SEARCH

Dear Jim:

I have been observing and enjoying the exchange you have been having with Bill Hamblin.  And since, in an essay I am about to publish on anti-Mormonism, I will be quoting (with approval I should add) language found on page 17 of your Is The Mormon My Brother? in which you grant that Latter-day Saints have "have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths" in anti-Mormon literature.  There are something like twenty or more lines on that page in which you set the rhetorical stage for your book, which will, you imply, not be guilty of the kinds of problems you attribute to those "many who would provide the strongest denunciations of LDS theology and practice" but who fail to take seriously what Latter-day Saints write in defense of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Given the language found on page 17 of your book, I wonder if you consider any anti-Mormon literature to be of a quality similar to or approaching your own.  And by that I mean is there any other anti-Mormon literature, other than your own, of course, in which, from your perspective, the authors have mastered and evaluated the arguments of those you label "Mormon apologists" or "modern LDS apologists and scholars?"  And if so, which authors could you list as having more or less been willing to take seriously what Latter-day Saints have been saying in response to anti-Mormonism?

I trust that you will not be offended but perhaps please to learn that I take your comments of page 17 or your recent book as an effort on your part to indicate you (and your book) belong in a category apart from the run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon book or pamphlet.  And your observations, at least from my perspective, seem to have been intended to indicate that the reader of your book could expect to find one who has paid the price and who is therefore both willing but also anxious to have a serious conversation with Latter-day scholars, where other anti-Mormons have not done what is necessary to engage in such a conversation.

I am anxious to know if there is an anti-Mormon literature that comes up to your standards.  Would you recommend, as companions to your own work, say the writings of Walter Martin?  If not, who might be in your league?  Or who might come close to your standard?  Or should I read what you have written on page 17 of your book as an attempt to distinguish your writings in crucial ways from all previous anti-Mormon literature?  If not, then I would assume that you will be anxious to indicate who among the current stable of anti-Mormons is not guilty of the complaints you direct against your anti-Mormon associates in your recent book.

I thank you in advance for your efforts to address openly and honestly the questions I have raised.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

At 12:17 AM 4/14/98 -0600, you wrote:

>I have been observing and enjoying the exchange you have been >having with Bill Hamblin.

May I ask how you have done this?  I'm getting notes from people all over the place, so I assume they are being posted publically.  Where might this be?

>And since, in an essay I am about to publish on anti-Mormonism, I will
>be quoting (with approval I should add) language found on page 17 of
>your IS THE MORMON MY BROTHER? in which you grant that
>Latter-day Saints have "have little difficulty demonstrating
>inconsistencies and half-truths" in anti-Mormon literature.  There are
>something like twenty or more lines on that page in which you set the
>rhetorical stage for your book, which will, you imply, not be guilty of
>the kinds of problems you attribute to those "many who would provide
>the strongest denunciations of LDS theology and practice" but who fail
>to take seriously what Latter-day Saints write in defense of the Church
>of Jesus Christ.

Actually, I do hope you do not hack up the quotation when you publish your article.  This is what I have with me on my computer system (I am far from home at the moment, and don't even have a copy of that book with me):

There are many others, however, who have no doubts whatsoever about the LDS faith in general, and Mormons in particular.  "It's a devil-inspired cult" they say, "and that's all there is to it."  For many, Mormons are simply polygamous cultists, out to destroy the souls of anyone unwary enough to be caught in their clutches.  Yet many who would provide the strongest denunciations of LDS theology and practice are the very ones who have done the least work in seriously studying LDS writings, and interacting with LDS viewpoints.  Therefore, a large body of literature exists that is based not so much on fair, even-handed study of primary source documentation, but upon a very large dose of emotion and bias.  Such literature normally emphasizes the sensational, seeking to arouse the emotions of the reader against the LDS faith. 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.  But for those who find in Mormonism the very embodiment of evil itself, there is little reason to even ask the question, "Is Mormonism Christian?"  And there is even less reason to spend any time at all fairly evaluating the arguments of LDS scholars on the topic.

If *that* is what you are citing, what *I* intended, and the way you are using it, seem to be at odds.  The sentence you cite in its original context states, "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."  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.

>Given the language found on page 17 of your book, I wonder if you
>consider any anti-Mormon literature to be of a quality similar to or
>approaching your own.

Of course I do.  I was referring primarily to non-specialized books and writers, not to those who focus on the field. You can look at the endnotes and if I cite the writer favorably, take your cue from that.  I would include the Tanners, Bill McKeever, Wes Walters, etc., as excellent writers on the subject.  And, I have publically criticized elements of Ed Decker's work, and William Schnoebelen (we include articles on our web page on the subject as well).

>And by that I mean is there any other anti-Mormon literature, other
>than your own, of course, in which, from your perspective, the authors
>have mastered and evaluated the arguments of those you label
>"Mormon apologists" or "modern LDS apologists and scholars"?  And
>if so, which authors could you list as having more or less been willing
>to take seriously what Latter-day Saints have been saying in response
>to anti-Mormonism?
>
>I trust that you will not be offended but perhaps please to learn that I
>take your comments of page 17 or your recent book as an effort on
>your part to indicate you (and your book) belong in a category apart
>from the run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon book or pamphlet.

I don't know what a "run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon book" is, and I reject the label "anti-Mormon" to begin with.  If you will identify yourself as an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon.  If not, please refrain from doing so.

James>>>

Dear Brother Jim:

I did not write to you to pick a fight.  And I am not responding to your letter now in an effort to do so.  I appreciate your response to my modest inquiries.  What I would like is some additional clarifications.

But before I get to my additional questions and observation, I must point out that I do not intend to strike some deal with you on the use of the label "anti-Mormon."  Nor do I think that you can legislate on how or whether I use that label. You may, of course, reject that label if that is your desire.  But from my perspective, it fits you and your work.  Just look at your recent book.  You proclaim that people like me are not your brothers.  Instead of asking whether the Church of Jesus Christ is like a faction of Christians who identify themselves as evangelicals or whatever the proper designation happens to be, you personalize the issue by asking Is The Mormon My Brother?  The assumption is that you somehow get to determine who is or is not authentically Christian.  Be that as it may, you leave no doubt about the answer to the question the title of your book asks.  From my perspective we are all children of a common Father, though currently we may be more or less alienated in various ways from him.  But you want to insist that your God--the real God--is not my God, hence that I am not your brother.  Now, I ask myself, why would an otherwise intelligent person want to fashion set forth such a stance?  The answer must be that you are against or opposed to my faith, and my faith so irritates you that it makes us less than the children of a common Father.

