An Anniversary: Revisiting a Mopologetic Milestone

[Physics Guy]

A mere couple of days ago, some of us celebrated the One Year anniversary of one of the most explosive incidents in recent Mopologetic history. Last year, on April 6th, The Wall Street Journal published a now-infamous article entitled, "Expelled scholar of Mormon history can't find work." The piece by Daniel Golden, examined the recent career (or, more specifically, lack thereof) of D. Micheal Quinn, perhaps the greatest Mormon historian of all time. The article was fascinating in its account of betrayals, double-crosses, and backstabbing:

In 2003, when he was a visiting professor at Yale University, BYU threatened to withdraw funding for a conference it was co-sponsoring with Yale on Mormonism if Mr. Quinn was allowed to speak there, according to the conference's organizer, Kenneth West. Noel Reynolds, a longtime BYU administrator and now a Mormon mission president in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says the university was concerned that "the conference not be used to promote personalities or personal complaints about the church." Yale officials insisted on the participation of Mr. Quinn, who ultimately resolved the dispute by agreeing to introduce the keynote speaker rather than give a scholarly paper.

The following year, Mr. Quinn was the only finalist for a tenured professorship in Utah and Mormon history at the University of Utah. At Mr. Quinn's request, Thomas Alexander, a BYU historian, wrote a recommendation for him. But while Prof. Alexander praised him as a scholar and teacher in his recommendation, he advised against hiring Mr. Quinn, warning that the Mormon-dominated state legislature might cut the public university's funding.

When Mr. Quinn came to the school's Salt Lake City campus for a job interview, history professor James Clayton hosted a reception for him. Prof. Clayton had been Mr. Quinn's friend for years, and joined him in criticizing church censorship. He describes Mr. Quinn as the second-best historian of Mormonism, behind retired Columbia University professor Richard Bushman.

Nevertheless, when Utah's faculty voted on whether to offer Mr. Quinn the job, Prof. Clayton opposed him.

Obviously, Quinn is a hotbutton figure in the world of Mormonism. Nevertheless, one expects that representatives of the LDS Church, even if they be apologetic representatives, will behave in a nominally ethical way. And thus we come to one of the most staggering displays of untoward and embarrassing behavior in the history of online LDS apologetics.

On the same day the article appeared, the poster called rcrocket (yes, our very own beloved "Plutarch"), opened up a thread entitled "D. Michael Quinn Can't Find Work." What followed was a firestorm of heated discussion which eventually circled around to the kind of backstabbing adduced in the article. Of course, "backstabbing" one's friends is frowned upon by the Church (as it should be). We should bear in mind that while apologists claim that shunning and betrayal are not common behaviors towards those who have been excommunicated, Quinn's experience definitely suggests otherwise.

Anyways, the subject of Quinn's sexuality was bound to be raised, and indeed it was, by an obscure poster named "opmer":

Sounds like its time to broaden his horizons. If he is unhireable, perhaps he ought to focus on another aspect of history that he finds compelling. He did attend graduate school at an Ivy League institution...surely if he'd stop moaning and groaning about his lack of work and actually get a job in a field where he could be hired, he'd do himself well. I'm surprised that the article didn't mention that his homosexuality was a reason for his excommunication as well.....anything to make the church look bad...

(emphasis added)

Next came a reply from our very own beloved Rollo Tomasi:

I don't believe Quinn's excommunication in September 1993 had anything to with his homosexuality, because Quinn didn't "come out" until around the time his "Same-Sex Dynamics" book was published in 1996.

What is troublesome about this topic is as follows. The Church's supporters do not want to believe---and indeed, they don't want anyone to believe---that Quinn was axed for publishing embarrassing facts about the Church and its history. Instead, things work out much better for TBMs if they can lay the full blame on Quinn himself. (The real reason for his ex'ing seems to have been mere insubordination. This has been documented elsewhere by Lavina Fielding Anderson.)

Anyways, USU78 makes a prescient post:

I have no idea where RT's opinion about whether or not Quinn's admitted homosexual conduct played a role in his eventual excommunication comes from.

Certainly not from credible evidence.
Certainly not from any participant.

Plutarch/rcrocket has this to add:

Quinn's orientation was known by 1981, when he appeared at MHA conferences with one of his mates and it was a general topic of discussion among BYU history, law and religion profs. I was there.

Again, talking about the reason for his excommunication is a waste of time. The Church does not state its reasons.

To which Rollo replies:

Actually, as I posted somewhere in the above pages, Quinn knows a lot about what went on at this disciplinary council. In other words, he had an inside source in attendance (you can read Quinn's account of this in Sunstone, pp. 67-73, Vol. 17:1 (June 1994)).

