|
James White, at it
again! Introduction: Recently James White has been participating in a discussion with Dr. William Hamblin regarding debating. Originally James posted parts of the discussion on the "blog" on his web site. It appears that he has now posted the complete discussion. As usual, James feels compelled to comment on the discussions while attempting to lead the minds of his readers to his viewpoint. We herewith post the entire conversation to date, without comment except for these few introductory remarks. We do hasten to add, however: Be sure to note how things that Dr. Hamblin says are restated by James in a complete different context to give the appearance of having another meaning. And note how long it starts taking James to start referring to Dr. Hamblin as "Sir." James has claimed that it is his upbringing that teaches him to address someone respectfully in this manner. However, the reader will note the tone in which James uses the epithet. In these discussions, James chides Dr.
Hamblin for being selective on the 4/14/04: Tomorrow is the BIG DAY! Followed by: They Knew Me Too Well! The above causes one to wonder why James so
unwilling to debate eschatology? It appears he is guilty of
precisely of that which he accuses Dr. Emails exchanged between William Hamblin (WH) and James White (JW) on 17 March through 20 March, 2004. Dr. Hamblin's discussion will be in blue, while White's will be in black. WH
to JW 1
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 JW
to WH 1
"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." 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. WH
to JW 2
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 at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_01e.html, letter 56.) Another might be that the timing is bad for me; the requested debate is right during the last weeks of the semester, the busiest time of the year for me. I am finishing a book, and have lots to do. A fourth reason might be that my Dad has cancer, and I’d rather spend my free time with him than preparing to debate you. So, you presume too much, and misrepresent as usual. At any rate, if you want a written debate on the internet, which can be simultaneously posted to a site of your choosing and another of my choosing, count me in. Or, if you want to invite me on an all-expense paid trip on your next Apologetics Cruise, I’ll debate you on shipboard, between shuffle-board games. J Bill JW to WH 2
Really! My recollection, and that of Mr. Pierce, is quite clear. My how time impacts us! JW 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? Your
most recent Blog contains a number of items of misinformation. 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. WH
to JW 3
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. JW to WH 3At
07:09 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote: WH
to JW 4
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
JW to WH 4At
11:13 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote:
[note
from the link immediately above that it was James who challenged Dr.
Hamblin to debate.] WH
to JW 5
James, JW No
need, as there is no question about the situation. I can document
the WH James, you are really, really amusing sometimes. But only sometimes. Here is the Webster’s definition of a debate (Unabridged, 1983, p. 467c):
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 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 JW
to WH 5
At
12:42 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote: WH to JW 6James, 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 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 JW to WH 6At
04:20 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote: 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 forum? Answer the question, please: yes
or no. You wrote an e-tract on temples. I responded. You
refuse to defend your position. Case closed. JW
to WH 7
At
06:04 PM 03/18/2004, you wrote: WH
to JW 8
JW >present
a grossly distorted version of our correspondence on your blog 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 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.
WH
to JW 9 (20 March 2004) 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 JW
to WH 9 (20 March 2004) From:
James White [mailto:NA27@aomin.org] At
01:42 PM 03/20/2004, you wrote: WH
to JW 10 (20 March 2004) Thanks
for once again failing to answer my questions, distorting the nature of my
objections, and dodging the issues. Bye Bill Hamblin |
