Dear Mr. White:

Prof. Midgley shared with me a copy of your e-mail to him.  I shall offer just a few observations:

a)  I have never ever, ever, suggested, let alone explicitly said, that Decker and Ankerberg and Weldon and people like that represent "the 'norm' for all Christians."  How could I have done so?  As you surely should have noticed by now, I deny that evangelical Protestantism is "the 'norm' for all Christians."  So I am scarcely likely to grant that status to the tiny but noisy faction of evangelical anti-Mormons.  While I am at it, though, I have never ever said that the Ankerbergs and the Weldons and the Schnoebelens and the Deckers were representative, even, of all critics of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Please, if you are going to read me, read me more carefully.  And less inventively.

b)  You criticize me and others at FARMS for allegedly concentrating on the more zany anti-Mormons, while apparently neglecting such reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley Walters.  But, of course, we have critiqued them, too, as you should be aware.  (I understand that we have not dealt with them to your satisfaction, as is, I suppose, signaled by your use of quotation marks to refer generally to our "reviews."  But that does not alter the fact that we have responded to them, as well as to your . . . "books.")

c)  There is absolutely no reason for Dr. Midgley or any Latter-day Saint I am aware of to describe himself as an "anti-Baptist."  Not a single one of us makes a living attacking other religions, in any medium.  We don't have professional disdainers of Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, or anybody else.  "Anti-Mormons," however, are legion, and the term is entirely appropriate to describe them.  If, though, they will find other jobs and give up their radio shows, television programs, tabloid newspapers, pamphlet presses, lecture series, book contracts, picket signs, and web sites assaulting my faith, I will happily, as a quid pro quo, surrender the term "anti-Mormon."  They can go on preaching their own faith to their hearts' content, as we do.

Daniel Peterson

At 02:09 PM 4/15/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Prof. Midgley shared with me a copy of your e-mail to him.  I shall
>offer just a few observations:

Shall I assume that anything, sent to anyone, at BYU, is sent to ALL BYU staff? :-)  Given recent e-mail adventures, I think so.

>a) I have never ever, ever, suggested, let alone explicitly said, that
>Decker and Ankerberg and Weldon and people like that represent "the
>'norm' for all Christians."  How could I have done so?  As you surely
>should have noticed by now, I deny that evangelical Protestantism is
>"the 'norm' for all Christians."  So I am scarcely likely to grant that
>status to the tiny but noisy faction of evangelical anti-Mormons. >While I am at it, though, I have never ever said that the Ankerbergs >and the Weldons and the Schnoebelens and the Deckers were >representative, even, of all critics of the Church of Jesus Christ.  >Please, if you are going to read me, read me more carefully.  And >less inventively.

Since we are talking about *my* sentence, then *my* use is in question---and what *I* meant is defined by the sentence, Dr. Peterson: I spoke of Christians in that sentence as follows:

Modern LDS apologists and scholars like to focus upon such literature, often treating it as if it is the "norm" for all Christians, and have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths, thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS people.

I believe Christians will, if they are serious about their faith and about truth, engage in "refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS people."  That obviously isn't how you use the word---indeed, I have criticized the redefinition of the term in _Offenders_ as rendering the term utterly meaningless.  And hence, as I used the term, I was referring to books such as your own, and works such as that by Richard Hopkins, that are guilty of lumping all evangelical works into a single pile, not discerning the important differences in approach, background, and belief, that they represent.

As to a tiny group of "noisy" evangelical "anti-Mormons," I repeat what I said to Professor Midgely:  if you will start calling yourself an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon.  If not, I'd suggest honesty would require you to discontinue the use of the term.

>b) You criticize me and others at FARMS for allegedly concentrating >on the more zany anti-Mormons, while apparently neglecting such >reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley >Walters.

Really?  Where did I do that?  Midgely asked me for some folks whose writings I respect, and I listed a few.  Please cite the specific place in my post where I said the above.  And as one person put it, please try to read my writings a little more closely, and a little less inventively. :)  What I wrote was, "That is more of a criticism of Peterson and Ricks for Offenders for a Word and other FARMS folks for their "reviews" in R[eview of] B[ooks on the] B[ook] o[f] M[ormon] than it is anything else."  I hadn't even gotten to mentioning the Tanners or others at this point, so how you managed to invert my statement and so completely miss the context, I really don't know.

> But,
>of course, we have critiqued them, too, as you should be aware.  (I
>understand that we have not dealt with them to your satisfaction, as >is, I suppose, signaled by your use of quotation marks to refer >generally to our "reviews."  But that does not alter the fact that we >have responded to them, as well as to your . . . "books.")

