At 04:59 PM 4/9/98 -0600, you wrote:

>JAMES
>That's what I don't get?  That the Jews who wish to stone the Son of
>God are, in fact, gods?  I see.
>
>BILL
>Once again, you are not taking the issues seriously.

If you mean I don't believe your misuse of the text, and wholesale insertion of concepts into the text, carries weight, you are correct.  I take the issue quite seriously---I just don't take eisegesis very seriously.

>Here is the relevant text of John 10
>
>30 I and my Father are one.
>31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
>32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you >from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
>33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee
>not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
>thyself God.
>34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
>gods?
>35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
>scripture cannot be broken;
>36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
>world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
>
>Who is the scripture calling gods?  He "unto whom the word of God
>came" = the psalmist, or prophets in general.

Again, though you seem to dismiss it with tremendous ease, the *context* tells us that in Psalm 82 this refers to the judges of Israel, who judged in the place of God.

>At any rate it is clearly not the Jews who are going to stone Jesus
>that are being discussed, but the person to whom the Psalm was
>revealed.

Excuse me?

>So, once again, the text seems to be saying that humans can be
>called elohim in some sense.

Since I documented the use of elohim of the judges of Israel, such is hardly the issue in dispute to begin with, Dr. Hamblin.

>If not, then Jesus is using semantic equivocation, using the term
>elohim/theos in once sense when applying it to himself, but in
>another sense when trying to justify his statement to the Jews.

Or, He is using the text in its original context to identify His detractors as what they were---human judges who were judging unrighteously.

>And none of Jesus' discussion or justification has the
>slightest thing to do with judges, does it?

< sigh >

James>>>

James White, M.A., Th.M., Th.D. (Candidate)
Alpha and Omega Ministries
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Columbia Evangelical Seminary
Critical Consultant, NASB Update
Orthopodeo@aomin.org

Dear Bill,

[Personal comments regarding James White removed at Mr. Owen's request].

Regarding your own comments, I can appreciate what you and that other fellow are saying (I forgot his name, but I am going to pull up his email again and send him a short reply).  It is obvious to everyone, including Evangelical students of the Bible, that the OT has gone through a process of compilation, editing and updating.  That is not debated.  But with regard to the particular issue of the identities of Elohim and Yahweh, and the evolution of monotheistic belief in Israel, I am not so sure that one can just pick and choose particular points apart from the framework of the larger picture.  Take Margaret Barker for example.  I focus on her not because she is a particularly prominent OT scholar but because I find Mormons increasingly using her work.  She makes it quite clear at the beginning of her chapter on the Old Testament (in The Great Angel) that her conclusions rest upon the foundation of a particular theory about the development of monotheistic belief in Israel due to the reforming efforts of the Deuteronomist school, beginning with Josiah and extending into the post-exilic period.  Apart from the framework of her larger theory, her particular arguements [sic] really constitute nothing more than assertions.  It is the explanatory power of the bigger picture that gives the particular exegetical decisions plausibility (if you buy into the Deuteronomistic hypothesis to start with, which I don't).  So I don't think you can pick and choose arguments relating to the distinct identities of Elohim (or Elyon) and Yahweh apart from the larger picture.  Either you think these were originally two distinct Gods who have been conflated in the present version of the Hebrew Bible, or you think that these are two names which focus on different characteristics of the same God.  Since we know it was quite common in the ancient Near East for particular gods to have more than one name, it seems reasonable to see Elohim and Yahweh as two names for the same God.  That is certainly the traditional Jewish understanding.

Now I realize that there is more to the arguements [sic] than that (e.g. your point, which Barker also harps on, about there being no occurences [sic] of 'sons of Yahweh' in the Hebrew Bible).  You also mentioned a couple of issues which I forget (I erased your email).  Did you mention an Ugaritic inscription which applies to Yahweh the name Baal?  And did you mention a stella or something where Asherah is described as Yahweh's consort?  (I assume you think these examples are significant because Baal and El were distinct gods in Canaanite mythology.)  I may be getting the details mixed up, but you wondered if there were any Evangelical studies on these topics.  If you list some items for me again I might be able to pass something along.  But initially, with respect to such things I would be prone to keep in mind that the OT itself makes it very clear that there was a great deal of religious syncretism between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, even after Josiah's reforms.  So I'm not sure why such archeological discoveries should revolutionize our understanding of Israel's history, although I guess F.M. Cross and others have argued differently (and I have to admit this is not an area of specialty for me).

