Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_malaise]

Why do you dislike peterson so much scratch? He's a bit intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) but he's not that bad.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why do you dislike peterson so much scratch? He's a bit intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) but he's not that bad.

"Dislike" him? What would I do without him! He completes me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I guess this explains why there is no indication that DCP got permission to use the quotes.

No. I don't need permission to quote published materials.

That explains it.

Fully and sufficiently.

No, not really, though what you wrote next helps a little:

Whereas I know Davis Bitton's widow and Truman Madsen's widow and Hugh Nibley's widow, and, thus, felt entirely comfortable asking them for suggestions (not for permission), I don't know Henry Eyring's widow (she's long dead) and I don't know Leonard Arrington's widow (nor whether she's even still around; she was alive in 2006, but that's been five years).

I don't know Henry Eyring's kids well enough to ask them for suggestions, and I don't really know Leonard Arrington's kids, either. Would I have to get permission from all of them to quote a publication of their father's? From just one of them? From a majority of them? Would that be a simple majority, or a two-thirds majority? (Those are trick questions, silly! To quote from a printed book, I don't need their permission at all.)

Sorry, Dr. Peterson, but I just don't think this is a very good excuse. It wouldn't be very difficult for you to make a couple of phone calls or send out a couple of emails to inquire into "suggestions" for the site. Given what Kevin posted above, it seems likely that Arrington's daughter would have misgivings about you using her father's words this way. Thus it's probably best if you double-check.

Just my two cents, but at the end of the day it's your little Web site, and you get to decide what to do with it.

[_Nevo]

I later found out he had a daughter named Susan. She struck me as someone who was really upset with the Church, and had been for quite some time. She never came right out and said her father had fallen away from the Church intellectually, but she gave subtle hints that he was on that course.

This story might be believable if it weren't for the fact that Susan Arrington Madsen is a fairly well-known LDS writer who doesn't at all resemble the "SuzieUtah" you describe. If this story is legit, I can only assume you were duped by an imposter.

[_The Nehor]

So Scratch you are not willing to compare this to the quotations you've lifted for your online dossiers?

What are you talking about? Do I have a "dossier" that tries to claim that one of the apologists is somehow supportive of my "cause"?

The LDS faith is not just DCP's cause. You do realize the distinction right? Arrington bore testimony of his faith and MST is about people bearing their testimony about the LDS faith.

Oh right....I forgot, you're still deluded enough to believe that this website is DCP's personal crusade and part of some kind of weird factional infighting the voices in your head told you about.

You're like Simon: you seem to completely misunderstand the issue here. (Do you at least know who Leonard Arrington was?)

There is no issue to misunderstand. You concocted it whole-cloth out of nothing and only you and your minions accept it exists.

I do know who he was. I read one of his books. I enjoyed it.

[_DaniteMason]

Sorry, Dr. Peterson, but I just don't think this is a very good excuse. It wouldn't be very difficult for you to make a couple of phone calls or send out a couple of emails to inquire into "suggestions" for the site. Given what Kevin posted above, it seems likely that Arrington's daughter would have misgivings about you using her father's words this way. Thus it's probably best if you double-check.

Just my two cents, but at the end of the day it's your little Web site, and you get to decide what to do with it.

From the Salt Lake Tribune (quoted without permission, of course):

[Susan Arrington] Madsen says that, although the diary includes some rich nuggets that will interest researchers, her father did not record history "warts and all."

"He had this wisdom," she says. "He was cautious what he put in there [the diary] because he knew it would be read."

I've heard others, Chris Smith included, argue that Arrington's work, particularly his monumental 1979 publication of The Mormon Experience (which he co-authored with Peterson's late personal friend Davis Bitton), was far too apologetic and not objective enough.

Of course Scratch, I'm sure you have an explanation.

Arrington probably wrote the "warts and all" portion of the book, while Bitton and an unknown number of hired mopologetic editors revised the book in order to appease the unrelenting hysteria of the brethren about hiding the real story, which only rational people seem to be aware of.

I think Kevin Graham has raised some incredibly valid points that are well worth inquiry.

I find it equally unfortunate that Graham's reputation among the larger Mormon Internet Community is somehow hindered by Scratch's behavior here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"What would I do without him! He completes me.

Wow. That's almost certainly the truest, most revealing thing that Scratch has ever written. His obsession with me springs from a great, gaping hole in his own psyche. ("His soul is restless until it wrests me.")

I just don't think this is a very good excuse.

I don't need an "excuse" for quoting from published materials.

It wouldn't be very difficult for you to make a couple of phone calls or send out a couple of emails to inquire into "suggestions" for the site.

I didn't need any "suggestions."

I picked up my copy of Adventures of a Church Historian to look for something else, began re-reading the last chapter, and thought "This is really good. I was intending to do an entry for Leonard Arrington, and this would be perfect for it." So I did it. And then, this morning, Nevo kindly supplied some additional, and very excellent, quotations that I've now added to the entry.

Given what Kevin posted above, it seems likely that Arrington's daughter would have misgivings about you using her father's words this way. Thus it's probably best if you double-check.

I can't declare with absolute certainty what the spiritual or ecclesiastical state of Susan Arrington Madsen is (though see below), but, once again, I don't need to seek her "permission" or anybody else's in order to cite a passage from a published book.

Just my two cents, but at the end of the day it's your little Web site, and you get to decide what to do with it.

Quite so.

I later found out he had a daughter named Susan. She struck me as someone who was really upset with the Church, and had been for quite some time. She never came right out and said her father had fallen away from the Church intellectually, but she gave subtle hints that he was on that course.

This story might be believable if it weren't for the fact that Susan Arrington Madsen is a fairly well-known LDS writer who doesn't at all resemble the "SuzieUtah" you describe. If this story is legit, I can only assume you were duped by an imposter.

