be on break and have all the time in the world, but *I* am not on break, and *I* do not have all the time in the world to indulge your desire to argue.  I have already put off a number of more important things, wrongly, just because you seem to think that I signed my name in blood to do some kind of electronic slug-fest with you.  I didn't.

>JAMES
>The discussion ended May 29th, 1998, when Dr. Hamblin, in >responding to the respectful use of the term "sir," indicated that it was
>his intention to "get to" James. Given certain standards of civil behavior
>that James has always attempted to follow, the discussion was ended.
>
>BILL
>Come on, James, lighten up. This feigned indignation is silly.  What I
>actually wrote was:
>
>JAMES (old)
>No, sir, it is the literal reading of the Psalm to keep it as one
>literary whole. . . . That, sir, is literal reading.
>BILL (old)
>I note that I have been "sir-ed." How gratifying. That must mean I am
>getting to you.

I realize you folks at BYU think that everyone else should "take" from you all whatever you dish out, while, of course, everyone else is held to a completely different standard.  I have received more than sufficient evidence of this over the past few months.  But you wrote it, and my indignation is not feigned, even if you cannot possibly understand the
grounds for it.

>It is widely noted in certain circles that when you start getting mad,
>you have a tendency to pepper your criticisms with the ironic use of
>the word "sir."  The same is true of your correspondence with Midgley
>and Peterson.  For example.
>
>But it strikes me, sir, that you are operating on a very strong
>double-standard.

Again, it seems you all were raised differently than I was.  I'm sorry you don't recognize courteous titles.

James>>>

At 01:38 PM 6/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
>James,
>
>I am attaching html files for three more letters I sent you which you
>have not posted.  Please let me know if they are unreadable at your
>end, and I will send the file in whatever format you find most useful.

Letters 8 and 9 were your attacks upon biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, mentioned before, and not a part of the Psalm 82 materials.  Letter 10 was what you sent after I posted your reply to my last reply.  Hence, as I said, I posted the exchange.  You seem to wish to post beyond the topics.  You of course are totally free to post to your heart's content on those websites you control, or that are controlled by those who support your cause.  I am very sorry you have chosen to adopt the use of Standard Issue BYU Ad-Hominem Argumentation, as without it, the conversation would be useful.  Even as it was, the immediate dismissal of Keil and Delitzsch, and the reasons used, communicated a fair amount, I believe.

James>>>

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:04:27 -0700
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Subject: Re: Unposted Letter 1

JAMES
I have no idea what is causing your confusion, Dr. Hamblin.  I have posted the letters that were exchanged between us on the topic of Psalm 82.  You sent me three letters, two of which were on a different topic (and to which I have not replied), and one that you wrote after I had already posted your final comments.  Hence:

BILL
You are confusing me James.
1-  The topic is not Ps 82. I initiated the conversation, and I know what the topics was: it was "Who are the sons of God?"
2-  Your fixation on Ps 82 as the only thing we can discuss is in direct contradiction to your own web page, where you announce:

NEW!  BYU Professor William Hamblin engages James White in a discussion of Psalm 82 and John 10.

Now, if the discussion is really on Ps 82 and Jn 10, why did you refuse to respond to my exegesis of John 10 on the grounds that it was "off topic"?

3-  One of my three letters you claim are on a "different topic" was in direct response to an issue you raised about infallibility and consistency in scripture.  If those topics were relevant to your defense of your position, why is my response not relevant?
4-  Who are you to declare what my final comments are?  I was not finished.  You simply declared the discussion closed because you were unable to present a cogent response.  Then you refuse to allow me the right to reply to your nonsense?

JAMES
1)  If you demand they be posted, it seems you believe that I have, for some reason, agreed to engage in unlimited e-mail debating with you, on any topic you so choose, for as long as you choose, for as nasty as you wish to get, and, further, I must post anything you send to me on any topic whatsoever on our web page.