Finally, with respect to the BoM, 1 Nephi 5:11 specifically mentions ''the'' five books of Moses.  The presence of the article weighs against seeing this as simply five books that Moses wrote.  This refers to a well-known collection of five books which are grouped together under Mosaic authorship.  It strains credulity not to believe that what is in view here is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Now one might argue that the original version of Deuteronomy did not contain the clear monotheism of the later MT.  But if that were the case, why is the BoM so unashamedly monotheistic?  Why are the Father and the Son (i.e. Elohim and Yahweh) consistently described as one God?

Anyways, those are my thoughts for now.  I am passing this along to Carl because I think he will find it interesting. You might consider sending him your other post where you discuss the application of Psalm 82 by Jesus in John 10. I am sure he would find it interesting to read as well.

Sincerely,
Paul

Bill,

Paul asked me to forward this to you.  Being the computer genius he is, Paul has not figured out a way to make his software send an e-mail to more than two persons.  BTW, thanks for forwarding those last posts to me.

--Carl
-------------------

Dear Mr. Seaich,
Since you sent me a copy of your comments I thought I would reply with a few of my own.  Your remarks seem to have been pointed primarily at James White, but some of them would seem to apply to anyone like myself who holds to a conservative Evangelical view of the Bible.  Before I go any further, let me direct a note to Carl:
Carl, could you send a copy of this to Bill Hamblin?  Some of my comments will apply to him.  Thanks.
First of all, Bill Hamblin asked about Evangelical studies relating to the impact of the Ugaritica upon biblical studies. I spent a couple of hours in the library, and was able to come up with a few things.  It isn't much, but it is something to start with:  Charles F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962); K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), 160-65; David Toshio Tsumura, ''Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3'' Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 24-48; Peter C. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); idem, ''The Poetry of Ugarit and Israel'' Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971): 3-31; J. Glen Taylor, ''The Two Earliest Known Representations of Yahweh'' in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, eds. Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 557-66; and S.G. Dempster, ''Mythology and History in the Song of Deborah'' Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 33-53.  Although he would not be considered an Evangelical, William F. Albright was a pious, Christian (Methodist) scholar, who tended to have rather conservative views on the Bible.  So I think it>would be worth mentioning his studies in this context as well, especially:  From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (London: Oxford University Press, 1946); idem, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1942); and idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths [ I love that sub-title! ]  (London: Athlone, 1968).  With regard to Albright's methods and conclusions (which did not always line up with the orthodoxy of critical scholarship) see the anthology edited by Gus W. Van Beek, The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright: An Appraisal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), with contributions by F.M. Cross, D.N. Freedman and others.  

Now for your comments, Mr. Seaich.  With respect to Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the proper interpretation is not as simple as you want to make it.  Citing TDOT as if that settled the matter would get you a well-deserved 'F' in any exegesis class.  Now certainly it is possible that Elyon and Yahweh are to be distinguished here.  As I already granted to Hamblin, the reading 'sons of God' is probably to be preferred to the MT ('sons of Israel').  But that is only half the battle.  It is still also possible to interpret this passage as saying that Elyon/Yahweh 'divied out' the other nations to various angelic authorities, but chose Israel to be his own special people.  Which reading do you think fits best with the general theological tendencies of Deuteronomy?  Monotheism or polytheism?  The idea that two Gods are to be distinguished here really reflects a judgement [sic] about the pre-history of the text.  The monotheistic tendencies of Deuteronomy as a piece of literature are uncontested.  Your other arguments are even more tenuous.  You cite a Harvard dissertation in support of the meaning of 'inheritance' for NHL.  You would have been better off to check a lexicon first.  The fact of the matter is, NHL has at least two distinct lexical connotations: 1) simply 'to possess'; and 2) 'to inherit'.  Either meaning is possible, and the context is determinative as to which meaning fits best.  To verify this simply look up NHL in Gesenius, or Koehler/Baumgartner, and you will see both lexical meanings given for both the verbal and noun forms.  The meaning of 'possession' fits the context best, not only in Deut. 32:9, but also throughout the OT, where NHL is used to describe how Yahweh has chosen and redeemed Israel to be his own people (cf. 32:10ff).  For example:  ''But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for his own possession'' (Deut. 4:20).  ''O LORD GOD, do not destroy Thy people, even Thy possession, whom Thou has redeemed through Thy greatness'' (Deut. 9:26 cf. v. 29).  ''O LORD . . . pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Thine own possession'' (Exod. 34:9).

