Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Scratch has suggested that I'm an anti-Semite.

My Israeli friends would be appalled to know that, I think.

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.

I'm really quite unscrupulous.

There is a certain ugliness about it.

Accurately quoting from published articles and books, distorting nothing, is a truly ugly thing.

I don't think the posting of Arrington's testimony is a horrible act, just bad form.

Citing published remarks is really quite unconscionable.

The MO with apologists seem to be that anything goes, as long as the faithful approve and defend.

But, surely, the immorality of quoting published statements is pushing the envelope, even for an apologist.

As I said, I had the same feelings/impressions as when DCP posted regarding Simon Wiesenthal's baptism.

I don't recall ever having posted anything regarding Simon Wiesenthal's baptism.

Incidentally, my father was a member of the military unit that liberated Mauthausen, the concentration camp in which Simon Wiesenthal spent most of his years as an inmate. I grew up hearing about Mauthausen, and I've donated copies of the photographs that my father was assigned to take in order to document the horrific crimes committed at Mauthausen to the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

I tend to leave the dead alone, but that is just me.

As in, you don't quote them?

Wow. That would pretty much lay waste to fields like literature, history, law, and even science.

Why does a person need to profess faith or lack thereof in association with their scholarship?

I have literally no idea whatsoever.

Who claims that anybody "needs" to do that?

I would think good scholarship would ultimately stand on its own merits.

So would I.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Daniel, I honestly do appreciate you taking time to participate on these boards. I would be very interested to know how you would respond to some of the comments made on the Terrestrial board concerning the Book of Abraham. Particularly what I consider to be the substantive challenges to your article on the subject.

[_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.

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.

It's all online in the annals of FARMS and SHIELDS, and in his 10 year+ career online.

[_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.

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?

I think you misunderstand my point, DaniteMason. Do you know of the rhetorical concept known as the appeal to ethos? Many people, when they first hear of this, assume that it means, simply, "an appeal to ethics," though that's not entirely correct. Perhaps the better interpretation/description of this concept is that it is an appeal to the character of the speaker. (I forget where it is, exactly, that Aristotle discusses this stuff. You're the "Socratic gadfly," though, so I'm sure you can fill us all in.) The reason this concept is important from a rhetorical standpoint is that it reminds us that a speaker's history and "character" are relevant to the message/argument. This really isn't very hard to understand: you are probably more likely to trust your doctor over the claims of Mr. Colon Cleanse on late night TV. The reason for this is that you know that your doctor has gone through medical school, and has had to pass the requirements for a medical license, etc. So your doctor's advice is, in some respects, an appeal to ethos. He's asserting his own experience, training, and expertise as authoritative when he gives you medical advice. Mr. Colon Cleanse is doing this, too, but he's Mr. Colon Cleanse, and he's on late-night TV, and he has a sleazy mustache, and he wants money in a way that makes him seem untrustworthy, etc.

So, compare this with the situation involving DCP. I think that all of us can agree that Dan Peterson is not a child, let alone a blood relation, of Leonard Arrington. I think that all of us can agree, too, that Dan Peterson is or has been associated at one time or another with FAIR, SHIELDS, FARMS, the Maxwell Institute, ZLMB, the FAIRboard, the MADboard, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, and Mormon Discussions. I think we can all agree that DCP is a controversial figure, and that he's been involved in a lot of disputes. I think we can agree that this is a man who once said:

We did not pick this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not withdraw from it.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=149

We can probably argue about what this means, exactly, but I would imagine that we can agree that this is a "dig in your heels" sort of assertion. I think, further, that we can agree that DCP had been in a number of conflicts with Church critics, including people on RfM, people at Signature Books, and various other people.

All of this is to say that a good chunk of Daniel C. Peterson's life has been devoted to doing battle with critics and opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This has been documented online; it has been documented in the pages of his publications; it has been documented on his CV. It is a basic fact of his existence.

Taking all this into consideration, how can anyone assume that the appearance of Leonard Arrington's testimony is somehow "disconnected" from Dr. Peterson's extensive apologetic activities?

Some people might assert that MST is somehow "not apologetic," but we've cited quotes--both past and present--demonstrating that it most definitely is (at least in the mind of its founder).

My point here is somewhat similar to Marshall McLuhan's famous axiom, "The medium is the message." Or, more simply, that it is absolutely absurd to assume that DCP had the same intentions as Arrington's children when he formulated the MST entry. When you take all this into account, and add in the problems I've already mentioned w/r/t to Meldrum, Porter, & Co., I don't really see how anyone can misunderstand that DCP has a very clear agenda here, and it's not a nice one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

how can anyone assume that the appearance of Leonard Arrington's testimony is somehow "disconnected" from Dr. Peterson's extensive apologetic activities?

I'm scarcely visible on Mormon Scholars Testify.

I have a testimony up on the site -- one of nearly three hundred, at this point -- and am passingly mentioned in two or perhaps three others.

The site is largely independent of me, in terms of the way it presents itself to its audience.

