Church Surveillance

[_Coggins7]

How dumb do you think I am?

Oh boy...

[_Mister Scratch]

Who has done more of this, more effectively and more diversely, than Quinn? I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

Which of his books have been published in peer-reviewed organs?

Oh, yes, and now we come back to this issue yet again. This was hashed out some time ago on, I believe, an entire thread dedicated to pointing out that Quinn's peer reviewed publication history is scant, while his supporters argue that this doesn't matter because Quinn is, well, Quinn.

This isn't correct. (And let's note in passing that Coggins admitted elsewhere that he's never bothered to read any of Quinn's work.) Journal articles are frequently seen as being more important than books in the world of academic publications, and article-wise, Quinn's publications are significant. Certainly more significant and scholarly than Loran Blood's whitewashed hack-job for a Church publication.

The bottom line? Virtually all of Quinn's published work has been centered around his personal vendetta against the Church and its teachings, and especially its social teachings, to which he has bent his scholarly abilities. Quinn is a revisionist historian before he is a historian, and always has been. He has shown, over time, a willingness to stretch history and historical evidence, and even invent it when necessary (Same Sex Dynamics) to make his points.

I'd be interested in seeing this assertion dealt with more fully. (Then again, Coggins probably hasn't bothered to do the reading.)

[_Coggins7]

How dumb do you think I am? I'm not going to be emailing you *anything*, Bob. Particularly in light of the fact that you have provided no print sources for your claims regarding BYU spying, nor have you provided the names of these professors you supposedly interviewed.

Neener, neener, neener.

You have nothing, do you Scratch? Nothing at all but your juvenile posturing, paranoid tin foil hat melodrama of persecuted dissident, and your delusional belief that anyone of any intellectual maturity is going to believe you.

What scares me even more than you Scratch, is your intended audience.

[_Coggins7]

Please stop calling me 'my dear'. It creeps me out.

Scratch is a woman. Deal with it.

A sock puppet, by any chance?

[_Coggins7]

I continue to assert that you are extremely thinly-read. You possess Quinn's works (which except for the book on Clark ARE NOT PEER-REVIEWED) and seemingly nothing else -- in particular, two newspaper articles which don't support your contention about Oaks admissions. Your sterling rhetoric sometimes comes apart, and here and now is the time for that.

This has been my contention for quite sometime, and despite the fact that this may sound like nothing more than a put down, it is actually a well considered opinion.

Scratch is a marvelous polemicist, possessing the mind and demeanor of a political activist--but not that of a serious intellectual (that is, serious thinker). His demagogic and rhetorical skills are quite good, but, the weakness of this mindset; the weakness of the ideologue as over against the philosopher, is that the ideologue isn't comfortable with close, careful reasoning, and his primary focus is personalities, not ideas.

Scratch castigates me for the vast amount of reading I do, from books, the Internet, magazines etc., and this changes not at all whether I am reading the works of the Left, the Right, or from any other point of view. Scratch is a man of many and strong opinions but, from my vantage point, little deep education.

And watch out, of course, because no matter how educated or knowledgeable you are in some area, Scratch will ask you for your degrees (even though he posesses none him...or her...self).

[_Coggins7]

This isn't correct. (And let's note in passing that Coggins admitted elsewhere that he's never bothered to read any of Quinn's work.) Journal articles are frequently seen as being more important than books in the world of academic publications, and article-wise, Quinn's publications are significant. Certainly more significant and scholarly than Loran Blood's whitewashed hack-job for a Church publication.

Whether or not Quinn's works are significant or not is a matter of contention and interpretation, and given the highly interested and agenda driven nature of most of his work, that interpretation will be different among different groups of interpreters.

I have never written for a Church publication, nor were my brief articles for Meridian "hack jobs" (but then, that's my interpretation).

You see Scratch, you can't even get this right. What is your credibility on things you have no direct knowledge of but Bob clearly does? That's right Scratch, absolute zero. Yet you soldier on, dig in your heels, and slog through the logical whoppers, innuendos, insinuations, and tin foil hat paranoia to the next polemical crest.

As Bill Clinton said, "Deny, deny, deny."

Quote:
The bottom line? Virtually all of Quinn's published work has been centered around his personal vendetta against the Church and its teachings, and especially its social teachings, to which he has bent his scholarly abilities. Quinn is a revisionist historian before he is a historian, and always has been. He has shown, over time, a willingness to stretch history and historical evidence, and even invent it when necessary (Same Sex Dynamics) to make his points.



