Mike Quinn

[_rcrocket]

So, let's revisit that quote: ""Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses."

Is it true that "most of his books weren't published by university presses?" Is this particular concern an illegitimate one for a dean of a humanities program?

[_Mister Scratch]

Hey Scratch,

I didn't know DCP stated he'd discussed Quinn's homosexuality in the 1980s.

He sure did, Don, and in fact he gave Dr. Shades permission to post the following email several months ago:

[SNIP!] I’ve just noticed your attempt to sum up the alleged anti-Quinn gossipmongering campaign in which I and others were supposedly engaged:

wrote:
“Judging by what you and Mister Scratch have said, let's see if this is the most likely scenario:

A) Rumors of Quinn's bisexuality swirled among the apologetic intelligentsia for X amount of time. B) It remains unclear who started them or how they began. C) When it was discovered that Quinn had moved back to Utah, one of them jumped at the opportunity to tell Quinn's stake president about it for punitive reasons.

Does that sound about right?

No. It’s crucially wrong at points A and C, though B is accurate.

A. Mike Quinn’s sexual orientation was widely known among people involved in Mormon studies (not merely, or even primarily, among “apologists” or faithful Church members) for many years prior to his official “coming out” in 1996. My impression is that just about everybody seriously involved with Sunstone and the Mormon History Association, for example, seems to have been aware of it. I suspect this to be the case because, when he finally announced his homosexuality, I heard not a single exclamation of surprise. Not one. Precisely how the news got around or how his homosexuality came to be recognized I could not begin to say. As I’ve noted before, I first heard that Quinn was gay when, with Todd Compton, sometime (I believe) between 1982 and 1985, I was visiting in the home of a person in southern California (where I then lived) who would be widely recognized as more sympathetic to Quinn’s theological and historical views than, say, to Bruce McConkie’s. This man was astonished that Todd and I were unaware of something that he thought was universally known. As it turns out, Quinn’s homosexuality truly was just about universally known in (believing and unbelieving) Mormon studies circles, and Todd and I were simply among the last to hear about it. (In my case, the explanation may reside in the fact that I had been living in the Middle East essentially from the end of 1977 to the middle of 1982.) Neither Todd Compton nor the man who told us about Quinn would typically be counted among the “apologist community.”

C. Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.) And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject. The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.

[SNIP!] In the small and close-knit community of people involved in Mormon history or Mormon studies, a community containing both faithful believers and dissidents, there’s a lot of informal conversation. That’s how human communities work. It would have been astonishing had Quinn’s sexual orientation not surfaced in some of those chats. But that’s all there ever was. There was no rumor-mongering crusade, and I certainly wasn’t involved in one. I would guess that the subject of Quinn’s homosexuality came up in conversations in which I was involved on maybe half a dozen occasions between the time I first heard of it and his formal “coming out.” I don’t recall ever, not even once, initiating the discussion, and I don’t believe that any of those instances went much beyond mere mention of the fact.

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

I’ve said this repeatedly. I can’t think of any clearer way than what I’ve already said to state that I was involved in no smear campaign against Mike Quinn and that, in fact, so far as I know, there was no smear campaign against Mike Quinn. [SNIP!]

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

P.S. On reflection, 1982-1985 seems a bit early to me for my having heard about Quinn’s homosexuality, though I can’t rule it out. Perhaps the conversation occurred during a subsequent visit to California (which I typically visit quite often, because I grew up there and still have family there). So that would mean that I may have known of Quinn’s sexual orientation for as little as, say, only around five years before he came out of the closet. But no less. For various reasons, I think it cannot have been any later than the beginning of the 1990s when I was told of Quinn’s being gay by a very liberal figure in the Mormon studies community, in company with another very liberal member of that community.

So, as you can see, not only did DCP claim to have discussed this stuff clear back in the 1980s, but, he claims, quite in contrary to your observations, that pretty much everyone knew about this. Either DCP is imagining/making up things, or you have (apparently) totally misjudged Quinn's character. Frankly (and probably not surprisingly) I find your account far more believable, mainly because it just doesn't make any sense that Quinn would be able to sustain his position at BYU and elsewhere if such a thing was so "widely known."

For the record, I first heard rumors of his sexual orientation in about 1991. I was told by Blake Ostler's brother Craig some years ago that Blake, who was a friend of Mike and Jan Quinn at the time, had learned about it a few years earlier, in the wake of the Quinns' divorce.

I.e., because Craig Ostler was told this information by either Mike and/or Jan?

I have reason to believe that Mike did not live a 'gay lifestyle' prior to the divorce.

Don

What do you make of DCP's insinuation about this so-called "sad incident"?

[_rcrocket]

I don't get it. I'm made a pretty good point about Quinn not being adequately published, citing the UofU Humanities Dept. You all just want to divert my point to hooey and irrelevancy. Afraid of my point?

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't get it. I'm made a pretty good point about Quinn not being adequately published, citing the UofU Humanities Dept. You all just want to divert my point to hooey and irrelevancy. Afraid of my point?

