From: James White
To: Gary Novak
Subject: Re: Greetings/Questions
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 6:11 PM

At 06:04 PM 10/16/98 -0700, you wrote:

>How nice that someone finally pointed you my way. I
>have watched with interest your correspondence with
>Drs. Peterson, Hamblin and Midgley and Stan Barker
>and perhaps others. So I know a little bit about you.
>I am associated with a little listserv with which you
>may be familiar. It goes by the name of SKINNY.

Yes. It seems to be the "inside BYU" list.

>Why would I need to question you about your
>credentials via email?

I think the terms "fairness," "honesty," and "integrity" have *something* to do with it, Mr. Novak.

>You have it all there on you webpage.

No, I don't, actually. I wonder Mr. Novak: if I wrote something about FARMS based *solely* on their web page, might you consider that a little less than thorough?

>And why would it be "unthinkable" to
>respond to your webpage without contacting you?

Generally, most folks take the time to make sure of their facts before attacking someone's work, that's all. Again, possibly I follow a code of behavior that is old and passe? I mean, my e-mail address was well known to you. It would have been fairly easy, if, of course, you wanted the "whole story."

>looks like more of the kind of accusations you leveled
>at Ara Norwood on your website ("A Study in FARMS
>Behavior" I think it is called).

No, not really. Mr. Norwood did contact us---"under cover" and in a dishonest fashion, but at least he contacted us.

>If I may be permitted to
>speculate where speculation is clearly uncalled for, I
>suppose I will now be hearing how my manners are bad.

Speculate as you wish: your actions speak to the issue of motivation, and honesty. Your lack of research will, of course, figure in a response to your personal ad-hominem attack upon me. While some could care less, the honest person, who really does want to know both sides, will take your lack of concern to "get it right" to heart.

>Please let us now hear about how everything is a
>personal cheap shot directed at you.

Well, if you wish to identify your writings in that way, I won't stop you.

>What I am claiming
>on my website is quite simple--your degree was granted
>from an institution that is not quite up to snuff. Good
>luck in your response.

Why thank you. I will make it clear that those who judge merely by institution (rather than accomplishment) are operating on an illogical standard.

>Feel free to peruse your vast collection of FARMS
>find hide nor hair of me. I have to admit that I find
>your career as an anti-Mormon to be somewhat less
>than interesting and I am unlikely to ever say a word
>about you in print. There are a few sections of your
>website, however, that may find their way to the

Well, your accuracy in speaking of my "career as an anti-Mormon" is about as accurate as your reporting of facts and your consideration of the truth, Mr. Novak. But, I get the feeling, in light of Novak's Rule of Anti-Mormonism, that you really are not interested in fairly evaluating my work.

>Speaking of the "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web," I
>often highlight more than one site at a time. If you
>had been but two weeks earlier, you could have seen
>the page with the CES stuff exclusively. So please
>do not think that I am attempting to associate you
>with that other dreadful anti-Mormon site.

I.e., you will not clarify your unclear writings. OK, that's fine.

>You may now attack me.

For someone who puts up a website such as yours, your response is truly incredible.

Please note the elements of my post to you that you ignored/failed to respond to:

>>Before then, would you be so kind, please, as to
>>list for me 1) which of my books you have read and own, 2) which of my
>>debates you have listened to or watched,

I take it from this that, in fact, you have not read *any* of my books, even my books on Mormonism?

>>and 3) which of my published
>>articles you have read.

I take it from this that, in fact, you have not read *any* of my published articles, either?

>>And, could you forward to me any meaningful
>>rebuttal/interaction you have written to any of these materials?

I take it from this that you have not, in fact, reviewed, refuted, or interacted with, *any* of my books, articles, or tapes?

If I do not hear back from you, I will assume that this is the case.

^ Sola Scriptura: A Fundamental Truth ^
^ James White, Th.D. * ^
(Acts 20:24) But I do not consider my life of any account
as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the
ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify
solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

Recte Ambulamus ad Veritatem Evangelii

Web page:

Back Next