I used the quotes around "reviews" to indicate that in reality, most of the books you respond to in RBBoM really don't have much to do with the BoM to begin with, and they are not really reviews, but rebuttals.  I have not seen a response to I[s] T[he] M[ormon] M[y] B[rother] from FARMS, and if the fellow from AOL with the screen name LDSApolog is writing the review (as he indicated), I don't expect it will rise much higher than Norwood's attempt.  At least to my knowledge that fellow hasn't tried calling (without identifying himself or his purposes) to inquire if his company can print the book in the future.

>c) There is absolutely no reason for Dr. Midgley or any Latter-day
>Saint I am aware of to describe himself as an "anti-Baptist."  Not a
>single one of us makes a living attacking other religions, in any
>medium.

I see.  So disagreement with, and refutation of the claims of, another religious group does not amount to being an "anti."  Very good.  Then, since I spend the vast majority of my time presenting the Christian faith in a positive light, and simply provide a refutation of the claims of those groups that pervert the gospel message, I would not, likewise, qualify as an "anti-Mormon."  I'm glad that is worked out, though, Norwood said I came from the "anti-Mormon cookie cutter," so I guess he might not agree.

> We don't have professional disdainers of Baptists, Buddhists,
>Muslims, Shintoists, or anybody else.

The long-standing portrayal of the Protestant minister in the endowment ceremony notwithstanding, of course.  That would not qualify as "professional."

>"Anti-Mormons," however, are
>legion, and the term is entirely appropriate to describe them.  If,
>though, they will find other jobs and give up their radio shows,
>television programs, tabloid newspapers, pamphlet presses, lecture
>series, book contracts, picket signs, and web sites assaulting my >faith, I will happily, as a quid pro quo, surrender the term >"anti-Mormon."  They can go on preaching their own faith to their >hearts' content, as we do.

When you stop telling people that Joseph Smith was told that the Christian faith, embodied in the ancient creeds of the Christian Church, are an "abomination" and those of us who teach those divine truths are in fact "corrupt," possibly we can talk some more.  But it strikes me, sir, that you are operating on a very strong double-standard.  I have just as valid a reason to call you an anti-Baptist, or even more, an anti-Christian----since you deny the very doctrines that *define* the Christian faith.  But I do not, simply so as to avoid undue emotional clouding of the issues. So why do you use the term anti-Mormon?  When I write on other issues, such as Roman Catholicism, the same issue comes up: they like to use the term "anti-Catholics" but will never call themselves "anti-Protestants."  The hypocrisy is glaring in both cases, is it not?

Finally, Steve Mayfield told me that you have not read ITMMB.  Hence, you have not read my documentation of the teaching of the physical parentage of the Son by the Father in the book.  Since you are *specifically* cited from Offenders in the book, as is Dr. Robinson, and refuted by a mountain of statements by the General Authorities, I *do* hope that a *serious* response might someday be forthcoming on that topic.

James>>>

Mr. White:

You write, "Shall I assume that anything, sent to anyone, at BYU, is sent to ALL BYU staff? :-)  Given recent e-mail adventures, I think so."

As so frequently, you think wrongly.

You respond, "Since we are talking about *my* sentence, then *my* use is in question---and what *I* meant is defined by the sentence, Dr. Peterson."

But your sentence is about me.  And since we are talking about ME, it is my thinking that is in question.  And what I mean is defined by me, Mr. White.

You continue, "I spoke of Christians in that sentence as follows:  Modern LDS apologists and scholars like to focus upon such literature, often treating it as if it is the "norm" for all Christians, and have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths, thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS people."

You are wrong.  I do NOT treat your amusing colleagues as "the 'norm' for all Christians."  The only "norm" for all Christians that I recognize is the will and word of God -- something I do not confuse with the will and word of any anti-Mormon.  I do NOT think that, by refuting Decker and his cronies, I have refuted all efforts at proving my beliefs incorrect.  Where do you come up with such stuff?

You continue, "I believe [conservative Protestant] Christians will, if they are serious about their faith and about truth, engage in 'refuting LDS claims and evangelizing the LDS people.'  That obviously isn't how you use the word---indeed, I have criticized the redefinition of the term in Offenders as rendering the term utterly meaningless."

I assume, although you do not say so explicitly, that "the word" to which you refer is "Christian."  If so, you clearly misunderstand the argument in Offenders for a Word.  For, since that book gives an explicit meaning and a demonstrable historical semantic range for the term "Christian," it cannot plausibly be argued that the definition of the word there -- which is not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination a redefinition -- is, as you assert, "utterly meaningless."  Your unfortunate failure to discern meaning in a quite clear definition is a curious and interesting phenomenon, but scarcely lethal to it.

You further write, "And hence, as I used the term, I was referring to books such as your own, and works such as that by Richard Hopkins, that are guilty of lumping all evangelical works into a single pile, not discerning the important differences in approach, background, and belief, that they represent."