''They are Thy people and Thy possession which Thou hast brought forth from Egypt'' (1 Kings 8:51).
''Save Thy people, and bless Thy possession'' (Psalm 28:9).  
''And the LORD will possess Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem'' (Zech. 2:12 [16 Heb].

All of these uses of NHL illustrate the meaning of 'to possess', not 'to inherit', because Yahweh is taking Israel for his own; Israel is not being given to Yahweh by some higher Father God.  Also, were 'inherit' the meaning of NHL in Deut. 32:9, we might expect the hophal stem of the verb to be used, rather than the noun form which occurs.

With regard to your citation from the (Pseudo) Clementine Homilies, a fourth-century Arian text with anti-Pauline tendencies is hardly much evidence as to the correct interpretation of a Hebrew document written many centuries prior.  Your citations of Pseudo-Cyprian and Plato (!) are also worthless in this context.  Your observation that Philo believed that the Greeks got their learning from Sinai is also a useless piece of trivia.  Nobody thinks that Philo (or Justin for that matter) was correct in this regard.  

Before moving on to your discussion about the Trinity and deification, you gave me the impression (maybe I am wrong) that all 'objective' scholars recognize that the book of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, and that it reflects the monotheistic tendencies of the later Deuteronomists; whereas ignorant fundamentalist Christians think Moses wrote Deuteronomy, and that Israel was monotheistic all along.  Might I point out to you that the idea that literary strata in the Pentateuch can be distinguished on the basis of different names (e.g. Elohim and Yahweh) is itself passe?  Just to cite a couple of Evangelical scholars here, Raymond B. Dillard (Ph.D., Dropsie) and Tremper Longman (Ph.D., Yale) write in An Introduction to the Old Testament (Leicester: Apollos, 1995):  ''Virtually no one today accepts Wellhausen's idea that in the pages of the Old Testament one could trace a religious evolution from animism to henotheism to monotheism'' (p. 45).  ''Indeed, at the present time traditional source criticism is on the wane in all circles.  The cutting edge scholarship is devoting less and less energy . . . to the question of sources and more and more to the final composition of the Pentateuch and the individual books within it'' (p. 44).  Dillard and Longman point out that scholars are less inclined to chop up the text into various pieces on the basis of source-critical analysis, especially pertaining to the divine names since ''the use of different divine names (particularly Elohim and Yahweh) may result from stylistic practice rather than the use of sources'' (p. 45).  ''Furthermore, the use of multiple names for a god in a single text is reasonably common in extrabiblical Near Eastern texts'' (p. 45).  Does this mean that critical scholars are inclined to go back to the view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?  Of course not.  Rather, the increasing tendency is to respect the unity of the text as literature, and date the whole form of the present text around the time of the exile or later.  But if you are going to use to arguments of critical scholars to support your views, you might as well try to keep up with the current scholarly trends.  

