Torches at High Noon: A Fog Machine, Power Lines, An Angry Extra and Brigham Young’s Electric Boogaloo

[I Have Questions]

It’s like he goes out of his way, completely unnecessarily, to be deceitful. What’s wrong with him?

[Tom]

So, if I am understanding correctly, by obfuscating and misrepresent­ing the sources for his movie dialog, Peterson is now effectively plagiarizing Arrington.

Yes. Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire, and then make suggestions as to road conditions, provisions to carry on a journey, ... how to deal with Indians." (In my previous post, I added internal quotation marks for consistency with the quotation marks in Arrington's biography.) "Someone who'd met" Young did not use that exact language. It would have been more accurate to say, "Here is Leonard Arrington's paraphrase of Remy and Brenchley's report of meeting Young.” (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

[Doctor Scratch]

Yes: why bother writing an actual, original script when you can just read Arrington's book aloud? (And not give Arrington any credit?) The cheapness is remarkable. *This* is what they are using donors' money to do.

[Marcus]

Yes: why bother writing an actual, original script when you can just read Arrington's book aloud? (And not give Arrington any credit?) The cheapness is remarkable. *This* is what they are using donors' money to do.

Or, possibly, not using the donor's money to do. He's hired scriptwriters, why aren't they write the script? How much money does plagiarism save?

[I Have Questions]

Yes: why bother writing an actual, original script when you can just read Arrington's book aloud? (And not give Arrington any credit?) The cheapness is remarkable. *This* is what they are using donors' money to do.

Or, possibly, not using the donor's money to do. He's hired scriptwriters, why aren't they write the script? How much money does plagiarism save?

He's hired scriptwriters? That cannot be true.

[Marcus]

Or, possibly, not using the donor's money to do. He's hired scriptwriters, why aren't they write the script? How much money does plagiarism save?

He's hired scriptwriters? That cannot be true.

[Tom]

Episode 30: "Educate Women? What Did Brigham Young Believe?"

I wish to discuss a few clips from this week's episode of the seemingly eternal Bowdlerizing Brigham series.

Daniel Peterson:

Critics of the church will say, "Ah, Latter-day Saints don't have female clergy." Well, they're often coming from a background where only clergy speak in church. But we don't. In any given sacrament meeting, in any given week, half the talks in sacrament meeting will be given by women, half the classes will be taught by women, and not just women's classes, but, you know, the Sunday school classes to mixed groups and so on. And this has been true from the beginning of the church, that women could play that prominent a role. They're, they're not barred from preaching in the church where they would be in another church that has only male clergy.

Note the language I've bolded above. The church's website addresses how women's roles and responsibilities have changed since the founding of the church in 1830:

How have women’s responsibilities in the Church changed over time?

Women’s roles, responsibilities, and opportunities have changed since the early years of the Church. When the Church was founded in 1830, there were no formal roles for women. Like other Christians in their day, Latter-day Saints in the early years of the Church reserved public preaching and leadership for men. Meanwhile, women actively participated in many ways. They ratified decisions by voting in conferences; they worshipped alongside men in meetings and choirs; they shared the gospel with relatives and neighbors; they hosted meetings in their homes; and they bore testimony in private and in public.

In 1842, Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society through divine revelation after the pattern of the priesthood. This gave women authority, sacred responsibilities, and official positions within the structure of the Church. It also fulfilled a revelation given in 1830 that Emma was to “expound scriptures, and to exhort the church.” The revelation of temple ordinances in Nauvoo opened additional opportunities for women’s participation in the Church.

The ways in which women have participated in the Church have continued to change since that time. For example, women sometimes prepared the sacrament table and gave blessings to heal the sick in the name of Jesus Christ but without invoking priesthood authority. Today, women preach the gospel as full-time missionaries; act as witnesses to gospel ordinances; speak and pray regularly in sacrament meetings, stake conferences, and general conferences; serve as chaplains; and participate in leadership councils on the local and general levels of the worldwide Church.

(emphasis added)

Peterson's statement is, at a minimum, misleading. As the church's website indicates, women did not preach in meetings in the early church. Women did not speak regularly in the church's semiannual general conference until 1988 and, even today, only two to three women speak at each conference. I wish that the historians featured in the episode would have been given the opportunity to address how women's roles and responsibilities have changed over time. Peterson's penchant to engage in apologetics has overridden his attention to historical accuracy. I trust that he will issue a correction or clarification in the next episode of the series.

