Mormonism and the Trinity

[LifeOnaPlate]

White as fair, balanced, respectful in regards to Mormonism?

I disagree.

[Daniel Peterson]

(1) assumes a false premise.

Okay. He's not a hero of yours. You simply admire him and recommend that we listen to him and read him.

Whatever. A side issue.

(2) assumes an inability on your part of which I remain unconvinced.

Oh, not an inability. An unwillingness. I reverence very few people. Mr. White is very unlikely ever to be among them.

But again, this is a marginal side issue.

You think my brief allusion to Mr. White's degree(s) was a serious insult that revealed me to be, at least in the act of leveling it, a jerk, and that it points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons.

I say it was a none-too-serious passing jibe, particularly in view of the long history of Mr. White's negative treatment of me, and that you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons.

What, in the above, misreads you?

[cksalmon]

White as fair, balanced, respectful in regards to Mormonism?

I disagree.

Now, Blair, note two things here: (1) I don't deny them import of your question, sans further possible qualification. (2) But, secondly, note that you are not quoting anything I've written here.

cks

[jwhitlock]

(2) But, secondly, note that you are not quoting anything I've written here.

This is the kind of tap dancing that you've tuned, over the years, to a fine art, CK. Let's quote you again:

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful. Enjoy!

I suspect that because you didn't mention "Mormonism" specifically in your claim about White, you are thus feeling free to make a blanket denial of any implications we may draw from your broad statement.

However, I also suspect that "based on significant past experiences" wasn't meant to only refer narrowly to White's interaction with Islam. To accuse LoaP of not quoting you just isn't plausible.

You can, of course, clarify your true feelings towards White. Until you do so, however, we are left with the uncomfortable feeling that your rather clear endorsement of White in your previous posts means that you do really admire what he writes and how he portrays Mormonism.

[Greg Smith]

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful.

Now, Blair, note two things here: (1) I don't deny them import of your question, sans further possible qualification. (2) But, secondly, note that you are not quoting anything I've written here.

Ok, so, James White is measured, balanced, and respectful when discussing Islam on webcasts, but not when discussing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in print? That would seem to be the only way to reconcile these two claims, if you're not claiming what Blair understood you to be claiming.

Possible, I suppose. But, given how I've seen Catholics react to what they regard as misrepresentation of their faith and beliefs by White (sentiments which have matched my own reaction to how he treats mine) I doubt it. And, why does Islam (assuredly not a Christian faith) get off easier than we do?

I wonder if White thinks Islam worships "a different god" than him?

I wonder if he would refuse to pray with a Muslim?

I stand amazed that anyone would refuse to pray with or beside anyone who asked me to pray with them. I don't care how they understand God. I'd consider it an honor and privilege. But not James. At least not with Mormons (he wrote a whole book to explain why, after all).

Anyway, I like White's take on Islam-related issues on his website:

Such rhetoric [from Obama] truly makes you wonder about the pre-election talk about Obama's Muslim heritage, it is so wildly out of balance with the truth. The level of understanding of the actual theology of Islam and its relationship to Sharia and practice demonstrated by the large majority of those in positions of governmental authority is truly alarming. [i like the glancing nod to the conspiracy theorist wing about Obama being some kind of "stealth," "fifth column" Muslim....the Meccan candidate, one assumes.]

He also has a bit on someone trying to argue the earth is flat from the Qu'ran, and complains there's no "internal corrective mechanism" for this:

There are obviously many, many Muslims who are fully aware of the reality of the modern world and who will only shake their heads at the idea of someone defending a flat earth on the basis of the Qur'an. Were there not Christians who did the same? But here is the question: given the over-arching legal power of Sharia, what internal corrective mechanism is there in Islam to allow the refutation of these kinds of people who refuse to read the Qur'an in any other way than as it was read by the first generations of Muslims? That is something to ponder when one speaks of "moderate" Islam.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=11

The fact that both of these people are Muslims, and that they are arguing for different sides of the issue would seem to me to be ample proof of just how it might be managed. I'm not an expert in Muslim theology, but I would say the scientific renaissance in the world of Islam showed that Muslims are perfectly capable of doing this, and doing it better than the Christian west did it, for a time. Dan can correct my foolishness, if such it be.

