The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What did you want me to do? Carry a concealed pistol with which I could shoot anybody who mentioned Quinn's sexual orientation?

No. Simply do what we all were taught in Sunday School: tell the other person in the conversation that the topic is a private matter and that we shouldn't gossip. If more folks had said that when Quinn's sexual orientation came up in conversation, perhaps it wouldn't have become so well known in certain circles. In other words, WWJD?

[Guest]

I'm simply trying to expose what I think was horrible treatment of Quinn by Church leaders and the Mormon scholarly community.

And you're abusing what I've said in order to press your agenda. I've said nothing, and I know of nothing, to suggest that "Church leaders" orchestrated or even knew anything of such allegedly "horrible treatment." I've said nothing to suggest that "the Mormon scholarly community" treated Quinn horribly, and I know of nothing to suggest it. What is more, as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's proper to speak of "the Mormon scholarly community" in this case only if one intends by it a very loose "community" containing disaffected Mormons, unbelieving Mormons, ex-Mormons, and non-Mormons every bit as much as faithful members.

Why would it even come up?

At least in my interactions with humans, I've found that things come up for all sorts of reasons. This conversation was somewhere on the order of fifteen or twenty years ago. I can't remember the details. (Todd and I certainly didn't raise the issue; we knew nothing about it.) And, even at the time, I don't think I was privy to any insider knowledge about the synaptic firings that might have led that particular mammalian brain to issue a directive to the vocal chords to utter a sentence about Mike Quinn's sexual orientation. Nor did he begin to gurgle, gyrate, and turn blue, such that we might have had warning and stopped the utterance before it occurred.

So folks were talking to you about Quinn (I.e., your friend in So. Cal., others in your "circle," and, last but not least, your friend who spoke with Quinn's SP). Still sounds like gossip to me.

The subject was mentioned a handful of times, very briefly, over the course of several years. Doesn't sound to me like very much at all.

And remember: I'm your only source for this.

The backpedalling continues .... Under this version, your friend only 'assumed' the SP was talking of Quinn's sexual orientation.

No "backpedalling." (Your stretches seem to be growing increasingly desperate.) I'm simply trying to keep your wild, libelous, and agenda-driven speculations at least loosely tied to reality.

I simply don't have a transcript of what my friend's friend said. I have absolutely no reason to assume that he discoursed on the subject at any great length. It was mentioned sufficiently clearly and at sufficient length for my friend to know that his friend was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation -- I suspect that very few people who knew much about Quinn beyond his name weren't -- but that's about all I'm able to say.

And, don't forget, I'm your only source on this.

You're attempting to create a scandal where none exists.

No scandal, just gossip unbecoming any Christian.

This from an anonymous poster who's been pushing a serious smear now for at least two years? Rich. Rich to the point of nauseating.

More 'pot calling the kettle black' smokescreen.

Not at all. More truth, from a person you continue to seek to slander.

[Guest]

Madame de la Tourette just can't stop it:

arrogant prick-hood . . . prickiness . . . vicious arrogant prick-hood . . . arrogant prick . . . an arrogant prick who doesn't live his religion . . . an arrogant prick who doesn't live his religion . . . I judge . . . arrogance

Pretty much on the Some Schmo level, but without the sophisticated vocabulary and urbane style of argument.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Simply do what we all were taught in Sunday School: tell the other person in the conversation that the topic is a private matter and that we shouldn't gossip.

In most of the cases, that would probably have extended the length of the conversation on the topic.

In other words, WWJD?

Let me guess. Would he have started an anonymous internet smear campaign?

[_Some Schmo]

Pretty much on the Some Schmo level, but without the sophisticated vocabulary and urbane style of argument.

Transparent flattery. Now you're just trying to get in my good books.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I've said nothing, and I know of nothing, to suggest that "Church leaders" orchestrated or even knew anything of such allegedly "horrible treatment."

Example: your "friend" and Quinn's SP.

