Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Doctor Scratch]

You went back in an edited the entry, Dan. Did you not? And these edits were done to help clarify the fact that you were lifting materials out of one of Arrington's old books. You added quotation marks around the whole text and you inserted a reference at the end of the actual testimony, so that it now looks more like the other post-mortem testimonies on the site. It didn't look that way at first.

Regardless, I can see that you've decided to dig in your heels on the issue of whether or not it would be best to check with Arrington's loved ones about including the entry. The fact of the matter is that you did this for Madsen and Nibley, and your failure to do so with Arrington (and Eyring, for that matter) has and will continue to raise problematic questions about your intentions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You went back in an edited the entry, Dan. Did you not?

I did.

And these edits were done to help clarify the fact that you were lifting materials out of one of Arrington's old books.

Thanks to Nevo's suggestions, there were several new quotations to add -- each from a different source.

I edited the entry in order to add those new quotations.

You added quotation marks around the whole text and you inserted a reference at the end of the actual testimony,

I added quotation marks around all of the texts and inserted references following each of them.

It was impractical, unwieldy, to include the references to multiple quotations from different sources in the bio anymore.

A nice side-benefit of that change is that poor readers will no longer be able to imagine (quite so easily) that Dr. Arrington wrote the entry just recently, and that he wrote it specifically for Mormon Scholars Testify, despite the full bibliographical reference that was given, despite the fact that he was described as having died in 1999, despite the ellipses in the entry (which clearly indicated that it's quoted material), and despite the entry's own reference to its coming from a "memoir."

Regardless, I can see that you've decided to dig in your heels on the issue of whether or not it would be best to check with Arrington's loved ones about including the entry. The fact of the matter is that you did this for Madsen and Nibley, and your failure to do so with Arrington (and Eyring, for that matter) has and will continue to raise problematic questions about your intentions.

Only with you and a small handful of your disciples. You're not a reasonable person, and neither are your followers.

[_DaniteMason]

Boy, there have been some really interesting developments on this highly enjoyable and entertaining thread. First of all, let me issue a warm welcome to DaniteMason! Welcome to the board! I believe the last time we had sockpuppets turning up like this was when MsJack was mopping the floor with Will Schryver. I guess your appearance here is a kind of bellwether, eh?

One post and you're already accusing me of sock puppetry? I'm what they call a "lurker," but if you'd like to refer to me as a prowler, crook, sneakthief, or pilferer, I'm perfectly fine.

I'm not so much a bellwether as I am a Socratic Gadfly - of course, given my almost daily association with the Brethren, I'm not at liberty to divulge my personal information any more than you are. However, just between you and I, the Wi-Fi in the Church Office Building is phenomenal.

I'm pleased you've revealed so much about Susan Arrington Madsen - more than I'm sure she's even aware of. I'll remember that the next time she tries to publish through the hopelessly Mopologetic Deseret Book (she has at least seven titles already, which happens to be more than DCP has managed to publish through DB) or the next time she dares to chair a meeting at the BYU Women's Conference.

[_Mortal Man]

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 truth can only be had from critics:

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

Dan,

You know I'm always on your side but I'm afraid this latest necromony constitutes yet more abuse of L. J. Arrington.

The entry is misleading because there is no clear indication up front that the man is long deceased and few readers will pick up your subtle hints or make it all the way to the end. The problem is not that you failed to get permission from his family, but rather that you present it as a personal testimony in a context removed from the times and places where you took the quotes.

Testimonies are heartfelt expressions of our deepest feelings, which depend on the audience and circumstances. They are borne as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and hence are not something that can be cobbled together from random quotes or granted permission for. A testimony is a gift that is only the bearer's to give. To give it for someone else, even by quoting them, is to rob them of their voice. What you've essentially done here is exhume his corpse from the grave, drag his body up to the podium, stick your arm up through his spine and perform a horrifying ventriloquist act. It really leaves the impression that you've exhausted your supply of live scholars.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mortal Man,

I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree 100%.

[_The Nehor]

The entry is misleading because there is no clear indication up front that the man is long deceased and few readers will pick up your subtle hints or make it all the way to the end.

A date of death is too subtle for most readers?

