DCP responds to the "gossipmongering" accusations

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

And Prof. Peterson, right? In my experience, he has a tendency to disregard others' explanations for things.

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.

I am aware of how you feel, Opie. (And I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are either Bill Hamblin or Lou Midgely. I wonder how your colleagues would feel about your "you are a modestly endowed little man" remark?)

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.

So much "concern," apparently, that he goes blabbing about people's sex lives. Real classy. Real "humble."

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

"That is how"? That doesn't explain how! The "how" is one of three things: this "other party" confessed; Hanks went nosing around; or a third party ratted them out. None of these strikes me as being very "humble" or "noble," Opie.

– 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.

See? Again there is something fishy about your account. You---just like DCP---claim the information is "in wide circulation," and yet crucial parties are "out of the loop."

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

That simply isn't true. He was the one who dropped the bombshell about all of this on the FAIRboard. You know, reading over Shades' account gives me the sense that Prof. P. is somewhat more innocent in all of this then his initial words (and mea culpa) would have led me to believe. It seems more that this was an unfortunate accident on his part. In other words, he slipped up and revealed that he had taken part in an anti-Quinn whisper campaign. Thus, I recognize the fact that I am probably going to have to alter my blog entries to reflect this new information. Simply put: it no longer seems fair or correct to label him a "gossipmongerer," per se. It appears that he was far more innocent than, say, Paul Hanks, who (at least in your account) really crossed the line.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

This is how I understand the timeline, Harmony:

---c. 1981: Robert Crockett claims to have seen Quinn holding hands with another man at the conference of the Mormon History Association.
---c. 1985 ('86?): Quinn is divorced from his wife (this is according to one of the FAIRboard participants).
---[note: Sometime in here is when rumors of Quinn's sexuality supposedly because "widespread." DCP stated in his email to Shades that he "was among the last to find out" about it. Meaning that he had been moving in apologetic circles for nearly a decade without ever learning about this bombshell.]
---approx. 1988-199?: DCP learns, along with Todd Compton, that Quinn is gay. On this occasion, there was a meeting that took place between Compton, DCP, and another, shadowy "liberal" LDS in Southern California. It was here that DCP learned that Quinn's homosexuality was "widely known."
---1992??: Stake President Paul Hanks begins a disciplinary investigation (possibly at the behest of Elder Boyd K. Packer) into Quinn's personal life.
---1993: Quinn is excommunicated, apparently for insubordination. (This despite the purported digging into his sex life, and DCP's denial that the reason for the ex'ing was homosexuality.)
---1996: Quinn publicly announces that he is gay.
---April, 2006: DCP lets slip that he has "insider knowledge" of the whisper campaign against Quinn.

You know, I had completely forgotten about BKP's involvement in the whole Quinn/September 6 thing. I think that it would be entirely reasonable to assume that BKP---or one of his emissaries---initiated the Hanks investigation, possibly with support from the SCMC or Church Security, who have been rumored to stake out places around Utah and Wyoming where gays meet up.

[_Mister Scratch]

I also believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and since DCP was obviously an eyewitness to all this, I see no reason not to take his explanation at face value.

I gather that there is still some question as to just what---if anything---DCP has been guilty of. 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. . . So, I guess my question to you, Shades, is this: What is it that we should presume DCP is "innocent" of?

Innocent of collecting gossip with the intent to deliver the material into the lap of Quinn's Stake President.

Point taken. I agree with you on this.

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.)

Frankly, I find this last bit appalling. What the hell is DCP doing making insinuations of this kind? A very, very nasty sort of low blow, in my opinion. I would be interested in seeing him clarify this.

It's not an insinuation. The fact that he wishes to keep the details from becoming widespread speaks against him being a gossipmonger, methinks.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you on this. It just seems more and more like DCP functioned as a kind of "middle man" in something far more sinister.

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.

Again, what does this mean? Why is Prof. P. being so vague and cagey? What is this SP, who, according to DCP, did not even *know* Quinn, doing discussing him like this?

It might be a matter of knowing about someone in your stake without ever having met him/her in person.

It is becoming quite clear that there is a Watergate-esque backstory to all of this that involves the SP, and some kind of "investigation."