Now before getting up in arms over the label "anti-Mormon," I suggest that you consult the entry under "anti" in a dictionary.  This prefix simply means "against" or "opposed to."  If you are not against or opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of Latter-day Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth claims of Joseph Smith, then have I entirely misunderstood you.  But I am confident that I have not misunderstood you.  Are you for all of these things?  Or are you simply disinterested or neutral?  It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to say that you are against my faith, and hence anti-Mormon.  Perhaps you could explain exactly why you do not like being known as anti-Mormon.

On the other hand, I have little interest in Baptist things, and little knowledge of them.  I have never published a word about Baptist religiosity.  I have not been critical of Baptists.  I have not attacked their faith.  And I certainly do not make my living operating a tax exempt public foundation dedicated to attacking the faith of anyone, including Ratana, Ringatu, Jews, Roman Catholics, or anyone else for that matter.

Now if, for what ever reason, you do not like being identified as an anti-Mormon, what label would you suggest for people like you?  I think I understand the desire of some to avoid the label anti-Mormon.  In what are essentially political disputes, where truth is not the issue, and where every effort is made to manipulate an audience with slogans, one can expect enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ to try to avoid negative labels.  And, of course, critics of my faith always just love the Mormon people, it is just the faith that they detest.

In my initial letter, I was not, as you suggest, hacking up that paragraph oddly entitled "How Can Anyone Really Wonder?" that appears on page seventeen of your recent book.  I merely tried to quote sufficiently from that paragraph so that you would be able to see immediately what portion of your book had led me to raise some questions with you.  In your response, you quote the entire paragraph.  In my forthcoming essay I will quote virtually this entire paragraph.

I have been trying to figure out what the language found in this paragraph means.  What you have now told me is that what you intended to say is actually somewhat different from what you actually wrote.  Instead of addressing the bulk of the paragraph (about twenty lines), you focus on what appears to be a sub-text constituting, as you say, "more a criticism of Peterson and Ricks...and other FARMS folks for their 'reviews' in RBBOFM than it is anything else."  I trust that you realize that you do not mention any essays published by FARMS.  How is the reader supposed to figure out what you were getting at?  I will grant that what you may have intended was a criticism of Offenders For A Word, and the various essays responding to anti-Mormon literature published by FARMS.  If that was really your intent, then you wrote very carelessly.  Instead of offering substantive criticisms of anything published by FARMS, you seem to be saying that Latter-day Saints have had an easy time responding to much or most of the literature critical of their faith.  Hence, I prefer to think that what your language must mean, if it means anything, is that Latter-day Saints have been able to respond to much or most anti-Mormon literature for exactly the reasons you set forth.  Of course, you claim that Latter-day Saints see as typical the kind of literature to which they have responded. Well, why not?  The question is:  is there any anti-Mormon literature of any substance to which we have not responded?  If there is such a literature, in addition, of course, to your own book, please let us know about it so that we can examine it.

Your point seems to be, if there is a point, that your book will offer a criticism of Mormon things that is superior to the stuff that Latter-day Saints have previously been able to deal with rather easily, which they take to be the norm among anti-Mormon literature.  But you do not present either evidence or argument supporting the notion that Latter-day Saints brush aside all anti-Mormon literature on the assumption that it is all the same.  Even a glance at the journal Professor Peterson edits will show you that we distinguish between the very bizarre stuff and the somewhat less irresponsible stuff.  And also please notice that you only cite Offenders For A Word, and a recent video and never mention a single additional response to any anti-Mormon literature by a Latter-day Saint scholar in that note on page seventeen of your book.  Please explain exactly how the reader to know that for the most part your remarks were intended by you to be critical of essays published by FARMS?  That is, that your point was not really that most or much anti-Mormon literature is of such a low quality that Latter-day Saints have been able to deal with it easily?  I assumed that you cited Professor Peterson's book and the video as evidence of how easy it has been for Latter-day Saints to deal with the typical criticisms of their faith.  If I am wrong about this, how is a reader to tell that your having cited Offenders For A Word was a criticism of that book?

I will grant that you may have intended that paragraph on page seventeen to be a criticism of what has been published by FARMS and a criticism of Offenders For A Word, but I am at a loss to know how the reader is supposed to figure that out.  I assumed that you were a more thoughtful person and a more careful writer than your explanation indicates.  Or have I missed something?

Given what appears on page seventeen of your book, I wondered whether you might think that all anti-Mormon literature (or whatever you may want to call it), until you came along with your book, has been such that Latter-day Saints, if they bothered, could easily deal with it.  I assumed that you were claiming that, unlike previous anti-Mormons, you have paid the price and hence can enter into a real conversation with Latter-day Saints, since you have mastered our literature.  I am, I must admit, somewhat pleased with your clarification.  But what you have written, since you apparently see a number of other critics of the Church of Jesus Christ as worthy colleagues in your endeavors, raises some additional questions.  For instance, you indicate that you are fond of the "Tanners. Bill McKeever, Wes Walters, etc."  And you direct me the notes in your book for additional indications of those anti-Mormon writers who you think have done at least satisfactory or perhaps even commendable work.

In addition, you indicate that you were "referring primarily to non-specialized books and writers" in your seemingly critical comments on page seventeen of your book in which you seem quite critical of anti-Mormon writers and their literature, but "not on those who focus on the field," whatever that may mean.  Please explain what you are getting at?  I am not sure what field you have in mind.  Latter-day Saints?  Or is the field somehow the countercult world?  I wonder whether you have in mind countercultists generally--are they the vulnerable ones?  Or is it those who focus their attacks on the field, meaning on Latter-day Saints?  I would appreciate a clarification.

As I have indicated, I do not wish to pick a fight with you--I am merely somewhat puzzled by your explanations.  Why? One reason is that the work of the Tanners, Walters and McKeever has not stood up well to careful inspection.  You may disagree, but from our perspective the Tanners are just modestly better than Ed Decker.  Nor is the work of Charles Larson and the few others you cite in your notes for your book all that impressive.  Among those whose work has been shown to be badly flawed are a number of those who you have suggested that I should identify by glancing at the notes for your book.  Please ask yourself if it has been any more difficult for Latter-day Saint scholars to identify flaws in Charles Larson's book than the stuff written by Bill Schnoebelen, Dean Helland, Ed Decker, Mr. Weldon and Ankerberg, or any of the others dealt with in essays published by FARMS?

