Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Daniel Peterson]

I stand by my main point, Dan, which is that the inclusion of the Arrington "testimony" is problematic. I fail to see how it would be any problem, or how it would really inconvenience you in any way, to go and get permission like you did for Nibley et al.

I don't need permission to quote from a published book.

The fact that you don't know Arrington's family as well is an awfully lame excuse

It's no excuse. I don't need their permission.

More than anything, I sought suggestions from the widows of Professors Bitton, Nibley, and Madsen. And I only contacted one person in each case -- a person whom, in each case, I've known for a long time.

and if anything, I believe it means that you should have made an even greater effort to go and get the permission.

Stand by your ludicrous point all you want. I didn't and don't need permission to quote from a published book.

And polling children (and grandchildren? and great grandchildren?) of a deceased scholar for recommendations when obviously suitable published materials are already ready to hand seems rather pointless. Particularly when I don't know them. In your view, would I need to poll all of the descendants? A representative sample? A two-thirds majority?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dan, if you're not going to go get permission from the Arringtons, then my suggestion is that you go back to PMing people and emailing your friends on the Skinny-L list so that they can reassure you that you haven't done anything wrong.

[_harmony]

I've never been to the site. Not my cuppa... but... aren't there enough living scholars willing to add their testimony?

I'm wondering how long these guys need to be dead before they are no longer eligible for the site?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I haven't done anything wrong, and hardly need reassurance on that score. Quoting published materials from deceased individuals isn't even remotely immoral.

I've never been to the site. Not my cuppa...

Too bad. There are some very interesting pieces there.

Ibut... aren't there enough living scholars willing to add their testimony?

Sure. We're approaching three hundred testimonies, and there are, I think, only five entries from people who had passed away when their testimonies went up. (One more, sadly, has died since his testimony was posted.)

II'm wondering how long these guys need to be dead before they are no longer eligible for the site?

There's no rule.

I'm intending, eventually, to put up testimonies for a few more, such as John Widtsoe. But I don't think I'll go back to the nineteenth century. We didn't really have "scholars" in the full modern sense of the term during the nineteenth century. From what I understand, James E. Talmage was the first Mormon Ph.D. (The doctorate itself was a German innovation, late in the nineteenth century, introduced into the United States via Johns Hopkins University. Or something along those lines, as I've seen the story told.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I haven't done anything wrong, and hardly need reassurance on that score. Quoting published materials from deceased individuals isn't even remotely immoral.

What a bummer it is that you apparently think so poorly of Arrington that you can't be bothered to go and get permission to use his testimony. I guess it's because he wasn't chummy enough with you to merit that level of respect?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What a bummer it is that you apparently think so poorly of Arrington that you can't be bothered to go and get permission to use his testimony. I guess it's because he wasn't chummy enough with you to merit that level of respect?

You're really stretching now.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, actually I'm laughing, and wondering what it must be like to go through life being so grimly humorless.

[_DrW]

I've never been to the site. Not my cuppa... but... aren't there enough living scholars willing to add their testimony?

This appears to be a problem for MST, as well it should be. In an earlier post on this thread, DCP admitted that he (or someone) had approached a number of Mormons who would qualify as "scholars" who had the good sense not to contribute to MST.

One of the reasons cited by DCP was that these individuals felt that going public with a testimony of the truthfulness of the LDS Church would damage their careers and reputations (a well founded concern).

When one professes belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church on MST, they are admitting in public that their judgment, ability to assess weight of evidence and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired when it comes to personal belief.

Individuals who take for themselves the designation of scholar are claiming to the world that they have the ability to discern fact from fancy, science from pseudoscience, and reality from fantasy. Why would any individual for whom such ability is a stock in trade of their profession admit in public that they held strong belief in the unfounded, internally inconsistent, fantastical and demonstrably false truth claims of the LDS Church?

For those at BYU, and for others who live in an LDS saturated environment, such admissions are expected, I suppose. For those who don't, I simply cannot understand why they would expose themselves.

Apparently at least some candidates have had the good sense not to do so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sometimes, I'm tempted to think that DrW is a sockpuppet for a satirically-minded believer who wants to make dogmatic atheism look ridiculous.

I don't think it's likely to be true, but I don't rule it out, either.

[_DrW]

Sometimes, I'm tempted to think that DrW is a sockpuppet for a satirically-minded believer who wants to make dogmatic atheism look ridiculous.

I don't think it's likely to be true, but I don't rule it out, either.

If you don't think it is true then why say it? Facts, Dr. Peterson, let's have some relevant facts.

I note that one of your diversionary tactics is to pick out a handle for those of us who value facts (mine appears to be "arrogant dogmatic atheist": others include "Chips" and "Cracker"). You then substitute the use of that handle for any semblance of substantive response.

If none of the individuals you approached about being on MST stated that going public might damage them professionally, just say so (oh wait - you have already stated that some of them raised this concern).

If the truth claims of the LDS Church are not unfounded, internally inconsistent, and in many cases demonstrably false, just say so (oops, couldn't defend that position with facts either).

So if you just can't help yourself in terms of calling people names, then at least be accurate about it. Rather than "arrogant dogmatic atheist", perhaps you would be willing to call me a "concerned extremely low-probability agnostic scientist" ("agnostic scientist", or "apostate" would also be accurate).

This would allow you to emphasize to believers on the board how faithless and diabolically inclined I am while still providing an accurate personal description with which I would have no argument.
__________

ETA: Perhaps you have not noted that I have never called you names or referred to you, or addressed you directly, using any designation other than your full initials or "Dr. Peterson".