Some people might assert that MST is somehow "not apologetic," but we've cited quotes--both past and present--demonstrating that it most definitely is (at least in the mind of its founder).

Only tangentially even in the mind of its founder.

And, in terms of its public face, really not at all.

DCP has a very clear agenda here, and it's not a nice one.

In Scratch's demonology, I'm essentially incapable of doing anything "nice."

Scratch is a loon.

[_DaniteMason]

I think you misunderstand my point, DaniteMason. Do you know of the rhetorical concept known as the appeal to ethos? Many people, when they first hear of this, assume that it means, simply, "an appeal to ethics," though that's not entirely correct. Perhaps the better interpretation/description of this concept is that it is an appeal to the character of the speaker. (I forget where it is, exactly, that Aristotle discusses this stuff. You're the "Socratic gadfly," though, so I'm sure you can fill us all in.)

I'm perfectly aware of what ethos is as a mode of persuasion. (It's from Aristotle's On Rhetoric if you're interested). I'm also aware of how the term has evolved over the years and its weaknesses in rhetoric, most notably when it is used to justify abusive ad hominem. The fact that you consider someone's personal character relevant on a question of logic is - to put it mildly - quite telling.

Here's a recent example:

Mr. Colon Cleanse is doing this, too, but he's Mr. Colon Cleanse, and he's on late-night TV, and he has a sleazy mustache, and he wants money in a way that makes him seem untrustworthy, etc.

I think we can all agree that DCP is a controversial figure, and that he's been involved in a lot of disputes. I think we can agree that this is a man who once said:

We did not pick this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not withdraw from it.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=149

We can probably argue about what this means, exactly, but I would imagine that we can agree that this is a "dig in your heels" sort of assertion. I think, further, that we can agree that DCP had been in a number of conflicts with Church critics, including people on RfM, people at Signature Books, and various other people.

Yes, there have been past disputes. However, I don't know of anyone who has obsessed and speculated about them more than you have. These of course, are justified - since they're rhetorical tools, right?

Taking all this into consideration, how can anyone assume that the appearance of Leonard Arrington's testimony is somehow "disconnected" from Dr. Peterson's extensive apologetic activities?

Some people might assert that MST is somehow "not apologetic," but we've cited quotes--both past and present--demonstrating that it most definitely is (at least in the mind of its founder).

My point here is somewhat similar to Marshall McLuhan's famous axiom, "The medium is the message." Or, more simply, that it is absolutely absurd to assume that DCP had the same intentions as Arrington's children when he formulated the MST entry. When you take all this into account, and add in the problems I've already mentioned w/r/t to Meldrum, Porter, & Co., I don't really see how anyone can misunderstand that DCP has a very clear agenda here, and it's not a nice one.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture to say that MST is not exclusively about apologetics. I'll grant that some posts - including Peterson's - address issues commonly discussed in Mormon apologetic circles. However, I'm aware of posters that do nothing more than express their beliefs that faith and reason are compatible.

The problem isn't so much that MST has an agenda in and of itself beyond what is expressly noted in the Mission Statement. Your problem likely lies in Peterson's use of MST as a tool, among other things, to advance certain apologetic claims. In other words, it is likely that MST serves multiple purposes with the implication that a number of participants are active in the LDS apologetic community. But any defense of a position is in a sense, an apology. What exactly were DCP's intentions when he posted Arrington's testimony? Are you saying that Arrington's statements of faith and reason being compatible are somehow incompatible with the proclaimed mission of MST?

I don't know why Porter hasn't published on MST - ask him. I don't believe Meldrum fits the criteria.

[_Simon Belmont]

It's all online in the annals of FARMS and SHIELDS, and in his 10 year+ career online.

You're entitled to your opinion about SHIELDS, and I know you very much dislike it, but I haven't seen anything like you describe on the site.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The fact that you consider someone's personal character relevant on a question of logic is - to put it mildly - quite telling.

Where did I say that? I said it's relevant in matters of rhetoric and persuasion. And it is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture to say that MST is not exclusively about apologetics. I'll grant that some posts - including Peterson's - address issues commonly discussed in Mormon apologetic circles. However, I'm aware of posters that do nothing more than express their beliefs that faith and reason are compatible.

I'd probably mostly agree with you here. I think that Mopologetics constitute a major reason for the site, but I also suspect that the site was a calculated move on Dan's part to help rescue his ailing reputation. I bet that all those scolding phone calls from the Church Administration Building began to weigh on him

Your problem likely lies in Peterson's use of MST as a tool, among other things, to advance certain apologetic claims.

I've said what my problem is. I don't think it's right for DCP to appropriate Arrington's work and reputation like this. I think there are a lot of reasons why Arrington would object to being associated with a project run by someone like Dan Peterson. I would be raising the same objections if MST was a pet project of Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Stan Barker, Gary Novak, or John Tvedtnes. I would be making the same complaints if DCP had added a permission-less, pastiche testimony from Eugene England.