In addition, if that paragraph on page seventeen of your book was primarily intended as a criticism of Dan Peterson (and others who may have published responses to attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ) for not confronting and effectively answering those you consider the really big names in anti-Mormonism (or whatever you wish to call it), let me remind you of the names of those that Peterson dealt with in Offenders For A Word.  These include Walter Martin, Gordon Lewis, Josh McDowell, Robert McKay, Bob Larson, William Irving, Dave Hunt, Dean Helland, Gordon Fraser, Bill McKeever, Bob and Gretchen Passantino, John L. Smith, James Spencer, Wally Tope, James Walker, Wesley Walters, the Tanners, Floyd McElveen, Charles Sackett, Peter Bartley, Dave Breese, Thelma Geer and others.  Did Peterson miss anyone important, I wonder, other than you?

And if you will glance at the anti-Mormon works you cite, you will notice that four or five of the six or seven names you include in your notes have been handled rather easily by Latter-day Saints.  So I doubt that you were trying to say that Latter-day Saints always pick the wrong targets among their various critics--that they aim too low.  It is difficult not to aim low, given what it out there.  And, from our point of view, we have to deal with all the odd stuff out there, since evangelicals, to whom most of this literature is aimed, cannot tell the bad stuff from the really, really bad stuff.  When you claim that "modern LDS apologists and scholars like to focus on such literature [where you clearly have identified the work of cranks who can and have been easily answered by pointing out, among other things, inconsistencies and half-truths and various other problems], often treating it as the norm, and have," as you admit, "little difficulty...dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing LDS people," you might be on to something important.  But notice your equivocation.  "Often," but now always, treating "it"--the stuff written by cranks--as the norm.  Which evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ have not been shown to be full of inconsistencies, half-truths, logical blunders, and so forth, and who seem to us to be driven by anger and resentment?  There are some evangelicals who are responsible, and I suspect that Professor Peterson would even publish their work.  FARMS and BYU Studies has published Massimo Introvigne.  That may not mean anything to you, since Introvigne is a Roman Catholic.  If I am wrong about this matter, then please identify the responsible evangelical authors and their books so that we can begin to give them the needed close attention.  I will immediately pass your list on to Dan Peterson so that work can begin on those authors and their works.  We are, as a matter of fact, looking for a literature that stands above the rather dismal run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon literature that you yourself have criticized on page seventeen of your book.

I ask specifically for your opinion of Walter Martin.  You must be familiar with the praise this fellow still gets from people in the countercult industry.  Do you consider him among those that Latter-day Saints overlook?  Is his Maze Of Mormonism or his chapter on the Church of Jesus Christ in his Kingdom Of The Cults within the category of criticism that you consider superior?  Would you cite Martin with approval on much of anything?  Do you include Martin along with Bill McKeever, Charles Larson, Wes Walters, and the Tanners, as outstanding examples of critics of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Did McKeever (and Kurt Van Gorden) do a good job of updating and revising Martin's opinions on Mormon things in the most recent edition of the Kingdom Of The Cults?  You seem to like McKeever's work, what about his work in bringing Martin's criticisms of Mormon things up to date?

I am looking forward to further clarification on the issues I have raised.  And I thank you in advance for your response. I assume that you will not object if I share this letter with a few other interested parties.  And I trust that you will not be offended if one or more others feels inclined to express their opinions.  FYI, Skinny is not extensive, nor is it a BYU list, as you assumed.  The fellow who operates it lives in Portland, Oregon.  There are Latter-day Saint scholars (your apologists, I suppose) in places other than Provo, Utah.

Grace and Peace,

Louis Midgley

Dear Brother White:

Right after I had sent my response to your recent letter, in came your response to Professor Peterson, and his reply.  I enjoyed reading both, except when I noticed your habit of being just a tad bit discourteous.  I have in mind your unfortunate habit of garbling my name.  Midgley is not all that difficult.  But neither is anti-Mormon, as I think both Professor Peterson and I have pointed out.

Professor Peterson (and others) seem to know you as anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic.  Without knowing anything about your attacks on Catholics, I must say that I feel some sympathy for them.  And I can even sense some of their frustration when they find themselves being attacked and their faith attacked by one who cannot or simply will not see that he is anti-Catholic.  But others who have given you even less attention than Professor Peterson and me may not realize that you have been down in the gutter--so to speak--with the strange KJV-only types.  Now I wonder if you are anti-Ratana (a Maori Christian church).  If not, why not?  Well, let me explain.  You know and hence presumably care not a bit about a Maori Christian church.  You may not have even heard of the Maori.  Good.  I am sure that they are thankful for your neglect.  But the point is that you are not anti-Ratana precisely because you know nothing about the Ratana and hence could not care less.  That is exactly the way I feel about the Baptist faith or faiths, or about the various evangelicalisms that have become popular recently.  I smile when I see that some of those on the margins of contemporary Protestant evangelicalism claim that their ideology is the only authentic, historic, trinitarian, biblical Christian faith.  I do not mind evangelical believing whatever it is that they want to believe, but I find it odd that they claim the right to determine whether others can have their own opinions on such matters.

Now, if you had not guessed, one reason for asking about Walter Martin is that he did not exclude Roman Catholics from authentic Christianity.  You, I assume do.  Do you then also exclude Walter Martin from authentic, biblical Christianity on the grounds that he made a terrible mistake about who are real Christians or what is biblical Christianity?

And then there is your friend, or at least one you feel is competent, that is, Bill McKeever, editing and updating an essay on Mormon things and including within it the absurd Spalding explanation of the Book of Mormon.  Well, I assume that McKeever and his associates could have removed that bit of nonsense, if they had (1) courage, (2) honesty, (3) any understanding of the issues.  So much for the good, rather than the bad, anti-Mormons.

Now I must admit that I had determined before I wrote to you that I would not pick a fight with you.  But your response to Professor Peterson has softened my resolve.  Please, no more nonsense about not being an anti-Mormon or insulting language about others not being able to read what you write carefully.  I think that if you will look again at that paragraph on page seventeen of your recent book, and then examine your explanation of what you intended to say, you will see that you have done poor job of interpreting your own text.  And please do not try to tell me that you get to determine what you meant on page seventeen by reference to what you now claim were your intentions.  It is a mistake to confuse intention with meaning.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

Dear Brother Jim:

I have read all of Is The Mormon My Brother?  But before I would venture more than a preliminary opinion about it, I would have to read it several more times.  But, I must admit, even at the risk of offending you, it bores me.  For one thing, you seem to assume that the J[ournal of] D[iscourses] is official Mormon doctrine.  And you want to make Latter-day Saints responsible for every opinion of anyone whose words you would like to use against the Church of Jesus Christ.  That is simply not fair.  And you should know it.  Are you bound by every statement of every Protestant preacher?  Or every Baptist pastor?  Or everyone who happens to teach in a Bible school, or seminary?  Of course, the answer is no.  But if I played your game, I would sort through whatever I could find to locate something that I would declare you are bound to defend or that is part of your faith, whether you know it or not.  Now I suppose you would respond to such a silly game by saying that you are bound only by the Bible.  But even there we have different interpretations.  You may or may not think that the Bible sort of interprets itself, with a little help from the creeds, or you may have some other notion about biblical interpretation.  But you must have some sense that yours is but one of many possible interpretations of the Bible.  But, the fact is I am not the least interested in your interpretation of the Bible, so please do not inflict any of that on me, other than try to deal with the problems you got yourself into with Professor Hamblin.  I am not interested in your interpretation of the Bible because I have my own.  And I think that mine is superior precisely because I do not try to make the Bible fit the creeds.  Nor am I especially interested in trying to make our scriptures fit some notion held by some Latter-day Saint.  The reason is that I have some notion of what constitutes the canon.  And I can sense when a prophetic charism is present, as can Latter-day Saints most of the time.

