A Farewell to Daniel Bashing

[_Yoda]

What do you think about Los Hermanos? I went there on a few dates during my BYU days and it might bring back some nice memories

LOVE Los Hermanos!!! I remember it from my BYU days!

Awesome Mexican food! Next time I'm in Utah, Zee, definitely count me in! :-)

[_Yoda]

Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what Fulton did that was so horrible? Forgive my ignorance.

As I understand it, according to a newspaper account, he once described Mike Quinn as "a nothing person," which isn't very nice.

And, if I'm not mistaken, he's supposed to have spoken out against Arizona State's hiring Quinn for a position in the History Department, or some such thing. And, since he's been a huge donor to Arizona State, that is supposed to have nixed Quinn's hiring.

Of course, whether Quinn would have been hired had Ira Fulton not criticized him has not been established, so far as I'm aware.

Quinn hasn't, as a matter of fact, been hired at any other history department in America, either. And, in my opinion, the reasons are not far to seek:

His publications have been entirely or almost entirely focused on Mormon history, and that is a pretty narrow specialty. Not many schools would be interested. If they have only one hiring possibility, it's not clear that they're going to spend it on a Mormon specialist rather than, say, a historian of medieval China or an expert on the American Civil War.

Moreover, his publications have come very largely from Signature Books, which is not an academic press and may or may not -- I don't know -- have even a minimal peer review process in place. (I notice with curiosity the fact that those here who mistakenly attack the Maxwell Institute for its alleged lack of peer review seem serenely indifferent to the situation at Signature.)

Thanks for clarifying the situation, Dan.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I asked a question. Are you capable of simmering down for two seconds and just thinking/discussing the topic?

There's no discussing anything with you. You're always in attack mode.

I'm not boiling. I just know who and what you are. I've had half a decade of experience with you.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Fulton's attitude was influenced my Mopologetic work.

Which, being interpreted, means that you have no actual evidence for the notion.

I mean, there are really only a couple of ways of interpreting what he said: (a) he's a homophobic bigot and hates Quinn for being gay; (b) he hates Quinn because Quinn was ex'ed; (c) part of his attitude has been influenced by apologists' painting of him as an "untrustworthy" historian. So take your pick.

I would say that (b), particularly when restated without your characteristic exaggeration and spin, probably comes closest to the truth. It's scarcely surprising that a Latter-day Saint would perhaps be less than ecstatic at the idea of his university hiring an excommunicated (and notably revisionist) Mormon to teach and research on Mormonism.

As I say, I can think of nothing to suggest that Ira Fulton was aware of, let alone that he had read, anything in the FARMS Review at all.

Incidentally, I've never agreed with your apparent position that criticizing the work of a scholar is, in and of itself, slander. It's done constantly. It's the bread and butter of academic reviews.

[_Yoda]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Fulton's attitude was influenced my Mopologetic work. I mean, there are really only a couple of ways of interpreting what he said: (a) he's a homophobic bigot and hates Quinn for being gay; (b) he hates Quinn because Quinn was ex'ed; (c) part of his attitude has been influenced by apologists' painting of him as an "untrustworthy" historian. So take your pick.

It does seem like there was some sort of personal vendetta Fulton must have against Quinn if he is referring to him as a "nothing person".

I wonder why he was so adimate about Quinn not being hired by Arizona State?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please consider retiring from that board completely and spending 100% of your board time here.

Not a chance.

Even better, pass off MST to one of your grad students. That would give you even more time to discuss everything Mormon, with us.

Nope. I really, really enjoy doing "Mormon Scholars Testify."

Moreover, it's my personal project. I have no right, therefore, to try to use university funding to keep it going.

What do you think about Los Hermanos? I went there on a few dates during my BYU days and it might bring back some nice memories.

I like Los Hermanos. That would do nicely.

[_Yoda]

I would say that (b), particularly when restated without your characteristic exaggeration and spin, probably comes closest to the truth. It's scarcely surprising that a Latter-day Saint would perhaps be less than ecstatic at the idea of his university hiring an excommunicated (and notably revisionist) Mormon to teach and research on Mormonism.

