Dear James,
Here are a few of my (unsolicited) observations about one of your "etracts."  I address you in the third rather than the first person, since it is going to be posted on SHIELDS.
Enjoy!
Bill Hamblin

"Tract made without evidence"
[Dr.] William J. Hamblin

I would like to make a few observations regarding James White's anti-Mormon tract, "Temple Made With Hands."

1.  White informs us that God generously "allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem" but that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples."   White's use of the word allowed to describe God's command to build temples is a serious distortion.  Temple building is one of the premier commands from God to Israel, as the vast portions of the Old Testament focusing on temple building and worship clearly demonstrates.  (I am assuming the functional equivalency of tabernacle and temple, which I also assume White will not dispute.)

2.  Here is a list of the major Israelite cultic centers, shrines, locations for the tabernacle, and temples, which were in operation during biblical times, based on archaeological and/or textual evidence [SHIELDS note: the numbers in brackets after each name represent centuries B.C.]:

Mosaic Tabernacle {-13C}
Gilgal {-13C}
Ebal {-13C}
Shechem {-12C}
Shiloh {-12C to -11C}
Kirjath-jearim {-11C}
Gibeon (-11C to -10C)
Megiddo (-10C)
Jerusalem (-10C to 1C)
Arad {-10C to -7C}
Lachish {-10C to -8C}
Dan {-10C to -8C}
Bethel (-9C)
Beer-Sheba {-8C to -7C}
Elephantine/Aswan {-6C to -4C}
Shechem/Mt. Gerizim (Samaritan)
Leontopolis/Tel Yehudia by Onias (near Heliopolis) {-160 to 73}
which replaced/united several other Jewish temples in Egypt

It is quite clear there is more going on here than White's simplistic claim that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples" would lead us to believe.  God certainly did allow it, since it clearly happened.  Whether he commanded it, or accepted their worship as authentic, or tolerated apostate temples unwillingly, or viewed them as abominations is a different question.  But many, if not most Israelites apparently believed that multiple temples were possible.

3. When White writes, "there were no secret ceremonies, no endowments, so [sic] sealings in the temple in Jerusalem" he is hardly informing the LDS of something new, nor contradicting one of our cherished doctrines.  The Old Testament temple of Jerusalem was run by the Aaronic priesthood, and thus could not have performed LDS-style temple ritual, which require Melchizedek priesthood authority.  (This is not to say that such rituals were necessarily unknown in Old Testament times-this is another question-only that such rituals were not performed in the Aaronic temple of Jerusalem, or at least were not part of the public cultus.)  Also, White's exposition on the body as temple metaphor is hardly damaging to the LDS position, since we believe the same metaphor, though we understand it somewhat differently.  The real question is, is the body the only temple.

4. He also asserts (without the slightest pretense of evidence), that "the early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter.  Christians have never built temples."  Then precisely how is the Anti-Christ to enter and sit in "temple of God" in the last days (2 Thes. 2:4) if there is to be no temple of God?

Unfortunately for White, it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42).  Even Paul worshipped there (Acts, 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21).  Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8).  Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension.  Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension.

The books of Hebrews and Revelations are filled with descriptions of God's Temple in Heaven (Heb 8-9; Rev 11, 15, and numerous allusions throughout; for more details from an LDS perspective, see Holzapfel and Seely, My Father's House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament, [Bookcraft, 1994], 183-249).  Why the prominence of these descriptions of a heavenly temple if it is such a transitory and superceded institution and edifice?

Historically, many medieval Christians explicitly called their great basilicas and cathedrals temples:  Constantine's Holy Sepulcher, Justinian's Hagia Sophia, and Leo's basilica in Rome (See Nibley's "Christian Envy of the Temple" Mormonism and Early Christianity, 399-409.)  Of course, the Christianized Dome of the Rock was explicitly called Templum Domini, the "temple of the Lord" by the Crusaders, and the monks and priests serving there were the Templars, the priestly order of the Temple!  And, from their perspective, the ancient Israelite temple sacrifices continued in the Christianized form of the mass, as can be seen in the allegorical mosaics at Ravenna, to give just one example.  Baptists may never have built temples, but Christians certainly did.

5.  White makes the (again unsubstantiated) claim that "the priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ" and that Christians do not need "a mediating priesthood."  In this he is flatly contradicted by both the New Testament and early Christian writers.

Why, if Christ has removed all need for human priesthood authority, did Christ order the lepers he healed to go to the Jewish priests for purification (Mk 1:44, Lk 17:14)?  Apparently Christ believed that his miraculous powers of healing did not negate or supercede the priesthood authority of the Jewish priests.  I suppose White could argue that Christ had not yet ascended into heaven and replaced the Jewish High Priest.  If so, why does Peter speak of a post ascension "holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9) among Christians?  Likewise John in Revelations speaks of the saints as "priests to his [Christ's] God and Father" (1:6), and "priests to our God" (5:10); in the resurrection there "shall be priests of God and of Christ" (20:6).  What odd statements for an infallible book to make if White's understanding of priesthood is correct.

Some of the earliest Christians also explicitly disagree with White's claims.  The author of the Didache, (one of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, late first to early second century), states explicitly that "the prophets ... are your high priests" (13.1).  Note the plural here:  the prophets (profetais) are the Christians' high priests (archiereis).  So, early post-New Testament Christians had prophets (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have) who were high priests (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have); and there were apparently simultaneously more than one high priest.  (See also 1 Clement 40-44; the article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)

Unfortunately, and not untypically, White has misunderstood and misrepresented the LDS position, Scripture, and early Christian history on temples.