In that case they should go back to the Bernstein Bears for a bit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If Scratch were ever to praise me so wholeheartedly, I'd be seriously concerned.

You know I'm always on your side

I've never known you to be "on my side" yet.

Why should it change now?

I'm afraid this latest necromony constitutes yet more abuse of L. J. Arrington.

The entry is misleading because there is no clear indication up front that the man is long deceased and few readers will pick up your subtle hints

Like saying "d. 1999"?

Pretty subtle!

or make it all the way to the end.

Readers who don't have the superhuman stamina required to make it all the way through a full page of text will, it's true, miss something.

It's difficult to see how to help those poor souls.

The problem is not that you failed to get permission from his family, but rather that you present it as a personal testimony in a context removed from the times and places where you took the quotes.

Rubbish.

I present his testimonies as quotations from things he published.

Testimonies are heartfelt expressions of our deepest feelings, which depend on the audience and circumstances.

These were published in books and articles. Are they never to be quoted? Too sacred to be cited?

This is absurd.

They are borne as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and hence are not something that can be cobbled together from random quotes or granted permission for.

This entry wasn't "cobbled together from random quotes."

A testimony is a gift that is only the bearer's to give. To give it for someone else, even by quoting them, is to rob them of their voice.

So the things that Leonard Arrington wrote are too holy to be cited, and should not be shared with others. Should anybody be allowed to read them today? Should the publications in which they appeared be committed to the sacred flame?

What you've essentially done here is exhume his corpse from the grave, drag his body up to the podium, stick your arm up through his spine and perform a horrifying ventriloquist act.

Good grief. It's as if I've stumbled into some sort of surrealist theater piece.

It really leaves the impression that you've exhausted your supply of live scholars

And yet, astonishingly, another live scholar's testimony will appear, as if by magic, tomorrow morning.

The impression that I've exhausted my supply of live scholars should pass quickly -- at least for those here who can read.

[_DaniteMason]

Perhaps Dr. Peterson could simply post a transcript of an actual testimony Arrington gave on a certain occasion and call it that. But of course, that's entirely up to Peterson.

[Edit]: In all likelihood, how many MST readers are unaware of Arrington's death more than a decade ago? To be honest, he's a well-known figure in the Mormon academic/apologetic community (by far probably the largest readership of MST), not entirely different from the likes of Juanita Brooks, Fawn Brodie, or Richard Bushman.

But if MST is simply a website of the collected testimonies of Mormon scholars past and present, I have no significant ethical qualms about it - after all, wasn't this website supposed to be dead a year ago? Doesn't this raise issues about citing the alleged beliefs of any dead person?

MST seems to have a wide range of perspectives from the religiously orthodox to liberal skeptics (one of which was removed following an implication that the author did not believe in the truthfulness - or was it historicity? - of the Book of Mormon.

Add Jana Riess to MST and I can confidently say Arrington would have no problem whatsoever with Peterson's use of his comments.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsaint ... ormon.html

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." - Ecclesiastes 9:5 (used without permission).

[_mikwut]

He quoted a man. I say again people, he quoted a man.

This is unbelievable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

MST seems to have a wide range of perspectives from the religiously orthodox to liberal skeptics (one of which was removed following an implication that the author did not believe in the truthfulness - or was it historicity? - of the Book of Mormon.

Let me hasten to clarify this, before Scratch gets his claws into it and begins to spin and distort the situation with his usual malevolent glee.

The testimony in question was removed at the request of the person who had submitted it in the first place, and I regret it very much. I didn't read the entry as denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and certainly didn't read it as denying the truth of the Book of Mormon, but apparently there were some people out there (I have no idea who they were, nor what their issue was) who didn't like it. And so, feeling under stress, the person in question preferred to withdraw.

I hope that the withdrawal will be only temporary, and I would be happy to put the person's entry back up without changes.

And no, Scratch, I won't tell you who the person is. You might be able to figure it out on your own, of course, or with the help of your creepy but perhaps mythical network of secret "informants," but I'm not going to be the one to help you to put added stress on this person.

Add Jana Riess to MST and I can confidently say Arrington would have no problem whatsoever with Peterson's use of his comments.

I've invited Jana. Thus far, she hasn't submitted anything.