But hasn't Quinn always maintained his belief in the gospel? I know that his work has been controversial, but when it comes to his actual work involving Church history, my understanding is that he is quite reputable.

Even though he was excommunicated, and yes, he is living an alternate lifestyle, has he ever indicated that he is out to destroy the Church? I think that his work should speak for itself, and that Fulton overreacted in this case.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Quinn hasn't, as a matter of fact, been hired at any other history department in America, either. And, in my opinion, the reasons are not far to seek:

His publications have been entirely or almost entirely focused on Mormon history, and that is a pretty narrow specialty. Not many schools would be interested. If they have only one hiring possibility, it's not clear that they're going to spend it on a Mormon specialist rather than, say, a historian of medieval China or an expert on the American Civil War.

Oh, get out of here with this crap. My God. How deep do your stupid vendettas run? Quinn's Mormon publications have spanned different disciplines--from his biographical work on J. Reuben Clark, to his sexuality studies book (why, If I recall correctly, he worked briefly at USC), to the "Magic World View" and Hierarchy books. This stuff about a "narrow focus" is totally, spectacularly incorrect. And why would you say this? I mean, the "Civil War" is "narrow" as a topic. So is Shakespeare. So is the Bible. Do a lot of publications in that field mean that a person *should* be un-hireable, as you suggest? The bulk of your own publications are devoted to Mormon topics. Does that mean that you would/should be un-hireable on the academic job market?

Further, what your'e saying here implies that Mormonism, as a subject, is so narrow as to not provide a scholar with enough material for sufficient publication. If that's the case, I hope you send a memo to Don Bradley, who, If I recall correctly, intends to aim his career in the direction of purely Mormon-related research and publication. (And isn't that Chris Smith's focus, too?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

But hasn't Quinn always maintained his belief in the gospel?

So far as I'm aware, yes. He's critical of the Church, but remains a believer.

I know that his work has been controversial, but when it comes to his actual work involving Church history, my understanding is that he is quite reputable.

That's not so clear. I once regarded him as the most promising young Mormon historian.

I now think -- and I'm far from alone in this (I know several senior historians who were once his mentors who feel the same way) -- that even his early works, which I quite liked, were flawed in extremely serious ways that many of us overlooked when we liked his theses. (Yes, we're human. We try to guard against such errors, but they happen.) Is he brilliant? Yes. Is his historical writing reliable? I'm less persuaded of that, by a considerable distance.

Even though he was excommunicated, and yes, he is living an alternate lifestyle, has he ever indicated that he is out to destroy the Church?

I don't think so. Not really.

I think that his work should speak for itself,

Fine with me.

and that Fulton overreacted in this case.

I'm not sure that I agree.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I would say that (b), particularly when restated without your characteristic exaggeration and spin, probably comes closest to the truth. It's scarcely surprising that a Latter-day Saint would perhaps be less than ecstatic at the idea of his university hiring an excommunicated (and notably revisionist) Mormon to teach and research on Mormonism.

But hasn't Quinn always maintained his belief in the gospel? I know that his work has been controversial, but when it comes to his actual work involving Church history, my understanding is that he is quite reputable.

Even though he was excommunicated, and yes, he is living an alternate lifestyle, has he ever indicated that he is out to destroy the Church? I think that his work should speak for itself, and that Fulton overreacted in this case.

Liz, as far as I know, the world of historians regards Mike Quinn as the pre-eminent scholar on Mormonism. I've seen Quinn's writings turn up on syllabi for grad. school courses in history. The only people who think that there is any real problem with him as a scholar are the Mopologists, and the people like Ira Fulton, who help to blackball him from positions that would further his work.

[_Kishkumen]

Although I am partly responsible for the many twists and turns of this thread, I would ask that we remain on topic and not go onto tangents about Ira Fulton, Mike Quinn, and what have you.