But, coming from a conservative protestant, biblical inerrantist, the whole complaint is pretty funny, considering that many scientists would be equally bemused at the fundamentalist disbelief in, say, common descent or an ancient (>10,000 year old) earth, and ask what kind of internal corrective Rev. Billy Bob's Church of Last Thursdayism has in Christianity. The answer--nothing, save other Christians, just like in Islam, which hardly strikes me as monolithic either.

But, Dan can correct me if there are fundamental differences I'm not grasping.

In short, though, it seems to me that White is not a particularly rigorous or nuanced thinker on these issues. He might even make me doubt the existence of "moderate" Christianity, if I didn't know better.

Greg

[cksalmon]

Okay. He's not a hero of yours. You simply admire him and recommend that we listen to him and read him.

Whatever. A side issue.

Oh, not an inability. An unwillingness. I reverence very few people. Mr. White is very unlikely ever to be among them.

But again, this is a marginal side issue.

You think my brief allusion to Mr. White's degree(s) was a serious insult that revealed me to be, at least in the act of leveling it, a jerk, and that it points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons.

I say it was a none-too-serious passing jibe, particularly in view of the long history of Mr. White's negative treatment of me, and that you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons.

What, in the above, misreads you?

Brief? Passing? On this thread? Sure. But, no, it's actually the typical response of yours, Dr. P.: usually it's merely "Dr. Dr." rather than "Dr. Dr. Dr."

It's not a side issue, by the way.

Otherwise: Yes, man, for the love of Allah: Yes. Thank you. I do admire him and recommend that you listen to him and read him. As I also recommend Calvin, though he would have driven my ilk out of Geneva at the point of death; and recommend Luther, though he expressed, in his later years, anti-Semitic sentiments and who held a view of communion that I find plainly incorrect; and recommend Pastor Mark Driscoll, though I find some of his views to lean toward utter worldliness; and recommend John Piper, though I personally own a TV; and recommend, as I have on more than one occasion, Robertson's Mormon Doctrine of Deity, thought I am not a Mormon and disagree vehemently with his arguments in support of his position.

Yes. And, again, yes!

"and that it points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons."

No, I didn't say that. I was and remain specifically offended by your juvenile taunts against White. It doesn't become you. You won't convince me personally that you are personally justified in your taunting because you perceive White to have been derogatory toward you. Whatever is non-Christ-honoring in any of your exchanges, I denounce. I have taken part in them, I'm sure. But, my conscience is, fortunately, larger than my own behavior. Or, yours. Or, White's.

"and that you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons."

Almost without qualification, I reject your intimation here. I have heard White, on numerous occasions, talk about how utterly dejected and disappointed he was when GC became overrun with loathsome street screechers, who failed to dress in shirt and tie for GC in SLC (of all things), and who equated the proclamation of the Gospel with offending GC-attending Mormons. Did you know that White actually confronted some of those ubiquitous screechers and asked them to tell him the name of their church overseers? He was so offended by their antics that he wanted to confront their pastors and denounce them. They responded that their only authority was Jesus Christ.

Now, what I find interesting in all this, is that White specifically mentions no longer attending SLC GC (and he hasn't for a long several years), in part, because the more recent crop of screechers, dressed in jeans and t-shirts, yell out offensive language about the Mormon church, wave ugly signs, and consider themselves above local church oversight. In other words, he has stopped going to GC because he doesn't wish to be associated with casually dressed, offensive, sign-waving, antinomian anti-Mormons. In his words, "they've completely ruined it."

So, you won't find White there in SLC anymore. And, you say that White invariably treats Mormons negatively. I disagree. Now, you didn't listen to it, as you're writing, but tonight's White-Ali dialogue ended in mutual respect and the gifting of books between the participants. Check it out if you get the chance.

cks

[cksalmon]

This is the kind of tap dancing that you've tuned, over the years, to a fine art, CK. Let's quote you again:

As you like, j.