The "differences in approach, background, and belief" in the works I was discussing were entirely irrelevant to the issue under consideration.  I prefer to focus on the question I am dealing with, rather than running off on tangents.  A consideration of the various kinds of anti-Mormon ideologies loose in our cities might well be interesting, but that was not the book I was writing.

"As to a tiny group of 'noisy' evangelical 'anti-Mormons,' I repeat what I said to Professor Midgely:  if you will start calling yourself an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon.  If not, I'd suggest honesty would require you to discontinue the use of the term."

Yours is a strange use of the term "honesty," that would require me to describe myself as something I am not, or to mischaracterize the works of others.  Are you meaning to accuse me of writing books against the Baptists?  Of running an anti-Baptist ministry?  Do I have a television show in which I denounce fundamentalist Protestantism, or a radio program devoted to criticizing the beliefs of the Baptists?  Have I ever written a pamphlet against the Baptists, or picketed one of their meetings?  Do I even care one tiny little bit what they are doing or what they think, as long as they are not attacking my religious beliefs?  No.  So why should I be considered anti-Baptist any more than I am anti-Confucianist?  What in the world are you claiming?

You quote me as follows, "You criticize me and others at FARMS for allegedly concentrating on the more zany anti-Mormons, while apparently neglecting such reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley Walters."

This statement does not please you, and you respond:  "Really?  Where did I do that?  Midgely asked me for some folks whose writings I respect, and I listed a few.  Please cite the specific place in my post where I said the above. And as one person put it, please try to read my writings a little more closely, and a little less inventively. :)  What I wrote was, 'That is more of a criticism of Peterson and Ricks for Offenders for a Word and other FARMS folks for their 'reviews' in RBBoM than it is anything else.'  I hadn't even gotten to mentioning the Tanners or others at this point, so how you managed to invert my statement and so completely miss the context, I really don't know."

I will explain it.  Please try to follow the steps.  To refresh your memory, this is what you said in your earlier posting:

Speaking of the "bad" kind of anti-Mormon writing, of which you do not approve, you wrote, "Modern LDS apologists and scholars like to focus upon such literature, often treating it as if it is the 'norm' for all Christians. . . . That is . . . a criticism of Peterson and Ricks for Offenders for a Word and other FARMS folks for their 'reviews' in RBBoM."

Now, if we "focus" on the bad stuff, we must necessarily do so to the exclusion of something else (apparently, to the exclusion of the good stuff).  That is what "focusing" means.  And "to focus on" means very much the same thing as "to concentrate on."  Which must mean, in this context, that we "concentrate on" the bad stuff, and, necessarily, by the very nature of concentrating, avert our attention from the good stuff.  Moreover, if we claim that the bad stuff is the "norm," we must be excluding the good stuff from being normative.  That is what "normativity" means.

How, in a book or a collection of book reviews, does one "focus" or "concentrate" on something?  By devoting attention to that something, and, by that very act, averting attention from -- "neglecting," if you will -- something else.

So what is the good stuff that we are failing to concentrate on, neglecting to focus on?  What is the good stuff that we are treating as non-normative, while we mischaracterize the bad stuff as "the norm?"  You answer that question very helpfully, identifying "the Tanners, Bill McKeever, Wes Walters, etc., as excellent writers on the subject."  If there is some other body of "good stuff," in which these people are not to be included, kindly tell me what it is.

So you can see that my reading of your posting was both very close and quite non-inventive.  Your message very clearly implies that we are "concentrating on the more zany anti-Mormons, while . . . neglecting such reputedly respectable folk as the Tanners, Bill McKeever, and Wesley Walters."

You go on to say, "I used the quotes around 'reviews' to indicate that in reality, most of the books you respond to in RBBoM really don't have much to do with the BoM to begin with, and they are not really reviews, but rebuttals."

Let me see if I understand this.  Since the title of the journal was Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, a review published in it of a book unrelated to the Book of Mormon would, by reason of its subject matter, not really be a book review?  By the same reasoning, if a Rembrandt turned up, by some chance, in a museum of modern art, would it not really be a painting?  If, by some computer glitch, a review of a book on engineering turned up in the review section of a journal of molecular biology, would it thereby cease to be a book review at all?

I will have to meditate on this new principle.

By the way, have you not noticed that the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon no longer exists under that title?  That, in fact, it has been the FARMS Review of Books since the beginning of 1996?

Your distinction between "reviews" and "rebuttals" is a rather arbitrary and artificial one.  But take it to the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Review of Books, and see how far you get with it.  I'll be interested to hear how it goes.

You complain, "I have not seen a response to ITMMB from FARMS, and if the fellow from AOL with the screen name LDSApolog is writing the review (as he indicated), I don't expect it will rise much higher than Norwood's attempt."

