Cicero wrote:Do you recall what it was specifically that you said that Dan considered such a nefarious falsehood?
It's been 6 years now, so my memory is fuzzy, but it had to do with DCP's slip that his "friend" had discussed Quinn's sexual orientation with Quinn's stake president, and that the SP knew Quinn was gay before he excommunicated Quinn (which DCP offered as a possible reason for the excommunication, even though the official letter of excommunication mentioned only Quinn's insubordination for refusing to meet with the SP).
I went back and did some searches, and I believe this is the quote from DCP that set off the issue (emphasis mine):
DCP wrote:I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he [i.e., Quinn] for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.
From this I concluded that the SP knew of Quinn's sexual orientation because DCP's "friend" had so informed the SP, which was evidence of some sort of a "whispering campaign" against Quinn. In fact, according to Quinn, he had never met the SP before the disciplinary process began.
From the timeline of events (as I understood them), Quinn's SP began the disciplinary process based on Quinn's writings (
i.e., apostasy), but the SP later switched to homosexuality. In other words, the SP did
not know Quinn was a homosexual at the time he became aware that Quinn lived in his stake, and only later did the SP raise the issue of homosexuality. I believed DCP's "friend" possibly told the SP, which (if it did happen) was wrong and immoral.
Here is a post I made here in January 2007 with the timeline of events as I understood them:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I would bet the house that DCP's "reliable source" was his "friend" who discussed Quinn's rumored sexual orientation with Quinn's SP (who wasn't even aware that the inactive Quinn had moved into his stake).
Here are some other tidbits:
1. The SP in question was Paul Hanks, a high-ranking CES employee. Hanks met Quinn for the very first time when Hanks visited Quinn's apartment (unannounced) on February 7, 1993. Quinn, sick at the time, refused to let Hanks in. Later that same day, Hanks delivered a letter to Quinn requesting that they meet to discuss (i) Quinn's recent article "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843," which was published in Maxine Hanks's (a distant relative of Paul Hanks, ironically) 1992 book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, and (ii) Quinn's comments in the Salt Lake Tribune on Dec. 6, 1992, about the Church's pressure on members to conform. The SP's letter also quoted the definition of "apostasy" from the Church Handbook of Instructions. Clearly, then, Hanks's first approach was to get Quinn on an apostasy charge.
2. Quinn refused to meet with Hanks. On Feb. 10, 1993, Quinn was quoted in an Associated Press article about Hanks's efforts to meet with him under threat of losing his membership. Hanks responded in a Feb. 23 letter to Quinn, telling him that these matters should be discussed in private. Quinn still refused to meet with him.
3. Hanks sent another letter on March 16, again urging that Quinn meet with him. Via letter dated April 6, 1993, Quinn stated that under no circumstances would he meet with Hanks (who, Quinn had learned, was consulting with Seventy Loren C. Dunn).
4. Hanks sent another letter to Quinn on May 11, 1993, which stated, for the first time: "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing." Quinn took this to mean that even though the 'real' issue was his historical writings, Hanks would use rumors of Quinn's homosexuality to get rid of him.
5. On May 18, 1993, Hanks wrote Quinn another letter and again referenced "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters unrelated to Quinn's writings. The letter also scheduled a meeting two days later, and stated that if Quinn did not attend, his refusal "is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare."
6. In a May 23, 1993 letter, Hanks informed Quinn that his refusal to meet would lead him to convene a court against Quinn on June 6th "for conduct unbecoming a member of the Church." The charge appeared to now be changed from apostasy to "conduct unbecoming."
7. Hanks again showed up at Quinn's apartment, on May 28, 1993, demanding that Quinn explain to him the "moral allegations" that Hanks had "heard" about Quinn (probably thanks to DCP's "friend").