Finally, we get to the real dirt. For some people, being in a high position---a position of power and respect---can function in a blinding sort of way. The euphoria of admiration, and of having "insider knowledge," can cloud a person's judgment. Here is Professor Daniel C. Peterson, "the kreme de la kreme" of LDS apologetics:

Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time (although, vicious thugs that we are, we never mentioned it in print or any other comparable venue) -- and, I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president.

In case you are wondering if this is an explosive and damning slip-up on the part of the Good Professor, read on:

Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time ....

Again, I was referring to publicly known (well, at least outside your "circles").

I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president.

How in the world would you know this? Are you contending that Quinn's sexual orientation had something to do with the outcome of his disciplinary council?

How would DCP know indeed! It gets worse:

A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council.

(emphasis added)

The Good Professor continues to deal with Rollo's prodding:

Are you contending that Quinn's sexual orientation had something to do with the outcome of his disciplinary council?

I have no way of knowing. As you may be aware, Church disciplinary councils are closed affairs, and the Church does not comment on them. I was not a member of Mike Quinn's stake presidency or high council. Had I been, I would not comment. Since I was not, I cannot comment.

Does he not realize that he already did comment? Rollo is quite wise to point out the following:

I am skeptical that Quinn 'came out' to rcrocket or Dan Peterson and/or their respective 'circles' in 1981 and thereafter; it may have been rumored and snide comments made behind his back, but his 'coming out' in 1996 was 'news' enough that it was reported. rcrocket's and Dan's "well-attested fact" is hardly that. Rumors and conjecture about one's sexual orientation is one thing, but "well-attested fact" in the form of Quinn's personally 'coming out' is quite another.

He continues a bit further on, apparently realizing that he's got DCP by the tail:

A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council.

Ah, more 'rumor-mongering.' So nice to see a SP who discusses the private life of one of his stake members with someone else (who apparently was fine sharing it with you). This makes me feels so much better.

As you may be aware, Church disciplinary councils are closed affairs ....

One has to wonder about this, since the SP spoke to your friend about Quinn's personal life, and that friend then you told about it, etc. Even if these conversations were held long before the council, it's disheartening that Church leaders are so open about their members' private lives.

Next, DCP starts flailing about, and trying very desperately to backpedal out of the hole he's dug for himself:

Ah, more 'rumor-mongering.' So nice to see a SP who discusses the private life of one of his stake members with someone else (who apparently was fine sharing it with you). This makes me feels so much better.

There was no "rumor-mongering." Mike Quinn's homosexuality was well known to many of us for a number of years before he came publicly out of the closet. It was a wide open secret. The stake president was violating no confidences (Quinn evidently wouldn't talk with him, and didn't even attend the disciplinary council), but merely mentioned something of which very many people were well aware -- something that was disputed by nobody.

As you may be aware, Church disciplinary councils are closed affairs ....

One has to wonder about this, since the SP spoke to your friend about Quinn's personal life, and that friend then you told about it, etc. Even if these conversations were held long before the council, it's disheartening that Church leaders are so open about their members' private lives.

I have never heard anything about the deliberations of the disciplinary council, except Mike Quinn's reports. But, as you may recall, he didn't attend.

I realize that it now suits your agenda to stigmatize us all as malicious gossips with no respect for your hero's privacy, given to innuendo and "snide comments made behind [Quinn's] back" and to hostile conjectures, but such was simply not the case. Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was widely known among many people; I first heard about it when someone in California who was quite sympathetic to Quinn mentioned it in passing during a conversation with me and Todd Compton. It was public knowledge, not an unknown secret about his private personal life.

Rollo offers up a trenchant reply:

How was this not 'rumor-mongering' if, as you admit, Quinn did not 'come out' publicly for years? Precisely how did Quinn's homosexuality become "well known" if it didn't come from him? And the SP's talking about Quinn's homosexuality with another person (years before Quinn publicly came out) doesn't strike you as a tad inappropriate? Perhaps the SP wasn't breaking confidences (since Quinn apparently didn't tell anyone), but he certainly was spreading rumors about Quinn's private life to your friend (as your friend did when he spoke to you about his conversations with Quinn's SP).

Sounds to me as if a lot of folks were spreading rumors about him (whether "sympathetic" to Quinn or not). The fact that Quinn's own ecclesiastical leader was speaking to another about Quinn's private life (and that person then spread this information on to you and who knows who else) evidences behavior unbecoming any Church leader, in my opinion.

