Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Buffalo]

"I sometimes ask myself how it came about that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought about as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded,as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up.

"Then, after I died, a nice Mormon was baptized on my behalf in one of those lovely LDS temples. I accepted the baptism with gratitude, even though I was always shaky on the whole God thing in life. After I became a Mormon, I realized my earlier work on relativity was hopelessly flawed.

"God already revealed his laws of physics, it turns out, to his prophets Abraham and Joseph Smith. This is, in reality, how our universe functions:

"Kolob is the greatest of all the stars. That it is so because it is nearest to the celestial, or residence of God. It governs all the planets which belong to the same order as this earth. It is after the reckoning of the Lord's time, which is more mundane than special relativity would have us believe. It is after the manner of the Lord according to its times and seasons and the revolutions thereof. Simply put, one revolution is a day unto the Lord. That one day, in Kolob, is equal to a thousand years, according to the measurement of this earth.

"Kolob signifies first creation. It is the first in government, and last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time; which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit.

"Oliblish stands next to Kolob. It is the next grand governing creation. It is equal to Kolob in its revolution and in its measurement of time. It holds the key of power as pertaining to other planets.

"Enish-go-on-dosh is also a governing planet, which was said, by the ancient Egyptians, to be the sun, and to borrow (receive) its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash. If only I had theorized this in life! Imagine the scientific revolution! Humanity could, even now, be borrowing its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash. Think of the energy bill savings!

"Kae-e-vanrash is the grand key, or governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also the moon (Floeese), the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions. That Kae-e-vanrash receives its power through Kli-flos-is-es or Hah-ko-kau-beam. Apparently the laws of gravity and principles of kinetics are bunk! If only I had known this in life!

"Well, I shall not waste my time in Spirit Paradise! I shall undo the false doctrine of physics and general relativity, and teach incoming spirits these true principles as revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith, whose permission I now have to get into the Celestial Kingdom!

"In the name of Yeshua ben Yosef, amen."

[_Doctor Scratch]

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?

Yes... And do you know how many "books, websites, blogs, conversations, public speeches etc" *do* get labeled in that manner? What's your point exactly? Look at it this way: Would you shrug your shoulders and see no problem with the Aryan Nation citing some of Brigham Young's more inflammatory comments on race? Or would that just be OK with you on the basis of the fact that these are published words? You seem completely un-attuned to the way that rhetoric works.

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.

What a nice, thoughtful response, mikwut. Why not just type "neener neener" next time?

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.

What *is* your opinion of it, then? Be specific.

I have read everything published in the FARMS Review my father gave me printed glossy copies of it and the journal as presents.

I hate to pull a Dr. Shades on you, mikwut, but this sentence needs revision. Are you saying that you've read *everything* ever published in the Review? Or that you've only read the items that happened to be given to you by your CES instructor father?

Distorting things like Dr. Petersen and Jack Welch as metaphorically turning their mustaches in a darkroom

I wasn't aware that either of them is that into photography.

And anyhow, have you read "Questions to Legal Answers"? Have you listened to the "Mormon Expressions" interview with Will Bagley? Are you aware that Dr. Peterson (that's Peterson with an "O", mikwut) worked as an "agent" for the Strengthening Church Members Committee, where he "interrogated" a wavering member for some 4 hours?

I get that you want to craft a straw man here, with your image of the mustache-twirling villain, but the fact is that a lot of the more sadistic Mopologists really have been engaging in this sort of conspiratorial game of character assassination. If you want, we can go through the dozens upon dozens of examples of this one by one, and you can explain each of them away. Then, when we're all done, you can explain how all of these instances, when examined in total, still doesn't add up to these guys teaming up and acting like jerks.

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.

That's a distortion and misrepresentation of mine and others' complaints, mikwut. If you can't restate my position back to me clearly then I have to wonder why I'm bothering with you at all. A "reasonable and valid" approach does its best to eschew Straw Man caricatures.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

I hate smileys.

I also didn't use one in my reply.

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".

It's not my phrase. I think I first heard it in a Sunstone presentation given by Davis Bitton.

I believe that it typically refers to the years (1972-1982) when Leonard Arrington was Church HIstorian and Jim Allen and Davis Bitton were the two Assistant Church Historians.

Look at it this way: Would you shrug your shoulders and see no problem with the Aryan Nation citing some of Brigham Young's more inflammatory comments on race? Or would that just be OK with you on the basis of the fact that these are published words? You seem completely un-attuned to the way that rhetoric works.

Nice analogy.

Leonard Arrington's expressions of faith = Brigham Young's more inflammatory comments on race.

Mormon Scholars Testify = The Aryan Nation.

These are not the comments of a rational person.