8. Quinn didn't attend the disciplinary council on June 6, 1993 -- the result was that Quinn was put on formal probation, which was contingent on, among other things, Quinn's meeting with Hanks within 30 days. Quinn did not meet with Hanks; consequently, on July 9 Quinn received a letter from Hanks scheduling another court on July 18th. Quinn didn't attend; Quinn was then disfellowshipped.
9. On September 13, 1993, Quinn received a letter scheduling a third court for Sept. 26. The charge in the summons: "Failure to meet personally and privately with President Hanks to discuss serious allegations leading to the charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy." (emphasis in original). Quinn did not attend this court, either. He was informed by Hanks, in a telephone call on Sept. 30, that he had been excommunicated. In the official letter notifying Quinn of his excommunication, the reason therefor was "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church" in refusing to meet with Hanks. No mention of apostasy or homosexuality -- really just insubordination.
10. Thus, Quinn became one of the "September Six." Quinn learned from Hanks that the council had taken 6 hours, which seemed odd since the final conviction was for mere insubordination (which Quinn thought was a no-brainer, given his refusal to meet with Hanks). A friend who attended that council as a witness favorable to Quinn, later informed Quinn that the council could not agree on whether Quinn had committed apostasy due to his historical writings, and that Hanks admitted during the meeting that BKP was pressuring him to excommunicate Quinn. Apparently, after 6 hours of debate, insurbordination (not apostasy) was the only thing they could agree on (I have seen no evidence one way or the other that Quinn's rumored homosexuality was considered at the council).
My conclusion from the above: the Church (particularly BKP) wanted Quinn out because his controversial writings and speeches were causing problems. in my opinion, Quinn's rumored homosexuality (and, later, his insubordination) was mere pretext to bring about the predetermined result of excommunication.
My sources for the above information:
D. Michael Quinn, "Dilemmas of Feminists & the Intellectuals in the Contemporary LDS Church," Sunstone vol. 17:1, pp. 67-73 (June 1994);
Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters (Signature Books 2002).
In fairness, here is a post by DCP over at MADB (around the same time, I believe) explaining his side of the story:
DCP on MADB wrote:A Boring Clarification:
I got moderator permission to add a clarification to this thread (which will then be locked again). On the oddly-named "Recovery" board, a poster has characterized my comments here as describing an unethical "smear campaign" engaged in by, among others, Mike Quinn's former stake president, in which the supposedly private personal fact of his homosexuality was widely insinuated in order to discredit Quinn. This is not at all true, so far as I'm aware (and I find the notion unlikely on its face). But I realize that, in my comments here, I've left what I said open to the kind of mischaracterization that I've described (and that, of course, flourishes like a rank weed on the strangely-named "Recovery" board, where a clarification such as this would never be allowed).
Just to be clear: When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier on this thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated. I did not say, and did not intend to imply, that Quinn's former stake president disclosed Quinn's homosexuality to my friend and former colleague. The latter individual already knew about it, as did, to the best of my knowledge, virtually everybody else, believer or not, who was seriously involved in Mormon studies at the time. I don't even know that it was the former stake president who brought the subject up. And I stress, yet again, that the stake president was not disclosing confidential information from Mike Quinn, with whom he had not discussed the matter. Quinn's orientation was common knowledge in certain circles for many years, and not merely among Latter-day Saints or believers.
I want that to be clear, because I do not wish a possibly ambiguous statement on my part to provide ammunition (as if they really need ammunition!) for certain critics to use as a basis for questioning my ethics, nor the ethics of my friend, nor those of the former stake president, nor those of the Church as a whole. There was, simply, no "smear campaign." There was no organized program of whispers. There was nothing sinister. And those who knew about Mike Quinn's orientation never wrote anything about it. Not even vicious unprincipled thugs such as myself.
The thing is, Quinn was ex'ed in September 1993, but did not "come out" as gay until at least 1994. But apparently the rumor mill among Mormon historians/apologists had been talking about it for quite some time (even with the SP who ex'ed Quinn). I, and others, found this all very troubling, and feel the same to this day.
Hope this helps.