BILL
This is preposterous.  I have told you that I have said what I have to say.  I really have no desire to exchange letters with you any further.  I simply want you to present a full and accurate account of the debate to your readers.  The initial agreement I made with you is that you could post my material on your web site only if you would agree to post all of my letters without change.  You did not object to that condition when I made it.  Either honor your commitment, or don't, but quit this ridiculous posturing.

JAMES
The address to the SHIELDS page is on our own.  If someone wants to read all the rabbit trails you might wish to present, no matter how interesting they may be, they can easily do so.  We prefer to keep the conversation limited to what we *said* we were going to discuss at the outset.

BILL
This arguing about the topic is preposterous!  Where did *we* say what we were going to discuss?  You have simply unilaterally declared what you will and will not discuss, and have unilaterally declared the debate finished before I had a full chance to reply.

At any rate, it is completely obvious that you refuse to post my letters because:
1-  they make you look bad for attempting to suppress my arguments, and
2-  you do not do well in the debate.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:29:06 -0700
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Subject: Re: Distortions

>BILL (old)
>I strongly urge all interested in this correspondence (however few you
>may be), to consult the SHIELDS archive at this web address, since
>you have consistently refused to post several of my letters to you.

JAMES
I have consistently refused to do no such thing.  Your demand that anything you write to me, on any topic, even if it is not related to the exegesis of Psalm 82, is unreasonable and ridiculous.

BILL
Obfuscation!  I am not demanding you put anything I write on any topic on your web page.  I am requesting that you honor your commitment to accurately and completely post my side of our debate.

JAMES
You may be on break and have all the time in the world, but *I* am not on break, and *I* do not have all the time in the world to indulge your desire to argue.  I have already put off a number of more important things, wrongly, just because you seem to think that I signed my name in blood to do some kind of electronic slug-fest with you.  I didn't.

BILL
Obfuscation!  The debate is over.  I do not wish to debate you any further.  I simply request that you honor your commitment to accurately and completely post my side of our debate.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:35:03 -0700
From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
Subject: Re: unposted letters 2-4

JAMES
Letters 8 and 9 were your attacks upon biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, mentioned before, and not a part of the Psalm 82 materials.

BILL
Obfuscation!  You raised the issue of biblical inerrancy and sufficiency in your defense of your position on Psalm 82.  I was merely responding to your position on the matter.  If the matter was relevant for your argument in favor of elohim = judges in Ps 82, why is my response not relevant?

JAMES
Letter 10 was what you sent after I posted your reply to my last reply.

BILL
Obfuscation!  My reply was not finished.  You simply decided to refuse to debate further, and to not post my full argument.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

I note that you again are adding to the debate without sending me your statements, and without giving me a chance to respond.  You wrote:

JAMES
Dr. Hamblin, accusing me of not posting all of his materials and various and sundry other untruths.

BILL
It is manifestly the case that you did not post all of my materials.  What, might I ask, are the "various and sundry other untruths" I have told?

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

A few days ago I sent you this message, to which you didn't respond.  You appear to be accusing me of lying by writing "various and sundry other untruths" about you.  If I have done so, I apologize.  I you would send me a list of the specific "untruths" I have told about you I would be happy to make corrections.

>I note that you again are adding to the debate without sending me your
>statements, and without giving me a chance to respond.  You wrote:
>
>JAMES
>Dr. Hamblin, accusing me of not posting all of his materials and >various and sundry other untruths.
>
>BILL
>It is manifestly the case that you did not post all of my materials.
>What, might I ask, are the "various and sundry other untruths" I have
>told?
>
>
>William J. Hamblin
>Associate Professor of History
>323 KMB
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602-4446
>
>801-378-6469
>wh4@email.byu.edu
>FAX 801-378-5784

James,
Some time ago I wrote you a note trying to clear up a misunderstanding.  You never responded.  I will optimistically assume that this was because my messages bounced.
In your final summation of our recent debate, you claimed that I have "accus[ed] [you] of not posting all of [my] materials and various and sundry other untruths."
To me this appears that you are saying I have been lying about you.  This is a serious accusation.
It is quite obvious that you have not posted all of my arguments and letters to you, so that can hardly be considered one of the unspecified "untruths" I have allegedly be saying about you.  (I would be happy to send you a copy of all my relevent letters you have refused to post.)
I am concerned that you are claiming that I have written "various and sundry other untruths" about you.  If I have done so, I would very much like to publicly correct them.
Could you please tell me specifically what are these "various and sundry other untruths" I have supposedly said about you?

