Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you could also fix the bio to include the fact that Leonard Arrington was in effect booted out of his position as church historian, and the Church brethren did not seem to hold him in the same esteem as the historians in his field and that due to the acrimony between Arrington and the brethren, his picture does not stand with the rest of the church historians. You seemed to have left out some of the real conflict that had arisen between the brethren and Leonard Arrington. A nice whitewash. I just read your bio again to see if I missed something. Feel free to inform me if I did so.

In other words, your bio seems to have gone through the correlation process. Good job keeping up the tradition, though, of leaving out the other side of the story. I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Though it is still disappointing.

You seem to assume that I was writing a full-fledged biography of Leonard Arrington.

I wasn't.

There is no obligation on my part to get into such disputed and disputable issues in a brief biographical sketch. I listed his years of service in the military, at Utah State, and at BYU, but I said nothing whatever about any politics in any of those positions, either. I listed books published, and gave their dates. I didn't get into reviews of the books, or the contents of the books. Such things are simply beyond the purview of a brief bio sketch. (It's already unusually long for Mormon Scholars Testify as it stands.)

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I tend to be on Leonard Arrington's side in the matter of the so-called "Camelot years." I always was. And my long-term friendship with people like Professors Bushman and Alexander and Allen and Bitton -- the last two served as Assistant Church Historians with Dr. Arrington -- has done nothing to alter that.

I'm against white-washing. You have no justification for attributing positions to me based solely upon your a priori assumptions about my views.

If this reference ["Leonard J. Arrington (d. 1999)."], was there when you first posted the bio, I missed it.

It was.

I've made no changes to the entry since it went up -- although I'm about to do so.

[_Buffalo]

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I tend to be on Leonard Arrington's side in the matter of the so-called "Camelot years." I always was.

Good to see you continuing your opposition to the brethren. Stay strong!

[_gramps]

Dr. Peterson,

I had no assumptions about your views. I just figured it must have gone through correlation. It carries that kind of rotten odor, sorry to say.

Good for you, you were on his side. Maybe the church will someday, and rightfully so, put his picture up where it belongs.

No I never expected it was a full bio, but come on....it seems you kind of wimped out. Why not include that part? It was a major part of his legacy, and perhaps believing members who don't know much about him, including Simon and the other young, whipper snappers like him, might learn something about how the church treats people who promote honest church history.

The church really did him a disservice. I also knew him and respected him for taking it like a man. But the church was shameful in this regard. Sigh. But, oh so typical.

Stand for something, Dr. Peterson. ;)

[_Morley]

For what it's worth, Daniel, I think that you try to be intellectually honest. That's worth a lot.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you, Morley. I do.

I had no assumptions about your views. I just figured it must have gone through correlation. It carries that kind of rotten odor, sorry to say.

Nonsense.

It's a simple biographical sketch, essentially a list of schools attended and degrees taken, teaching positions with dates, and major books with dates.

Good for you, you were on his side. Maybe the church will someday, and rightfully so, put his picture up where it belongs.

I can think of no good reason not to do so. Perhaps the reasoning goes that he was the only Church Historian who was not a General Authority. I have no idea.

Certainly there were and are General Authorities with high opinions of Leonard Arrington. For instance, President Hinckley asked Arrington’s widow, Harriet Horne Arrington, for permission to speak at his funeral, and she gladly gave it.

No I never expected it was a full bio, but come on....it seems you kind of wimped out. Why not include that part?

The bio was essentially a listing of schools attended, degrees obtained, books written, and places of employment. It wasn't an interpretive essay, and doesn't purport to be one.

perhaps believing members who don't know much about him, including Simon and the other young, whipper snappers like him, might learn something about how the church treats people who promote honest church history.

I feel not the slightest obligation to feature your ideological position as part of my Website, let alone to incorporate it into a biographical sketch of Leonard Arrington.

The church really did him a disservice. I also knew him and respected him for taking it like a man. But the church was shameful in this regard. Sigh. But, oh so typical.

I think it all could have been handled better, too. But Leonard Arrington remained a faithful and committed Latter-day Saint, as did his close associate in the Church Historian's Office and my very dear friend Davis Bitton, as does his close associate in the Church Historian's Office and my very dear friend James Allen. They did not become corrosive cynics or unbelievers.

Stand for something, Dr. Peterson.

Yeah. That's plainly my problem here. I don't stand for anything. I advocate no positions.

Edited to add:

Behold the new and improved Mormon Scholars Testify entry for Leonard J. Arrington:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/l ... -arrington

[_mikwut]

Hello Scratch:

Sure, mikwut. It goes like this:

It's wrong to take someone's heartfelt testimony without permission and to use it for your own degenerate agenda.

Is that clear enough for you?

No, it isn't. That is a mess of jumbled presumption and assertion the very antithesis of a clear ethical principle. All your saying is you believe MST to be degenerate (which opinion your entitled to) and then your able to superimpose anything it does as unethical. You don't even mention published works. Dr. Petersen quoted a man, for God's sake do you know how many books, websites, blogs, conversations, public speeches etc.. do that very thing without any of the adjectives leveled against Dr. Petersen?

You know, it occurs to me that you are just out to sea. My read of you is that you don't know anything about the history of Mopoloetics, and that you're just sort of flailing about in a cloud of darkness.

When I hear words like "mopologetics" and others the board has converted to like scripture I can't help the feeling of intellectual dissatisfaction.

Have you read SHIELDS? Have you read the FARMS Review? Because if you've read these things, and you are still shrugging your shoulders as if this is no big deal, then I'll have a pretty solid idea of how much attention I should pay to you here on out....

I would be happy to discuss separate issues with you separately. I have read SHIELDS, I don't have a high opinion of it, but I don't share yours. I have read everything published in the FARMS Review my father gave me printed glossy copies of it and the journal as presents. I don't follow herds, that is how I keep myself out of the darkness and clouds. Distorting things like Dr. Petersen and Jack Welch as metaphorically turning their mustaches in a darkroom and calling people names might provide others targets to aim their personal dis-satisfactions with the church at, but I am left unhealthy from joining the practice. Claiming a horrendous evil because Dr. Petersen quotes verbatim a deceased church scholar's open acknowledgment of the church on, of all places, where he posts open acknowledgments from scholars of the church - well, you won't bring me down from those reasonable clouds. But, I invite you down so when you bring up a valid and reasonable criticism I can defend what you say just as vigorously without Dr. Petersen bringing this embarrassment up to deflect like your doing here.

my best, mikwut

[_Nevo]

Behold the new and improved Mormon Scholars Testify entry for Leonard J. Arrington:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/l ... -arrington

I like it.

[_gramps]

Gramps wrote:

Stand for something, Dr. Peterson. ;)

Dr. Peterson, when you quoted me you left out the smiley. Why? Did that have to pass through correlation, as well? ;););)

[_Morley]

Behold the new and improved Mormon Scholars Testify entry for Leonard J. Arrington:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/l ... -arrington

I like it.

So do I.

[_karl61]

Dr Peterson wrote:

"Incidentally, for what it's worth, I tend to be on Leonard Arrington's side in the matter of the so-called "Camelot years." I always was. And my long-term friendship with people like Professors Bushman and Alexander and Allen and Bitton -- the last two served as Assistant Church Historians with Dr. Arrington -- has done nothing to alter that"

can you give me a definition of what you belive were the "Camelot years".