Next we get the icing on the cake, with DCP displaying the full regalia of his homophobia and ignorance:

How was this not 'rumor-mongering' if, as you admit, Quinn did not 'come out' publicly for years? Precisely how did Quinn's homosexuality become "well known" if it didn't come from him?

Why, given the nature of homosexuality, do you assume that Quinn's homosexuality could have been known only to Quinn unless Quinn spoke of it? And why do you assume that Quinn's public announcement in a magazine was his first utterance on the subject to anybody?

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, Quinn's stake president at first didn't even know that (the totally inactive) Quinn lived within the boundaries of his stake.

RT, threads with you tend to go on forever and ever and ever, to no point. I don't know why that is, but it's definitely so. I, however, will no longer play on this thread with you.

He should have kept his mouth closed from the get-go. Instead, he dug himself in so deep that he would up leaving us with one of the great boners in all of apologetics. This was such an egregious breech of professional and personal ethics that it ranks right up there with Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" foul-up. Indeed, DCP knew he had screwed up to the extent that the moderators re-opened what had been a closed thread in order to allow him to post the following little mea culpa:

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.

This thread marked a real milestone in LDS apologetics, not because it was the first (or last) instance of Prof. Peterson behaving irresponsibly, but because of the magnitude of the behavior. Rollo Tomasi, who had contributed over 1,000 intelligent, interesting, and entertaining posts, was queued for his remarks on this thread, and in fact never contributed another post. (He was later banned for posting on this board.) Further, this whole thread continues to be a very sore thorn in DCP's side, and he bristles anytime someone suggests that he has engaged in smear tactics or gossip mongering. The Good Professor was so shaken up by the beating he took from Rollo on the thread that he sent a series of threatening emails to Rollo, apparently condemning him to an eternity of suffering:

This is not merely disagreement; you are bearing false witness against me, and you will, I believe, someday have to account for it. You have the temporary advantage of what, in this context, strikes me as a rather cowardly anonymity. But that will not save you from the accounting.

But I will deny as false, and slanderously so, your depiction of my attitude and behavior toward Mike Quinn as “venomous,” “sick,” and the like. This is not only untrue, but libelous. Nor did I ever suggest that it was Quinn’s homosexuality that has kept him from getting a job, or that it ought to do so. You traduce me when you publicly say such things, and you will someday be obliged to acknowledge the falsehood and injustice of your public accusations.

I do not take this lightly. I’m not joking, and this is not a game. As God is my witness, what you are saying is false, and I will so testify.

I will have no further dealings with you, so far as I can avoid them. In my eyes, whatever claim you may once have had to the moral high ground -- and I was more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- has now been forfeited. Your behavior is contemptible and unwarranted.

Don't answer. At this point, I don't care. You are beneath notice.

Strange words from someone who claims to be free of guilt. Could it be that we are bearing witness to the "sinner who hates to have his sins exposed to the light of day?"

In any case, here's to the One Year Anniversary of a true Mopologetic Milestone!

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It's funny how DCP back-pedeled and tried to deny the obvious. It's fairly common knowledge that Mormons love to gossip. It's a human trait, and last I checked Mormons are humans. My dad was a ward clerk and one of the things that bugged him was how much time the bishopric spent talking about the personal lives of members. A family friend was the Stake President for much of my childhood and my family learned more than we wanted to know about the members of the ward. What DCP fails to realize is many critics were members of the church. Some were high ranking leaders. We've heard the gossip, maybe helped spread the gossip. It's a fact of Mormon culture.

[_Great Cthulhu]

A mere couple of days ago, some of use celebrated the One Year anniversary of one of the most explosive incidents in recent Mopologetic history. Last year, on April 6th, The Wall Street Journal published a now-infamous article entitled, "Expelled scholar of Mormon history can't find work." The piece by Daniel Golden, examined the recent career (or, more specifically, lack thereof) of D. Micheal Quinn, perhaps the greatest Mormon historian of all time.

And you, Mr. Scratch, could become the greatest Mopologetic historian of all time. Another great summary!

[_Runtu]

And you, Mr. Scratch, could become the greatest Mopologetic historian of all time. Another great summary!

Yes, a very well-done summary. I was off the board at that point, and I missed the whole exchange. But reading through it, it's pretty obvious that Dr. Peterson stepped in it and then tried to blame it all on Rollo. His calling Rollo to repentance was pretty shameless.

[_beastie]

Ah ha, I don't know how, but I seemed to have missed this particular brouhaha.

Yes, Mormons are terrible gossips, and anyone who imagines juicy tidbits leaders discover will remain confidential is living in la-la land. It may happen now and then, with a particularly careful leader, but, in general, it would be unwise to bank on it.