If you are going to publicly make this type of accusation, I feel it merits some type of substantiation on your part.  If you are unable to substantiate you accusations, perhaps you should remove them from your web page and apologize.

If I have inadvertently said "untruths" about you, I will be happy to publicly correct the record.

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

At 01:26 PM 6/23/98 -0600, you wrote:

>Some time ago I wrote you a note trying to clear up a >misunderstanding.  You never responded.  I will optimistically >assume that this was because my messages bounced.

No, Dr. Hamblin, I have simply been storing all message from yourself and Dr. Midgley in a folder.  I rarely read more than the first paragraph.  I do that with a lot of mail from those that I have concluded are only seeking unreasoning argument, or are engaged in merely attempting to cause trouble.  While you far excelled your colleagues in the realm of waiting till the "other shoe fell," eventually, it did, and your dislike of believing Evangelicals came through with flying colors (i.e., believing Evangelicals = "anti-Mormons" in your parlance).

>In your final summation of our recent debate, you claimed that I have
>"accus[ed] [you] of not posting all of [my] materials and various and
>sundry other untruths."  To me this appears that you are saying I have
>been lying about you.  This is a serious accusation.

The untruths, of course, had to do with your rather emotional response to my last reply in our correspondence.  Such is obvious to anyone reading the materials.

>It is quite obvious that you have not posted all of my arguments and
>letters to you, so that can hardly be considered one of the
>unspecified "untruths" I have allegedly be saying about you.  (I would
>be happy to send you a copy of all my relevent letters you have
>refused to post.)

And, of course, this is one of the main reasons I have not wasted further time with this correspondence.  I think the phrase is "beating a dead horse."  I have never, ever said "Anything you send to me, even after the conversation is closed, or even if it is on issues completely separate from our original conversation, will be posted to our webpage."  Why you would think I have ever said or promised such a thing is beyond my comprehension.  Our conversation *was* posted.  The only things I did not post were 1) two messages wherein you wished to begin a discussion of your rejection of inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture (which, while worthwhile topics, require a level of sincerity that I was forced to conclude did not exist), and 2) a message you sent *after* I indicated that your last post would function as the end of the conversation.

What makes all of this even more humorous (or sad, depending), is that I have provided the link to the SHIELDS page on our own----hence, this is nothing but browbeating and a wasting of time---it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually discussing meaningful issues.

>I am concerned that you are claiming that I have written "various and
>sundry other untruths" about you.  If I have done so, I would very much
>like to publicly correct them.  Could you please tell me specifically
>what are these "various and sundry other untruths" I have supposedly
>said about you?

>If you are going to publicly make this type of accusation, I feel it >merits some type of substantiation on your part.  If you are unable to
>substantiate you accusations, perhaps you should remove them from
>your web page and apologize.

> If I have inadvertently said "untruths" about you, I will be happy to
>publicly correct the record.

The meaning of my words is self-evident in the context they are used.  Please be aware that I refuse to waste further time arguing about such inane issues.  I will be more than happy to let the record speak for itself, and I invite you to do the same thing.

James>>>

Dear James,

BILL (old)
>>Some time ago I wrote you a note trying to clear up a >>misunderstanding.  You never responded.  I will optimistically >>assume that this was because my messages bounced.

JAMES
>No, Dr. Hamblin, I have simply been storing all message from >yourself and Dr. Midgley in a folder.  I rarely read more than the first
>paragraph.  I do that with a lot of mail from those that I have
>concluded are only seeking unreasoning argument, or are engaged in
>merely attempting to cause trouble.

