Rumor about Quinn

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you or did you not rumormonger reference Dr. Quinn's sexuality?

I did not.

That's essentially Scratch's libelous invention, and you appear to bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

However, the topic has been discussed a couple of dozen times here, and I'm not going to waste more time on it.

But the notion that I have interfered with Mike Quinn's employment, whether at BYU or anyplace else, is a flat out lie, and I don't find it remotely amusing.

Hello Dr. Peterson,

Well then, I retract my statement. If you say you didn't discuss Dr. Quinn's sexuality with fellow BYU colleagues then I believe you. I suppose it boils down to your word with Dr. Scratch's informants. Since you're speaking in the first person your witness is more believable than Dr. Scratch's informants.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well then, I retract my statement. If you say you didn't discuss Dr. Quinn's sexuality with fellow BYU colleagues then I believe you. I suppose it boils down to your word with Dr. Scratch's informants. Since you're speaking in the first person your witness is more believable than Dr. Scratch's informants.

You're wise to retract it.

And, yes, my word is more to be relied upon than that of Scratch's "informants."

Incidentally, for those who may be a bit perplexed by all of this: When Mike Quinn left BYU in 1988, I was an untenured BYU instructor who had joined the faculty only three years before, working in a different department in an altogether different college than Quinn's. I hadn't even finished my dissertation.

The notion that I was some sort of all-powerful behind-the-scenes manipulator at BYU in 1988 is palpably absurd. (And I'm still not.)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You're wise to retract it.

And, yes, my word is more to be relied upon than that of Scratch's "informants."

Hello Mr. Peterson,

Oh my. That almost felt like a threat.

Here I was thinking we were building bridges...

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh my. That almost felt like a threat.

It was intended to feel that way.

You are not infinitely at liberty to manufacture or spread malicious falsehoods against me.

I have never yet sued anybody, nor actually come even close to doing so. But I don't rule the possibility out, altogether. At some point, there is a limit beyond which, if it's crossed, I will not allow my character to be publicly defamed.

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson didn't have anything to do with Quinn's employment at BYU. Quinn actually resigned in the wake of a series of conflicts with the Brethren on the issue of academic freedom.

That said, DCP most definitely *did* discuss Quinn's sexuality with his "circle"---people who, I think it's fair to say, include "BYU colleagues." Heck: he oversaw the editing and publication of a FARMS article that accused Quinn of having an homosexual "agenda." Furthermore, my sense of the "wrongness" in all of this lies in the attempts by Dr. Peterson to negatively affect Quinn's reputation, such as by implying that Quinn was excommunicated for sexual sin, rather than his historical writings. Quinn has maintained all along that the key reason he ran afoul of the Church was because of his work as a historian. The apologists--including DCP--have tried to suggest otherwise entirely on the basis of rumor. I think that this is extraordinarily nasty and unethical within an LDS context. It's impossible to view this sort of thing as anything other than what it is---i.e., an attempt to ruin Quinn's reputation in LDS circles.

[_Buffalo]

This is getting heavy.

On a lighter note, I have a new quote for Dr. P's sig.

Go up, thou bald head!

You can attribute that to me. Please don't send any bears. Kthnxbie

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Peterson didn't have anything to do with Quinn's employment at BYU. Quinn actually resigned in the wake of a series of conflicts with the Brethren on the issue of academic freedom.

That said, DCP most definitely *did* discuss Quinn's sexuality with his "circle"---people who, I think it's fair to say, include "BYU colleagues." Heck: he oversaw the editing and publication of a FARMS article that argued that Quinn has a homosexual "agenda." Furthermore, my sense of the "wrongness" in all of this lies in the attempts by Dr. Peterson to negatively affect Quinn's reputation, such as by implying that Quinn was excommunicated for sexual sin, rather than his historical writings. Quinn has maintained all along that the key reason he ran afoul of the Church was because of his work as a historian. The apologists--including DCP--have tried to imply to suggest otherwise. I think that this is extraordinarily nasty and unethical within an LDS context. It's impossible to view this sort of thing as anything other than what it is---i.e., an attempt to ruin Quinn's reputation in LDS circles.

