Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Themis]

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

The point was made if you read my post. I don't think it is good idea to create testimonies for dead people for reasons already given. Closet believers? How funny, and obviously silly, but then I expect that from you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you don't think Rod Meldrum is a scholar? Or Bruce H. Porter?

I'm sure they have many fine qualities.

How is either of them less of a "scholar" than, say, Gary C. Lawrence, who is described in his bio as a "pollster"?

Dr. Lawrence's Stanford Ph.D. distinguishes him, for one thing.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/918/gary-c-lawrence

Or W. F. Lionel Walters who appears to have been little more than a CES "insider" ala Grant Palmer?

Among other things, Dr. Walters has a doctorate. And he has been an educational administrator and has organized and presented at academic conferences.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/202/w-f-lionel-walters

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.

LOL. That's right. I'd almost forgotten that particular nutcake speculation of yours.

Did he identify himself as an apologist?

I don't believe so. And he's not presented as one on Mormon Scholars Testify.

Did he identify himself as someone with loyalties to the MI/FARMS/FAIR/SHIELDS crowd?

Not that I'm aware of. And he's not represented on Mormon Scholars Testify as someone who did.

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.

Quite correct. And, of course, I've never said so.

One has to be a believer and a committed member of the Church and a scholar.

And Leonard Arrington was all of those.

If that were the case, then one would expect to see Porter and Meldrum on the list.

One has to be a believer and a committed member of the Church and a scholar.

The reality is that this is "Team DCP." It's not "Team LDS."

And yet, curiously, apart from my own entry, I'm scarcely mentioned on Mormon Scholars Testify. (The current lead entry, which does mention me, is one of about two or three that do so. That's one percent.)

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.

And yet there is no evidence whatever -- none -- that Leonard Arrington was anything other than the committed believer that he seemed to be. He bore his testimony in a book published just nine months before his death. He didn't need to do that. It was his choice.

The notion that we just can't tell whether he was a believer or not is, pending actual evidence to indicate that he was a closet apostate, an illegitimate and utterly baseless attempt to recruit Leonard Arrington to your team and to neutralize his voice.

[_jon]

Daniel,

Why is your website elitist and what level of scholarly qualification is required?

[_Doctor Scratch]

How is either of them less of a "scholar" than, say, Gary C. Lawrence, who is described in his bio as a "pollster"?

Dr. Lawrence's Stanford Ph.D. distinguishes him, for one thing.

Doesn't Porter hold a Ph.D.? Why exclude him? I mean, once upon a time, even Stephen Ricks felt comfortable enough to work with him on a FARMS project.

Furthermore, John Tvedtnes is on MST and he doesn't have a Ph.D. So, clearly, the Ph.D. alone isn't enough to distinguish a person as a "scholar."

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.

LOL. That's right. I'd almost forgotten that particular nutcake speculation of yours.

Yup. It was so "nutcake" that Dr. Midgley was throwing and enormous fit up and down the Wasatch Front in an effort to get Prophesies and Promises yanked from the shelves of Des. Book.

Did he identify himself as an apologist?

I don't believe so. And he's not presented as one on Mormon Scholars Testify.

It's implied on account of the people involved. (You and the FAIR people.)

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.

Quite correct. And, of course, I've never said so.

Sure you did:

But he was allied with my cause, Scratchy.

He was a believing Latter-day Saint.

One has to be a believer and a committed member of the Church and a scholar.

And Leonard Arrington was all of those.

And Bruce H. Porter is not?

If that were the case, then one would expect to see Porter and Meldrum on the list.

One has to be a believer and a committed member of the Church and a scholar.

Is Porter *not* a "scholar"? Did he somehow trick Stephen Ricks into thinking so when they co-authored "Names in Antiquity: Old, New, and Hidden"?

The reality is that this is "Team DCP." It's not "Team LDS."

And yet, curiously, apart from my own entry, I'm scarcely mentioned on Mormon Scholars Testify. (The current lead entry, which does mention me, is one of about two or three that do so. That's one percent.)

As has become increasingly obvious in the more recent additions to this thread, the selection process of the entries very much reflects an agenda on your part, hence the recent inclusion of Arrington and the lack of inclusion of people like Meldrum and Porter. It *is* "Team DCP." You are like the general, carefully selecting your soldiers, making sure that their weaponry is in proper working order, setting them up as you stage your attack.

This is evident, too, in your various announcements, where you say, "Just look at so-and-so's new entry. I believe this strikes a devastating blow to Critical Argument X that says that Latter-day Saints can't possibly blah blah blah."

You use these testimonies as cannon fodder for your endless crusade against critics.

[_Themis]

And yet there is no evidence whatever -- none -- that Leonard Arrington was anything other than the committed believer that he seemed to be. He bore his testimony in a book published just nine months before his death. He didn't need to do that. It was his choice.

The notion that we just can't tell whether he was a believer or not is, pending actual evidence to indicate that he was a closet apostate, an illegitimate and utterly baseless attempt to recruit Leonard Arrington to your team and to neutralize his voice.

Stop with the BS Dan. I think he was a believer, but I still think it is probably not a good idea to create testimonies for your site from statements from Dead people. I think MM says it much better then I could.

[_stemelbow]

I'm going to go out on a limb with Dr. Peterson and express how hilarious this thread is. Well it would be funny if it weren't so sad. It often becomes apparent some critics will go after anything in their "valiant" efforts to show that Mormonism is wrong. I mean seriously...this is kinda sad to me (well I've grown to expect it from Scratch but some of the others of ya? come on already).

[_jon]

I'm going to go out on a limb with Dr. Peterson and express how hilarious this thread is. Well it would be funny if it weren't so sad. It often becomes apparent some critics will go after anything in their "valiant" efforts to show that Mormonism is wrong. I mean seriously...this is kinda sad to me (well I've grown to expect it from Scratch but some of the others of ya? come on already).

Why is this thread 'sad'?

Why do you think this thread is a critic(s) attempt at showing Mormonism is wrong?
(I thought it was about discussing the posthomous posting of testimonies on DCP's website)

[_stemelbow]

Why is this thread 'sad'?

Why do you think this thread is a critic(s) attempt at showing Mormonism is wrong?
(I thought it was about discussing the posthomous posting of testimonies on DCP's website)

Its sad that critics will take time to complain about such things as complained about in this thread. It speaks volumes of those who complain about it, if you ask me, and those volumes make me sad.

I didn't say this thread is a critic(s) attempt at showing Mormonism is wrong. I do say many critics have expended efforts in life to show that Mormonism is wrong. Indeed, that's why they are critics. That critics spend time and effort complaining about this is just sad.

I hope that helps the confusion.

[_jon]

Why is this thread 'sad'?

Why do you think this thread is a critic(s) attempt at showing Mormonism is wrong?
(I thought it was about discussing the posthomous posting of testimonies on DCP's website)

Its sad that critics will take time to complain about such things as complained about in this thread. It speaks volumes of those who complain about it, if you ask me, and those volumes make me sad.

I didn't say this thread is a critic(s) attempt at showing Mormonism is wrong. I do say many critics have expended efforts in life to show that Mormonism is wrong. Indeed, that's why they are critics. That critics spend time and effort complaining about this is just sad.

I hope that helps the confusion.

Is it sad that you complain about the critics complaining about such things as complained about in this thread? If you have a complaint about people complaining isn't that...irony?

[_gramps]

Jon wrote:

Is it sad that you complain about the critics complaining about such things as complained about in this thread? If you have a complaint about people complaining isn't that...irony?

Careful now. You are going over his head just a tad bit too much. Don't confuse him (more than he already is).