When is your book on the trinity coming out.  I phoned Bethany and whoever answered had no idea that you had a book coming out.  They asked around and looked at their literature and found nothing.  Is this book, which I cannot wait to read, forthcoming this year?

Grace and peace,

lcm

At 01:04 AM 4/16/98 -0600, you wrote:

>I have read all of Is The Mormon My Brother?  But before I would
>venture more than a preliminary opinion about it, I would have to read it >several more times.  But, I must admit, even at the risk of offending
>you, it bores me.  For one thing, you seem to assume that the J[ournal
>of] D[iscourses] is official Mormon doctrine.  And you want to make
>Latter-day Saints responsible for every opinion of anyone whose words
>you would like to use against the Church of Jesus Christ.  That is
>simply not fair.

Yes, sir, you *do* need to read it again....many times.  If you can make a statement like this, you didn't read it very well at all.  I discussed the Journals in the book....how about someone up there responding to what I write, rather than your feelings?  I'm truly amazed.

>When is your book on the trinity coming out. I phoned Bethany and
>whoever answered had no idea that you had a book coming out.  They
>ask around and looked at their literature and found nothing.  Is this
>book, which I cannot wait to read, forthcoming this year?

It is scheduled for September/October.  I have the cover art sitting right next to me here.  I doubt any knowledgeable person at Bethany House would not be familiar with it.

James>>>

At 11:53 PM 4/15/98 -0600, you wrote:

>But before I get to my additional questions and observation, I must
>point out that I do not intend to strike some deal with you on the use of
>the label "anti-Mormon."  Nor do I think that you can legislate on how
>or whether I use that label.

Of course not.  It is quite evident that you, and Dr. Peterson, are intent upon using it, whether it is glaringly hypocritical to do so or not.  I can't stop you, but I can point out the blindness you show toward the topic, and many others will benefit from the demonstration.  If LDS scholars are unable to see this basic issue and how they are prejudiced beyond logic regarding it, how much easier is it to explain their willingness to embrace the wildest theories creating entire societies in Meso-America?

>You may, of course, reject that label if that is your desire.  But from
>my perspective, it fits you and your work.

OK, that's fine.  Then please don't complain when others say Mormonism is anti-Christian on the very same grounds. I'd appreciate at least some level of consistency there.

>Just look at your recent book. You proclaim that people like me are
>not your brothers.  Instead of asking whether the Church of Jesus
>Christ is like a faction of Christians who identify themselves as
>evangelicals or whatever the proper designation happens to be, you
>personalize the issue by asking Is The Mormon My Brother?

Actually, the book fully explains the issue....I'm more than slightly amazed at how little you seem to have understood it, when so many others have understood it without the slightest problem.  The issue is that we worship different gods----period.  The book could not have made the point any more clearly than it did.  (BTW, I don't title the books. That's done at the publisher).

>The assumption is that you somehow get to determine who is or is not
>authentically Christian.

No, the assumption, seemingly rejected by LDS in general, is that what is means to be a real Christian *can* be answered, and that fully, without reference to Joseph Smith or "latter-day revelation."  If we worship different gods, and Christians have never worshipped *your* god before, then it follows, logically, that Mormonism is as Christian as I am Mormon---and I'm no Mormon.

>Be that as it may, you leave no doubt about the answer to the question
>the title of your book asks.  From my perspective we are all children of
>a common Father, though currently we may be more or less 
>alienated in various ways from him.  But you want  to insist that your
>God--the real God--is not my God, hence that I am not your brother.

And I substantiated that insistence rather fully.  So far, no one to my knowledge has even attempted to interact in print with the biblical argumentation presented on monotheism.

>Now, I ask myself, why would an otherwise intelligent person want to
>fashion set forth such a stance?  The answer must be that you are
>against or opposed to my faith, and my faith so irritates you that it
>makes us less than the children of a common Father.

As the book said, idolatry is a dangerous sin.  I guess, using your argument, Moses was an "anti-Baalite," right?  I mean, he had people KILLED for believing in Baal!  So, by believing in absolute truth, so that one says that denials of that truth are in *error,* I must be "anti-untruth."  OK, I guess that follows, right?

> Now before getting up in arms over the label "anti-Mormon," I suggest
>that you consult the entry under "anti" in a dictionary.  This prefix
>simply means "against" or "opposed to."  If you are not against or
>opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of Latter-day
>Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth claims of Joseph
>Smith, then have I entirely misunderstood you.

OK, then you are an anti-Baptist.  That's fine.  As I said, as long as you are consistent in identifying yourself that way, that's OK.  It's just that we need to be consistent.  If I'm an anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic, anti-JW, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, etc. and etc. and etc. (because I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, I must be opposed to all systems that would say otherwise), then you are likewise anti-Baptist.  Again, just a simple matter of logic.

> On the other hand, I have little interest in Baptist things, and little
>knowledge of them.  I have never published a word about Baptist
>religiosity.  I have not been critical of Baptists.  I have not attacked
>their faith.  And I certainly do not make my living operating a tax
>exempt public foundation dedicated to attacking the faith of anyone,
>including Ratana, Ringatu, Jews, Roman Catholics, or anyone else for
>that matter.

If you embrace Joseph Smith, you are anti-Baptist.  His beliefs are directly opposed mine, and he identified my God as a "monster" and my beliefs as an abomination.  It is almost amusing (if it were not so serious, and sad), to watch LDS scholars swing wildly between internal contradictions in their beliefs at this point, with one hand agreeing that my beliefs are an "abomination," but with the other saying you are not opposed to them.  If you aren't, you should be ashamed of yourself, taking an attitude of indifference toward something God says is an abomination!

> Now if, for what ever reason, you do not like being identified as an
>anti-Mormon, what label would you suggest for people like you?

