Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Jason Bourne]

This thread is really much noise about nothing. I mean really. Scratch I think you are running out of material.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not alone in thinking that it was inappropriate for Dan to use Arrington's "testimony" (if you can even really call it that) for MST. I think there is good reason to think that Arrington would object to being a party to all of that. Consider this: DCP got uncomfortable when he was asked to share his testimony of "Mormon Stories." Given his own sensitivity and guardedness on that subject, he ought to be far, far more careful in terms of what he does with others' "testimonies."

[_Jason Bourne]

Well ok you are not the only one making an issue of this. But from what I know about Arrington he died solid believer and TBM. If he would object it would only be because he may not like the tone of apologetics. But I don't really see the MST site as apologetics. It is just one long testimony meeting.

[_DrW]

Well ok you are not the only one making an issue of this. But from what I know about Arrington he died solid believer and TBM. If he would object it would only be because he may not like the tone of apologetics. But I don't really see the MST site as apologetics. It is just one long testimony meeting.

Exactly. And now imagine that Dr. Peterson stood up in this "one long testimony meeting" and said:

"My Brothers and Sisters, I would now like to read a testimony I assembled especially for you from the words from our dear departed Bro. Leonard Arrington, who we all know had some problems with the Church hierarchy because he tried to tell the truth. Nonetheless, I am convinced that he died a faithful member of the Church and that his testimony, as imagined by yours truly - yet in his own words, should be heard in this meeting today."

Sorry, this still seems clearly inappropriate (and even a bit creepy) to me.
______________

ETA: As to the issue of whether or not MST is apologetics, I would have to say that the Reeves contribution that DCP appears to be so proud of as discussed on another thread is clearly apologetic, and in every sense of the word.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This remains one of the weirdest objections Scratch has ever invented, and that's saying a very great deal.

I just returned from a concert by the great Leo Kottke, though, so I care even less than I usually would.

[_gramps]

Hey, I am a Leo Kottke fan. Saw him in Mpls a long time ago.

I guess you owe it all to Pamela Brown?

[_DrW]

This remains one of the weirdest objections Scratch has ever invented, and that's saying a very great deal.

I just returned from a concert by the great Leo Kottke, though, so I care even less than I usually would.

Well, one of my companies just closed a deal worth more than $100 million, so I care even less that you care even less than you usually would. So there.
_____________________

(If this little aside sounds silly to you coming from me, think about how silly such asides must sound to me coming from you.)

Why is it, Dr. Peterson, that you so often feel the need to drop names and tell the board about your travels and lectures and try to convince everyone how great your life is outside of apologetics?

Do you have the mistaken notion that critics and non-believers are somehow unable or unwilling to travel, care for and enjoy their families, contribute to society through their professions and enjoy culture and the arts?

(Remember, we have an extra day each week and relatively more disposable income - 10% or more - than you to do just that.)

Or do you just want give the faithful, who you know are generally not as accomplished and famous as you, some hope that they too can eventually attain your lofty status if they only continue to pray, pay and obey?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What a bizarre response.

[_DrW]

What a bizarre response.

Only if one ignores or discounts the bizarre behaviors that prompted it.

[_Will Schryver]

What a bizarre response.

Indeed. But, if you think about it for a moment, a very predictable one.

DrW represents what is almost a perfect stereotype of the ex-Mormon intellectual, so much so that I actually cited him verbatim today in my gospel doctrine lesson, the text of which was drawn from the 20th chapter of Acts:

Acts 20

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

On the thread I commenced at the MDD board, Chris Smith asserts the following:

There are bits and pieces of prophecies that seem to come true here and there, but not at a higher rate than could be attributed to coincidence, and often only by doing interpretive violence to the original prediction can it be made to fit.

Link here.

I would counter by saying that Paul's prophecy, cited above, was fulfilled with stunning accuracy.

I also cited the following statements from Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder James E. Faust:

Some alternate voices are of those whose avowed or secret object is to deceive and devour the flock. The Good Shepherd warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15; see also 3 Ne. 14:15.) In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon the Savior charged his shepherds to watch over and protect the flock from such wolves. (See Acts 20:28–29; Alma 5:59.)

There have always been alternate voices whose purpose or effect is to deceive. Their existence is part of the Plan. The prophet Lehi taught that there “must needs be … an opposition in all things.” (2 Ne. 2:11; italics added.)
.
.
.

As Latter-day Saints consider their personal relationship to various alternate voices, they will be helped by considering the ways we acquire knowledge, especially knowledge of sacred things.

In modern revelation the Lord has told us to “seek learning … by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7.)

We seek learning by studying the accumulated wisdom of various disciplines and by using the powers of reasoning placed in us by our Creator.

We should also seek learning by faith in God, the giver of revelation. I believe that many of the great discoveries and achievements in science and the arts have resulted from a God-given revelation. Seekers who have paid the price in perspiration have been magnified by inspiration.

The acquisition of knowledge by revelation is an extra bonus to seekers in the sciences and the arts, but it is the fundamental method for those who seek to know God and the doctrines of his gospel. In this area of knowledge, scholarship and reason are insufficient.

A seeker of truth about God must rely on revelation. I believe this is what the Book of Mormon prophet meant when he said, “To be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Ne. 9:29.) It is surely what the Savior taught when he said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17.)

The way to revelation is righteousness. Marveling at the Master’s teachings, his enemies asked:

“How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:15–17.)

The Book of Mormon teaches that those who diligently seek shall have “the mysteries of God … unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (1 Ne. 10:19; see also 1 Cor. 2:4–16; Alma 18:35; D&C 121:26.) The prophet Jacob declared the impossibility of uninspired man’s understanding God: “No man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.” (Jacob 4:8.)

Alternate Voices, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, May 1989

It is important for us to nurture such a simple, untroubled faith. I urge complete acceptance of the absolutes of our own faith. At the same time, I urge you not to be unduly concerned about the intricacies, the complexities, and any seeming contradictions that seem to trouble many of us. Sometimes we spend time satisfying our intellectual egos and trying to find all the answers before we accept any.

We are all in pursuit of truth and knowledge. The nurturing of a simple, untroubled faith does not limit us in the pursuit of growth and accomplishment. On the contrary, it may intensify and hasten our progress.
.
.
.

We acknowledge that all Church leaders, past and present—except Christ himself—had human failings and weaknesses. The critics of the Church are wont to discredit this marvelous work because of the human weaknesses of its leaders. But, as President Gordon B. Hinckley said a few years ago, “to highlight the mistakes and gloss over the greater good is to draw a caricature. Caricatures are amusing, but they are often ugly and dishonest. A man may have a wart on his cheek and still have a face of beauty and strength, but if the wart is emphasized unduly in relation to his other features, the portrait is often lacking in integrity.” (Church News, 3 July 1983, p. 11.)

Of the early leaders of the Church, President Hinckley said, “If some of them stumbled, or if their characters may have been slightly flawed in one way or another, the wonder is the greater that they accomplished so much.” (Ibid.) The same is true today.

An Untroubled Faith, Elder James E. Faust, BYU Devotional Address, September 28, 1986

It has been my developed impression that Leonard Arrington was cognizant of the principles upon which both Elder Oaks and Elder Faust based their respective addresses, and that he (Brother Arrington), in fin dei conti, in respect to his conviction of the divine origins of the restored gospel and the continuing authority and inspiration of its leaders, was the possessor of the kind of "untroubled faith" which Elder Faust extolled. I therefore consider it wholly appropriate that his "testimony" of these things has been included in Professor Peterson's "Mormon Scholars Testify" project. I am confident that Brother Arrington would have been honored to have his testimony cited as it has been.