To accuse LoaP of not quoting you just isn't plausible.

It's not just "plausible," jwhitlock, but antecedently, in fact, necessary.

You can, of course, clarify your true feelings towards White. Until you do so, however, we are left with the uncomfortable feeling that your rather clear endorsement of White in your previous posts means that you do really admire what he writes and how he portrays Mormonism.

I hope to have done.

Best.

cks

[Greg Smith]

Now, what I find interesting in all this, is that White specifically mentions no longer attending SLC GC (and he hasn't for a long several years), in part, because the more recent crop of screechers, dressed in jeans and t-shirts, yell out offensive language about the Mormon church, wave ugly signs, and consider themselves above local church oversight. In other words, he has stopped going to GC because he doesn't wish to be associated with casually dressed, offensive, sign-waving, antinomian anti-Mormons. In his words, "they've completely ruined it."

So, you won't find White there in SLC anymore. And, you say that White invariably treats Mormons negatively. I disagree. Now, you didn't listen to it, as you're writing, but tonight's White-Ali dialogue ended in mutual respect and the gifting of books between the participants. Check it out if you get the chance.

No one said he treats Mormons invariably negatively. We said that, there are extensive examples of his treatment not being moderate, not balanced, and not fair--unlike your implied claim.

So the street screechers "ruined" General Conference, so we have only THEIR version of anti-Mormonism, rather than theirs and White's, where he carries LDS books to 'show us' and 'tell us' what we "really" teach and believe? Not much of a loss.

It may surprise White but we don't have GC for polite or rude anti-Mormons. So, it's only been "ruined" for other anti-Mormons, not for the people holding it. I quite like the street screechers--in the same way that I like Nazis for discrediting the anti-Semitism instinct generally. :-)

So, I'm sure James doesn't like it--because it makes anti-Mormons look bad. I am not surprised he doesn't like how it looks, and doesn't want to be associated with them. But, James rhetorically waves his own signs and slogans at us all the time: "Non christian!" "Different God!" "I wouldn't pray with them" all the same--it's just more rhetorically sophisticated. A spoonful of sugar and a veneer of scholarly sophistication helps the medicine go down.

And so the partisan or the naive will be less aware of what's going on--but, it's the same sort of thing all the same.

Besides, why the emphasis on local church governance? What authority or superior claim can one member of "the priesthood of all believers" claim over someone else anyway? (This is an honest question--I dont' see how jurisdiction can be anything but arbitrary.) Why is White's claim to supervision or authority in any way superior to the street screechers? It seems to me that he can't have his cake and eat it too on this issue.

Why is "Dr. Dr. Dr." so bad, anyway? Maybe I don't know the story. I thought White claimed to have two (or is it three?) doctoral-level degrees? And weren't at least some of these mail order or non-accredited? And didn't White use the title "Dr." because of said degrees, and didn't he list said degrees on his CV?

Perhaps I've misunderstood the story, but didn't he obtain the degrees and use them to publicize himself and his work? So, why is it the height of unChristian behavior to point out that this pretension is hollow?

Or am I thinking of someone else? (As I said, this trait of silly or bogus degrees is so common in Protestant anti-Mormons that I admit to not being able to keep them straight. I checked White's wikipedia page, and it had nothing.) So maybe I have it confused. Is there a source? Personally, I think a degree is meaningless for preaching the gospel, so I don't undestand the anti-Mormon protestant obsession with them.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I hope to have done.

Best.

cks

Actually, I'm still not clear. On balance, do you think White is fair, moderate, and balanced when he writes about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or not?

Greg, feeling confused.

[Markk]

The Z-man has it exactly right.

Which is honestly not really much to his credit, since it's pretty simple. :-)

But he said it very well.

