Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Themis]

Which is, coincidentally, exactly what Arrington's children did to summarize their father's beliefs (and with one of the same sources too). This is just hideous. What a desecration of Arrington's legacy. How horrifying.

Did I say it was horrifying? I said it may not be a good idea, and yes they to are helping to form by choosing which quotes to go with.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There is pretty big difference (in my very humble opinion) between a man's children using their father's writings to make a point versus an apologist with 3 decades' worth of bellicosity, character assassination, smear campaigns, fight-picking, bashing, and etc. using the man's writings to make a point.

[_Simon Belmont]

There is pretty big difference (in my very humble opinion) between a man's children using their father's writings to make a point versus an apologist with 3 decades' worth of bellicosity, character assassination, smear campaigns, fight-picking, bashing, and etc. using the man's writings to make a point.

It would be interesting (in my humble opinion) to see you, at your convenience, actually back up your assertions about Dr. Peterson's personality. Of course, I don't expect you to do so, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

[_DaniteMason]

There is pretty big difference (in my very humble opinion) between a man's children using their father's writings to make a point versus an apologist with 3 decades' worth of bellicosity, character assassination, smear campaigns, fight-picking, bashing, and etc. using the man's writings to make a point.

What exactly then, was Peterson's point in posting a compilation of Arrington's views about faith and scholarship, and how do they conflict with the use employed by Arrington's children?

[_Yong Xi]

Daniel's defense of posting Arrington's testimony reminds me of Daniel's posts several years ago on a Jewish website defending LDS baptisms for the dead. In that encounter, DCP, in my opinion, showed enormous insensitivity to the concerns of Jews who objected to the LDS baptism of Simon Wiesenthal. My impression is that Daniel, irrespective of how others might feel, feels entitled to appropriate any concept, any idea, at any time in order to push forward the LDS agenda. There is a certain ugliness about it.

I don't think the posting of Arrington's testimony is a horrible act, just bad form. The MO with apologists seem to be that anything goes, as long as the faithful approve and defend.

[_Simon Belmont]

as long as the faithful approve and defend.

I both approve of and defend quoting from published works, verbatim, with proper citations. Don't you?

[_Yong Xi]

as long as the faithful approve and defend.

I both approve of and defend quoting from published works, verbatim, with proper citations. Don't you?

Sure, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

[_DaniteMason]

I don't think the posting of Arrington's testimony is a horrible act, just bad form. The MO with apologists seem to be that anything goes, as long as the faithful approve and defend.

And by "bad form" you mean enormously insensitive, disrespectful, and ugly - even if Arrington himself explicitly professed his devout faith as a scholar and historian of Mormonism.

Nearly all of Arrington's living LDS professional associates have contributed to MST. But that's not the real problem - is it?

The real problem lies in whether a person can profess to be a person of faith while at the same time, produce and sustain scholastic endeavors in an ever-increasing secular world.
The fact is, Arrington was a believer, and to a certain extent, engaged in activities Scratch and others would not hesitate to label apologetic.

As his daughter Susan (herself a believer) noted (paraphrased by Blair Hodges):

Maybe you never met him but are a fan of his books. He wrote, co-authored or contributed to 36 books and 22 monographs. Brigham Young: American Moses, or The Mormon Experience written with his friend Davis Bitton. Or his grand-slam book published in 1958, Great Basin Kingdom, it remains in print 52 years after it first appeared. [Leonard Arrington] was dynamic, thoughtful, prayerful, and surely one of the best listeners ever born. He was indeed something of a father confessor to hundreds who came to him to speak about things which they had spoken to no other. He was tolerant, non-judgmental, and very sympathetic soul. This tabernacle probably would not hold the number of closet doubters who came to him seeking wisdom and found it.

She continued:

Another entry is more personal, private and heart-wrenching, a summary of his feelings at the time of his release:

“Our great experiment in church-sponsored history has proven to be, if not a failure, at least not an unqualified success. One aspect that will be personally galling to me upon my release as church historian will be the gibes of my non-Mormon and anti-Mormon friends: ‘I told you so!’ they will say. Some scholars, Mormon and non-Mormons alike, have contended that skeptical critical methods of historical research and writing are incompatible with the maintenance of a firm testimony of the gospel. I have felt confident that they were wrong. And I have said so publicly many times in professional papers, talks, books, and in private conversations.”

Now, compare Leonard Arrington's statement, which is a direct quote from his personal diary, with that of the mission of MST:

This website gives LDS scholars the opportunity to express their views and feelings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are some who may feel that people of education and learning can’t be religious. It is hoped that these testimonies will help dispel that myth, educate, and give insights into the thoughts and feelings of LDS scholars.

Is Peterson engaging in parallelomania in a desperate attempt to generate more testimonies on the ever-star-crossed endeavor we call MST, or is Peterson accurately summarizing (with ample resources) certain beliefs held by a man who loved his family and the gospel?

[_Yong Xi]

And by "bad form" you mean enormously insensitive, disrespectful, and ugly - even if Arrington himself explicitly professed his devout faith as a scholar and historian of Mormonism.

Nearly all of Arrington's living LDS professional associates have contributed to MST. But that's not the real problem - is it?

The real problem lies in whether a person can profess to be a person of faith while at the same time, produce and sustain scholastic endeavors in an ever-increasing secular world.
The fact is, Arrington was a believer, and to a certain extent, engaged in activities Scratch and others would not hesitate to label apologetic.

As I said, I had the same feelings/impressions as when DCP posted regarding Simon Wiesenthal's baptism. That was my sense, but then again, maybe I am biased because of my non-belief.

By bad form, I mean insensitive. That is my take on it. I tend to leave the dead alone, but that is just me.

Why does a person need to profess faith or lack thereof in association with their scholarship? I really don't understand the concern. Please give me an example. I would think good scholarship would ultimately stand on its own merits. Perhaps it doesn't. I really don't know as I am not a scholar or published.

[_DaniteMason]

Why does a person need to profess faith or lack thereof in association with their scholarship? I really don't understand the concern. Please give me an example. I would think good scholarship would ultimately stand on its own merits. Perhaps it doesn't. I really don't know as I am not a scholar or published.

I don't know that anyone needs to per se, but in a world where it has become increasingly common to mock faith and make claims that it is incompatible with reason, I suppose some might find justification in sharing their faith in light of their scholastic fields.

I think the majority of the participants on MST believe good scholarship should stand on its own merits as well. Unfortunately, we live in a society where someone can be dismissed as a crackpot simply because they profess a certain faith, regardless of their contributions to scholarship.

When it was noted that Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed had praised DCP's biography of Muhammad, members of this board immediately attacked Peterson, not because he had written a good book, but because a scholar in Peterson's field had actually written something positive about someone they despise.

If critics profess to admire a person that is found to believe similar - if not the same - things DCP has claimed to believe, that person is either dismissed as a crackpot (like DCP), or in the case of dead persons, made to appear to be in direct opposition to DCP.

In light of these things, I felt warmly welcomed when Scratch, having never spoken with me prior to this, accused me of sock-puppetry.