Don't fret.  When we get around to it, we will review your book.  And, by the way, I don't know who "LDSApolog" is. And I didn't expect you to like Ara Norwood's review.

Next, you trot out your tired old warhorse:  "At least to my knowledge that fellow hasn't tried calling (without identifying himself or his purposes) to inquire if his company can print the book in the future."

This one wasn't very impressive on its first appearance, and age has not improved it.

You then quote me again:  "There is," I quite rightly pointed out, "absolutely no reason for Dr. Midgley or any Latter-day Saint I am aware of to describe himself as an 'anti-Baptist.'  Not a single one of us makes a living attacking other religions, in any medium."

"I see," you remark, almost correctly.  "So disagreement with, and refutation of the claims of, another religious group does not amount to being an 'anti.'  Very good."

Well, let's not feel TOO satisfied.  It's not VERY good, but it's worth a passing grade.

You are right.  Mere disagreement with x does not make you anti-x.  I disagree with existentialism.  But I lose very little sleep over it, and only give the subject about sixty seconds' thought every year or so.  Thus, it would be ludicrous to describe me as an "anti-existentialist."  So, likewise, with literally hundreds of possible positions and ideologies.  I disagree with -- oh, let's see -- Keynesian economics, poststructuralism, Sikhism, predeterminism, Freudian psychoanalysis, revisionist theories of the Kennedy assassination, and technical analysis of the stock market.  But since I do not campaign or crusade against any of these, it would be very implausible to call me, say, an anti-Sikh or an anti-Keynesian.

You continue, "Then, since I spend the vast majority of my time presenting the Christian faith in a positive light, and simply provide a refutation of the claims of those groups that [in my opinion] pervert the gospel message, I would not, likewise, qualify as an 'anti-Mormon.'"

Almost!  You almost have it!  To the extent that you affirmatively present a view, any view, on any subject, you are not "anti-" anything else.  But to the extent that you oppose something else -- this is really not very difficult, you know -- you are "anti-" that thing.

"I'm glad that is worked out, though, Norwood said I came from the 'anti-Mormon cookie cutter,' so I guess he might not agree."

Oh, no.  I am sure that Mr. Norwood and I agree entirely about your past behavior, which has been -- at least so far as I have monitored it -- far more about opposing certain things (e.g. Catholicism and Mormonism) than about affirming your own positive beliefs.  Quite clearly, you have been an anti-Mormon, because you have been against Mormon belief and practice.  But now that you understand the distinction, perhaps you will be able to mend your ways.  (I will admit, of course, that, to the extent you are merely affirmatively presenting your own beliefs, you are of rather little interest to me.  You only draw my attention when you attack MY beliefs.  I am perfectly content to leave you to yours.)

As I said, "We don't have professional disdainers of Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, or anybody else."

To which you rather irrelevantly reply, "The long-standing portrayal of the Protestant minister in the endowment ceremony notwithstanding, of course.  That would not qualify as 'professional.'"

You're right, of course.  It wouldn't.  Unfortunately, for reasons that I am sure you know, I will not discuss the ordinances of the temple with you.  I will simply say that I think you misread the situation there even more fundamentally than you misread me.  But I will not argue that position, and you can dismiss it as you wish.

Nearing the end of your epistle, you write, "When you stop telling people that Joseph Smith was told that the Christian faith, embodied in the ancient creeds of the Christian Church, are an 'abomination' and those of us who teach those divine truths are in fact 'corrupt,' possibly we can talk some more."

You misunderstand.  I have really very little interest in talking with you.  If you would leave my beliefs alone, I would gladly leave you to your circle of friends and acquaintances in Arizona.

You misunderstand.  I have never told anybody that "the Christian faith . . . are an abomination."  Since I am a Christian, I could never say any such thing.  Nor do I think that the Christian faith, as such, of my Lutheran extended family is an abomination.  Nor do I think that the faith of my Catholic friends is an abomination.  I don't even think that YOUR faith is an abomination.

I do think that the creeds, to the extent that they blind people to the truth revealed to prophets ancient and modern, are an abomination.  Primarily, I think that because God said so, and I am hesitant to challenge him on it.

You misunderstand when you imply that I think you corrupt.  You may or may not be.  I haven't thought about it.  That would be a matter for your wife, or perhaps for the legal authorities to look into.  Do I think your theological beliefs have been corrupted by various extra-divine influences?  Certainly.  And I regret it very much.  But do not equivocate between that kind of corruption and moral corruption.  They are quite distinct.

You write on: "But it strikes me, sir, that you are operating on a very strong double-standard."

Wrong.

"I have just as valid a reason to call you an anti-Baptist, or even more, an anti-Christian----since you deny the very doctrines that *define* [my particular view of] the Christian faith."

