Recently, I was approached by Matt Fradd of Pints with Aquinas to debate Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers. I agreed but told Matt that the topic was too broad for a single debate ("The Reliabilty of the Mormon Scriptures"). However, while pretending to be sympathetic to my concern, Matt still went ahead and tried to arrange a debate on this topic and with only 15 mins to make a positive case for the entirety of the uniquely LDS canon. Matt and his producer are now trying to claim on twitter, youtube, etc., that I backed out without giving the reasons why. This post is to set the record straight.
For context: Jimmy Akin and I had an email exchange back in 2020 trying to arrange a debate with one another on Pints with Aquinas. Again, he wanted me to defend all LDS Scriptures (Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price) in a single debate. He also said he would try to include all his arguments against "Mormon Scriptures" in his opening statement. Again: Gish Gallop. So I ended the exchange. Not much has changed with Akin in 3 years, which is why he is one of the mainstream RC apologists I have no respect for (compare/contrast Trent Horn, his colleague at Catholic Answers, someone who I have grown to respect a lot in the past few years).
Anyway, to show that neither Fradd or his producer are the honest actors they portray themselves to be to Latter-day Saints, and to ensure that any claims I "chickened out" of a debate are quashed, here are the PDFs of the exchanges one has had with them: (*)
(1) Initial email exchange in late 2020
Exchange with Matt Fradd August 20, 2023 (I raised the issue of a specific topic
to avoid a gish gallop, which Jimmy obviously wanted to do back in 2020—he pretended
to understand my concern)
.png)
.png)
Exchange with Jimmy Akin and Matt’s producer August 21, 2023 (notice the super
short opening statement to make a positive case for the entirety of the LDS
canon; ask yourself: would Jimmy appear on an atheist podcast to defend the entirety
of the Catholic canon in a single debate with only 15 mins to make a
positive case? Anyone who suggests such a topic and structure and/or expects their opponent to uncritically agree to it is not an honest actor. Also, note that Matt Fradd cc'd Jimmy in the exchange above, so he knew about my worries about a potential gish gallop. He clearly wanted that to happen, he was hoping to back in 2020) update: I have removed/delete this as
Matt (and his producer) have been sharing this tweet in a few venues. Compare the actual email exchanges in 2020 and now in 2023 and ask yourself: why are they not being honest as to why I am refusing to engage in a debate. They do not look good if they are honest and admit that I will not agree to allow one of their friends to engage in a Young Earth Creationist-like "gish gallop" and, in spite of Fradd trying to portray himself as an honest actor, the reality is that he just was hoping to embarrass a Latter-day Saint "live" on his show (click to enlarge):
(*) Please do not email or harass Akin et al. I am only making the exchanges available en toto so one can make their own judgment and defend my character against the deception of Matt Fradd and his producer. I would have loved back in 2020, and even now, to defend in a single debate, say, the Book of Abraham or something else specific (as debates should be on specific issues), such as "Did Joseph Smith make false prophecies?" Or "Is there meaningful evidence to support the Book of Mormon as a translation of an ancient text?" or the like. Fradd's show is still recommended, as many of his guests produce great material (e.g., John Bergsma), even if Fradd and his producer themselves are pretty dishonest actors when it comes to non-Catholic traditions.
Update: Because Matt Fraud and his low IQ producer "Thursday" has been lying about me, here are the PDFs of the exchanges we had.
It proves:
(*) I agreed to debate Jimmy Akin on the Book of Abraham in 2020, but he refused; he wanted to debate the entirety of the LDS canon, showing he always wanted to gish gallop
(*) I agreed to debate Akin again in 2023, and Matt agreed it would be a good idea to focus on a particular topic
(*) Matt lied, and Jimmy still wanted to gish gallop
(*) As proof that Akin is a disingenuous prick and a liar, note he only engages in debates on very specific topics, such as the referent of "rock" in Matt 16 (using Jimmy speak: "but the audience would wonder why we are not debating the entirety of the Vatican 1 dogmas!!!!!) or whether Jesus was born of a virgin ("but why not the entirety of the infancy narratives!!!!"). It only shows most Roman apologists do not care about facts or honesty; they just want to keep earning the $, as Roman apologetics is a lucrative grift, something Akin et al have been enjoying for years now.