One more quote on the divine names.  This one comes from another Evangelical, K.A. Kitchen (one of the most respected Semitic language specialists in the world):  ''There is really no warrant for attributing any greater significance to YHWH/Elohim as literary markers.  It is generally agreed that YHWH and Elohim . . . are not inherently pure synonyms, and are not always and everywhere used as such, either.  In some passages, it is clear that each term is used because appropriate, not as a free variant.  In such cases, therefore, the term concerned is in character with a given context, and not the mark of a writer; such cases are not evidence of a 'J' or an 'E'.  Furthermore, YHWH and Elohim can be found in the 'wrong' documents, as pointed out long ago.  The supposed consistency between the divine names as markers and other lexical criteria is in large measure the inevitable result of first drawing lines to delimit what is considered proper to 'P' or 'J' or 'E', and then proclaiming the resultant lexical lists as 'characteristic' of this or that source.''  (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 122-23)  Wow.  A scholar with common sense!  

For other good defenses of the Mosaic authorship and textual integrity of the Pentateuch, and especially Deuteronomy, see: J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Gordon Wenham, ''The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism'' Themelios 10/3 (1985): 15-20; 11/1 (1985): 15-18; Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11 (Word Comentary Series, Dallas: Word, 1991), xxii-lxii; and idem with N. Narucki, ''The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch'' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32 (1989): 465-72.  None of this means that Evangelicals are right and liberals (and Mormons who follow them) are wrong.  But there are plenty of qualified scholars on both sides.  Just because James White may not be aware of them doesn't mean they aren't there.  

My brain is starting to get tired, and I badly need some food.  And I am tired of staring at this computer screen.  With regard to the Trinity, the relationship of the Creeds to the Bible, and the notion of deification, I will simply point you to the relevant essays by Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?, and the discussion of these issues by Carl Mosser and myself which can be found in our review of How Wide the Divide? in the next issue of the FARMS Review of Books.  Finally, I will ask you what I have already asked Bill Hamblin.  Does not 1 Nephi 5:11 plainly point to the Mosaic authorship of all five books of the Pentateuch?  And if you want to argue that the version of Deuteronomy which was on Laban's brass plates was not corrupted by the monotheism of the Deuteronomists, then why is it that the Father and the Son (i.e. Elohim and Yahweh) are consistently described as 'one God' in the Book of Mormon?
Sincerely,
Paul


From: "Paul OWEN" <9753633@bute.sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Christian Monotheism vs. Polytheism
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:06:14 +0000

Paul and Carl,

>Bill,
>
>Paul asked me to forward this to you.  Being the computer genius he
>is, Paul has not figured out a way to make his software send an
>e-mail to more than two persons.  BTW, thanks for forwarding those
>last posts to me.
>
>--Carl

Your welcome.  And thanks for the bibliography, which I am snipping.

>Which reading do you think fits best with the general theological
>tendencies of Deuteronomy?  Monotheism or polytheism?  The idea
>that two Gods are to be distinguished here really reflects a
>judgement [sic] about the pre-history of the text.  The monotheistic
>tendencies of Deuteronomy as a piece of literature are uncontested.