I've said nothing to suggest that "the Mormon scholarly community" treated Quinn horribly, and I know of nothing to suggest it.

Example: your revelation that Quinn's sexual orientation was so well known in your "circle" that virtually everyone knew (years before Quinn publicly came out).

What is more, as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's proper to speak of "the Mormon scholarly community" in this case only if one intends by it a very loose "community" containing disaffected Mormons, unbelieving Mormons, ex-Mormons, and non-Mormons every bit as much as faithful members.

I used the phrase (or similar one) the same way you have used it -- your "circle."

Why would it even come up?

At least in my interactions with humans, I've found that things come up for all sorts of reasons. This conversation was somewhere on the order of fifteen or twenty years ago. I can't remember the details. (Todd and I certainly didn't raise the issue; we knew nothing about it.) And, even at the time, I don't think I was privy to any insider knowledge about the synaptic firings that might have led that particular mammalian brain to issue a directive to the vocal chords to utter a sentence about Mike Quinn's sexual orientation. Nor did he begin to gurgle, gyrate, and turn blue, such that we might have had warning and stopped the utterance before it occurred.

Thus, the question remains: why did it even come up? You remember the conversation and the participants -- what was the context?

So folks were talking to you about Quinn (I.e., your friend in So. Cal., others in your "circle," and, last but not least, your friend who spoke with Quinn's SP). Still sounds like gossip to me.

The subject was mentioned a handful of times, very briefly, over the course of several years. Doesn't sound to me like very much at all.

But, yet, according to you virtually everyone in your "circle" knew about it. Go figure.

And remember: I'm your only source for this.

Only for the information about your friend speaking with Quinn's SP. We have other sources for what went on in certain circles: Bob Crockett, Quinn himself (regarding his interactions with the aforementioned SP), etc.

The backpedalling continues .... Under this version, your friend only 'assumed' the SP was talking of Quinn's sexual orientation.

No "backpedalling." (Your stretches seem to be growing increasingly desperate.) I'm simply trying to keep your wild, libelous, and agenda-driven speculations at least loosely tied to reality.

How? By constantly backpedalling and changing the story?

I simply don't have a transcript of what my friend's friend said. I have absolutely no reason to assume that he discoursed on the subject at any great length. It was mentioned sufficiently clearly and at sufficient length for my friend to know that his friend was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation -- I suspect that very few people who knew much about Quinn beyond his name weren't -- but that's about all I'm able to say.

Precisely. And how did so many "who knew much about Quinn" know of his sexual orientation? Gossip.

You're attempting to create a scandal where none exists.

No scandal, just gossip unbecoming any Christian.

This from an anonymous poster who's been pushing a serious smear now for at least two years? Rich. Rich to the point of nauseating.

No smear, my dear man -- just the truth (which is what appears to be nauseating you in this particular case).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Simply do what we all were taught in Sunday School: tell the other person in the conversation that the topic is a private matter and that we shouldn't gossip.

In most of the cases, that would probably have extended the length of the conversation on the topic.

You really don't want to give up on gossiping, do you?

In other words, WWJD?

Let me guess. Would he have started an anonymous internet smear campaign?

Whatever, Freethinker.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've said nothing, and I know of nothing, to suggest that "Church leaders" orchestrated or even knew anything of such allegedly "horrible treatment."

Example: your "friend" and Quinn's SP.

The fact that Quinn's widely known homosexuality was mentioned during a conversation demonstrates that Church leaders orchestrated horrible treatment of Quinn?

If that's true, your multiyear obsession with this topic must rank right up there with the Holocaust.

I've said nothing to suggest that "the Mormon scholarly community" treated Quinn horribly, and I know of nothing to suggest it.

Example: your revelation that Quinn's sexual orientation was so well known in your "circle" that virtually everyone knew (years before Quinn publicly came out).

I tend to reserve the term horrible treatment for horrible treatment. If Quinn suffered any harm from the fact that people affiliated with Sunstone and with Signature Books, along with various dissidents and anti-Mormons, knew that he was gay, I'm not aware of it.