If you read my book, you know that I refer to LDS apologists.  I refer to Roman Catholic apologists when writing on that topic.  How about "Protestant apologists" or something like that?  My faith is not defined by YOURs, sir.  I respond to YOUR claims because they impact MINE.  See the importance in that?

> I have been trying to figure out what the language found in this
>paragraph means.  What you have now told me is that what you >intended to say is actually somewhat different from what you actually
>wrote.

Of course not.  I said you had badly misread the passage.

>Instead of addressing the bulk of the paragraph (about twenty lines),
>you focus on what appears to be a sub-text constituting, as you say,
>"more a criticism of Peterson and Ricks...and other FARMS folks for
>their 'reviews' in RBBOFM than it is anything else."  I trust that you
>realize that you do not mention any essays published by FARMS.

< sigh >

>How is the reader supposed to figure out what you were getting at?

Well, don't be too offended, but no one else has had a problem getting the point of the entire paragraph.

>I will grant that what you may have intended was a criticism of
>Offenders For A Word, and the various essays responding to
>anti-Mormon literature published by FARMS.

I really don't have the inclination to play word games with you, sir.  The intention of the paragraph is simple, straightforward, and can only be missed by someone who either wants to miss it, or is attempting to find something to pick at, rather than dealing with the thesis of the book.  There is good literature responding to Mormonism, and there is bad literature responding to Mormonism.  When someone responds to the bad, and makes it appear that they have, by so doing, vindicated their position, they are engaging in deceptive behavior.  And when someone writes poor literature about Mormonism, they only help Mormonism's defenders to keep up the appearance of a vital apologetic.  It's really that simple.

>Given what appears on page seventeen of your book, I wondered
>whether you might think that all anti-Mormon literature (or whatever you
>may want to call it), until you came along with your book, has been
>such that Latter-day Saints, if they bothered, could easily deal with it.

I'm afraid I can be of no assitance to you beyond this point, sir.  Such a question can only be identified as "absurd," and I don't really have any desire to engage in absurd correspondence.  I will allow my book to speak to those who are prepared to hear it, and I knew when I wrote it that some, no matter how clearly I wrote, would find a way of missing the point.

James>>>

Dear Brother White:

Once again I must insist that I do not wish to pick a fight with you.  I did not write to you to engage in some unseemly, insulting quarrel.  I wrote to you to get some information--that is all.  The controversy over the nice little shorthand label "anti-Mormon" was your doing.  Unfortunately I took the bait.

What I requested, if I remember correctly, were a few clarifications on one paragraph in your Is The Mormon My Brother?  Even in my request for clarification you saw signs of my having hacked up your words and then later of having misinterpreted them.  The fact is that all I want is your opinion about your words, so that I can be confident I understand your language the way you do.

In order to see if I understand you correctly, I will paraphrase what I think you are trying to say in the paragraph on page seventeen of your recent book.  You seem to me to be saying something like the following:  modern Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths in the literature written by critics of their faith.  Now why do you think that this is so?  Well, at least for many critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints, those they like to call "Mormons" are simply polygamous cultists who are out to destroy the souls of anyone unwary enough to be caught in their clutches.  Yet, it turns out, many of these critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints who would provide the strongest denunciations of the beliefs and practices of Latter-day Saints are the very ones who have done the least work in seriously studying LDS writings and they have also not interacted with LDS viewpoints.  The result is that a large body of literature exists that is not based upon a fair, even-handed study of primary source documentation but is, instead, based upon a very large dose of emotion and bias.  The resulting literature normally (that is, regularly, usually) emphasizes the sensational, seeking to arouse the emotions of the reader against the LDS faith.

I believe that something very much like this is found in that paragraph on page seventeen of your recent book.  In addition, you acknowledge that many of these incompetent critics of the faith of the faith of Latter-day Saints still maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a devil-inspired cult and that is about all there is to it. For such people the question of interacting with genuine LDS points of view simply does not arise.  Why?  For those who find in what they call "Mormonism" the embodiment of evil itself, there is little reason to even ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian.  There is even less reason to spend time fairly evaluating the arguments put forth by Latter-day Saint scholars.

You add one small caveat to this rather grim picture of the literature produced by emotional, sensationalizing and incompetent critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints.  You claim that contemporary, I believe you say "apologists and scholars," Latter-day Saints, who have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths in the literature critical of their faith that you have just negatively characterized, like to focus on such dismal literature and that they often treat it as if it were the norm for all of the critical literature produced by those claiming to represent the true, historic, biblical, trinitarian version of Christianity.  At this point you attach a note to a recent LDS video and to Professor Peterson's book, presumably to indicate how Latter-day Saints easily deal with the bad literature produced by critics of their faith.

That is all I see in that paragraph.  I see nothing critical of anything published by FARMS.  In fact, FARMS is not mentioned.  And I see nothing that indicates that there is a good literature--a competent literature by critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints--in this paragraph.  This is the reason I asked you if you see yourself as the only author to do the job right or whether you think that there is a body of competent criticism of LDS faith.  And I also asked you to indicate who might have written this competent literature, if such exists in your estimation.  You have more or less responded to these questions.  If I understand you correctly, you think that there is a competent literature and you indicated three authors who have presumably helped produce it.  And you suggested that I inspect the notes to your book for additional names.

Now I have tried to point out that Latter-day Saints do not take Decker and Schnoebelen as the norm among their critics.  We are what might be called equal opportunity critics of what we call anti-Mormon literature or whatever you might wish to call it.  It seems to me, and I believe I am entirely correct on this matter, that we have dealt with virtually all of the even remotely significant authors of criticisms of our faith, including you.  And so it turns out that your remark about how we take the really bad stuff as the norm is simply not true.  We do not focus just on the really bad stuff, but we deal with all of our critics.  If I am wrong about this, you can easily correct me by naming the significant, less incompetent authors whose works we have neglected.

Now I have just one other tiny little point to make.  I suppose I will agree to you describing me, in our correspondence and for purposes of conversation only, however, as "anti-Baptist," if you will allow me the courtesy of using the nice little shorthand label "anti-Mormon" in our correspondence as an easy way of saying something like "critics of the faith of Latter-day Saints."  And I might add that I did not attempt to deal with or even characterize the general thesis or Is The Mormon My Brother?  I merely cited one tiny thing that makes the book, for me at least, boring.  So I will just ignore all that stuff about my not understanding what you were up to in that book.  I see all that abusive rhetoric as just your way of picking a fight and thus seeming scoring some points.