BILL
Quite a remarkable admission on a number of levels.

JAMES
>While you far excelled your colleagues in the realm of waiting
>till the "other shoe fell," eventually, it did, and your dislike of
>believing Evangelicals came through with flying colors (i.e., believing
>Evangelicals = "anti-Mormons" in your parlance).

BILL
This is preposterious!  Where did I ever say that believing Evangelicals = "anti-Mormons."  This is simply another manifestation of your dualistic fundamentalistic world view (e.g. the Bible is either 100% inerrant, or it is not inspired at all), but has nothing to do with the reality of my position.  Why not ask before making such wild assertions?  Quite the contrary, I believe that 99% or more of Evangelicals are *not* anti-Mormon.  I have had many conversations and debates with Evangelicals who strongly disagree with my understanding of the Gospel, yet are not in any way anti-Mormons.  (Nor, for the record, do I believe that all anti-Mormons are Evangelicals.  There are agnostic anti-Mormons, etc.)  In fact, it is apparently your claim--though incoherently and unclearly expressed--that anyone who disagrees with your late twentieth century North American fundamentalistic interpretation of Protestant Christianity is somehow an "anti-Christian."  Or did I misunderstand you?  However, according to you, people like yourself, who make their living attacking LDS Christians, are somehow not--by your wild definition--anti-Mormon.  Just how, precisely, do you define anti-Mormon?  Can you name one?

BILL (old)
>It is quite obvious that you have not posted all of my arguments and
>letters to you, so that can hardly be considered one of the
>unspecified "untruths" I have allegedly be saying about you.  (I would
>be happy to send you a copy of all my relevent letters you have
>refused to post.)

JAMES
I have never, ever said "Anything you send to me, even after the conversation is closed, or even if it is on issues completely separate from our original conversation, will be posted to our webpage."  Why you would think I have ever said or promised such a thing is beyond my comprehension.

BILL
As I have repeatedly informed you (apparently in some of the letters you have refused to read), I have never asked you to do anything of the sort, nor do I believe you promised to do so.  Mark this well!  Please don't make this silly argument again!  All I ask is that you put on your web-site my full arguments in *this particular* debate.  I have agreed the debate is ended.  What I have sent you is all I expect to be posted.  There is no open-ended responsibility on your part.  But, although I clearly gave you permission to post my letters *only* on the condition that you posted them all, you have not done so, all the while claiming to your readers that I have failed to answer you on substantive issues, all of which I specifically addressed in the materials you refuse to post on your web page!  Many of your readers, if they knew the full story, might find your behavior in this matter outrageous.  I understand, as a practical matter, why you refuse to post the entire correspondence, but this hardly justifies your behavior in this matter.

JAMES
Our conversation *was* posted.  The only things I did not post were 1) two messages wherein you wished to begin a discussion of your rejection of inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture (which, while worthwhile topics, require a level of sincerity that I was forced to conclude did not exist), and 2) a message you sent *after* I indicated that your last post would function as the end of the conversation.

BILL
I note, for the record, that you are admitting that you haven't posted all of my material.  This, then, is in direct contradiction to your claim of my "accusing [you] of not posting all of [my] materials and various and sundry other untruths."  How can there be "other" untruths, if the first "untruth" about your failure to post all the correspondence, is, in fact, true?  I note, also, that my two letters on inerrancy which you refused to post, were, in fact, a response to your statements on the matter.  Why, if your statements are so relevant, are my responses suddenly inadmissible in your opinion?  I note, also, that you are now accusing me of lacking "sincerity."  Do you care to elucidate and clarify this accusation?  (Of course, far be it from me to accuse you of indulging in the dreaded ad hominem here.  You, of course, have never done any such thing.  Some readers might think that your refusal to deal with my understanding of "inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture" on the grounds that I lack the requisite "level of sincerity" (as judged by you alone) might smack of an ad hominem–a refusal to deal with my arguments because I am and insincere person.  But, of course, they would be mistaken.  I am, as always, gratified to know that you would never do such a thing.