Greg

Hi Greg,

The word "church" has more than one definition or meaning....[snip]

Again, bearing in mind the different definitions of "church" given above, there is only one true denominational church, among many, which is the LDS Church; and there is also only on true non-denominational church, which stands in contrast to only one church of the devil, which is also non-denominational

The LDS church teaches that the church of the Devil is the evil and worldly organizations that pervert the pure and perfect gospel of Jesus, and fights against the Lamb of God. So if other church's teach creeds that are abominations before God, as the POGP teaches, then by the LDS church's definition all other church's are the church of the Devil.

This is what the church teaches the Church of the Devil is.

Mark

John 1:12

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Greg,

The LDS church teaches that the church of the Devil is the evil and worldly organizations that pervert the pure and perfect gospel of Jesus, and fights against the Lamb of God. So if other church's teach creeds that are abominations before God, as the POGP teaches, then by the LDS church's definition all other church's are the church of the Devil.

This is what the church teaches the Church of the Devil is.

Mark

John 1:12

Thank the gods that we have Markk here to tell us what the Church teaches.

[cksalmon]

No one said he treats Mormons invariably negatively.

Dr. P wrote: "you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons."

How, then, would you suppose Dr. Peterson believes Mr. White to "[invariably treat] Mormons," if not negatively?

Does Dr. Peterson perhaps mean, on your understanding, that White "invariably" treats Mormons positively? Fairly? Without rancor? With respect? With due diligence? With an open mind? With contempt? Without contempt? Honestly? Horribly? Nicely?

In what specific manner, on your understanding, does Dr. Peterson believe that "Mr. White 'invariably' treats Mormons?"

I think if you asked him personally, he might answer: "negatively." Just a hunch. I would definitely be interested in an opposing answer.

Best.

cks

[Greg Smith]

How, then, would you suppose Dr. Peterson believes Mr. White to "[invariably treat] Mormons," if not negatively?

Does Dr. Peterson perhaps mean, on your understanding, that White "invariably" treats Mormons positively? Fairly? Without rancor? With respect? With due diligence? With an open mind? With contempt? Without contempt? Honestly? Horribly? Nicely?

In what specific manner, on your understanding, does Dr. Peterson believe that "Mr. White 'invariably' treats Mormons?"

I think if you asked him personally, he might answer: "negatively." Just a hunch. I would definitely be interested in an opposing answer.

I'll let him speak for himself.

I understood him to mean, "By misrepresenting our faith, and spending his time attacking it rather than articulating his own." I've yet to see Dan write a treatise on "101 ways in which Evangelical theology is wrong and unchristian." I've searched in vain for his website attacking JWs, Evangelicals, Muslims, and Catholics.

One can be very pleasant to someone while misrepresenting and attacking another faith (while White isn't always that), but still be doing it. He's a cut above the Tanners or Ed Deckers of the world in tone--but the content is essentially the same.

(See, for example where he repeats the same tired arguments about Book of Mormon changes. As noted in footnote #43 of this article, he is in "good" company with other anti-Mormon authors. Its the same old tune, with the player piano being a little less far out of whack. Slightly less grating, but equally tedious.)

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?rev...um=1&id=130

Again, you haven't answered my question. Do YOU think White generally treats the LDS moderately, with balance, and respectfully? I'm still hazy on your view.

Greg

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Greg,

The LDS church teaches that the church of the Devil is the evil and worldly organizations that pervert the pure and perfect gospel of Jesus, and fights against the Lamb of God. So if other church's teach creeds that are abominations before God, as the POGP teaches, then by the LDS church's definition all other church's are the church of the Devil.

This is what the church teaches the Church of the Devil is.

Mark

John 1:12

And what church is that exactly? I seem to have missed were Nephi or the Church of Jesus Christ said the Catholics or the Baptists.

AS Greg and others have plainly pointed out the churches today or a victim of the "church of the devil". I guess you missed that post?

[Greg Smith]

Thank the gods that we have Markk here to tell us what the Church teaches.

Just remember they are different gods.

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now, Blair, note two things here: (1) I don't deny them import of your question, sans further possible qualification. (2) But, secondly, note that you are not quoting anything I've written here.

cks

OK, let me be more specific and "measured," if you will. I was taking your statement as an implication of White's general approach to religion, not specifically to Islam. So to clarify:

Do you believe White's interaction with Mormonism is generally forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful?