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.

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.

To be honest, I didn't read it that way. It sounded to me that he has a sense of chivalry and fair play, refusing to resort to (deeply & truly) personal attacks.

Perhaps. But his willingness to disclose the information in the heat of a FAIRboard discussion (coupled with his penchant for laughingly disparaging folks such as his upset neighbor) don't really play in his favor either. Moreover, his namecalling and mudslinging is well-documented.

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.

His involvement now does seem to be far more limited. But there clearly was some kind of negative, anti-Quinn campaign underway.

Then why did he post that material on the FAIRboard, thus initiating one of the Great Moments in Mopologetic history? Did he mention this little story as "mere facts"? Or was he trying to damage Quinn's reputation?

I don't remember the details, but I think it came about when someone claimed that the "real" reason Quinn was excommunicated was for homosexuality, then DCP corrected him/her by saying that it couldn't have been that way, since Quinn's homosexuality was widely known for quite some time without any sanctions ever being brought against him.

This seems correct. However, if you look back at the old thread, we can see DCP saying this:

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)

Does this sound kosher to you? It certainly doesn't to me. It does not seem right for this SP to be doling out this information with some random third party. Further, I wonder if the "former colleague" in question was our own "Opie Rockwell"---aka (perhaps) Bill Hamblin or Lou Midgley.

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.

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.

I don't really see what you mean, since, as he said, he was merely among the last to know what was, again, widely known.

I think my point is clearer if compared with the timetable I wrote up in my previous post. There is a contradiction (in my opinion) with the claim, on the one hand, that this was "widely known," and on the other, that it took so long (nearly ten years!) for someone so neck-deep in these circles as DCP to know about it.

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.)

Perhaps it's because he's against the type of "malicious" gossip of the type I described, I.e. compiling information on someone in order to deliver it into the lap of someone's superior to bring about punitive measures?

No, I now think it's something else. I think that he realized that he'd slipped up, and given us the means to unravel a "hush-hush" sort of conspiracy, possibly initiated by the Brethren themselves, to smear Quinn and have him ex'ed from the Church. It seems more and more to me that DCP was merely falling on a grenade which had slipped from his ammo belt.

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.

You're certainly welcome. Of course, DCP is the one to thank for allowing me to copy-&-paste it.

Well then, thanks to the Good Professor as well!

Of course, it still does not change my view that DCP behaved unethically when he posted that material on the FAIRboard.

I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what he posted to the FAIR board. If memory serves, he only posted what he did to dispel a false rumor. Let's face it: If it's a fact that someone's homosexuality was well-known to group A, what's the harm in stating that fact?

Well, it remains to be seen. We now have indisputable testimony from two separate TBM sources that Paul Hanks was blabbing about one of his congregation members' very private affairs. Why would he be doing this? Is Paul Hanks the unethical person in this whole "sordid affair," as Opie called it? Was DCP trying to cover things up for BKP? The plot does grow thicker by the hour, it seems!

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.

Who were the authors of those two articles? If the author of the lengthier article is who I think it is, I might have a story to share. "Gossip," if you will :-)

One was Klaus J. Hansen, and the other article was co-written by George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James.

But in any case, let's grant that the FARMS Review was hostile toward gays. Even so, that doesn't mean that anyone rumormongered beforehand with the intent to deliver the information to Quinn's Stake President.

That still remains to be seen. Obviously, someone leaked this information to the SP. I doubt that that person was DCP, but DCP did know about all of it, and his disclosure of these facts still seems like a significant slip-up. I think that, in the end, we can account for DCP's erratic behavior and adamant denials on all of this by viewing what he was doing as an attempt to cover up other people's misdeeds.

[_harmony]

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.

This is how I understand the timeline, Harmony:

---c. 1981: Robert Crockett claims to have seen Quinn holding hands with another man at the conference of the Mormon History Association.

Do we have any collaborating evidence, besides Crockett's word, that this actually happened? I mean, I'm having a hard time understanding why Quinn, who by all accounts is a pretty smart guy, would choose this particular conference to exhibit a behavior that is only going to gain him public ridicule and career suicide?