Wrong.  I also deny the cardinal doctrines of Jainism.  But I am not anti-Jain.  I can't recall ever having met one.  I have never written a pamphlet against them, or picketed a Jainist meeting, or denounced them on the radio.  Surely you can understand this not-overly-subtle concept?

"But I do not, simply so as to avoid undue emotional clouding of the issues."

That is very kind of you.

"So why do you use the term anti-Mormon?"

Because it is precisely accurate.

"When I write on other issues, such as Roman Catholicism, the same issue comes up: they like to use the term "anti-Catholics" but will never call themselves 'anti-Protestants.'"

You see?  THEY understand.

"The hypocrisy is glaring in both cases, is it not?"

No.  It is not.  The Catholics are precisely right.  They are NOT anti-Protestant, at least to the extent that they are simply preaching their doctrines.  And even when they are defending their doctrines against your attacks -- as opposed to going after your beliefs -- they are not being anti-Protestant.  I understand them quite well, and only marvel that you apparently cannot.

"Finally, Steve Mayfield told me that you have not read ITMMB."

Quite correct, although I have skimmed through portions of it.

"Hence, you have not read my documentation of the teaching of the physical parentage of the Son by the Father in the book.  Since you are *specifically* cited from Offenders in the book, as is Dr. Robinson, and refuted by a mountain of statements by the General Authorities, I *do* hope that a *serious* response might someday be forthcoming on that topic."

It might well be.  Someday.  I have a lot of things to do.  One of the portions of the book that I have skimmed is that wherein you attempt to refute me.  As I say, it was a cursory glance.  Maybe your arguments will appear more solid after a careful reading.  As it is, I think you rather missed my point.  And you certainly did on the question of deification.  Ah well.  I'll just have to buck up my spirits and live with it.

Daniel Peterson

At 09:49 PM 4/15/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Ah well.  I'll just have to buck up my spirits and live with it.
>
>Daniel Peterson

I've only a few times received a post that took so much time to completely twist every syllable I had written.  And the little arrogance meter over on the right hand of my screen is now completely broken.  I have no idea how to get it fixed....but I know when not to give credibility to such silliness and spend my time on worthwhile pursuits.  You have fully substantiated that subtitle in the CRI Journal article:  Farms Out of Control.

James>>>

Mr. White:

Thank you for withdrawing from the exchange; I was worried that this was going to cost me a lot of time.  Backed into a corner, eh?  Beating an ungraceful retreat?

I'm sorry you broke your arrogance meter.  Was it a gift from your mother?

I really don't understand why you feel the need to be so hostile.  Perhaps you should add a contact sport to your cycling, so that you can work out your aggressions in a more socially acceptable manner.  I have always told people that you were relatively polite when we met on the radio some years ago, and several have assured me that such polite and unaggressive behavior must have been an aberration.  I guess they were right, and your reputation is not unearned.

Too bad.  I have had respectful interchanges with several critics of my faith.  But you don't seem capable of such things.  You have evidently chosen the right career.

Daniel Peterson

At 05:49 PM 4/16/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Mr. White:
>
>
>Thank you for withdrawing from the exchange; I was worried that this >was going to cost me a lot of time.  Backed into a corner, eh? >Beating an ungraceful retreat?

Do remember, Dr. Peterson, that since you have been passing around my posts to others, your own posts, including this wondrous example of FARMS mentality, will be archived and readily available to anyone who wishes a glimpse into the world of LDS apologetics.

James>>>

Mr. White:

You seem to think you have me.  "Do remember, Dr. Peterson," you write, "that since you have been passing around my posts to others, your own posts, including this wondrous example of FARMS mentality, will be archived and readily available to anyone who wishes a glimpse into the world of LDS apologetics[?]."

Go ahead.  I am puzzled that you do not seem to see how unpleasantly YOU come across.  My lengthy post to you contained arguments and serious positions, however cheekily expressed.  For you to respond merely by denouncing my arrogance and silliness and pronouncing me not worth your time was, among other things, (a) not a cogent counterargument, (b) disrespectful, (c) uncharitable, and (d) exactly what I expected from you.

I am quite capable of having a calm and well-tempered exchange.  I have, as I say, had pleasant and respectful conversations with numerous people of other faiths, including several who are overtly critical of my beliefs.  If you would like to do so, please shelve the hostility.  Please cut the tendency to assume that your opponent is acting in bad faith, or from evil motives.

Perhaps you do not recognize how alienating your hyper-confrontational style is, and how personal you tend to make the dispute between Latter-day Saints and evangelicals.  Perhaps you do not realize -- oh, but surely you must! -- how off-putting your aggressiveness is, and how (for many of us) it gets in the way of the message that, I presume, you sincerely want to preach.  Sensing that you would react badly, I tweaked you. I was having fun.  (You know, teasing somebody who responds in satisfying ways to such teasing.)  It was perhaps wrong for me to do so, but you reacted precisely as I had anticipated.