[Greg Smith]

How, then, would you suppose Dr. Peterson believes Mr. White to "[invariably treat] Mormons," if not negatively?

In what specific manner, on your understanding, does Dr. Peterson believe that "Mr. White 'invariably' treats Mormons?"

I notice you call him "Mr. White." Does this mean he has NO doctoral degrees? He's listed as "Dr." on the website.

Dang. Now this "Dr. Dr. Dr." thing is going to nag me. What's the story there? The suspense is killing me.

Greg

[Joseph Antley]

I notice you call him "Mr. White." Does this mean he has NO doctoral degrees? He's listed as "Dr." on the website.

Dang. Now this "Dr. Dr. Dr." thing is going to nag me. What's the story there? The suspense is killing me.

Greg

According to his website, he has the following degrees:

B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.

M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989

Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995

Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998

D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

Apparently his two "doctoral" degrees are from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, which is an unaccredited institution. He has what they call a doctorate, but it's not a real doctorate.

[noel00]

Dan, I am reading a book Kierkegaard : An Introduction by C Stephen Evans. A good read. He like Alain De Botton makes philosophy interesting. I understand he spoke at one of your Society's meetings. Was anything published of what he spoke on? Kierkegaard along with a number of other famous writers suffered from depression and used creativity to help get through it. The book Solitude by a British psychiatrist whose name I can't recall now, said a lot of creative people were loners like Gibbons for example.

[Greg Smith]

According to his website, he has the following degrees:

B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.

M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989

Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995

Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998

D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

Apparently his two "doctoral" degrees are from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, which is an unaccredited institution. He has what they call a doctorate, but it's not a real doctorate.

So....since he claims these degrees, since he uses the title "Dr."--he's claiming they mean something, isn't he? He's using them--presumably--to enhance his stature, his intellectual authority, etc.

So, why is calling him "Dr. Dr." a horrible bit of mockery? They aren't really degrees. They don't mean what "Dr." means in our culture. CKS doesn't call him "Dr.," so I assume he agrees with that?

So, why is real-Dr. Peterson so cruel here? White obviously isn't ashamed of the titles--he's still using them (OK, one of them) on the website.

I had colleagues in school that were working on their third doctorate. We called THEM "Dr. Dr. Dr.," sometimes and they weren't offended. It was a tongue-in-cheek compliment. (One was from India and had been nursed until age five, so we regarded this as the biomedical reason for high intelligence--or refusal to finally leave the teat of the academy and enter the real world.) Of course, those were all real degrees from accredited schools....

It strikes me as more funny than anything--that White is so insecure as to think he needs unaccredited degrees to bolster his image or whatever--and that he uses such degrees to identify himself--when unaccredited degrees just make a person look more desperate and more of a "wanna-be" than anything else.

Heck, now _I'm_ tempted to call him "Dr. Dr." If I need to repent, help me see why.

Dr (an accredited one, but not a 'real' one, since it isn't a PhD) Greg

[Greg Smith]

Dan, I am reading a book Kierkegaard : An Introduction by C Stephen Evans. A good read. He like Alain De Botton makes philosophy interesting. I understand he spoke at one of your Society's meetings. Was anything published of what he spoke on? Kierkegaard along with a number of other famous writers suffered from depression and used creativity to help get through it. The book Solitude by a British psychiatrist whose name I can't recall now, said a lot of creative people were loners like Gibbons for example.

Totally off topic, but if you're interested in the historical experience of depression, as well as an articulate portrait from "the inside" you should really try:

Jeffrey Smith, Where the Roots Reach for Water: a personal and natural history of melancholia (New York: North Point Press, 1999) - ISBN 086547592X.

Only frustrating part is a brief section on homeopathy, but that is quickly passed. :-)

[Daniel Peterson]

Brief? Passing? On this thread? Sure. But, no, it's actually the typical response of yours, Dr. P.: usually it's merely "Dr. Dr." rather than "Dr. Dr. Dr."