Finally, I am interested in your relationship with, that is, your opinion of, the work of Walter Martin.  Please address this question.  Do you include Martin among those who did competent work or is he one of those we Latter-day Saints see as the norm for criticisms of our faith?  This is a simple question.  It should not be hard for you to express an opinion on Walter Martin's work.  Why am I interested in Martin?  I am writing an essay on his work.  There are several reasons I would like to know what you think of Martin.  One is that he was not, as you obviously are, anti-Catholic (oops, critical of Roman Catholicism because it is not Christian, or however you would put it).  This is a way of trying to find out whether people are competent and Christian who disagree with you on your stand on Roman Catholicism.  In addition, Martin always advanced the old Spalding theory to explain the Book of Mormon.  But the Tanners, who you seem to think are competent, strongly disagreed with Martin on this important issue.  Where do you stand on this issue and on the conflict among your associates on this issue.

Please remember that I am not trying to pick a fight with you.  All I would like is clarification on some matters.  If I have not paraphrased your stance on page seventeen of you book, please do not insult me, but just adjust what I have written so that it reflect exactly what you intended to say.  I will accept anything you say about your intentions in that paragraph, since you are the only authority on this matter.  I appreciate your responding to my importunings and I thank you in advance for dealing with what is contained in this letter.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

At 08:40 AM 4/17/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
> Once again I must insist that I do not wish to pick a fight with you.  I
>did not write to you to engage in some unseemly, insulting quarrel.  I
>wrote to you to get some information--that is all.  The controversy over
>the nice little shorthand label "anti-Mormon" was your doing. 
>Unfortunately I took the bait.

Bait assumes I wished to draw you into the conversation.  To be honest, ever since you wrote a few years ago about the "plan of salvation" being Joseph Smith's idea, I haven't had any desire at all to have further interchange, I assure you.  And I shall end this one now.  Thanks for writing.

James>>>

Dear Brother White:

Your last and presumably last communication to me seemed just a trifle bit rude and quite unwarranted.  All I did was make a harmless inquiry concerning one paragraph in your recent book.  And, it turns out, I have understood this paragraph.  That seems to be the problem.  I had the audacity to demonstrate that your notion that Latter-day Saints have focused on the really bad anti-Mormon, and have ignored the kind of thing you and a few others have written, is simply not true.  And it also turns out that nothing in that paragraph (or the supporting endnote) supports your rather fanciful claim that basically that paragraph was intended by you as a criticism of Professor Peterson and the literature responding to anti-Mormonism published by FARMS.  The most that can be said is that you wrongly claimed that Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists--are they different?--fail to deal with the kind of thing you write.  Now I sense that you are filled with pride and obviously do not like to be contradicted.  And, I suppose that I am not telling a secret when I point out that, among Latter-day Saints who know you, you have a reputation for ending conversations that do not seem to be going your way.  That is, to be blunt, you cut and run when you get cornered, and you end conversations with a flurry of insults. Be that as it may, what you wrote in response to my request for information was somewhat insulting and also somewhat absurd.  So it turns out that I have learned some interesting things about you, how you understand texts, even or especially what you have written, and also about your views on anti-Mormon literature.  You have blessed me with your best. I thank you.  What more could I ask?

Well, perhaps a little civility.  If you really love Latter-day Saints and are dedicated to evangelizing them, then here I am.  Why not think of me as a real "Mormon Elder" who needs to be evangelized?  And why not cut the "sir" this and "sir" that stuff?  That is not exactly a sign of deep concern and genuine love, or have I missed something?

Well, I have also learned from you that I am anti-Baptist.  But I am not sure which variety of Baptist ideology I am supposed to be against.  Am I against the Conservative, American or the Southern varieties of Baptist ideology?  Or is it that you sense that I may not be charmed by the Reformed (that is, Calvinist) brand of Baptist ideology?  But if that is what you intended when you opined that I am anti-Baptist (and also anti-Christian), I am wondering if you are not also just a tad bit anti-Baptist.  If I remember correctly, for some time the Southern Baptists have been more or less in thrall to what they like to call "the soul's competency before God."  If I understand that language correctly, this is Arminianism and not Calvinism.  I wonder whether you are fond of Arminian ideology.  Why?  I think I see a little TULIP blooming behind you.  Though I offer to stand corrected, if that is your pleasure, my impression is that you may not believe that salvation has been offered freely to all who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, but only to those already predestined to salvation.  If I am wrong on this matter, I apologize for not knowing your beliefs on such issues.  My impression is that you may believe in a limited atonement and this would put you at odds with several of the factions of Baptists and hence also with most of the fashionable brands of evangelicalism.  Perhaps you could explain where exactly you stand on Baptist things.  And please also explain whether you have, say borrowing from Jonathan Edwards, married predestination to a radical determinism.  I wonder, I must admit, why those who push predestination bother to preach, except that they may feel that they simply cannot help themselves.  If this is true, then perhaps we have an explanation for the way you respond to Latter-day Saints who end up in conversations with you.  Why present yourself in a manner that might attract our favorable attention, if we are simply not capable of saving faith?

I must insist that I'm not interested in engaging in an exchange of insults with you.  I still would like you to explain where you stand on some of these issues and especially how you see Walter Martin's role in the countercult movement.  But, like others, you may not be at all anxious to discuss Walter Martin.  I can understand such reticence.  But I am not interested in raking over his credentials or his private life.  What I would like to know is your opinion on the influence Walter Martin may have had on generating the countercult industry and in providing it with an ideology.  I do not wish to debate this with you, but merely wish to know what your views on this matter happen to be.  If you will opine, I will keep silent.  Now if my teasing you about your brand of Baptist ideology offends you, then ignore the point that stands behind my remarks, and turn instead to opining about Walter Martin.  And I will be in your debt.  But please to not be shy and retiring, but bold and adventuresome.  And I will be in your debt.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

Dear Brother White:

I notice that you have posted the recent correspondence between you and me (and also the related correspondence with Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin).  Good.  Keep it up.

It seems obvious that what I have written to you, or that I have even had the audacity to write to you, offends you.  I am not entirely sure why this is so.  Be that as it may, let me apologize if I have offended you.  That was not my intention.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, I have not written you with the intention of picking a fight.  I merely requested, and request once again, a simple little clarification of what you meant on page seventeen of your Is The Mormon My Brother?

What I have gotten back from you was initially an inaccurate reading on your part of what is plainly found on page seventeen, with the false charge that, in briefly paraphrasing one paragraph on that page, that I had hacked up what you had said.  I understood that hacking up what you had written was in your eyes not a good thing to do.  By hacking up you presumably meant that I had not quoted every word in the paragraph under consideration.  Hence, in order to demonstrate that you were wrong in implying that I had somehow distorted the meaning of your language on page seventeen of your book, I subsequently provided you with a full paraphrase of all of that paragraph.  The readers of this correspondence can see it for themselves.  I then requested that you indicate whether I have read you correctly.  Instead of responding to my paraphrase, you found an excuse to change the subject and issue some insults and to insist that our exchange was over.  However, it was and still is not over.