It still appears to me that you fled a discussion when you realized that you were in a corner.  Quite seriously, quite sincerely, that is how it appears to me.  Leaving aside the question of my viciousness and my depravity, it seems so. Perhaps I am wrong, although I think not.  But if I am wrong, it would be fitting -- certainly it would be the act of a disciple of Christ -- to correct me, not to assault me.  Others had predicted that you would withdraw from the discussion.  They are people who have followed your career somewhat, and they described it as your modus operandi whenever you seem to be losing control.  (I am told that it happened at Temple Square earlier this month, when you were presented with evidence to which you had, in their view and in mine, no cogent answer.)  You may despise me all you like, but your actions truly seem to me to be as I have characterized them, and as others had foretold.

Yet others, however -- and I am merely passing on what they told me -- predicted that your ego would never allow me to have the last word.  Which, I admit, worried me, because I really don't have the time to get into a lengthy and quite futile e-mail catfight, especially with someone who evidently cannot even grant that I am a decent human being.  And now that their prediction also seems to be coming true, I am worried again.  (Attacking Mormonism may well be an important component of your employment; defending the gospel of Jesus Christ is something I do in spare moments.)

What, by the way, is the "FARMS mentality?"  Are you into faulty generalizations and stereotyping?  FARMS did not write my posting to you.  I wrote it.  I am not FARMS, and FARMS is not Daniel Peterson.  FARMS is a number of people, with widely varying styles, personalities, and approaches.  There is no more a "FARMS mentality" than there is a "Jewish mentality" or a "black mentality."  Latter-day Saints are individuals, as are Jews and blacks.  As are fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants.  (I know, because some are nasty and unpleasant, and some are very nice.)  If generalizations like this really are permitted, there seems no principled ground on which you could criticize me for taking Ed Decker as the "norm" for anti-Mormonism -- if, indeed, I had ever thought to do so stupid a thing.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

Going through my e-mail, I came across a posting containing the following, from someone who has been monitoring our exchange:

"By the Bye, never have I seen such arrogant rhetorical ranting with absolutely no substance behind it as in the White letters.  Absolutely astonishing!"

I share it with you not to hurt your feelings, nor to make you angry (although I am certain that it will, since you seem to be in a state of almost perpetual anger anyhow), and not as evidence that my estimate of you is true, but as an indication that I am not the only person out here in cyberland who views you in this way.

Daniel Peterson

At 12:42 PM 4/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>
Mr. White:

You seem to think you have me.  "Do remember, Dr. Peterson," you write, "that since you have been passing around my posts to others, your own posts, including this wondrous example of FARMS mentality, will be archived and readily available to anyone who wishes a glimpse into the world of LDS apologetics[?]."

Go ahead.  I am puzzled that you do not seem to see how unpleasantly YOU come across.
<<<<

No, sir, I believe it is the other way around.  And I'm more than glad to let others judge that.  I have no interest in you continuing to provide me with further examples of this kind of school-yard behavior.  If you wish to continue writing long e-mails (while complaining about wasting your time), I won't stop you, but don't expect any replies.

James>>>

Mr. White:

"School-yard behavior?"  You're the same sweet and Christian fellow as ever!  I have offered you a civil conversation, but I take it that is not the kind of thing that interests you.  I have offered you serious arguments and considered positions, but it seems THOSE sorts of things frighten you off (even on the rather minor issues we were discussing).  You seem to prefer the kind of correspondence with a "Mormon elder" where you get to write both sides.

Please post the exchange.  I plan to do so.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

You wrote the following to some fellow or other, and I was privileged to see it:  "I've gotten messages from people who teach at BYU that sounded like they were written by someone on an 8th grade playground."

I assume you are referring to me.  You outdo yourself!  I had heard it said that you have a vicious temper, that you ignore the issues when they don't go your way, and that you frequently mischaracterize your opponents in demonstrably inaccurate and remarkably uncharitable ways.  But I had never personally experienced it.  Thank you for remedying that gap in my personal history.

Daniel Peterson

At 04:59 PM 4/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Lou:
>
>Mr. White was a bit less obnoxious in this last communication.  I >wonder why?  Perhaps he realizes that he overdid it in his previous >few postings.  Probably not, though.  Self-scrutiny does not seem to >be one of his strengths.

Please, it is considered childish and rude to continue to send messages to those who have shown clearly that they do not desire such communication.  As I have said, you have communicated your viewpoint clearly.  I need no further examples of your expertise at ad-hominem argumentation.  I will gladly post all your lovely messages when I return from speaking.

