DCP responds to the "gossipmongering" accusations

[_harmony]

1. Shades, I commend you for your ability to at least acknowledge the sincerity of and accept at face value the explanation that Dr. Peterson has offered. Rollo Tomasi and Mr. Scratch would do well to follow your example in this matter.

2. Mr. Scratch, you are, without a doubt, one of the most despicable characters I have ever come across in all my years. Your deep-rooted bitterness towards all things LDS, and specifically towards certain members of the apologetic community, is a reflection not on the church or the objects of your constant derision, but rather upon yourself as a very, very small-minded and morally-challenged human being.

You ask about Quinn’s stake president and what he knew and why he knew it. Well, I know a little bit about this whole affair, since my wife and I lived, at the time, in the same neighborhood with them all. The stake president was Paul Hanks, a humble and noble man, and a man full of sincere love and concern for the members of his stake. During this period of time, Mike Quinn was actively engaged in homosexual activity with another member of the stake. That is how President Hanks learned about Quinn’s inclinations – although during this period, Mike wasn’t trying very hard to keep any of this a secret. It was quite apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And President Hanks wasn’t the source of any of this information being disseminated – what was happening with Quinn and the other party was in wide circulation long before it came to the attention of the bishop or stake president.

So, once and for all, lay off Dan Peterson. He had nothing to do with any of this sordid affair.

What makes this a sordid affair? The homosexuality or the gossiping?

[_Yong Xi]

1. Shades, I commend you for your ability to at least acknowledge the sincerity of and accept at face value the explanation that Dr. Peterson has offered. Rollo Tomasi and Mr. Scratch would do well to follow your example in this matter.

2. Mr. Scratch, you are, without a doubt, one of the most despicable characters I have ever come across in all my years. Your deep-rooted bitterness towards all things LDS, and specifically towards certain members of the apologetic community, is a reflection not on the church or the objects of your constant derision, but rather upon yourself as a very, very small-minded and morally-challenged human being.

You ask about Quinn’s stake president and what he knew and why he knew it. Well, I know a little bit about this whole affair, since my wife and I lived, at the time, in the same neighborhood with them all. The stake president was Paul Hanks, a humble and noble man, and a man full of sincere love and concern for the members of his stake. During this period of time, Mike Quinn was actively engaged in homosexual activity with another member of the stake. That is how President Hanks learned about Quinn’s inclinations – although during this period, Mike wasn’t trying very hard to keep any of this a secret. It was quite apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And President Hanks wasn’t the source of any of this information being disseminated – what was happening with Quinn and the other party was in wide circulation long before it came to the attention of the bishop or stake president.

So, once and for all, lay off Dan Peterson. He had nothing to do with any of this sordid affair.

Opie,

Everything you say may well be true. What bothers me, is that people come to a public forum and talk about another's sexual orientation or sexual activities. Yes, I understand you are coming to Daniel Peterson's defense, which is your right. You may feel like you need to clear the air which is also your right. Nonetheless, you are discussing in detail someone's private life. I don't know if you are a parent or not. If so, how would you feel about someone talking about your child's sexual orientation in a public forum, even if what they said were true?

How do you protect Quinn's right to privacy while defending your friend? I don't have an answer to that, but certainly, Quinn does have a right to privacy.

Daniel Peterson may well be completely innocent of "gossipmongering" and Mister Scratch may be out of line. However, I do know that Michael Quinn's private life should not be fodder for public consumption, even by you.

[_harmony]

Opie,

Everything you say may well be true. What bothers me, is that people come to a public forum and talk about another's sexual orientation or sexual activities. Yes, I understand you are coming to Daniel Peterson's defense, which is your right. You may feel like you need to clear the air which is also your right. Nonetheless, you are discussing in detail someone's private life. I don't know if you are a parent or not. If so, how would you feel about someone talking about your child's sexual orientation in a public forum, even if what they said were true?

How do you protect Quinn's right to privacy while defending your friend? I don't have an answer to that, but certainly, Quinn does have a right to privacy.

Daniel Peterson may well be completely innocent of "gossipmongering" and Mister Scratch may be out of line. However, I do know that Michael Quinn's private life should not be fodder for public consumption, even by you.

Especially if he's referring to Quinn's private life as a "sordid affair".

[_Ray A]

I gather that there is still some question as to just what---if anything---DCP has been guilty of.

Not according to what you wrote in your blog.

I think Rollo and myself have maintained all along that the sort of gossip he and his "circle" would have been engaging in on this topic would necessarily (due to his adherence to Church orthodoxy) have been malicious in nature. Moreover, we know that DCP has fun gossiping about his acquaintances and ridiculing them, as evidence by this post (I covered this in an earlier thread)

Pot calls kettle "black".

