Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Simon Belmont]

It's simple: there are a number of reasons why Arrington would have personally objected to being involved in a project headed up by Daniel C. Peterson.

But there are also a number of reasons why Arrington would not have objected to it. He is no longer with us, so we cannot know either way.

Further, DCP went and got permission to post material from the other deceased testimony-bearers, and he didn't do that for Arrington.

Do we know that he didn't?

Simon, why did you "unfriend" MST on Facebook?

I told you, I deleted my Facebook account because of controversy. This was months ago. Now, would you please try to stick to the issues? Have I tried to make any of this personal? No.

[_Joey]

I think Provo is just warming up. Got to keep flow going - why not go with dead guys. Its in their proxy blood until someone complains in the press!

Looking forward to seeing Thomas Stuart Ferguson's testimony at MST. Probably enough material out there from his early on statements. Let us all know when Provo!

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's simple: there are a number of reasons why Arrington would have personally objected to being involved in a project headed up by Daniel C. Peterson.

But there are also a number of reasons why Arrington would not have objected to it. He is no longer with us, so we cannot know either way.

Well, then, the proper thing to do would be to go and get permission, just like they did with Nibley et al.

Further, DCP went and got permission to post material from the other deceased testimony-bearers, and he didn't do that for Arrington.

Do we know that he didn't?

If he did, then why the obfuscation? Why the lack of a note on the testimony page?

Simon, why did you "unfriend" MST on Facebook?

I told you, I deleted my Facebook account because of controversy. This was months ago. Now, would you please try to stick to the issues? Have I tried to make any of this personal? No.

C'mon, Simon. Enough lies.

[_DrW]

But there are also a number of reasons why Arrington would not have objected to it. He is no longer with us, so we cannot know either way.

Simon,

Your above response is typical of Mopologetic logic (which is so transparent and annoying that it makes my head explode sometimes).

Mopologists are wont to say (as you have) "we cannot know either way". In other words Mopologist's stock and trade is wiggle room. In every ridiculous claim that the LDS Church makes it is the Mopologists job to manufacture some room for doubt, no matter how minuscule. Then ignoring probability or plausibility, they expound upon their wiggle room.

By the very nature of their work, Mopologists are constrained to think in terms of "possibility" while ignoring the more important concepts of probability or even plausibility.

Think about it, Simon. If Arrington might have objected for even one of the very plausible reasons that Dr. Scratch pointed out, did Dr. Peterson have the right go ahead a "put together a testimony" for him and then publish it on MST just because Dr. Peterson (as you put it) could not know for sure?

If, as you say Dr. Peterson "cannot know" and did not seek permission:

Was his action in good taste?

Was it appropriate?

Do such actions enhance the stature of MST?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Think about it, Simon. If Arrington might have objected for even one of the very plausible reasons that Dr. Scratch pointed out, did Dr. Peterson have the right go ahead a "put together a testimony" for him and then publish it on MST just because Dr. Peterson (as you put it) could not know for sure?

If, as you say Dr. Peterson "cannot know" and did not seek permission:

Was his action in good taste?

Was it appropriate?

Do such actions enhance the stature of MST?

Arrington was sort of the "Grandfather" of many of the revisionist LDS historians who were later demonized by both the General Authorities and by many of the apologists. I'm sure that DCP sees this on some level as a smart "chess move." He's claiming Arrington as a player for his "team," though for obvious reasons that's problematic.

[_Blixa]

I have to say putting together a postmortem "testimony" and posting it to that website strikes me, too, as more than a tad unethical. And considering that it is Leonard Arrington, rather an egregious act of presumption.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

Your above response is typical of Mopologetic logic (which is so transparent and annoying that it makes my head explode sometimes).

And the fact that you buy into the childish terms coined by a few here -- "Mopologetic" makes my head explode.

Mopologists are wont to say (as you have) "we cannot know either way". In other words Mopologist's stock and trade is wiggle room. In every ridiculous claim that the LDS Church makes it is the Mopologists job to manufacture some room for doubt, no matter how minuscule. Then ignoring probability or plausibility, they expound upon their wiggle room.

So then, you deny that we cannot know a deceased person's wishes?

By the very nature of their work, Mopologists are constrained to think in terms of "possibility" while ignoring the more important concepts of probability or even plausibility.

Even if what you say is correct, without thinking in terms of possibility there would be no imagination, no innovation, and no human spirit of discovery.

Think about it, Simon. If Arrington might have objected for even one of the very plausible reasons that Dr. Scratch pointed out, did Dr. Peterson have the right go ahead a "put together a testimony" for him and then publish it on MST just because Dr. Peterson (as you put it) could not know for sure?

The point is Scratch has exactly the same amount of information to support his position that Dr. Peterson does. The reason you take one side over the other is because of your dislike for Dr. Peterson.

If, as you say Dr. Peterson "cannot know" and did not seek permission:

Was his action in good taste?

Was it appropriate?

Do such actions enhance the stature of MST?

Yes. Arrington was a believer who had a testimony. He published it in a written work, and the doctrine of fair use allows quotation and commentary.

I see nothing wrong here. I see nothing for you guys to get bent out of shape over.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, Simon, you've really outdone yourself this time. I guess you really don't realize how clueless you are?

[_moksha]

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Well, it's not like we are expecting Arrington to roll over in his grave or anything like that. My guess is that Leonard Arrington was a team player and would see Mormon Scholars Testify as the tunnel leading into the stadium.

[_Simon Belmont]

Wow, Simon, you've really outdone yourself this time. I guess you really don't realize how clueless you are?

Please explain to me how clueless I am.

Why is this such a huge issue for you? Arrington published some faith-based writings in some books, and Dr. Peterson quoted some of them on a faith-promoting website.

I don't see the issue. Honestly.