My opinion is that DCP engages in this kind of gossip not just due to the titillating nature of gossip in general, but also because he loves to portray himself as someone "in the know". He's got all these connections, you see, and if we only knew what he knows....well, 'nuff said.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

This is not merely disagreement; you are bearing false witness against me, and you will, I believe, someday have to account for it. You have the temporary advantage of what, in this context, strikes me as a rather cowardly anonymity. But that will not save you from the accounting.

But I will deny as false, and slanderously so, your depiction of my attitude and behavior toward Mike Quinn as “venomous,” “sick,” and the like. This is not only untrue, but libelous. Nor did I ever suggest that it was Quinn’s homosexuality that has kept him from getting a job, or that it ought to do so. You traduce me when you publicly say such things, and you will someday be obliged to acknowledge the falsehood and injustice of your public accusations.

I do not take this lightly. I’m not joking, and this is not a game. As God is my witness, what you are saying is false, and I will so testify.

I will have no further dealings with you, so far as I can avoid them. In my eyes, whatever claim you may once have had to the moral high ground -- and I was more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- has now been forfeited. Your behavior is contemptible and unwarranted.

Don't answer. At this point, I don't care. You are beneath notice.

These are awesome. So many possibilities for my signature, but unfortunately we have a 300 character limit. Rollo really struck a nerve. I wonder if Rollo cares that Daniel rebuked him. After all, we're talking about the great Daniel Peterson and I'm sure Rollo feels really bad about any embarassment he may have caused. As Dan says, Rollo will have to account for it someday, so he needs to begin the repentence process ASAP.

[_Mister Scratch]

But I will deny as false, and slanderously so, your depiction of my attitude and behavior toward Mike Quinn as “venomous,” “sick,” and the like. This is not only untrue, but libelous. Nor did I ever suggest that it was Quinn’s homosexuality that has kept him from getting a job, or that it ought to do so. You traduce me when you publicly say such things, and you will someday be obliged to acknowledge the falsehood and injustice of your public accusations.

These are awesome. So many possibilities for my signature, but unfortunately we have a 300 character limit. Rollo really struck a nerve. I wonder if Rollo cares that Daniel rebuked him. After all, we're talking about the great Daniel Peterson and I'm sure Rollo feels really bad about any embarassment he may have caused. As Dan says, Rollo will have to account for it someday, so he needs to begin the repentence process ASAP.

Try to fit them in if you can, Satan. It would be just desserts for his repeated quoting of folks from this board and RfM.

As an addendum, DCP did say, in a later thread, that he felt Quinn deserved to be punished for his homosexuality (and, given his off-the-cuff remark about "the nature of homosexuality," it seems that he holds some biased views):

Why did he get excommunicated?

I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he, for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thanks for the stroll down memory land, Scratch!

I wonder if Rollo cares that Daniel rebuked him.

Not at all. I found DCP's 'over-the-top' reaction quite humorous. I honestly believe the way DCP and his "circles" gossiped about Quinn's private life was abhorrent.

[_Sethbag]

I wasn't present on MAD/FAIR for this little debacle, but I have to say, gossip is gossip even if both parties to the gossip session already know a certain fact going into it. In other words, I could know Mike Quinn was gay, and you could know Mike Quinn was gay, but if you and I get together and talk with each other about Mike Quinn being gay, that's still gossip. So in reality, DCP was in fact gossiping with his friend, and his friend and the SP had in fact gossiped about Quinn's gayness, and that fact has basically been admitted to by DCP himself. He seems, in the quotes, to be defending against the charge of gossiping by claiming that all parties involved already knew about the homosexuality. Two points: that's no excuse, they shouldn't have been talking about it because it's none of their business, and two, how did everyone know in the first place? Unless we're talking about a matter of gaydar here, Quinn's homosexuality had apparently been gossiped enough about in the past so that all those people had known about it in the first place.

I think DCP was arguing his side on a poor foundation, at least from the quotes indicated. I haven't gone back and read the whole discussion, so I could be wrong. But it doesn't look good - he all but admitted that Mike Quinn's sexuality was widely gossiped about in the circles he is a part of.

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for the stroll down memory land, Scratch!

I wonder if Rollo cares that Daniel rebuked him.

Not at all. I found DCP's 'over-the-top' reaction quite humorous. I honestly believe the way DCP and his "circles" gossiped about Quinn's private life was abhorrent.

Rollo... Where on earth have you been, my old friend? Your presence on the board has been greatly missed. (By me, anyways.) Good to see you around!