That's quite true.  However, a few caveats and questions are in order.  
1.  Was Deuteronomy written by Moses?
There is, of course, a great deal of debate, with essentially circular arguments on both sides.  I believe, given the evidence we have, it cannot be resolved.  My personal view is that it was not.
2.  If it wasn't written by Moses is it therefore not scripture? 
For me, and many LDS Christians, the issue is not authorship, but inspiration.  If Deut. is not Mosaic, it still can be inspired scripture, which I believe it is.
3.  Can you find the Trinity in Deuteronomy? If not, is it therefore not scripture?
I don't think you can find it; I still think it is scripture.
4.  Specifically in regard to Deut 32.
The passage in question, seems quite clear to me, to be a quotation or summary of an early source, or tradition. Verse 7 reads, "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee."  In other words they are recalling, or, as I believe, quoting and earlier source/tradition.  So even if it is found in a book filled with monotheistic theology, this passage may represent an earlier archaic tradition.  Furthermore, the implied multiplicity of elohim in 32:8-9 was obviously found objectionable by someone, or they wouldn't have changed the text.  So, even if Deut. is generally monotheistic, that is not evidence that this passage cannot be seen as evidence for early multi-theistic traditions.  (I will not use the word polytheistic, since that implies Greek or Hindu type pantheons, which is inconsistent with LDS Christian thought.)
5.  Is Deut. monotheism incompatible with LDS theology?
Not at all!
5.1  We are monotheists/henotheists.  We worship only one God.
5.2  LDS Christian understandings of the Godhead, as henothelitic or homothelitic (of one/the same will--I use this term to distinguish LDS though from that of Heraclius' Monothelatism of the early 7th century).  It is not Nicene Trinitarian homoousios, but it is just as monotheistic and consistent a reconciliation of NT Trinitarian (or Binitarian) thought with OT Monotheism as is Nicene Trinitarianism.
5.3  Deut. can be inspired scripture, but not contain the fullness as revealed by Christ. Thus, if Deut. is inerrant scripture in its monotheism, it should be equally inerrant in its legalistic thought.  So, do you believe slavery is a divinely inspired and justified institution?  If not, then perhaps what God was revealing to the ancient Israelites was only a portion of the truth.
5.4  I, like most LDS Christians, believe that a scripture can be inspired without being inerrant. Thus, I accept Deut as inspired.  However, I believe it was revealed at a specific historical place, and time, to a specific people in a specific cultural setting, and in a specific language.  They had limited understanding (as we do), and God spoke to them in a way that would help them come closer to him, given their circumstances.  He did not reveal the fullness to the prophet of Deut.  One of the major problems facing Israel was syncretism with surrounding polytheisms.  God revealed Deut and Isa 40-48 to prevent the complete submersion of Israel's identity with that of the surrounding religions.  It does not mean, however, that those ideas represent a fullness of the doctrines of the godhead or trinity.
5.5  I believe that the "only one God" language found in the OT must be understood within the limited cosmological perspectives of the OT cultures.  For the OT and NT writers, "all things" meant this planet and the visible stars.  They did not know of the exitsence of galaxies beyond ours, or even that the stars were suns.  Thus, for an bibilical writer to proclaim that God created "all things" does not preclude LDS thinking on this matter, than beyond the cosmological sphere of biblical understanding, there are other divine and creative beings who are henotheistically at one with each other, thus forming one Godhead, but are separate beings.  (For that matter, why, if you have a Nicene Trinity, can't you have a Nicene Quandrinity, or Quintinity?  How is Hindu monism incompatible with Nicene monotheism.) [See typo corrections to # 5.5 in Dr. Hamblin's next letter.]

> Finally, I will ask you what I have already asked Bill Hamblin.
>Does not 1 Nephi 5:11 plainly point to the Mosaic authorship of all
>five books of the Pentateuch?  And if you want to argue that the
>version of Deuteronomy which was on Laban's brass plates was not
>corrupted by the monotheism of the Deuteronomists, then why is it
>that the Father and the Son (i.e. Elohim and Yahweh) are
>consistently described as 'one God' in the Book of Mormon?

Nephi's mention of the Books of Moses is not conclusive evidence that the book of Deut. was written by Moses.  As I noted earlier:
1- Nephi may simply be using the standard title for the books.  He may have indeed believed they were all by Moses. But that does not prove Mosaic authorship.  I sometimes speak of Paul's letter to the Hebrews, although I strongly doubt it was really written by Paul.  (Remember, inspiration, not authorship is what is important.)  I believe it was written by a now unknown prophet, and that it is inspired scripture.  It's just not Pauline.
2- Let's assume that Deut. is the book found in the Temple by Josiah's priests.  They, at that time thought it was Mosaic, and therefore included it in the Pentateuch, and presumably added it to the brass/bronze plates.  It thus becomes accepted in Israelite circles as being Mosaic, and is so accepted by Nephi.  Thus, he could believe it was Mosaic and call it Mosaic, and it still might not be Mosaic.  It might be much later.  This is essentially my personal view.
3- As I mentioned earlier, the Books of Moses known by Nephi are not necessarily the same books of Moses now included in the Pentateuch.
4- The texts of the Nephite Books of Moses might differ to a greater or lesser degree from current manuscripts.  After all, if true, the BOM is a textual witness that is half a millennium older than its nearest competitor.
5- I think your view of BOM monotheism is distorted by both your own evangelical presuppositions, and by reading a bit too much in the cultural secular Mormon writings.  But that is another story.