And an unspeakably vicious thing it is, too!

The man claims to have two doctorates, so I sometimes call him "Dr. Dr."

Horrible! Scandalous! Evil beyond human utterance!

I've heard rumors of his seeking a third doctorate, which, some say, he may already have in hand.

So here, within hours or at most days, I pulled out all the stops and referred to him as "Dr. Dr. Dr.."!

The ground shook at this abomination, the stock market plummeted, granite boulders cracked, dogs howled, thunder roared, women fainted, and little children wept and clutched their mothers' skirts, but, monster of wickedness that I am, I did it anyway. I care nothing for humanity. My name is Skeletor.

You think it was a serious insult that . . . points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons.

No, I didn't say that.

Oh, but yes you did:

As God is my witness, I can honestly say that I have learned to attempt to read Mormon works fairly, to consciously refrain from derogating Mormon authors for any merely human reason, and to read their words in the most charitable way possible, integrating my own poor understanding of their worldview, before passing judgment.

"My suspicion is that anyone who refers to someone derogatorily as "Dr. Dr. Dr. White" [that, of course, would be me, Peterson Skeletor] is not doing likewise.

Incidentally, I take it that you believe such descriptors as "your juvenile taunts" and "your taunting" and "jerk" to be infinitely more civil and respectful than alluding to Mr. White's claimed two doctorates by calling him "Dr. Dr.," or alluding to Mr. White's possibly three claimed doctorates by referring to him as "Dr. Dr. Dr." And I'm sure that you must be entirely right, though I confess that I can't quite grasp the rationale behind your judgment.

I have heard White, on numerous occasions, talk about how utterly dejected and disappointed he was when GC became overrun with loathsome street screechers, who failed to dress in shirt and tie for GC in SLC (of all things), and who equated the proclamation of the Gospel with offending GC-attending Mormons. Did you know that White actually confronted some of those ubiquitous screechers and asked them to tell him the name of their church overseers? He was so offended by their antics that he wanted to confront their pastors and denounce them. They responded that their only authority was Jesus Christ.

I'm aware of his attitude toward the street screechers, and commend him for it. (I don't believe him to be wholly evil.) They offended Latter-day Saints, of course, but they also made operations like his own look bad by association. He was right to be upset, and probably right to take his protest and leave.

And, you say that White invariably treats Mormons negatively. I disagree. Now, you didn't listen to it, as you're writing, but tonight's White-Ali dialogue ended in mutual respect and the gifting of books between the participants.

He can be personally civil. I've debated him face to face. He wasn't rude. Not very, anyway. But he is not respectful toward other faiths. (He's certainly not respectful toward mine.) And that's because he genuinely doesn't respect them. I've watched him for too long to be fooled on that score.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I am reading a book Kierkegaard : An Introduction by C Stephen Evans. A good read. He like Alain De Botton makes philosophy interesting. I understand he spoke at one of your Society's meetings. Was anything published of what he spoke on?

I own and have read various things by C. Stephen Evans, and admire him, but, off the top of my head, I can't recall his speaking at one of our gatherings. I'll have to check. Perhaps I was absent. I would certainly enjoy having him as a speaker.

Kierkegaard along with a number of other famous writers suffered from depression and used creativity to help get through it. The book Solitude by a British psychiatrist whose name I can't recall now, said a lot of creative people were loners like Gibbons for example.

Writing is, by nature, a solitary pursuit. Overly gregarious people don't write much. (This message board is killing me.)

And, of course, the line between genius and madness is famously thin, and, sometimes, I'm not sure that there's a division at all.

I tried to get out to visit the grave of Kierkegaard in Copenhagen a couple of years ago. But it's a long way out from the harbor and city center where I stay. I was surprised that the taxi driver had never heard of him. Oh well. I gave it up for another, future, trip.

[Joseph Antley]

My name is Skeletor.

[Calm]

What's the story there? The suspense is killing me.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james.htm

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james2.htm

And

http://www.shields-research.org/Phony_degrees.htm