JAMES
What makes all of this even more humorous (or sad, depending), is that I have provided the link to the SHIELDS page on our own--hence, this is nothing but browbeating and a wasting of time---it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually discussing meaningful issues.

BILL
If you would like to return to a serious discussion of the issues at hand, I would be delighted to do so.  However, you have repeated refused to do so, and I am absolutely convinced that you will refuse to do so now.  I would be delighted if you would prove me wrong on this matter.  I note, again, that you have attempted to change the topic.  In my last letter to you I did not request that you post all of my arguments.  I have given up on that vain effort.  Nowhere in my letter do I ask you to post my letters.  I simply asked you what, specifically, are the untruths you claim I have said about you.

JAMES
>The untruths, of course, had to do with your rather emotional >response to my last reply in our correspondence.  Such is obvious to
>anyone reading the materials.

BILL
I seem to have missed something again.  Could you please refer me to the SHIELDS letter number to which you refer?  Or perhaps cut and paste the offending passage?  I note, again, your unfailing use of the claim that your position is "obvious" while refusing even to cite the passage which you claim proves your point.

JAMES
>The meaning of my words is self-evident in the context they are >used.  Please be aware that I refuse to waste further time arguing
>about such inane issues.  I will be more than happy to let the record
>speak for itself, and I invite you to do the same thing.

BILL
Please help me here.  I am offering to correct the record and publicly apologize for the untruths I supposedly have said about you.  But, honestly, I can't figure out where they are.  If these untruths are so "self-evident," and "obvious" couldn't you at least tell me in which letter the untruths I have spoken about you are found?  Could you not, perhaps, send me a copy of the specific texts you find offensive?  Amazingly, after all your acrobatics in your letter, you have failed to name a single one.  You call me a liar, but will not provide a single instance where you believe I have lied!  This is absolutely outrageous!  If you are going to write me at all on this matter (instead of ignoring my letters), wouldn't the reasonable response be to simply quote the specific passages in which you I have lied about you?  It would just take a few minutes.  Why not do it?  (I note, again, in passing, your insistence that your position is "self-evident."  Aren't you the least be chagrined to use such a ploy after I have exposed it for what it is in my methodological appendix.)

William J. Hamblin
Associate Professor of History
323 KMB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-4446

801-378-6469
wh4@email.byu.edu
FAX 801-378-5784

Dr. Hamblin (and all others to whom this is always sent anyway):

Please stop sending me messages, forwarding messages you've written to others, etc.  I have said my peace, I have no desire for further argument.

Thank you.

In light of Ephesians 5:15-16, further messages will simply be returned.

James>>>

[Dr. Hamblin's Note:]  The text in question reads: "See that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil."

-----Original Message-----
>From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
>To: William J. Hamblin <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
>Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 4:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Here we go again

>Dr. Hamblin (and all others to whom this is always sent anyway):

>Please stop sending me messages, forwarding messages you've >written to others, etc. I have said my peace, I have no desire for >further argument.

>Thank you.

>In light of Ephesians 5:15-16, further messages will simply be >returned.

>James>>>

In light of the following scriptures, I will comply with your wishes.

Proverbs 10:18
Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 13:16
Proverbs 23:9
Proverbs 26:5
Proverbs 26:12
Proverbs 27:22
Ecclesiastes 10:3

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel [is] wise.

Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent [man] dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open [his] folly.

Proverbs 23:9
Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Proverbs 26:12
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? [there is] more hope of a fool than of him.

Proverbs 27:22
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, [yet] will not his foolishness depart from him.

Ecclesiastes 10:3
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth [him], and he saith to every one [that] he [is] a fool.

I sent this to James White and it bounced.

-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Hamblin (by way of James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>) <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
To: william_hamblin@byu.edu <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 8:34 PM
Subject: Rejection?

>Have you also put me on your reject letter list?

>William J. Hamblin
>Associate Professor of History
>323 KMB >Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602-4446
>
>801-378-6469
>wh4@email.byu.edu
>FAX 801-378-5784