More on some of the other subjects later.

The following paragraph contained a number of tupwz (typos) which I have corrected here:

5.5  I believe that the "only one God" language found in the OT must be understood within the limited cosmological perspectives of the OT cultures.  For the OT and NT writers, "all things" meant this planet and the visible stars.  They did not know of the existence of galaxies beyond ours, or even that the stars were suns.  Thus, for an [*a] bibilical writer to proclaim that God created "all things" does not preclude LDS thinking on this matter, than [*that] beyond the cosmological sphere of biblical understanding, there are other divine and creative beings who are henotheistically [*henotheletically] at one with each other, thus forming one Godhead, but are [*while remaining] separate beings. (For that matter, why, if you have a Nicene Trinity, can't you have a Nicene Quandrinity, or Quintinity?  How is Hindu monism incompatible with Nicene monotheism.)

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

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

Dear James,

I sent you a lengthy letter last week, to which you have not responded.  Did you get the email?  Or should I resend it?

Sincerely,

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

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

At 11:47 AM 4/14/98 -0600, you wrote:

>Dear James,

>I sent you a lengthy letter last week, to which you have not >responded.  Did you get the email?  Or should I resend it?

I have a message that begins as follows in my to-be-answered file:

Dear James (and Paul),

JAMES
It still amazes me that someone could believe Yahweh is someone other than the Most High.  Deut. 32:12 makes it plain.  [BILL: It does?]  But note just a few examples: [Cites: Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; Psalm 9:1; Psalm 21:7]  A verse-by-verse exegesis of Deuteronomy 32 is *completely* disrupted by the insertion of some "other" God into the text, as you suggested on the program.

If this is it, there is no need to resend it.

I don't know what "silent White" means, but given that it seems that everything I am writing to you is ending up on some BYU mailling [sic] list (I have received notes from Midgelely [sic] and Seaich thus far), I get the feeling that it is meant to suggest that I have no response.  Such is hardly the case.  Be that as it may, since it seems this is a public discussion, I would like to make it available on our web page, too.

Currently I am on Long Island, speaking every night for the next 12 evenings, doing one major debate against Jesuit scholar on the Papacy next Tuesday evening, and speaking in local churches the rest of the time.  Hence, while I hope to get to your message while I'm here, there are other pressing concerns as well.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ James White ** Orthopodeo@aomin.org ^
^ Sola Scriptura: A Fundamental Truth ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Mind the excellency of the issue and not the difficulty of the progress."

Obadiah Sedgwick,1640
(from a sermon before Parliament)

Dear James,

I'm glad you got the message.

JAMES
I don't know what "silent White" means, but given that it seems that everything I am writing to you is ending up on some BYU mailling [sic] list (I have received notes from Midgelely [sic] and Seaich thus far), I get the feeling that it is meant to suggest that I have no response.  Such is hardly the case.  Be that as it may, since it seems this is a public discussion, I would like to make it available on our web page, too.

BILL
Some of my friends have asked me about our correspondence, and I forwarded it to them.  It's fine with me if you post it on your web page, as long as:
     1- you do not edit or cut my postings (except to eliminate the typical email duplications), and
     2- you include everything I write.  
In this case, I suppose you can't object if SHIELDS posts the correspondence on their web page too.

JAMES
Currently I am on Long Island, speaking every night for the next 12 evenings, doing one major debate against Jesuit scholar on the Papacy next Tuesday evening, and speaking in local churches the rest of the time.  Hence, while I hope to get to your message while I'm here, there are other pressing concerns as well.

BILL
Feel free to take your time.  I just wanted to make sure that you got the message, and weren't waiting for me to send you something.  I'll look for your response in a couple of weeks.

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

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

That explains why Daniel and Louis are so intent upon writing as well.

Are you an anti-Baptist, too?

James>>>>

>From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
>To: William J. Hamblin <william_hamblin@byu.edu>
>Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 2:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Busy White

>That explains why Daniel and Louis are so intent upon writing as
>well.

>Are you an anti-Baptist, too?

>James>>>>

I love Baptists, it's baptism that I can't stand.