Are you saying that Arrington's statements of faith and reason being compatible are somehow incompatible with the proclaimed mission of MST?

Which "proclaimed mission"? The one in the mission statement, or the shifting explanations that DCP has given online and in interviews?

[_DaniteMason]

The fact that you consider someone's personal character relevant on a question of logic is - to put it mildly - quite telling.

Where did I say that? I said it's relevant in matters of rhetoric and persuasion. And it is.

The reason this concept is important from a rhetorical standpoint is that it reminds us that a speaker's history and "character" are relevant to the message/argument. This really isn't very hard to understand: you are probably more likely to trust your doctor over the claims of Mr. Colon Cleanse on late night TV.

Once again, I think you're appealing more to abusive ad hominem than you are ethos. Lee Atwater much?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture to say that MST is not exclusively about apologetics. I'll grant that some posts - including Peterson's - address issues commonly discussed in Mormon apologetic circles. However, I'm aware of posters that do nothing more than express their beliefs that faith and reason are compatible.

I'd probably mostly agree with you here. I think that Mopologetics constitute a major reason for the site, but I also suspect that the site was a calculated move on Dan's part to help rescue his ailing reputation. I bet that all those scolding phone calls from the Church Administration Building began to weigh on him.

Scolding phone calls eh? Which faction(s) made the crackdown(s)?

I've said what my problem is. I don't think it's right for DCP to appropriate Arrington's work and reputation like this. I think there are a lot of reasons why Arrington would object to being associated with a project run by someone like Dan Peterson. I would be raising the same objections if MST was a pet project of Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Stan Barker, Gary Novak, or John Tvedtnes. I would be making the same complaints if DCP had added a permission-less, pastiche testimony from Eugene England.

Are you saying that Arrington's statements of faith and reason being compatible are somehow incompatible with the proclaimed mission of MST?

Which "proclaimed mission"? The one in the mission statement, or the shifting explanations that DCP has given online and in interviews?

You've mentioned before how much you admire and respect Richard Bushman (a close associate of Arrington's). What do you think of Bushman's appearance on MST? You didn't seem very impassioned about Bushman's entry, or those of other well-regarded "New Mormon Historians" including James Allen, Gene Sessions, and several others that have published through (of all places) Signature Books.

You assume Arrington wouldn't want to be associated with a project like Peterson's, but you've failed to demonstrate why other than an appeal to emotion (pathos).

How do Peterson's anecdotal explanations for the mission of MST conflict with the explicit purpose noted on the website? It all goes back to the assumption that Peterson uses MST as an apologetic battering-ram. Do you honestly think posting Arrington's views on faith and scholarship will somehow soil his posthumous reputation if it happens to appear on a website managed by none other than the Kingpin himself?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Once again, I think you're appealing more to abusive ad hominem than you are ethos. Lee Atwater much?

I don't think so. My main point re: ethos has more to do with DCP's attempt (in his own words) to "draft" Arrington to his "team."

Scolding phone calls eh? Which faction(s) made the crackdown(s)?

I don't know. I was just told that phone calls have been made.

You've mentioned before how much you admire and respect Richard Bushman (a close associate of Arrington's). What do you think of Bushman's appearance on MST? You didn't seem very impassioned about Bushman's entry, or those of other well-regarded "New Mormon Historians" including James Allen, Gene Sessions, and several others that have published through (of all places) Signature Books.

How many of these people are dead? And Bushman has spoken out against precisely the bellicosity I alluded to above. Furthermore, as I said, I think part of the site's goal is to help fix DCP's bad reputation. If that's true, then maybe Bushman wanted to help out with this "reformation". I would imagine that Bushman wants the Church to be represented in the best possible light, and if the "Kingpin" of the Maxwell Institute is having a negative impact on people's feelings about the Church, it makes sense that Bushman would want to intervene and help out.

You assume Arrington wouldn't want to be associated with a project like Peterson's, but you've failed to demonstrate why other than an appeal to emotion (pathos).

I don't think I'm "assuming" anything. Rather, I think it's wrong for Dr. Peterson to "assume" that Arrington would want to ally himself with this project. From the outset, I've urged the MST administrators to go and get permission from Arrington's family, as was done for Nibley and others.

How do Peterson's anecdotal explanations for the mission of MST conflict with the explicit purpose noted on the website?

Because his "anecdotal" explanations tended to be much more frankly apologetic, combative, and polemical.

Do you honestly think posting Arrington's views on faith and scholarship will somehow soil his posthumous reputation if it happens to appear on a website managed by none other than the Kingpin himself?

I don't know. It might. What I do know is that appropriating his reputation in this way just isn't right. But it's a simple fix: Dan can take down the testimony, or he can go and get permission from Arrington's relatives, just like he did for Nibley et al. Perhaps readers need to be reminded that DCP has suggested that he doesn't "feel comfortable" approaching Arrington's family. That speaks volumes, in my opinion. You could maybe even say that he's receiving a prompting from the Holy Ghost on this one.

I hope he listens, though, and that he does the right thing.