Could it be that this anonymous man was (drum roll) Robert Crockett, who happens to live in Los Angeles, and who is the sole person to ever have said that Quinn's sexual orientation was "common knowledge"?

Judging by your track record in "guessing" - No.

I wish he would have provided some more explanation as to this remark. I.e., since he'd been in the dark for so long, how did he suddenly come to understand that this "was just about universally known"? Did he go around to a bunch of different people, tugging on their sleeves and saying, "Hey, did you know about Mike Quinn"?

This is absurd, and it would also be totally out of character for DCP. Don't read your modus operandi into this, Scratch. You're the one with the gossip blog with "juicy stories" and "inside information". You're the one who tugs on sleeves and says..."did you hear.....?"

This seems like mere semantic games on his part. I.e., like he was objecting to your summary of the events because you used the term "apologist community." Once again, however, I think this cuts to a central point about the ethics of this whole issue. I ask again: Is an apologist going to be likely to discuss homosexuality in a charitable light?

And I ask: Is Scratch going to discuss Mormonism in a charitable light?

This last bit is extremely suspect, in my opinion. He says he "sat on it, quietly." To me, this implies that he felt that he could use this information as a weapon, and, in fact, that he had thought of doing so. It is like he was doing a calculus in his mind where he said, "Gee! What a bombshell I've got! I could totally besmirch Mike Quinn's reputation, but, because I am such a nice and ethical guy, I won't publish anything about it at all. But I could." I think his statement betrays his sense of his own power.

Once again, you are reading your own sinister motives into DCP.

Well, this reflects pretty badly on his earlier assertion that this information was as "widely known" as he claims. I don't think that he's bluffing, per se, but something about his account stinks.

Like your blog?

A further thing we have not touched on at all is his extreme, apoplectic reaction to our viewing his postings as "gossipmongering." Why has he gotten so bent out of shape over it? That has never made sense to me. After all, we have caught him doing all kinds of things---screwing up his sources in an academic document, for example, or his blunders with the 2nd Watson letter---and he didn't get anywhere near as angry about those things. Why is this Quinn business such a sore spot for him? (The only thing I know of that can compare is when we criticize the peer review process at FROB.)

It is a "sore spot" because YOU are accusing the man of holding motives he does not hold. If he did have those motives he would not even care to defend the accusations you make. Does that even sink in to you?

In any case, thank you again for getting this material to us, Shades. As someone who is interested in the history of Mopologetics, I found this incredibly enlightening, and enjoyed it as a kind of "insider's view" into a world which is oftentimes quite secretive. Of course, it still does not change my view that DCP behaved unethically when he posted that material on the FAIRboard.

So you hold him accountable, and call him "unethical"? In light of your blog this is quite sickening hypocrisy.

I will be extremely curious to read Rollo Tomasi's reaction to the above.

Rollo's cur. You suck up to Rollo the way you claim I do to DCP.

Edited to add: I think we need to further take into account the fact that DCP's oversaw/edited the FARMS Review's response to Quinn's Same-Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. When asked, Prof. P. will happily point to that work as the key example of why Quinn is an "embarrassment." He, like the authors of the FROB article, has a low opinion of homosexuals, and believes that they always have "an agenda." (There were two articles, and the lengthier of the two is quite frank in its hostility towards gays.) I think we need to view his participation in the gossip with these views and attitudes (which he implicitly and editorially espouses) in mind.

The FR has been going since 1989. It was first known as Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. So in 18 years you can only point out TWO articles?! Why didn't DCP reveal all of this stuff in 1989? And if you think some homosexuals don't have an agenda, I'd like to sell you some land when the tide is low.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Shades,

Your posts on this thread speak well of your character. I very much appreciate reading DCP's side of the story.

Quinn made his sexuality, to a certain extent, a matter of public discourse by writing Same-Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. It is important to understand any scholar's ideological commitments when reading his/her work. Because DCP is a Mormon, I take anything in his writings that is pro-Mormon with a grain of salt. Similarly, since Quinn is gay, we should take his reading of 19th-century Mormon personalities' homosexuality with a grain of salt. Discussion of Quinn's sexual orientation is permissible insofar as it helps us understand why his piece might draw certain conclusions that seem unwarranted by the evidence. On the other hand, attempts to discredit Quinn's scholarship by attacks on his character are out of line and unfit for the public sphere. The unfortunate thing about this particular case is that it's difficult to know where one ends and the other begins. Many believing readers of the FARMS Review (or MADB) will be horrified by Quinn's sexual orientation, which they view as sinful. Even if a reviewer intends only to demonstrate that the historical interpretations presented in Same-Sex Dynamics are biased, his comments will have the collateral effect of closing many TBM minds to the value of Quinn's work altogether (not to mention turning them against Dr. Quinn personally). This presents us with something of an ethical dilemma. By failing to mention Quinn's homosexuality we fail to make an important point about the agenda he's bringing to the table. But by mentioning it we essentially vilify Quinn personally in front of an already-hostile audience. Dr. Peterson resolves this dilemma in favor of the latter option; whatever we may think of his choice, it doesn't make sense to turn around and personally vilify him in front of a hostile audience, which of course would be blatant hypocrisy.