James>>>

Mr. White:

Thank you for your latest note.  It was, as usual, a model of graciousness and the Christian spirit.  My tardiness in acknowledging it comes only from my having been out of the state and away from my e-mail.

You say you plan to post our exchange.  Good.  You may be interested to know that your self-revealing messages to me -- naturally including their forthright refusal to have a real dialogue with a Latter-day Saint on legitimate issues and their resort instead to unembarrassed evasion, personal insults, and ad hominem attacks -- have already been posted for some time.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

I have read through our correspondence, as you have posted it at your website, as well as the helpful and charitable commentary that you have attached to it.  I note that, in contrast to your treatment of the materials, the SHIELDS posting of the correspondence provides no commentary whatever, trusting readers instead to form their own opinions without guidance or nudging.  It seems to me that your desire to let texts "speak for themselves" (something you have mentioned several times, as I recall, in your correspondence with Prof. Hamblin) may be no stronger, really, than your interest in a genuine exchange of letters with a real "Mormon elder."  I trust that many of your readers will be able to see, despite your attempt to steer them to other conclusions, that I tried to raise legitimate issues with you, based on actual arguments. Your response was to insult me and then go silent.  Nonetheless, although disappointed, I am not angry with you, and, although I regret your hostility to my faith and would prefer to see you devote your abilities to a different career, I wish you personally well.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

I just looked again at your lovely site, where you have posted my correspondence to you accompanied by your kindly and engaging commentary.  I was surprised to find the correspondence incomplete.  What is wrong?  Was my last message to you insufficiently "unwelcome?"  Inadequately "unsolicited?" The whole exchange has been up at SHIELDS (http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_03.html) for a long time now -- without manipulative annotation, of course.  You may also be interested to see my take on the curriculum materials prepared and distributed by the Southern Baptist Convention under the title "The Mormon Puzzle."  It is available at the FARMS website (http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/10_1/r10a.asp?content=dcp).

Daniel Peterson

At 07:18 PM 5/15/98 -0700, you wrote:

>I just looked again at your lovely site, where you have posted my
>correspondence to you accompanied by your kindly and engaging
>commentary.  I was surprised to find the correspondence incomplete.
>What is wrong?  Was my last message to you insufficiently >"unwelcome"?  Inadequately "unsolicited?"  The whole exchange has >been up at SHIELDS >(http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_03.html) for a long time >now -- without manipulative annotation, of course.  You may also be >interested to see my take on the curriculum materials prepared and >distributed by the Southern Baptist Convention under the title "The >Mormon Puzzle."  It is available at the FARMS website
>(http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/10_1/r10a.asp?content=dcp).

I've seen your review, thank you.

James>>>

Mr. White:

I saw your May 15 note to Prof. Hamblin.  (We BYU professors, as you know, read all of the e-mail sent to every one of us.  We have nothing else to do, except write the occasional lying book or deviously misleading article.)

You seem to be growing testy, abusive, and arrogant again, and I certainly appreciated the gratuitous insult you threw in against me and Prof. Midgley.

I know this will make you angry at me -- what's new? -- but I say it with all the sincerity of which my totally depraved soul is capable:  Such nastiness does not befit the cause of Christ, to which I assume you are committed.  Jesus, who had infinitely more reason for self-satisfaction than any of us, was meek and humble, never self-important.

You may now insult me again, if you care to do so.  Or you may ignore me if you choose, holding me in the contempt I so richly deserve from any true Christian.

Daniel Peterson

At 10:57 PM 5/16/98 -0700, you wrote:

>I saw your May 15 note to Prof. Hamblin.  (We BYU professors, as >you know, read all of the e-mail sent to every one of us.  We have >nothing else to do, except write the occasional lying book or deviously
>misleading article.)
>
>You seem to be growing testy, abusive, and arrogant again, and I
>certainly appreciated the gratuitous insult you threw in against me >and Prof. Midgley.

Thanks for writing again, Dr. Peterson.

"Thanks for writing again, Dr. Peterson."

You're certainly welcome, Mr. White. I'm happy to be of help.

Mr. White:

I note that you have now definitively reneged on your earlier promise to your readers to post further messages from Dr. Midgley and myself.  I am not surprised.  I also note that you have withdrawn from the correspondence with Prof. Hamblin, though not without directing at him one last burst of invective and fallacious ad hominem argumentation.  I regret that very much, as I have found your exchange with him quite instructive and useful -- but, once again, I am not surprised.  In any event, though, I want to thank you for that interesting exchange and to assure you that your efforts in it will not have been in vain.