Thus, the question remains: why did it even come up? You remember the conversation and the participants -- what was the context?

It was fifteen to twenty years ago, for heaven's sake! I remember who was there, and I seem to recall that we were standing in the fellow's kitchen (though I may be wrong on that). The only really salient thing that I remember is that the fellow mentioned Quinn's homosexuality and then, when we said we hadn't known that, expressed surprise that we hadn't. That stuck in my mind, but, apart from that, I really can't remember anything else about the conversation. Sorry I don't have a transcript for you. I wasn't wired.

But, yet, according to you virtually everyone in your "circle" knew about it. Go figure.

I don't go figure. I don't know how it happened. I certainly wasn't responsible for it, though. For all I know, it may have been Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or Ed Decker . . . or, more likely, nobody in particular. These things happen in human communities. And they certainly don't require orchestration by me or by Boyd K. Packer to happen.

By constantly backpedalling and changing the story?

I've done neither. I've tried to warn you off from your malicious exaggerations.

And how did so many "who knew much about Quinn" know of his sexual orientation? Gossip.

Spread by you, for all I know. Perhaps you're now trying to externalize it, to project it onto someone other than yourself.

No smear, my dear man

MusScratch Love.

just the truth (which is what appears to be nauseating you in this particular case).

Just a transparently absurd attempt to pin the blame for a non-existent gossip campaign on me.

Your relationship to the truth is like that of an untethered helium balloon to the ground.

Let me guess. Would he have started an anonymous internet smear campaign?

Whatever, Freethinker.

You're insinuating, I guess, that Freethinker conducted an anonymous internet smear campaign against somebody? Comparable to yours against me?

Are you about to open an entirely new character-assassination front?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I've said nothing, and I know of nothing, to suggest that "Church leaders" orchestrated or even knew anything of such allegedly "horrible treatment."

Example: your "friend" and Quinn's SP.

The fact that Quinn's widely known homosexuality was mentioned during a conversation demonstrates that Church leaders orchestrated horrible treatment of Quinn?

If that's true, your multiyear obsession with this topic must rank right up there with the Holocaust.

The SP's discussing a stake member's private life with your friend was an incredible breach of propriety. The fact you don't see it explains a lot. Add to this the concerted effort by BKP and Loren Dunn to have the same SP boot Quinn out, and, yes, you've got yourself a nice recipe for "horrible treatment."

I've said nothing to suggest that "the Mormon scholarly community" treated Quinn horribly, and I know of nothing to suggest it.

Example: your revelation that Quinn's sexual orientation was so well known in your "circle" that virtually everyone knew (years before Quinn publicly came out).

I tend to reserve the term horrible treatment for horrible treatment.

But, of course. In your world gossip about one's private sex life appears to be a-ok.

But, yet, according to you virtually everyone in your "circle" knew about it. Go figure.

I don't go figure. I don't know how it happened. I certainly wasn't responsible for it, though. For all I know, it may have been Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or Ed Decker . . . or, more likely, nobody in particular. These things happen in human communities. And they certainly don't require orchestration by me or by Boyd K. Packer to happen.

Your contribution that we know of: (1) everyone in your "circles" knew about it, and you knew about their knowing about it, (2) your friend in So. Cal. talked to you and Compton about it, and (3) your "friend" told you of discussing Quinn's sexual orientation with Quinn's SP. As for BKP, he pressured the same SP to discipline Quinn.

just the truth (which is what appears to be nauseating you in this particular case).

Just a transparently absurd attempt to pin the blame for a non-existent gossip campaign on me.

"Campaign" may not be the right word -- "gossip" certainly is.

You're insinuating, I guess, that Freethinker conducted an anonymous internet smear campaign against somebody? Comparable to yours against me?

No smear -- just the truth, my dear man.

Are you about to open an entirely new character-assassination front?