Once again I respectfully request that you deal with the substance of my simple, little question.  What I would like to know, and it would be easy for you to answer, is whether, given the paraphrase I have provided you, have I understood correctly that paragraph on page seventeen of your book?  I am puzzled by your evasiveness on this issue.

It will not do to say that you did not invite this kind of inquiry.  Or that you are far too busy with other matters to respond to this simple, perfectly harmless request for information and clarification.  Why?  I believe that you invite correspondence on your A&O web site.  Does that request have some hidden qualification of which I am unaware?  In addition, it would be difficult for you to invite me to request information and clarifications.  How could you possibly know that I had a question.  That is not the way correspondence ever works.  In addition, I assumed that your willingness to correspond with Bill Hamblin was a good indication that you might respond to a few harmless questions from me about the meaning of a passage in your book.

As far as I can see there is just one other issue that has come up in our correspondence.  And you raised it.  You indicated in rather strong language that you do not consider yourself to be anti-Mormon (or, it turns out, anti-Catholic or anti- anything else).  My hunch is that you had simply not noticed the plain meaning of the prefix "anti," which I pointed out typically means to be "against" or "opposed to" whatever the word qualifies.  Given your occupation and business, which includes attacking Roman Catholics, as well as Latter-day Saints, and various others, including quite a few evangelicals with whom you like to quarrel, I can see why it would be an advantage to you for essentially political or rhetorical purposes to avoid negative labels.  But such a desire on your part, which I can understand, has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with rhetorical staging for your business ventures.  And, in addition, you do not get to legislate on these matters.  Who is or is not against or opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ is something we get to determine, not you.

Now I note that you have not only posted our correspondence but have also provided a somewhat less that neutral commentary on our exchange.  I take it that this is your effort to hold tightly the hand of readers so that you can influence the way this correspondence will be read.  Since, as far as I can tell, you have posted and will continue to post all of our correspondence, allow me to comment on your less than neutral commentary.

1.  Why do I need to point out a second time that my name is spelled Midgley and not, as you sometimes have it, Midgely?  It must take an effort on your part to make this kind of mistake.  I would be embarrassed if I had spelled your name Whiet and especially so after having had the mistake called to my attention.  I trust that you will make this correction.

2.  Once again I must point out that the small list known as SKINNY-L is not an "inter BYU list," as you have it, but includes only a few BYU employees, as well as more who have nothing to do with BYU.  In addition, it includes people from around the United States and is operated out of Portland, Oregon.  Can you possibly imagine that more than half a dozen out of the more than fifteen hundred faculty at BYU know or care who you are or what you do for a living?  Could you please leave out the false claim that SKINNY-L is an "inter BYU list"?

3.  How exactly do you know for a fact that in my letter to you (dated 16 April 1998) that I was, as you say, "pushing my limits?"  Or, what exactly is that remark intended by you to convey to your readers?

4.  Apparently you are certain that, in my letters to you prior to 22 April 1998, I had been hiding my "true feelings."  Hence the following: "Midgley's true feelings finally broke through."  Well, by 22 April 1998, I was just a little tired of your evasiveness and bombast.  And by that date your letters began to be filled with unbecoming and unrestrained name-calling, personal insults, and innuendoes.  I merely pointed out that you have earned a reputation for this kind of thing.  In addition, you are known to blow your stack and refuse to correspond, when it becomes apparent that you have gotten yourself in over your head.  I was reminding you how Latter-day Saints who have had previous encounters with you tend to see your antics.

But I must again remind you, and also remind the readers of this correspondence, I have not tried to pick a fight with you. I have merely asked for some information and clarifications.  It was you who insisted on picking a fight over over the label "anti-Mormon."  And it was you who found excuses for not addressing the simple requests I have made.

And finally, the readers of this correspondence should note that Stan Barker has not thought it necessary to coach the readers of our correspondence, which he has also posted on SHIELDS, with any commentary and certainly not with a self-serving, inaccurate commentary.  In fact, he merely posts our correspondence and trusts that readers will be able to figure out what is going on.  So I urge you to play fair and cut the commentary.  Just allow the readers to reach their own conclusions without the partisan coaching.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

Dear Brother White:

After sending my earlier message, I had a second look at what you have on your web site that is directed against Latter-day Saints.  Since you have been blasting away at what you like to call the childish behavior of some of us, I wondered if any of what you have posted could be seen, even by you, as petty, rancorous, personal, filled with cute little shots, lacking a scholarly tone, clearly unbecoming a Calvinist evangelical apologist (aka anti-Mormon), and so forth.  And what appeared before my eyes for a second time but the title you have given your posting of our correspondence.  I guess I had not given sufficient attention to your ever so cute title.

So I notice that, on http://www.aon.org/BYUnotes, anyone can now find, among other things, your posting of our correspondence under the strange title "Strange Saga of the BYU Correspondence (aka, Nastigrams 'R US)."  Oh how clever, and also cute.  But nothing in that title is the least bit nasty.  Right?  Nothing childish about that title.  Right?  You would, of course, never ever stoop to employing childish stuff on your web site.  You would never stoop to such a thing.  Right?  I mention this precisely because I do not want your readers to miss any of your blatant hypocrisy.

But there is more.  In our correspondence you have insisted that you want nothing to do with answering my questions. You just do not want to correspond, even though, for reasons that are obvious, you continue to do so, but with a measurable lowering of tone, except that last message to me, which lacked your earlier sarcasm.  But your web site invites correspondence, as I pointed out earlier, by containing "email us" notices.

And when I glanced at your rather feeble but very personal attack on Ara Norwood, also right there on your web site, I notice that you complain that a review was published of your phony Letters To A Mormon Elder without anyone ever asking you for your views.  "No one," you complain, "had contacted me, talked with me, or in any other way solicited my imput for the [Norwood] review [of Letters To A Mormon Elder], though I would certainly have been happy to have cooperated had someone decided to speak with me."  You also complain about the so-called "secrecy," your word, surrounding Norwood's review of your book.  Your complaints go even further, you say that "Ara Norwood refused to contact me" and this you claim explains what you believe he got wrong in his review.

Several comments must be made concerning your remarks about Norwood not contacting you, or his review not being announced so that it would not come as a surprise to you, and so forth.  Since when is it necessary to announce a review before it appears in print?  How many times does that happen?  And exactly how often do reviewers open up a private dialogue with the authors of books they review, either before or after publishing reviews?  Sometimes, perhaps, but not often, I can assure you.