Hello Dr. Scratch,

Yes, but Mr. Peterson just said, right here on this thread that he didn't discuss/rumormonger reference Dr. Quinn's sexuality. So, as you can see we're left with either believing this man, or believing your sources. We're kinda in a bind, Sir.

Additionally, I didn't say Mr. Peterson was involved in Dr. Quinn's dismissal. I said that his rumormongering led to his dismissal. However, I must've been wrong because Mr. Peterson said he didn't discuss Dr. Quinn's sexuality with BYU colleagues.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Simon Belmont]

Dr. Peterson didn't have anything to do with Quinn's employment at BYU. Quinn actually resigned in the wake of a series of conflicts with the Brethren on the issue of academic freedom.

That said, DCP most definitely *did* discuss Quinn's sexuality with his "circle"---people who, I think it's fair to say, include "BYU colleagues." Heck: he oversaw the editing and publication of a FARMS article that accused Quinn of having an homosexual "agenda." Furthermore, my sense of the "wrongness" in all of this lies in the attempts by Dr. Peterson to negatively affect Quinn's reputation, such as by implying that Quinn was excommunicated for sexual sin, rather than his historical writings. Quinn has maintained all along that the key reason he ran afoul of the Church was because of his work as a historian. The apologists--including DCP--have tried to suggest otherwise entirely on the basis of rumor. I think that this is extraordinarily nasty and unethical within an LDS context. It's impossible to view this sort of thing as anything other than what it is---i.e., an attempt to ruin Quinn's reputation in LDS circles.

And, even if that were true, it justifies your five year mission of defamation?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It was intended to feel that way.

You are not infinitely at liberty to manufacture or spread malicious falsehoods against me.

I have never yet sued anybody, nor actually come even close to doing so. But I don't rule the possibility out, altogether. At some point, there is a limit beyond which, if it's crossed, I will not allow my character to be publicly defamed.

Hello Mr. Peterson,

Oh my. This is the second time today that a Mopologist insinuated legal action should be used to shut down discourse.

You people are certainly a litigious sort! I'm just glad to hear that you never, ever, on any occasion discussed Dr. Quinn's sexual orientation with colleagues prior to his dismissal. That's a stand up thing to do, Sir.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you back again, Cam, to claiming that I somehow set the stage for Quinn's dismissal from BYU in 1988?

Say what you intend, please. And say it clearly.

I'm reasonably certain that I didn't even know that Quinn was a homosexual by 1988. I found out after he had left BYU.

Dr. Peterson didn't have anything to do with Quinn's employment at BYU. Quinn actually resigned in the wake of a series of conflicts with the Brethren on the issue of academic freedom.

Yes, Scratch, you've come right up against the line on numerous occasions during your five-year crusade against me, but you're smart enough to scurry quickly away from this one.

That said, DCP most definitely *did* discuss Quinn's sexuality with his "circle"---people who, I think it's fair to say, include "BYU colleagues."

We've been over this a hundred times. It came up on a small handful of occasions; I don't think I was ever the one who mentioned it first, and it wasn't a topic of prolonged discussion. But most everybody in "Mormon studies," believers and unbelievers alike, knew about Quinn's homosexuality before his official coming out.

Heck: he oversaw the editing and publication of a FARMS article that argued that Quinn has a homosexual "agenda."

Not just one. Two. Sure. After Quinn had formally "come out," and reviewing a highly revisionist book by Quinn on . . . Mormonism and homosexuality. A legitimate topic, it seems to me. Rather like pointing out that the author of a hypothetical revisionist book on Mormonism and Marxism is a Marxist. (Should such facts be suppressed?) One of the reviews, incidentally, is by Klaus Hansen, a disaffected Mormon academic in Canada.

Furthermore, my sense of the "wrongness" in all of this lies in the attempts by Dr. Peterson to negatively affect Quinn's reputation, such as by implying that Quinn was excommunicated for sexual sin, rather than his historical writings. Quinn has maintained all along that the key reason he ran afoul of the Church was because of his work as a historian. The apologists--including DCP--have tried to imply to suggest otherwise. I think that this is extraordinarily nasty and unethical within an LDS context. It's impossible to view this sort of thing as anything other than what it is---i.e., an attempt to ruin Quinn's reputation in LDS circles.

We've been over this ad nauseam many times before. I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you again.

But you would be very prudent to keep your distance in the future from flat libel.