I'd be interested in seeing this assertion dealt with more fully. (Then again, Coggins probably hasn't bothered to do the reading.)

I'd be even more interested in you admitting that your knowledge of the BYU "stakeouts" etc., is completely second hand, then embellished and amplified to fit your polemical needs, and that Bob has taken you to the cleaners regarding this issue.

As you drip dry, perhaps you might consider an alternate course of action other than making an abject fool of yourself in public again and again (whoever you are).

[_Trevor]

But, wouldn't you agree with me that your veneer of civility is really very thin? You seem to be a pretty-well educated person otherwise.

Should I not ask you for references when you post a long list of abuses?

Wouldn't you agree that you ask leading questions? ;-)

Hmmm. A thin veneer of civility. I don't know. Sometimes I fail to behave in a civil manner. I think the more important question is whether I am much less civil to Mormons than non-Mormons. Here I think my track record of angry arguments with ex-Mos now and then would suggest that I am far from being completely one-sided. I usually react unfavorably to arguments and attitudes I don't agree with, regardless of which side of the argument they originate from.

As for you asking for references-- It looks really thorough of you. You can ask, and make the other person work a way at satisfying your request. If they don't, they look bad, and all you had to do was repeatedly ask for references. You get so much for such little effort! At this point, I am jaded on the whole CFR thing. I think that on these message boards it has become little more than a tactic somewhat cynically used by both sides.

Yes, it is important to back up what you say, and it is indispensable when you are publishing scholarship, but in this funhouse of fast-food rhetoric it is little more than a rhetorical pose to look smart and thorough, while making your interlocutor scramble for citations you will never read. I offered you one book reference. You haven't mentioned reading it. I think that speaks volumes about the whole "CFR" dodge.

[_Trevor]

By the way, now that the subject of my civility has been raised, it seems like the right time to add that Dr. Peterson has challenged my interpretation of the items listed below. I called this behavior despicable, and I said I had no doubt that Crocket and Dr. Peterson felt justified in what they were doing.

As an update, Dr. Peterson makes claims concerning what precipitated his actions that force me to concede that I cannot be certain that his actions were despicable, or that he felt some kind of self-righteous urge to strike back at GoodK. In short, I don't really know. So, I retract my judgment, admitting that I don't know enough to conclude what was really going on here. If it all was as Dr. Peterson represented to me, I would not characterize his actions as despicable.

As far as members harassing critics on the net, I think that the following constitutes harassment:

1 - letting a critic know that their identity is known by the believer
2 - telling that critic that the believer intends to send their posts to the critic's still believing family
3 - and, in one instance, actually doing so (although making an erroneous attribution in the process)

Crocket did 1 and 2 to GoodK. DCP did number 3 to GoodK.

Will Schryver also went on at length about his desire to find real identities of critics on the net in order to send that information to church leaders.

Critics post anonymously for good reason.

Naturally, I find such behavior despicable, and I have no doubt that the characters doing it feel completely justified.

T

[_Trevor]

The bottom line? Virtually all of Quinn's published work has been centered around his personal vendetta against the Church and its teachings, and especially its social teachings, to which he has bent his scholarly abilities.

That is sheer bluster born out of the fantasies of an ideologically addled brain.

[_Coggins7]

Regardless of the facts of a particular case, I would say there is a definite "cloak and dagger" aspect to the LDS Church's image.

So much comes from lips of critics. I'll bite on your list.

1) Danites: I don't think we need to worry about Danites, but what is worrisome is the precedent such people set for zealous Mormons who see it as their personal mission to protect the Church and its leadership.

One of my ancestors was called to be a bodyguard for the Prophet and joined the Danites in the 1830s. His journal, John L. Butler, has been published. Nowhere after the Gallatin incident does he mention any functioning of the Danites. What is the best source (member of the church or former member of the church) who admitted to being a Danite in the Nauvoo or Utah period?

2) Mountains Meadows Massacre: this is an excellent example of the kind of tragedy that once occurred when paranoia and zeal got the best of decent Mormons.

No issue there. However, Brooks says that BY was not an accessory before the fact. Bagley says that he was, but cites only rumor.

3) There is enough evidence to suggest that some folks, whether acting officially or unofficially, have taken it upon themselves to harass critics of the LDS Church. We know of occurrences on the net.

What would you say is the very best example of that in the modern era? Something other than a sermon.

4) The Committee for Strengthening the Membership.

What is your very best evidence that it exists today to ferret out dissidents? Or that it has ever been used to ferret out and discipline dissidents (the latter may be easier to find, but I am really interested in the former).