With best wishes,

Daniel Peterson

At 08:12 PM 6/6/98 -0700, you wrote:

>I note that you have now definitively reneged on your earlier promise to
>your readers to post further messages from Dr. Midgley and myself.  I >am not surprised.  I also note that you have withdrawn from the
>correspondence with Prof. Hamblin, though not without directing at >him one last burst of invective and fallacious ad hominem >argumentation.  I regret that very much, as I have found your >exchange with him quite instructive and useful -- but, once again, I am >not surprised.  In any event, though, I want to thank you for that >interesting exchange and to assure you that your efforts in it will not >have been in vain.

Thank you for writing again, Dr. Peterson.  I'm sorry you think that I promised to post every insulting post you send my direction.  I never intended either to hand over our website to your control, nor to continue the embarrassment of demonstrating how BYU professors act in electronic forums.  I truly feel that what is already there is more than enough:  the unbiased and concerned person needs nothing more.

James>>>

Mr. White:

I have never sent you an insulting post.  You, on the other hand, have insulted me repeatedly and without provocation.  Have a nice day.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

Once again, I have been privileged to see your latest message to Professor Hamblin.

You do NOT "let the record speak for itself."  That is the problem.  You guide your audience to false conclusions.  You edit the record to your advantage.

And you distort -- sometimes wildly and sometimes, it seems to me, malevolently -- what your Latter-day Saint correspondents are saying.  I know of nobody, absolutely nobody, who thinks that "believing Evangelicals = 'anti-Mormons'."  That is NOT our "parlance."  We have explained this rather simple matter to you, carefully and reasonably and repeatedly, and yet you continue, apparently unashamed, to bear false witness against us, on this and other issues.

Daniel Peterson

At 11:50 AM 6/24/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Once again, I have been privileged to see your latest message to
>Professor Hamblin.
>
>You do NOT "let the record speak for itself."  That is the problem.  >You guide your audience to false conclusions.  You edit the record to >your advantage.
>
>And you distort -- sometimes wildly and sometimes, it seems to me,
>malevolently -- what your Latter-day Saint correspondents are saying.  >I know of nobody, absolutely nobody, who thinks that "believing
>Evangelicals = 'anti-Mormons'."  That is NOT our "parlance."  We have
>explained this rather simple matter to you, carefully and reasonably >and repeatedly, and yet you continue, apparently unashamed, to bear >false witness against us, on this and other issues.

Dr. Peterson, I will gladly let God judge.  My God---your Creator, not your progenitor in heaven----knows the hearts of men, and He knows the truth.  I will thank you to cease sending me your nastigrams.  I have tired of the simple childishness of this entire situation.

James>>>

Mr. White:

I do not send "nastigrams," so I can hardly stop doing so.

You, however, continue simply to call me and others disrespectful names, as if that constitutes a valid substitute for evidence and logical analysis.  It does not.

The matter of our alleged equation of "believing Evangelicals" with "anti-Mormons" illustrates this well.  You make an outlandishly false claim about us -- that we make such an equation.  We deny it.  You do not correct your false testimony.  You do not argue for it or present evidence to support it.  You do not apologize for it.  You simply call us "nasty" and "childish" -- for the twentieth time -- and proceed on your way.  It is an unappealing performance.

I have been, quite seriously, surprised by your behavior in these recent exchanges.  I had expected rather more from you.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. White:

It seems that your machine bounced this back to me.

Daniel Peterson Received: from phnxpop1.phnx.uswest.net ("port 4687"@phnxpop1.phnx.uswest.net) by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #23832) with SMTP id <01IYME6NDY9O98GW8V@EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for dcp6@email.byu.edu; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:51:09 MDT Received: (qmail 13186 invoked by alias); Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:51:06 +0000 Received: (qmail 13174 invoked by uid 0); Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:51:05 +0000 Received: from cdialup185.phnx.uswest.net (HELO ortho.uswest.net) (207.225.166.185) by phnxpop1.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:51:05 +0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:51:13 -0700 From: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu> (by way of James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>) Subject: To James White, the Master of Ad Hominems X-Sender: ortho@pop.phnx.uswest.net To: Daniel Peterson <dcp6@email.byu.edu> Message-id: <3.0.3.32.19980624155113.006989f8@pop.phnx.uswest.net>

Mr. White:

I do not send "nastigrams," so I can hardly stop doing so.

You, however, continue simply to call me and others disrespectful names, as if that constitutes a valid substitute for evidence and logical analysis.   It does not.

The matter of our alleged equation of "believing Evangelicals" with "anti-Mormons" illustrates this well.  You make an outlandishly false claim about us -- that we make such an equation.  We deny it.   You do not correct your false testimony. You do not argue for it or present evidence to support it.  You do not apologize for it.  You simply call us "nasty" and "childish" -- for the twentieth time -- and proceed on your way.  It is an unappealing performance.

I have been, quite seriously, surprised by your behavior in these recent exchanges.  I had expected rather more from you.

Daniel Peterson