Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, Dan, if you want it to be more like what you've done with Arrington, this is what I suggest you do. You need to somehow go and get a hold of a ventriloquist dummy that looks like, say, Howard W. Hunter. Then, while you're up there speaking, have the dummy say things like, "Jews have few friends in the world," or "I agree with Dr. Peterson that Calvinism is disgusting," or "Dr. Peterson's work for SHIELDS was the stuff of a true gentleman." I'm sure you'll get lots of applause, since after all, Pres. Hunter is dead.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you think, way out there in Scratchworld, that quoting accurately from a published work by Dr. Arrington is the equivalent of inventing statements out of thin air and falsely attributing them to him?

You're far weirder, I've realized over the past few days, than even I had ever imagined.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So you think, way out there in Scratchworld, that quoting accurately from a published work by Dr. Arrington is the equivalent of inventing statements out of thin air and falsely attributing them to him?

You're far weirder, I've realized over the past few days, than even I had ever imagined.

No, I think it's the equivalent of falsely making it seem as if he's allied with your cause. It's not hard to understand, Dr. P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, I think it's the equivalent of falsely making it seem as if he's allied with your cause. It's not hard to understand, Dr. P.

But he was allied with my cause, Scratchy.

He was a believing Latter-day Saint.

Every relevant thing he published shows that.

And that's what Mormon Scholars Testify is about.

Your efforts to draft him for your team have no basis in factual reality.

Even faithful members of the Church don't add those who have been posthumously baptized for the dead to the Church's membership rolls. There is no reason to believe that Professor Arrington has accepted your posthumous apostasy for the dead on his behalf. You can't claim him for your partisan purposes. You don't own him.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, I think it's the equivalent of falsely making it seem as if he's allied with your cause. It's not hard to understand, Dr. P.

But he was allied with my cause, Scratchy.

He was a believing Latter-day Saint.

Kind of a dumb response, don't you think? Bruce Porter and Rodney Meldrum are both believing Latter-day Saints. So can we expect either of their testimonies on MST any time soon?

Every relevant thing he published shows that.

And that's what Mormon Scholars Testify is about.

As Kevin and I have both tried to remind you, you have said multiple times that the site was meant to fit in with your Mopologetic agenda.

Your efforts to draft him for your team have no basis in factual reality.

Uh, I'm *not* trying to "draft him for my team." You are.

Even faithful members of the Church don't add those who have been posthumously baptized for the dead to the Church's membership rolls. There is no reason to believe that Professor Arrington has accepted your posthumous apostasy for the dead on his behalf. You can't claim him for your partisan purposes. You don't own him.

I'm not trying to claim him for anything. I'm just pointing out that it's wrong for you to do that.

[_Aristotle Smith]

You can't claim him for your partisan purposes. You don't own him.

My irony meter just exploded.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Kind of a dumb response, don't you think?

No.

Bruce Porter and Rodney Meldrum are both believing Latter-day Saints. So can we expect either of their testimonies on MST any time soon?

The site seeks entries from people who are both believing Latter-day Saints and scholars.

As Kevin and I have both tried to remind you, you have said multiple times that the site was meant to fit in with your Mopologetic agenda.

By featuring unscripted testimonies of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

You're going to have to work really hard to demonstrate a tight, intimate link between that and, say, the FARMS Review.

My bet is that you won't even make the attempt. You'll simply continue to assert it.

Just as you've asserted that Mormon Scholars Testify is fueled by some sort of desire for vengeance.

Utter rot, all of it. As I'm pretty confident most everybody even on this board can see -- to say nothing of other, healthier, places.

Uh, I'm *not* trying to "draft him for my team." You are.

I don't have to "draft" him.

He consistently identified himself, in every way he could, as a committed member of the Church.

I'm not trying to claim him for anything. I'm just pointing out that it's wrong for you to do that.

If you have actual evidence to demonstrate that he was not a committed member of the Church, you should have shared it by now. Your failure to do so has left you looking like a doofus, although a hysterically hostile one.

My irony meter just exploded.

Obviously, it was cheap and defective.

And if you share Scratch's apparent view -- that it's a fifty-fifty proposition whether Leonard Arrington was a committed Latter-day Saint or an apostate unbeliever -- it's not only your cheap little meter that's defective.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Bruce Porter and Rodney Meldrum are both believing Latter-day Saints. So can we expect either of their testimonies on MST any time soon?

The site seeks entries from people who are both believing Latter-day Saints and scholars.

So you don't think Rod Meldrum is a scholar? Or Bruce H. Porter? How is either of them less of a "scholar" than, say, Gary C. Lawrence, who is described in his bio as a "pollster"? Or W. F. Lionel Walters who appears to have been little more than a CES "insider" ala Grant Palmer?

As Kevin and I have both tried to remind you, you have said multiple times that the site was meant to fit in with your Mopologetic agenda.

By featuring unscripted testimonies of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Yes, exactly. I don't think it's any coincidence that the site appeared when it did, right around the time that rumors were swirling about apologists' fears of Meldrum's ascent, etc.

You're going to have to work really hard to demonstrate a tight, intimate link between that and, say, the FARMS Review.

It's not hard at all. *You* are the link. (Gee, that sure was hard.) It doesn't really get more "intimate" than that, I daresay.

Uh, I'm *not* trying to "draft him for my team." You are.

I don't have to "draft" him.

He consistently identified himself, in every way he could, as a committed member of the Church.

Did he identify himself as an apologist? Did he identify himself as someone with loyalties to the MI/FARMS/FAIR/SHIELDS crowd? See, Dr. Peterson: you can't simply say that self-identification as a believer or a "committed member of the Church" is enough to qualify someone for this "team," or for inclusion on MST. If that were the case, then one would expect to see Porter and Meldrum on the list. The reality is that this is "Team DCP." It's not "Team LDS."

I'm not trying to claim him for anything. I'm just pointing out that it's wrong for you to do that.

If you have actual evidence to demonstrate that he was not a committed member of the Church, you should have shared it by now. Your failure to do so has left you looking like a doofus, although a hysterically hostile one.

Like I said, I'm not trying to claim him for anything. I'm not trying to claim that he was a closet apostate; I'm not trying to claim that he was an Internet Mormon; I'm not trying to claim he was a Chapel Mormon. I'm not trying to claim that he was a member of Team Peterson. *You* are trying to do that. And you probably shouldn't.

[_Themis]

And if you share Scratch's apparent view -- that it's a fifty-fifty proposition whether Leonard Arrington was a committed Latter-day Saint or an apostate unbeliever -- it's not only your cheap little meter that's defective.

You never know. I suspect there may be a lot of closet doubters. It is still not very acceptable so many would keep it quiet. Maybe if certain letter/s had never seen the light of day you might have ended up putting Thomas Ferguson on your site. I think it may be inadvisable to create testimonies for Dead people from their own words. How many times is Einstein quoted to show he believes in God and doesn't believe in God?

[_Simon Belmont]

You never know. I suspect there may be a lot of closet doubters.

There are probably a lot of closet believers, too. Your point?