Are you aware that Dr. Peterson (that's Peterson with an "O", mikwut) worked as an "agent" for the Strengthening Church Members Committee, where he "interrogated" a wavering member for some 4 hours?

That's a gross and malevolent distortion of the facts, as Scratch has been informed and reminded on innumerable occasions.

Thus, it's quite striking to read the following, immediately thereafter, from Scratch:

I get that you want to craft a straw man here, with your image of the mustache-twirling villain, but the fact is that a lot of the more sadistic Mopologists really have been engaging in this sort of conspiratorial game of character assassination. . . . jerks . . . That's a distortion and misrepresentation of mine and others' complaints, mikwut. If you can't restate my position back to me clearly then I have to wonder why I'm bothering with you at all. A "reasonable and valid" approach does its best to eschew Straw Man caricatures.

Scratch is revealing himself with unusual clarity on this thread. The consuming, irrational hatred is pretty hard to deny here.

[_mikwut]

Hi Scratch,

I didn't mean to mischaracteristize your position. As you already know from our previous discussions I am less interested in personalities. Everything is distorted when you focus on that. I think that is why you don't see this thread's issue as benign. To those that cautiously avoid the sound of one hand clapping discussing who has distasteful dialogue habits is a rabbit hole that never ends. It also doesn't show Mormonism true or false.

my best, mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi Scratch,

I didn't mean to mischaracteristize your position. As you already know from our previous discussions I am less interested in personalities.

This isn't about personalities, mikwut---it's about the rhetorical appropriation of Leonard Arrington's legacy and reputation for the sake of forwarding an apologetic agenda.

[_Daniel Peterson]

an apologetic agenda.

"Mormon Scholars Testify" has no particular apologetic agenda.

[_Buffalo]

an apologetic agenda.

"Mormon Scholars Testify" has no particular apologetic agenda beyond trying to boost the credibility of The LDS church by loosely associating it with degreed individuals.

Edited for accuracy.

[_Doctor Scratch]

an apologetic agenda.

"Mormon Scholars Testify" has no particular apologetic agenda.

"Apologetics" is a defense of the LDS Church, right? From your OP:

Every once in a while, I put together a testimony for an exceptionally prominent deceased LDS scholar and post it on "Mormon Scholars Testify." This one seems particularly relevant to the claim, advanced by some critics, that Mormon history has been systematically falsified, and that the truth can only be had from critics

You've also said, repeatedly, that one of the main purposes of the site is to combat the critical assertion that no "educated person" can believe in the more far-fetched claims of Mormonism. So, what's the story, Dr. P.? Are you really that forgetful? Or is something else at work here?

I have to wonder what you get out of fighting with people on threads like this. Really, how much do you personally gain from the inclusion of the Arrington entry? What does it add, overall, to MST? Increasingly (esp. given the lack of any indication that permission was sought out), it seems like this was a tactical choice on your part. What gramps said about a "whitewash" is relevant and important, too. So, while your revisions are a step in the right direction, I still think that you ought to take it down, or, at minimum, go and get the proper permission, like you did for Hugh Nibley.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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

It's not my phrase. I think I first heard it in a Sunstone presentation given by Davis Bitton.

I believe that it typically refers to the years (1972-1982) when Leonard Arrington was Church HIstorian and Jim Allen and Davis Bitton were the two Assistant Church Historians.

You really can't leave out the fact that it was a period characterized by unique openness and access to historical archives.

Look at it this way: Would you shrug your shoulders and see no problem with the Aryan Nation citing some of Brigham Young's more inflammatory comments on race? Or would that just be OK with you on the basis of the fact that these are published words? You seem completely un-attuned to the way that rhetoric works.

Nice analogy.

Leonard Arrington's expressions of faith = Brigham Young's more inflammatory comments on race.

Mormon Scholars Testify = The Aryan Nation.

These are not the comments of a rational person.

Lol. No, you've got it wrong (sort of). The point is simply that someone (or a group of someones) with a long-demonstrated, frequently unethical agenda is appropriating someone else's words/ideas for dubious ends. Here's another, perhaps more fitting analogy: it's like shrugging your shoulders over the way that Church teachings are appropriated/employed in The Godmakers.

Are you aware that Dr. Peterson (that's Peterson with an "O", mikwut) worked as an "agent" for the Strengthening Church Members Committee, where he "interrogated" a wavering member for some 4 hours?

That's a gross and malevolent distortion of the facts, as Scratch has been informed and reminded on innumerable occasions.

I don't think it is. But hey, prove me wrong: tell us the name of the individual you "interrogated" so we can get in touch with him and get his side of the story.

[_Buffalo]

Michael Behe also has a PhD. Hmm.