As much as I disagree with Dr. Peterson on a great many issues, I hate to see his character to impugned. He seems to me a responsible scholar and a good person, despite his occasionally overbearing manner.

-CK

[_why me]

I can't believe that I am seeing a thread like this once again. I have not been here for a while doing my own thing in the outside world but it can be just a little disheartening to see Daniel still the focus of much attention.

When can a human being be left alone to live life. I feel as if Daniel is a victim of misguided 'papparazzi' types who are intent on hounding him indefinitely. I think that those engaged in the anti Daniel compaign need to get a life and concentrate on more wholesome endeavors.

[_Gazelam]

And I ask: Is Scratch going to discuss Mormonism in a charitable light?

I have seen Scratch defending the church's teaching on two occasions. that's the weird thing, as much as you see Scrath play a sort of villianous character around here, I think he does actually have a testimony, he just has a few problems with a few points.

We might see more of this if he didn't have such an obsesive compulsive disorder with DCP. Hopefully this testimony of DCP's regarding this matter will ease Scratchs tensions and help him to move on.

[_marg]

marg: Without Quinn involved in this discussion, the underlined portion seems inappropriate.

Shades: Perhaps you're right, but I included it to show how the Stake President knew about the issue before discussing anything with anyone else. As DCP stated, the Stake President asked first.


Well it appears to me, to reflect poorly on DCP. It makes him sound like a gossip and it smears Quinn's name by innuendo. It would have been better to delete "sad" and " very painfully". i.e. An incident brought the matter to the stake president's attention.

[_harmony]

This is absurd, and it would also be totally out of character for DCP. Don't read your modus operandi into this, Scratch. You're the one with the gossip blog with "juicy stories" and "inside information". You're the one who tugs on sleeves and says..."did you hear.....?"

I've pretty well stayed out of Ray's meltdown, but this comment needs correcting. Actually, this comment is about 180 opposite of true. Daniel is notorious for claiming inside information. Countless times he's posted something along the lines of "if you knew what I know...". His claims to being called to help with the SCMC business is a case in point.

Scratch is the opposite; he doesn't hide anything except his identity. He puts what he knows (or thinks he knows) right out for everyone to see.

As for this particular comment, I'm still not clear on the timeline, so if someone could post it in bullet form, that would help quite a bit.

[_Seven]

I can't believe that I am seeing a thread like this once again. I have not been here for a while doing my own thing in the outside world but it can be just a little disheartening to see Daniel still the focus of much attention.

When can a human being be left alone to live life. I feel as if Daniel is a victim of misguided 'papparazzi' types who are intent on hounding him indefinitely. I think that those engaged in the anti Daniel compaign need to get a life and concentrate on more wholesome endeavors.

I can really relate to Daniel's frustration at having his words and experiences misjudged and taken to smear his character. I have recently been the victim of character smearing from LDS in my extended family that are intent to prove there is something wrong with me, must be sinning, lost the spirit, don't love Jesus, etc. for having serious concerns about church history. Since going inactive I have tried to defend myself against these vicious attacks on my character that are completely untrue. There have been false rumors swirling in the family ever since I began researching church history and trying to be honest with both sides of the issues. I have endured cruel judgments and psycho analzying of my personality traits that I have tried to defend myself against, but painfully realize it's useless. It is exactly like you describe: I am a "victim of misguided 'papparazzi' types" who are intent of smearing my character so they can place me into the "wicked apostates" mold for their own agenda. I can understand what DCP is experiencing. I wish the hypocritical TBMs in my family and on the internet would stop the slander and focus on more wholesome endeavors too.

Was it DCP that stated something like there is never a valid reason to leave the Mormon church? I have seen many TBMs and apologists on LDS disucssion boards that smear doubters, active LDS, former LDS etc. that share a differing view, experience, or opinion on the Mormon church.

I hope both sides can learn a lesson from this.