Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Doctor Scratch]

MST seems to have a wide range of perspectives from the religiously orthodox to liberal skeptics (one of which was removed following an implication that the author did not believe in the truthfulness - or was it historicity? - of the Book of Mormon.

Let me hasten to clarify this, before Scratch gets his claws into it and begins to spin and distort the situation with his usual malevolent glee.

The testimony in question was removed at the request of the person who had submitted it in the first place, and I regret it very much. I didn't read it as denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and certainly didn't read it as denying the truth of the Book of Mormon, but apparently there were some people out there (I have no idea who they were) who didn't like it. And so, feeling under stress, the person in question preferred to withdraw.

I hope that the withdrawal is temporary, and I would be happy to put the person's entry back up without changes.

And no, Scratch, I won't tell you who the person is. You might be able to figure it out on your own, or with the help of your creepy network of secret "informants," but I'm not going to be the one to help you to put added stress on this person.

Hi, Dr. Peterson. I had predicted all along that you'd be required to remove a testimony. I have to admit that it's gratifying to be proven right once again. What I really hope is that you take note of what I've been telling you on this thread. Your site carries with it a number of consequences that I think you tend to overlook.

I've invited Jana. Thus far, she hasn't submitted anything.

Well, that's at least 3 people I'm aware of who've turned down MST.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I had predicted all along that you'd be required to remove a testimony.

And I predict that somebody will die in Iowa tomorrow.

That took real courage and insight.

In a large enough population, things are bound to occur.

The population on Mormon Scholars Testify is approaching three hundred.

I have to admit that it's gratifying to be proven right once again.

It was hardly a very daring prediction.

Are you gratified when night follows day?

What I really hope is that you take note of what I've been telling you on this thread.

Oh, I have.

I finally did, just now, write an e-mail about your ridiculous argument here; I called the attention of my friends on Skinny to this absurd thread.

Even as I write, they are, as you would say, yukking it up over how idiotic your objections are.

Your site carries with it a number of consequences that I think you tend to overlook.

Such as?

[_DaniteMason]

The testimony in question was removed at the request of the person who had submitted it in the first place, and I regret it very much. I didn't read it as denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and certainly didn't read it as denying the truth of the Book of Mormon, but apparently there were some people out there (I have no idea who they were) who didn't like it. And so, feeling under stress, the person in question preferred to withdraw.

While I was aware of the testimony in question's removal, I was unaware of any reason's why other than the individual him/herself briefly mentioning it. Given his/her current vocation and my own interactions with him/her, they do not strike me as someone particularly wavering in their faith.

A few weeks ago I spoke for about an hour with an individual who's extended family members identify as Cultural/Cafeteria Mormons (not that I have a significant problem with it). The person in question's previously-quoted testimony was brought up as an example of a rising trend in Mormon intellectuals to affiliate with or identify as Cultural Mormons. I hadn't read the testimony in question when it was posted, but was intrigued as to why the individual I was speaking with might be marginally upset with something posted on MST.

I likewise, look forward to a possible future post by the scholar in question, provided s/he decides to participate again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, that's at least 3 people I'm aware of who've turned down MST.

There have been more than three.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, that's at least 3 people I'm aware of who've turned down MST.

There have been more than three.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. Like I said: there are very serious reasons why people would have misgivings about associating with your Web site.

ETA: Is Gary Novak still running Skinny-L out of MHCC? Or did you guys switch it out so as to prevent any fallback landing on Bro. Novak?

[_DaniteMason]

I have to admit that it's gratifying to be proven right once again. What I really hope is that you take note of what I've been telling you on this thread. Your site carries with it a number of consequences that I think you tend to overlook.

Like, such as?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. Like I said: there are very serious reasons why people would have misgivings about associating with your Web site.

There are many reasons why people might not want to appear on Mormon Scholars Testify. My supposed toxicity may be among them, but I rather doubt that it's played a significant role, if it's played any role at all. Certainly, although it's a dominant theme in your life and thinking, nobody's mentioned it to me.

But people have mentioned other reasons:

They're at a point in their careers where they think going public might damage their prospects.

They're from a country where it could have serious political repercussions for them and/or their families.

They're just private people.

They're not sure that their faith is robust enough to do much good for others.

They're under the gun for a major writing project and just don't have the time right now.

They're headed out on a service project where they would rather be more subtle about their Church affiliation, at least for now.

They hate to write.

