Doctor Scratch wrote: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.
Scratch has absolutely no factual basis for that claim.
My relationship with Leonard Arrington was completely amicable, as it has been with his former professional associates, some of whom are among my very dear friends.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Further, DCP went and got permission to post material from the other deceased testimony-bearers, and he didn't do that for Arrington.
I didn't do it for Henry Eyring, either. I simply quoted from published, printed material.
I invited Ann Madsen and Phyllis Nibley to suggest materials that I should use, because I know them well. But I would have been entirely within my rights to quote from published materials of my own choosing. There is no sin in quoting from published materials.
In the case of Davis Bitton, I proposed an entry to his widow, who is a good friend of mine and of my wife, and she approved it. But I could easily have chosen something from his published work, and would have been entirely ethical in doing so.
I see no ethical problem in quoting from publicly-available printed books.
Joey, World-Conquering Titan of Finance, wrote:gibber gibber gibber
Thanks for your contribution, Joey. I'm flattered that you would deign to comment.
Blixa wrote:I have to say putting together a postmortem "testimony" and posting it to that website strikes me, too, as more than a tad unethical.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It's a quotation from a published
book. The sentences remain in their original order, no words have been added, ellipses indicate omissions, nothing in Professor Arrington's attitude or intent has been misrepresented, and the quotation is accurate. He was a believer, and he published expressions of his testimony on more than a few occasions. I've simply quoted from one.
Blixa wrote: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?"
If "decency" means "moral objection to accurately quoting from published books," no, I have none.
Which, I suppose, given your quotation, makes me the moral equivalent of Joe McCarthy, or something of that sort.
What perfectly absurd outrage.
Doctor Scratch wrote: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.
By which, essentially, you mean Mike Quinn.
But Professor Arrington was also the associate of such historians as Davis Bitton, James Allen, Thomas Alexander, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Richard Bushman, and Kenneth Godfrey, all of whom I know and five of whom I consider very good friends. Davis Bitton's posthumous testimony is up on the site, as are the testimonies submitted by James Allen, Richard Bushman, and Kenneth Godfrey. Thomas Alexander's and Richard Anderson's will go up in the none-too-distant future.
I haven't misrepresented Leonard Arrington in any way, not by so much as a hair's breadth. He was a believer, he shared his testimony on numerous occasions, and I've simply quoted verbatim from one of those published expressions of faith.
Period.
The huffing and puffing here by Scratch, Blixa, and DrW is nothing short of ludicrous.
Doctor Scratch wrote: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.
If Scratch has any actual reason for suggesting that Dr. Arrington, despite his service in a stake presidency and as Church Historian, and despite his frequent public expressions of faith (including the one I've quoted), really wasn't a believing Latter-day Saint, I hope he'll share it.
DrW wrote: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?
What did I do in "putting together" this testimony?
I quoted from a published book, with full reference given.
Quelle horreur!Oh, the humanity!
There is absolutely no factual basis for Scratch's declaration that Professor Arrington would have objected to being associated with me. But even if he had, I would still have the right to quote from a published book.
DrW wrote:Was his action in good taste?
Of
course it was in good taste. There's nothing in poor taste about quoting from a book.
DrW wrote:Was it appropriate?
Of
course it was appropriate. There's nothing inappropriate about quoting from a book.
DrW wrote:Do such actions enhance the stature of MST?
I can't really see any way in which accurately quoting from a book should
harm the stature of MST.
DrW wrote:What of Dr. Scratch were to assume that the deceased was really a closet apostate based on information that he had and were to "put together" a testimony against the way that the deceased was treated by the Church after he was relieved of his position?
This is a frivolous analogy, because I didn't invent a single word of Professor Arrington's entry. It is a direct, verbatim, accurate quotation from the autobiographical book that he published near the end of his life.
Unbelievable.
This is one of the weirdest displays of over-the-top and misplaced outrage that I have ever encountered, anywhere.
I expect such lunacy from Scratch, of course. On this occasion, though, I admit that I'm astonished that he's managed to recruit a pair of others to his silliness.