I never opened a first one. My statements have been based on your own admissions about your and your "circles" knowledge/discussions of Quinn's sexual orientation years before he came out (not to mention your friend's discussion with Quinn's SP). I realize you now regret admitting what you did, but it's out there and you ought to face up to it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The SP's discussing a stake member's private life with your friend was an incredible breach of propriety.

The fact that a friend mentioned to a friend something that was widely known is no breach of "propriety" at all. The stake president hadn't even met Quinn at the time, and had just learned that the inactive Quinn was living within the boundaries of his stake. He passed on no confidential information because he had none. He wasn't speaking as a stake president. He was speaking as a sentient human being.

The fact you don't see it explains a lot.

It says that I have normal human reactions to fairly typical human behavior, and that I'm not obsessed with destroying another's reputation.

Add to this the concerted effort by BKP and Loren Dunn to have the same SP boot Quinn out

Which may or may not have occurred, but which, in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

and, yes, you've got yourself a nice recipe for "horrible treatment."

Only if you consider excommunication, in and of itself, to be "horrible treatment."

I don't.

I've lately been reading Alain Besançon's A Century of Horrors (about Nazism and Communism), and Mao: The Untold Story, by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. A few months ago, I read Martin Amis's Koba the Dread, about Stalin. Such things put the horror tale you're trying to invent into real perspective.

In your world gossip about one's private sex life appears to be a-ok.

Pure, malicious nonsense. (Your specialty.)

Our disagreement here is not that I regard vile gossip as a good thing while you, the moral paragon, think it bad. (If anything, I think your absolute determination to paint me, anonymously, as an unethical person demonstrates quite the opposite to be the case, but I'll let that pass for the moment.) Our disagreement stems from the fact that you accuse me of viciously gossiping about Mike Quinn, while I absolutely deny having done so.

Your contribution that we know of: (1) everyone in your "circles" knew about it, and you knew about their knowing about it,

Correction: My strong suspicion is that just about everybody in the Mormon studies community (most of whom I didn't know, or only knew slightly or by sight) was aware of Quinn's homosexuality, but certainly not because of me.

(2) your friend in So. Cal. talked to you and Compton about it,

He mentioned it, yes. Without my knowing it was coming. (You know, you can always contact Todd Compton and ask him about this, if, as you claim and I doubt, your real interest is in the truth. Perhaps he'll remember the occasion; perhaps he won't.)

and (3) your "friend" told you of discussing Quinn's sexual orientation with Quinn's SP.

Several years later. And, as I've said, I have no reason to believe that any "discussion" occurred beyond mere mention of the widely known fact that Quinn was gay. The additional embroidery is your contribution -- even though, on this, I'm your only source.

As for BKP, he pressured the same SP to discipline Quinn.

I don't know whether that's true or not. In any event, it has absolutely nothing to do with me. President Packer doesn't take orders from me and doesn't seek my approval for what he does, and I've never met Quinn's former stake president nor even spoken with him.

"Campaign" may not be the right word -- "gossip" certainly is.

A few people mentioned Quinn's homosexuality briefly in my presence and I didn't deck them. That's roughly all you've got.

Yet, on that basis, you seek to publicly damage my character?

In the name of Christianity and righteousness?

You and Scratch deserve each other.

You're insinuating, I guess, that Freethinker conducted an anonymous internet smear campaign against somebody? Comparable to yours against me?

No smear -- just the truth, my dear man.

Then present the evidence.

And please drop the Scratchian terms of endearment. If you regarded me as "dear" in any sense, even as a human being deserving of minimal respect, you wouldn't be continuing this crusade to blacken my character.

My statements have been based on your own admissions about your and your "circles" knowledge/discussions of Quinn's sexual orientation years before he came out (not to mention your friend's discussion with Quinn's SP).

Sheer, unmitigated, malevolent BS.

I realize you now regret admitting what you did, but it's out there and you ought to face up to it.

No. You ought to get help.