---c. 1985 ('86?): Quinn is divorced from his wife (this is according to one of the FAIRboard participants).

So he stayed married for ~5 more years, after supposedly holding hands with an unidentified man in a very public forum?

---[note: Sometime in here is when rumors of Quinn's sexuality supposedly because "widespread." DCP stated in his email to Shades that he "was among the last to find out" about it. Meaning that he had been moving in apologetic circles for nearly a decade without ever learning about this bombshell.]

Well, Daniel said he was out of the country for a significant period of time in the late 70's and early 80's, but surely he wasn't that out of touch, that something this significant to the Mormon world would have gone unnoticed by someone as close to the hub as Daniel claims to be?

---approx. 1988-199?: DCP learns, along with Todd Compton, that Quinn is gay. On this occasion, there was a meeting that took place between Compton, DCP, and another, shadowy "liberal" LDS in Southern California. It was here that DCP learned that Quinn's homosexuality was "widely known."

Why was Quinn's sexual orientation a topic of this conversation, but hadn't ever been discussed even once in Daniel's hearing in the decade prior to that? I mean, it's not like it was big news, by the late 80's, was it? Why does he name Compton, but not the other person in this conversation? Is he name-dropping again?

---1992??: Stake President Paul Hanks begins a disciplinary investigation (possibly at the behest of Elder Boyd K. Packer) into Quinn's personal life.

Why now? If Quinn's sexual orientation was so prominently known in LDS circles for years prior to this, why would they wait for him to return to this specific stake to start the investigation? Is there something about SP Hanks that makes him a better SP to do this than say... a SP in another state? Are Utah SP's easier to control than SP's in other states, more remotely removed from the influence of SLC?

---1993: Quinn is excommunicated, apparently for insubordination. (This despite the purported digging into his sex life, and DCP's denial that the reason for the ex'ing was homosexuality.)

So who cares if he's gay? If that's not the reason he was ex'ed, then who the heck cares that he's gay? Why would his being gay be a weapon used against him professionally, as it appears to have been done for the most recent attack on his career?

---1996: Quinn publicly announces that he is gay.

So what can we deduce from this? Since if Bro Crockett is correct, he at least implicitly declared he was gay 15 years prior, back at the conference where one person in a few thousand (how many attend these conferences?) saw him holding hand with a man, why would he take 15 years to publicly make that announcement?

---April, 2006: DCP lets slip that he has "insider knowledge" of the whisper campaign against Quinn.

Well, something is still off about the whole thing. I'm not clear about:

1. how Daniel could avoid the common knowledge about a colleague for 10 years, all the while circulating in what is a very small circle of colleagues.

2. why the subject came up in the conversation that included DCP, Compton, and another unnamed individual at all, since it was obviously old news by then.

3. if Quinn wasn't ex'ed for homosexuality, why does his homosexuality matters at all to the LDS apologetics world? And it obviously matters a great deal, since they blocked his presentation at a conference within the last little while.

You know, I had completely forgotten about BKP's involvement in the whole Quinn/September 6 thing. I think that it would be entirely reasonable to assume that BKP---or one of his emissaries---initiated the Hanks investigation, possibly with support from the SCMC or Church Security, who have been rumored to stake out places around Utah and Wyoming where gays meet up.

And Daniel has connections to the SCMC, if I recall correctly.

[Physics Guy]

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.

This is how I understand the timeline, Harmony:

---c. 1981: Robert Crockett claims to have seen Quinn holding hands with another man at the conference of the Mormon History Association.

Do we have any collaborating evidence, besides Crockett's word, that this actually happened? I mean, I'm having a hard time understanding why Quinn, who by all accounts is a pretty smart guy, would choose this particular conference to exhibit a behavior that is only going to gain him public ridicule and career suicide?

No, we don't, hence why Rollo (and I) have always been skeptical.

---c. 1985 ('86?): Quinn is divorced from his wife (this is according to one of the FAIRboard participants).

So he stayed married for ~5 more years, after supposedly holding hands with an unidentified man in a very public forum?

Good point.

---[note: Sometime in here is when rumors of Quinn's sexuality supposedly because "widespread." DCP stated in his email to Shades that he "was among the last to find out" about it. Meaning that he had been moving in apologetic circles for nearly a decade without ever learning about this bombshell.]