5) The Church practice of collecting all criticisms, perceived criticisms, or too independently minded publications. At times this has amounted to an orthodoxy patrol used to fire BYU professors and excommunicate independent thinkers.

This is mandated by the D&C. Nibley wrote somewhere (I have lost the cite, unfortunately) that he would visit this archive and could see that it received little use. In other words, the D&C demands that the Church compile this stuff as a future testament, but then employs nobody to do anything about it. Cites to the contrary would be appreciated. I don't consider BYU professors doing independent research in these archives as significant.

6) Church cooperation with the government in collecting information on polygamists.

As well the Church cooperated with U.S. Attorney Howard Sumner in the MMM prosecution in 1876. If criminal activity is involved and children are at risk, I don't see what the problem might me.

7) BYU administrators entrapping homosexuals and placing spies in classes to monitor the orthodoxy and political opinions of professors.

According to the affected professors I've interviewed, at least three of whom are still angry over the incident, they see it as students doing the spying on professors and Wilkinson taking unfair advantage of it. That isn't the Church, and the Church righted that ship. As far as entrapment of homosexuals, BYU Security in the 1970s (as well as today) are commissioned peace officers in Utah. They are as legitimate a police force as the Provo P.D. At the same time this was going on, the Utah County Sheriff's Department was arresting homosexuals with undercover agents at rest stops on the freeway, a practice that continues in almost all states. When Oaks learned what was going on, he put a stop to it.

8) The government's tendency to recruit Mormons for the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

As well as Arab speakers and former military. I don't see how the church is to blame for this.

9) Foreign suspicion that Mormon missionaries work for a US intelligence agency.

And, so?

10) Howard Hughes's use of Mormons for his personal security.

The Church is to blame?

11) The similarity between Church security and the Secret Service, and the use of ex-FBI and ex-CIA Mormons in that capacity.

Hmm. The University of California also employs ex-cops, ex-CIA and ex-FBI.

12) The involvement of prominent members like Ezra Taft Benson and Cleon Skousen in fringe, hyper-patriotic, and jingoistic political groups.

I think that speaks to Mormon plurality more than anything else. As well a liberal democrat can be a member of the First Presidency. (Brown; Faust).

13) The common Mormon perception that a Mormon who publicly disagrees with a policy of the First Presidency or the Twelve is an "enemy" of the LDS Church.

Common Mormon perception is that Coke is forbidden. I look to the priesthood rather than what the news reporters report.

14) The meddling of members of the Twelve in local disciplinary actions, and then ordering stake presidents to lie about said meddling.

What is your best cite for the proposition that stake presidents were ordered to lie?

15) Unusually close strictures on information about the LDS Church, even keeping things secret from its own members.

What is the best-known secret kept from members?

Code: Select all

16) Church's efforts to monitor member-critics' activities online.

What would you say is the very best cite for this contention?

I have to say that observing Trevor having his backside handed back to him in this manner is most gratifying, especially given his smarmy, pseudo sophisticate intellectual pose on this board.

Particularly interesting is this:

The involvement of prominent members like Ezra Taft Benson and Cleon Skousen in fringe, hyper-patriotic, and jingoistic political groups.

So, we now know only that Trevor is hostile to economic liberty, America, and patriotic feeling toward it. We now no something more about Trevor, but little more about Benson. Hugh Nibley was well to the left of center in economic and some political areas, and Harry Reid is a full blown left wing statoloter. Romney plays the center in a kind of cocktail kind of way. The question is, what does any of this say about the Church (perhaps Reid should be left out of the discussion, because his leftism has taken him, in more ways then one, well beyond the bounds of Church doctrine and social teaching in several areas. Reid's politics cannot possibly be connected to anything he absorbed in the Church (or from the constitution) so maybe his case is rather moot)?

In one thing, Trevor is bound to be correct: the overwhelming population of active LDS are going to lean toward the conservative/libertarian field of political philosophy (I think, in all seriousness, calling Hugh B. Brown a "liberal Democrat" is a little of a stretch, as Brown was a part of the Depression era generation and part of a Democratic Party substantially different ideologically than the post sixties Democrat Party s it exists today. He was a Democrat, but...liberal? Well, yes, in another sense of the term, a much earlier Roosevelt, Kennedy, Humphrey sense. There's plenty to disagree with in that earlier liberalism, but its nothing approaching what it became after the McGovern candidacy) because these are the philosophies most harmonizable with Church doctrine and philosophy.