They don't want to be a target for anti-Mormons.

And so on and so forth.

Not everybody accepts your depiction of me as a hideous and unethical monster of cruelty and corruption. (Sorry to break it to you.) Mormon Scholars Testify is approaching three hundred entries, and, barring some unforeseen disruption, will easily exceed three hundred well before the end of the year.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have to admit that it's gratifying to be proven right once again. What I really hope is that you take note of what I've been telling you on this thread. Your site carries with it a number of consequences that I think you tend to overlook.

Like, such as?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

Dr. Peterson is trying to straddle the line between Internet and Chapel Mormon. He's spent the bulk of the past 25-30 years being a hardcore Mopologist, meaning that he's engaged in something like rhetorical "warfare" with critics, all the while eroding a number of traditional Mormon beliefs/views. Now, though, he's gone "Chapel," by which I mean that he's trying to do things that are more obviously "faith promoting." MST and his articles in the "Mormon Times" are two salient examples of this.

The chief "consequence" of MST, in my mind, is the fact that his Mopologetic past and associations are going to collide--perhaps violently--with contemporary Chapel Mormonism. The fact that MST has already suffered a casualty is pretty clear evidence of this. He *thinks* that he's helping to solve all the problems that the Church has faced over the years w/r/t critics. The reality is that he has done more than perhaps any other person to cause more pain, conflict, and contention in this regard. I forget which of his editorials it is, but at one point he said something to the effect that he intends to engage in 'warfare' to the very end. I don't see how you can employ that sort of rhetoric at the same time that you're trying to do something like "Mormon Scholars Testify." DCP could come out and announce that he's "changed," and that he's revised and reformed his views, but we both know that he's never, ever going to do that. He might *actually* change his views, but there will be zero acknowledgement that this has happened.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson is trying to straddle the line between Internet and Chapel Mormon.

Dr. Peterson rejects that silly dichotomy.

He's always been a "Chapel Mormon." He's served as a missionary, on high councils, as a home teacher, in high priest group leadership, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee, in bishoprics, as a bishop, as a priesthood instructor, as a perpetual fireside speaker, as an Education Week speaker, as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, and etc., and etc.

The chief "consequence" of MST, in my mind, is the fact that his Mopologetic past and associations are going to collide--perhaps violently--with contemporary Chapel Mormonism.

Pure hallucination.

The fact that MST has already suffered a casualty is pretty clear evidence of this.

How, exactly?

He *thinks* that he's helping to solve all the problems that the Church has faced over the years w/r/t critics.

I do?

The reality is that he has done more than perhaps any other person to cause more pain, conflict, and contention in this regard.

I have?

I forget which of his editorials it is, but at one point he said something to the effect that he intends to engage in 'warfare' to the very end. I don't see how you can employ that sort of rhetoric at the same time that you're trying to do something like "Mormon Scholars Testify."

"I've fought the good fight," said that notorious militarist and missionary failure known as Paul.

DCP could come out and announce that he's "changed," and that he's revised and reformed his views, but we both know that he's never, ever going to do that.

Because I haven't.

I've always been a "Chapel Mormon."

He might *actually* change his views, but there will be zero acknowledgement that this has happened.

In Scratchthink, the fact that I don't admit that I've changed my views is proof that I'm lying. The thought that I might be telling the truth would, if accepted, shatter his worldview into little shards of glass.

[_DaniteMason]

Dr. Peterson is trying to straddle the line between Internet and Chapel Mormon. He's spent the bulk of the past 25-30 years being a hardcore Mopologist, meaning that he's engaged in something like rhetorical "warfare" with critics, all the while eroding a number of traditional Mormon beliefs/views. Now, though, he's gone "Chapel," by which I mean that he's trying to do things that are more obviously "faith promoting." MST and his articles in the "Mormon Times" are two salient examples of this.

I seem to remember Peterson writing a few chapters in a book on warfare - though heavily edited of its vitriolic magniloquence by the Clumsy Lieutenant.

As one who has followed Peterson's work (among several others) through the years, I haven't noticed a change in tone or approach. Which traditional Mormon beliefs have been eroded by Peterson? For instance, I'm aware that Peterson's Defending the Faith lectures (a popular audio CD among missionaries) has changed the way many missionaries approach the translation of the Book of Mormon and the various accounts of the First Vision. Clarifying common misconceptions - yes. Deliberately eroding traditional Mormon beliefs - asininus es.