Whites closes the foreword to the book, "The primary thrust of this work is to 'fill in' where many other works do not- that being to provide a theological response to the LDS Church". White does not mean by what he call "a theological response", therefore it is left to the reader to assume that White (as a MA degreed Theologian himself) uses the term by its strict definition, that being a response based on the Science of Theology. Sadly, this is not the case. I had hoped to see a technically correct work outlining theological problems with the Mormon Church, but rather endured what could only be described as a diatribe against another faith. For instance, in the first chapter "What is Truth", White never addresses the question in anything but a brief (3 lines) ramble about truth not being subjective. His point in this chapter was don't pray to God about the Mormon Church. Not only does this not have anything to do with the stated topic, White commits many logical fallacies to establish this thesis, the primary one being that Mormons trust in their own subjective feelings rather than the objective 'truth' found in the Bible. After quoting a Mormon Missionary testimony 'of the Holy Ghost', White ignores the statement and creates a straw man argument against trusting in ones feelings, an assumption White does not establish. He then goes on to create several more false arguments of analogy (comparing a revealed religion such as Mormonism would be) to a religion based upon the intellectual understanding of the Bible (such as Jehovah's Witness', Islam, atheism, and ironically his own religious beliefs). Aside from the countless technically logical errors found throughout the work, White's use of emotive language in what he termed a "theological" response is reprehensible. For instance, in the opening lines of the first Chapter White creates several amphibolic statements suggesting either; the missionaries had to leave because it was late, they were to busy to meet with him, and they had a professional interest in an investigators questions; or, the missionaries left because the investigators questions where to difficult to answer, they didn't want to meet him because he shook their faith, and what interest he did stir within them was destructive to their faith and the did not want to meet him. The context clearly implies the latter interpretation. This type of emotive language was rampant throughout the book. The low point of the Book occurred when White accused Mormon parents of teaching their children to deny truth, "Truth exists, and we are responsible for how we relate to that truth. If we deny the truth, even if we have been taught from childhood on up to do so. . .". To accuse an entire segment of our society of teaching their children to deny truth, especially without providing an substantive argument to establish this thesis, is a serious lapse in responsible writing. The use of such emotive language is the reason I gave it a 3 rather than a 1, (it is instructive of how the use of emotive inflammatory comments can change the meaning of a passage), or a 5, (White consistently uses misleading Chapter titles, false arguments, and in many cases, as I've exampled, misleading statements making the work little more than 'yellow theology'.