Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think, after the distracting Buffalo static and Scratch's weirdly hysterical caterwauling, that I'll start this thread up again, afresh:

Every once in a while, I put together a testimony for an exceptionally prominent deceased LDS scholar and post it on "Mormon Scholars Testify." This one seems particularly relevant to the claim, advanced by some critics, that Mormon history has been systematically falsified, and that the real truth about the subject can only be had from those opposed to Mormonism:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/l ... -arrington

Kenneth Godfrey's recent entry is also apropos here:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2593/kenneth-w-godfrey[/quote]

As are several others, including

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2065/steven-c-harper

and

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1477/gordon-a-madsen

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dan,

Who gave you permission to post Arrington's testimony?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who gave you permission to post Arrington's testimony?

It's a relatively brief quotation from a published book, Scratch.

Have you ever asked my permission to quote me?

Are you going to go Joseph on us?

[_The Nehor]

Take this down immediately. My God. How horrifying.

So quoting someone in context without commentary is horrifying? What does that make your unauthorized cut-and-paste smear-job dossiers? The work of Satan?

[_Aristotle Smith]

I'm going to have to agree with Scratch on this one. A testimony should be that, a testimony that a person wrote for this purpose and/or gave their permission to be used for this purpose. I already thought Truman Madsen's was in poor taste, but his widow's permission gave you enough of a fig leaf that I didn't complain. I don't even see that for Arrington's "testimony." I scare quote testimony because it's not clear he was giving it for this purpose, thus I don't know how it can be considered to be one.

[Guest]

Not surprisingly, I agree with the good Doctor Scratch on this one. Writing "testimonies" for deceased individuals seems a bit lame (and creepy).

If you want to write a "faith promoting" biography of the man (even a short one), fine.

A tribute to an individual would be fine as well (so long as it is identified as such, and if quotations are used from the deceased individual's recorded speeches or writings, it is done with proper attribution).

However, writing a posthumous "testimony" makes about as much sense (and is about a honest) as writing a posthumous speech for the man.
______

"Brothers and Sisters, we extend to you a a warm welcome to our fast and testimony meeting this afternoon. Before we begin, Bro. Peterson wishes to read a testimony he wrote for the late Bro. Jones."
_____________

Yep. What you have done is just that inappropriate. (And did I mention creepy?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not surprisingly, I agree with the good Doctor Scratch on this one.

Not surprisingly.

Writing "testimonies" for deceased individuals seems a bit lame (and creepy).

I wrote no testimony for Professor Arrington. I quoted what he wrote.

I also note that your introduction was only slightly shorter than the "testimony" itself.

I wrote no introduction for Professor Arrington. I wrote a biographical sketch for him, which follows his entry.

If you want to write a "faith promoting" biography of the man (even a short one), fine.

A tribute to an individual (so long as it is identified as such and uses quotations from the deceased individual's recorded speeches or writings if appropriate and with attribution), would be fine as well.

However, writing a posthumous "testimony" makes about as much sense (and is about a honest) as writing a posthumous speech for the man.
______

"Brothers and Sisters, we extend to you a a warm welcome to our fast and testimony meeting this afternoon. Before we begin, Bro. Peterson wishes to read a testimony he wrote for the late Bro. Jones."
_____________

Yep. What you have done is just that inappropriate. (And did I mention creepy?)

What on earth are you talking about?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm going to have to agree with Scratch on this one. A testimony should be that, a testimony that a person wrote for this purpose and/or gave their permission to be used for this purpose.

So what people write and publish may not be quoted elsewhere?

A remarkable principle.

Don't quote me on that.

[_just me]

I'm going to have to agree with Scratch on this one. A testimony should be that, a testimony that a person wrote for this purpose and/or gave their permission to be used for this purpose. I already thought Truman Madsen's was in poor taste, but his widow's permission gave you enough of a fig leaf that I didn't complain. I don't even see that for Arrington's "testimony." I scare quote testimony because it's not clear he was giving it for this purpose, thus I don't know how it can be considered to be one.

This.

[_Morley]

Daniel, I doubt you'd see this entry as ethical in a academic setting. How can you justify it on site that is supposed to appeal to intellectuals?