Bob---

What makes you think that books are held in higher esteem in academic circles that peer-reviewed articles? Further, what makes you think that the UofU statement is the "real," actual reason behind their decision? Don't you think you might be glossing over some other possibilities, and that you might be overlooking other things? For example, doesn't it seem rather likely that the Dean would have fed reporters a PC, non-controversial response on this issue?

[_DonBradley]

And, adding to what Scratch said, why is it relevant that in addition to publishing 25 peer-reviewed papers, two books through academic presses, and chapters and in works from Oxford and the University of Chicago, Quinn also published books on Mormon history through a publisher specializing in Mormonism? Given that academic presses don't typically seek out numerous manuscripts on Mormonism, a particularly prolific historian of Mormonism might need to use a speciality press in onder to get all his works out in a timely fashion.

In any case, Quinn has an enviable record of academic publication. His publication of similarly high-quality work through non-academic presses does nothing to change that. Indeed, the quality of his work published through Signature Books, which is well-reviewed and well-accepted in broader academia, serves only to enhance his academic credibility.

Don

[_rcrocket]

And, adding to what Scratch said, why is it relevant that in addition to publishing 25 peer-reviewed papers, two books through academic presses, and chapters and in works from Oxford and the University of Chicago, Quinn also published books on Mormon history through a publisher specializing in Mormonism? Given that academic presses don't typically seek out numerous manuscripts on Mormonism, a particularly prolific historian of Mormonism might need to use a speciality press in onder to get all his works out in a timely fashion.

In any case, Quinn has an enviable record of academic publication. His publication of similarly high-quality work through non-academic presses does nothing to change that. Indeed, the quality of his work published through Signature Books, which is well-reviewed and well-accepted in broader academia, serves only to enhance his academic credibility.

Don

I must reiterate my question which you don't want to answer. Is it not an appropriate concern of a Humanities Dean that a prospective hire has not published "most" of his books at academic publishers?

Really, how can one say that Quinn is the greatest Mormon historian ever when all of his works on Mormonism since his departure from BYU have been published by a vanity press?

You and Scratch just cannot bring yourselves to acknowledge that Quinn is a flash in the pan -- a bright flash, but a flash nonetheless.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Crocket,

How many Mormon Studies positions are currently available in the US, not counting universities that restrict the academic freedom of their faculty? There are two of which I am aware. The fact that Mike Quinn was not chosen for one of the vanishingly few Mormon Studies chairs does not suggest that he isn't a heavy hitter. The U of U's concern may be valid if they're trying to pick one of the two best-credentialed Mormon Studies scholars in the USA. It is not valid for determining whether he's a heavy hitter.

-Chris

[_beastie]

Bob,

Your standards slip quite a bit when doing your own "research" in defense of the faith. Cyrus Gordon and articles from 50 + years ago??

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't get it. I'm made a pretty good point about Quinn not being adequately published, citing the UofU Humanities Dept. You all just want to divert my point to hooey and irrelevancy. Afraid of my point?

Bob---

What makes you think that books are held in higher esteem in academic circles that peer-reviewed articles? Further, what makes you think that the UofU statement is the "real," actual reason behind their decision? Don't you think you might be glossing over some other possibilities, and that you might be overlooking other things? For example, doesn't it seem rather likely that the Dean would have fed reporters a PC, non-controversial response on this issue?

In all fairness this comment is subjective, speculative and conjecture only. Without further evidence I think we must rely on the public statement.

[_Jason Bourne]

And, adding to what Scratch said, why is it relevant that in addition to publishing 25 peer-reviewed papers, two books through academic presses, and chapters and in works from Oxford and the University of Chicago, Quinn also published books on Mormon history through a publisher specializing in Mormonism? Given that academic presses don't typically seek out numerous manuscripts on Mormonism, a particularly prolific historian of Mormonism might need to use a speciality press in onder to get all his works out in a timely fashion.

In any case, Quinn has an enviable record of academic publication. His publication of similarly high-quality work through non-academic presses does nothing to change that. Indeed, the quality of his work published through Signature Books, which is well-reviewed and well-accepted in broader academia, serves only to enhance his academic credibility.

Don

I must reiterate my question which you don't want to answer. Is it not an appropriate concern of a Humanities Dean that a prospective hire has not published "most" of his books at academic publishers?

Really, how can one say that Quinn is the greatest Mormon historian ever when all of his works on Mormonism since his departure from BYU have been published by a vanity press?

You and Scratch just cannot bring yourselves to acknowledge that Quinn is a flash in the pan -- a bright flash, but a flash nonetheless.

I am curious to know how many other Mormon Historians have published more then a few books through academic publishers. How does Quinn stack up. Off the top of my head I know of only two Mormon History books published by Bushman in other venues besides BYU or Mormon publishers.

I do not know if Quinn is the greatest Mormon historian ever but he is certainly much more then a flash in the pan. I am curious how Crocket can arrive at that conclusion given the bibliography provided in this thread.