Here are some books by the embittered apostate Susan Arrington Madsen:

I Walked to Zion: True Stories of Young Pioneers on the Mormon Trail (Shadow Mountain, 1994)

The Lord Needed a Prophet, 2d ed. (Deseret Book, 1996)

Growing Up in Zion: True Stories of Young Pioneers Building the Kingdom (Deseret Book, 1996)

I Sailed to Zion: True Stories of Young Pioneers Who Crossed the Ocean (Bookcraft, 2000)

The Second Rescue: The Story of the Spiritual Rescue of the Willie and Martin Handcart Pioneers (Brigham Distributing, 2007).

With Leonard J. Arrington and Emily Madsen Jones, Mothers of the Prophets, 3d ed. (Deseret Book, 2009)

I also found something on line entitled "Life History of Susan Arrington Madsen." It's apparently chock full of information about genealogy, and it includes certificates of blessing, baptism, marriage, a "list of talks," a "patriarchal blessing," and etc. So far as I can tell, it's dated to 2006, and "Part Twenty-Four" is entitled "My Testimony." (I can't open it. Perhaps it simply reads "Just between the two of us, like my Dad I don't have one.")

[_Doctor Scratch]

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?

In any case, both you and Nevo (and to a somewhat lesser, tainted extent, Dr. Peterson) have brought some interesting materials to light. It certainly does raise a number of questions when you compare it to what Kevin Graham said.

For me, the looming question is: Would Leonard Arrington have approved of his words being used in this manner, by such a person as Dr. Peterson (i.e., someone with Dr. Peterson's Mopologetic reputation)?

My personal feeling is that Dan should take down the entry and make an effort to check. He doesn't *have* to do this, of course, and he's free to continue firing off his panic-stricken "Mayday!" PMs and emails to various people in the hopes of recruiting them to his cause. But given the controversial nature of his reputation, I think it's only fair that he make a good effort to check whether key people (such as Arrington's daughter) might have a problem with the entry. "Better safe than sorry," as the old saying goes.

I can understand his resistance, especially given that fact that *I* am the one who first raised concerns. Think about this for a moment though, Dr. Peterson. You were obviously concerned enough to go back in and edit the entry. I'm sure you immediately realized how it could come off as deceptive (as it indeed did). Gramps has also laid out a very persuasive case as to how you are whitewashing the man's role as a Mormon scholar, which again brings up the issue of whether or not you're using his testimony in an ethical way.

So, again: my two cents is that you rethink this one.

[_moksha]

Professor Peterson has already addressed this issue, above. He is not interested in discussing it, or indeed any other topic, with you. He wishes you a pleasant day.

I was thinking that new valet bot in the Peterson household posted it.



---

Dr. Scratch, are you insinuating that it would be wrong for the Aryan Nations group to harvest past writings of Apostle Reuben Clark and President Ezra Benson to use as supportive testimony on its website? What about the long established rules of Academic Freedom, Posse Comitatus and Finders Keepers?

.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For me, the looming question is: Would Leonard Arrington have approved of his words being used in this manner, by such a person as Dr. Peterson (i.e., someone with Dr. Peterson's Mopologetic reputation)?

There is utterly no basis for any supposition that he wouldn't have.

The toxicity that you impute to me is of your own invention.

My personal feeling is that Dan should take down the entry and make an effort to check. He doesn't *have* to do this, of course, and he's free to continue firing off his panic-stricken "Mayday!" PMs and emails to various people in the hopes of recruiting him to his cause.

And exactly what "panic-stricken 'Mayday!' PMs and emails" would these be?

I've sent precisely no PMs or e-mails to anybody regarding your absurd antics on this thread, "panic-stricken" or otherwise.

But given the controversial nature of his reputation, I think it's only fair that he make a good effort to check whether key people (such as Arrington's daughter) might have a problem with the entry. "Better safe than sorry," as the old saying goes.

I'm quite safe.

And, as I say, my radioactive reputation, destructive of anything that comes near me, is a figment of your malignant but obscenely fertile imagination.

I can understand his resistance, especially given that fact that *I* am the one who first raised concerns.

Or went irrationally hysterical, as I see it.

Think about this for a moment though, Dr. Peterson. You were obviously concerned enough to go back in and edit the entry.

I added the additional quotations kindly supplied by Nevo, yes.

I'm sure you immediately realized how it could come off as deceptive (as it indeed did).

Oh yessiree indeed. By indicating that he had died in 1999 and by giving the bibliographical data of the book from which the entry was taken, with page numbers, I was plainly insinuating that Professor Arrington is still alive and that he had just written those paragraphs specifically for Mormon Scholars Testify.

Gramps has also laid out a very persuasive case as to how you are whitewashing the man's role as a Mormon scholar,

Because I didn't work Gramps's ideologically-driven narrative about the Church Historian's Office into a short biographical sketch that is, otherwise, essentially a simple list of schools attended, degrees obtained, places of employment, books published, and awards received?

Oh yes. Very persuasive.

which again brings up the issue of whether or not you're using his testimony in an ethical way.

By quoting what he said, without commentary?

Horrifying.

So, again: my two cents is that you rethink this one.

I suggest that you keep your money. You don't have too many cents to waste.

They certainly haven't been evident on this thread.

You would do well to cut your losses and walk silently away. You can always attack me again in a few days from another angle -- perhaps reprising one or more of your old classics (e.g., that I'm a slanderer, or that I'm a homophobe, or that I'm an anti-Semite, or that I'm a voyeur [although you dusted that one off again just the other day, so it might be too soon to re-use it], or that I'm a wannabe murderer, or some other example of your past hits).