Peterson:

And then some people will raise the question, "Well, what about women praying for and blessing the sick?" Well, the fact is that you don't have to have the priesthood to pray for the sick, or to pray for a blessing upon someone who's afflicted. And women were never barred from that. And not even non-members are barred from that. I mean, non-Christians can pray for the sick and they do. And I would expect that God hears them.

Notice that Peterson does not touch upon the history of healing within the church.

To quote from the church's website:

Early Latter-day Saints exercised the spiritual gift of healing in two overlapping ways. First, they followed counsel given in the New Testament and in revelations received by Joseph Smith that instructed them to call on “the elders of the church” to “lay their hands upon” the sick and bless them. In keeping with this scriptural injunction, men holding priesthood offices in the Church performed healing blessings. Second, early Latter-day Saints viewed healing as a gift of the Spirit, available to anyone who possessed sufficient faith. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, both men and women performed healing blessings in the name of Jesus Christ, often by laying hands on the affected part of the body but without specifically invoking priesthood authority. . . .

Joseph Smith endorsed women’s participation in healing. “Respecting the female laying on hands,” Joseph said, “it is no sin for any body to do it that has faith.” For women, blessing the sick was a natural extension of their work as the primary nurses and caregivers in times of illness. In particular, Latter-day Saint women often anointed and blessed other women in cases of pregnancy and childbirth.

Brigham Young and other Church leaders continued to encourage women to seek the spiritual gift of healing and approved women’s participation in healing blessings. In 1880, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated that women performed healing blessings “not by virtue and authority of the priesthood, but by virtue of their faith in Christ.” Likewise, Relief Society General President Eliza R. Snow taught, “Women can administer in the name of Jesus but not by virtue of the Priesthood.”

By the late 19th century, new generations of Latter-day Saints began to seek health and healing in different ways than their predecessors. They continued to call for the sick to be anointed with oil, but in many instances, they emphasized the efficacy of fasting and prayer without formal administration. Advances in scientific medicine also led them to trust doctors and hospitals more than previous generations had. In the early 20th century, Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant standardized priesthood procedures and ordinances, including healing blessings. This standardization included publishing instructions for priesthood healing blessings in handbooks for missionaries and local priesthood leaders. Church leaders also gave specific instructions regarding the use of consecrated oil in blessings, prescribing a simple anointing on the crown of the head. In the 1920s, baptisms for health were discontinued, as were temple healing blessings.

With respect to women’s participation in healing blessings, a 1914 letter from the First Presidency affirmed that “any good sister, full of faith in God and in the efficacy of prayer” may bless the sick. But the Presidency emphasized the priority of priesthood blessings: “The command of the Lord is to call in the elders to administer to the sick, and when they can be called in, they should be asked to anoint the sick or seal the anointing.” Subsequent Church leaders emphasized the scriptural instruction to “call for the elders” to administer healing blessings. This emphasis was underscored in Church periodicals and in letters sent to and distributed by local Relief Society leaders in the 1940s and 1950s. The Church’s current handbook directs that “only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may administer to the sick or afflicted.”

(emphasis added)

Why does the church's current handbook state that "only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may administer to the sick or afflicted"? Did church leaders receive a revelation directing this position? I trust that Peterson will address this issue in the next episode.

So, if I am understanding correctly, by obfuscating and misrepresent­ing the sources for his movie dialog, Peterson is now effectively plagiarizing Arrington.

Yes. Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire, and then make suggestions as to road conditions, provisions to carry on a journey, ... how to deal with Indians." (In my previous post, I added internal quotation marks for consistency with the quotation marks in Arrington's biography.) "Someone who'd met" Young did not use that exact language. It would have been more accurate to say, "Here is Leonard Arrington's paraphrase of Remy and Brenchley's report of meeting Young. (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

I am waiting to see whether Peterson credits Arrington. I do not believe that he has done so.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

The Afore manufactured this quote out of whole cloth? An astonishing move, though hardly surprising. Given the Afore's dubious personal and professional track record, his work inevitably invites skepticism and suspicion. Bowdlerizing Brigham fits the pattern perfectly, marked by both a plagiarized screenplay and fabricated facts. Folks, you really can't make this stuff up.

[Tom]

Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

The Afore manufactured this quote out of whole cloth? An astonishing move, though hardly surprising. Given the Afore's dubious personal and professional track record, his work inevitably invites skepticism and suspicion. Bowdlerizing Brigham fits the pattern perfectly, marked by both a plagiarized screenplay and fabricated facts. Folks, you really can't make this stuff up.

No. He read a quotation in Arrington’s biography (see here). I’ve been unable to locate the source of Arrington’s quotation, but the Afore didn’t manufacture it.