On the other hand, as I was finishing a review essay in which I comment at some length on sectarian anti-Mormon agencies and individuals, and briefly mention you, I contacted you by email.  I got back from you, as those who read our correspondence can easily see, at first a confused response to my inquiry, coupled to an accusation that I had hacked up the paragraph about which I was inquiring.  And then, when I pointed out that nothing in your book supports your strange reading of that paragraph on page seventeen of your most recent anti-Mormon book and also offered a full paraphrase of the paragraph in question, you started indulging in sarcasm, tried to change the subject, and then fell silent.

Finally, I cannot resist pointing out to you that you have not been corresponding with BYU or with Brigham Young University.  You have been corresponding with two fellows who are currently employed at BYU, and one who has not been employed there for two years.  Whatever you might like others to believe, Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson and I are entirely responsible for our correspondence.  Would you not find something odd if Stan Barker had given his posting of this same correspondence the strange title "Strange Saga of the Grand Canyon University Correspondence"?

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

Dear Brother James White:

It occurred to me that in between finishing another book, doing whatever an adjunct professor at various schools may have to do, going on tours where you can attack this or that false version of Christianity, and whatever else your duties require, that you might like to have a look at the essay that I have just finished in which I mention you and one paragraph in Is The Mormon My Brother?  Within a week my essay, entitled "Anti-Mormonism and the Newfangled Countercult Culture," will be posted on the FARMS web site, and a few day later it will be available in the FARMS Review Of Books 10/1 (1998).  The electronically posted version can be easily reached by either you or your readers at http://www.farmsresearch.com.  And I would not be surprised if it is also made available by SHIELDS.  I am hoping that you will manifest a modest fairness and courage by posting all of this correspondence, and not just the first part of it.  And I am also confident that your readers at least will be able to see, by actually reading my essay, that I was both accurate in my reference to that passage on page seventeen of your book, and generous in describing you.

And I wonder if you have had a look at Matthew Roper's comments on your "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics," which appeared in Christian Research Journal, Summer 1996, pp. 28-35?  Roper's essay, entitled "On Cynics and Swords," which shows that the task you thought was "impossible" was rather easy, appeared in the FARMS Review Of Books 9/1 (1997): 146-58, and it will soon be accessible at the FARMS web site.

And if you or your webmaster are/is still having trouble with all those hard returns on the letters you have posted (and I trust are still going to continue to post) in the current exchange that is going on between you, on the anti-Mormon side--ops, apologist for a Reformed Baptist ideology side or, from your perspective, whatever an acceptable description of your business might be--and Professors Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin and me, I am confident that I can get someone at FARMS to help you or your people solve your formatting problem.  I am hoping that you will continue to post this correspondence, thereby manifesting a modest but still praiseworthy sense of both fairness and courage.  In any case, I am confident that all of this correspondence will be made available on the SHIELDS web site.

I am, of course, looking forward to your book in which I presume you will try both to explain and justify the Trinity as set forth in the creeds.  I promise to give this book some close attention.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley

At 02:57 PM 5/7/98 -0600, you wrote:

> It occurred to me that in between finishing another book, doing
>whatever an adjunct professor at various schools may have to do,
>going on tours where you can attack this or that false version of
>Christianity, and whatever else your duties require, that you might like
>to have a look at the essay that I have just finished in which I mention
>you and one paragraph in Is The Mormon My Brother?  Within a
>week my essay, entitled "Anti-Mormonism and the Newfangled
>Countercult Culture," will be posted on the FARMS web site, and a few
>day later it will be available in the FARMS Review Of Books 10/1
>(1998).  The electronically posted version can be easily reached by
>either you or your readers at http://www.farmsresearch.com.  And I
>would not be surprised if it is also made available by SHIELDS.  I am
>hoping that you will manifest a modest fairness and courage by
>posting all of this correspondence, and not just the first part of it.  And
>I am also confident that your readers at least will be able to see, by
>actually reading my essay, that I was both accurate in my reference to
>that passage on page seventeen of your book, and generous in
>describing you.

Thanks for writing again, Dr. Migdley[sic].

Dear Brother James White:

I am pleased that you were so prompt in acknowledging my letter.  You could do me one tiny little favor--when you post my letter, please correct the address to the FARMS web site by adding the necessary www in the appropriate place.

lcm

James White wrote:
>At 02:57 PM 5/7/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>[snipe] [My essay is entitled] "Anti-Mormonism and the Newfangled
>>Countercult Culture," [and it] will be posted on the FARMS web site,
>>and a few day later it will be available in the FARMS Review Of
>>Books 10/1 (1998).  The electronically posted version can be easily
>>reached by either you or your readers at
>>http://www.farmsresearch.com.  And I would not be surprised if it is
>>also made available by SHIELDS. [snip]

>Thanks for writing again, Dr. Migdley.

> James White

[with slogans and whatever removed]

At 03:30 PM 5/7/98 -0600, you wrote:

>Dear Brother James White:

>I am pleased that you were so prompt in acknowledging my letter.
>You could do me one tiny little favor--when you post my letter, please
>correct the address to the FARMS web site by adding the necessary
>www in the appropriate place.

>lcm

Thank you for writing again, Dr. Midgley.

James>>>

Dear Brother James White:

I was wrong.  My essay will be posted on http://www.farmsresearch.com early this evening.  I trust that you will not delay posting this information in your "nastygram" section of http://www.aomin.org/mormonism so that your readers will be able to see whether you were right about my reading of that passage from your book.

I was pleased to note that you have indicated that, "should either [Peterson or Midgley] decide to continue to provide further unsolicited and unwelcome nastigrams, [you] will attach them to this post," with reference, of course to your propaganda aimed at Mormonism listed above.  The correspondence that has taken place since April 29, 1998, when you last posted correspondence with Daniel Peterson and me, should have seemed to you as additional examples of nasty correspondence and was, in addition, entirely unsolicited by you and also unwelcome, so at least it must fit squarely within the prescribed standards for inclusion in your nastygram section.

I would not be entirely shocked to discover that you find my essay, which surveys the workings of the countercult industry in which you happen to make your living, unwelcome.  And, of course, I certify here and now that you did not ask me to write it and hence it was also unsolicited by you.

As I indicated earlier, if you need some help in getting our letters to you posted in a reasonably satisfactory format, that is, without all those obtrusive hard returns, please let me know and I will have someone from FARMS provide you with the necessary assistance.

And how come you love to label Professor Peterson as "childish" and so forth, and yet never accuse me of those kinds of behavior.  Do I somehow fail to measure down?

I will be awaiting your assessment of my survey of the dreadful countercult industry.

As ever,

Louis Midgley