Well, Daniel said he was out of the country for a significant period of time in the late 70's and early 80's, but surely he wasn't that out of touch, that something this significant to the Mormon world would have gone unnoticed by someone as close to the hub as Daniel claims to be?

Yes, one would think that he would have been told, despite being out of the country. Or that he would have been told some time during the nearly decade he'd been back in the States.

---approx. 1988-199?: DCP learns, along with Todd Compton, that Quinn is gay. On this occasion, there was a meeting that took place between Compton, DCP, and another, shadowy "liberal" LDS in Southern California. It was here that DCP learned that Quinn's homosexuality was "widely known."

Why was Quinn's sexual orientation a topic of this conversation, but hadn't ever been discussed even once in Daniel's hearing in the decade prior to that? I mean, it's not like it was big news, by the late 80's, was it? Why does he name Compton, but not the other person in this conversation? Is he name-dropping again?

I don't know. What *does* seem clear to me is that Prof. P. is being cagey in order to cover up other people's misdeeds.

---1992??: Stake President Paul Hanks begins a disciplinary investigation (possibly at the behest of Elder Boyd K. Packer) into Quinn's personal life.

Why now? If Quinn's sexual orientation was so prominently known in LDS circles for years prior to this, why would they wait for him to return to this specific stake to start the investigation? Is there something about SP Hanks that makes him a better SP to do this than say... a SP in another state? Are Utah SP's easier to control than SP's in other states, more remotely removed from the influence of SLC?

Another good question. Of course, it would be easier to answer if we knew who the other parties were. But then again it seems like many of these people are trying to hide something.

---1993: Quinn is excommunicated, apparently for insubordination. (This despite the purported digging into his sex life, and DCP's denial that the reason for the ex'ing was homosexuality.)

So who cares if he's gay? If that's not the reason he was ex'ed, then who the heck cares that he's gay? Why would his being gay be a weapon used against him professionally, as it appears to have been done for the most recent attack on his career?

Another thing which doesn't really add up is the fact that DCP and Opie both say that Hanks was investigating Quinn's sex life, and yet this was not the reason (according to both DCP and Lavina Anderson) that Quinn was ex'ed. This again makes me think that Hanks was given marching orders from the top.

---1996: Quinn publicly announces that he is gay.

So what can we deduce from this? Since if Bro Crockett is correct, he at least implicitly declared he was gay 15 years prior, back at the conference where one person in a few thousand (how many attend these conferences?) saw him holding hand with a man, why would he take 15 years to publicly make that announcement?

Yes, it sounds odd/implausible to me, too. Especially given how homophobic BYU is as an institution. One would think that he would have been ratted out by a colleague or a student. Instead, he continued in his professorship for another eight years. (He also delivered his famous, anti-BKP speech "On Being a Mormon Historian" during this period. If they would have been capable of smearing him at that time, via the homosexuality angle, it seems to me that they would have pounced at the opportunity. Further, this time period coincides with the presidencies of both SWK and ETB---both of whom were rabidly anti-gay.)

---April, 2006: DCP lets slip that he has "insider knowledge" of the whisper campaign against Quinn.

Well, something is still off about the whole thing. I'm not clear about:

1. how Daniel could avoid the common knowledge about a colleague for 10 years, all the while circulating in what is a very small circle of colleagues.

This remains a big unanswered question for me as well. Is he being deliberately vague? Is his memory just fuzzy? Or selective?

2. why the subject came up in the conversation that included DCP, Compton, and another unnamed individual at all, since it was obviously old news by then.

This is a good question, too. I have been wondering for a long time how this subject happened to come up--repeatedly, apparently---so many different times among so many different people, all the while managing to elude DCP.

3. if Quinn wasn't ex'ed for homosexuality, why does his homosexuality matters at all to the LDS apologetics world? And it obviously matters a great deal, since they blocked his presentation at a conference within the last little while.

It matters in the same way that Simon Southerton's purported infidelities matter: it makes him look like a sinner, and thus works to absolve the LDS Church of any wrongdoing. The Church is perfect; the members are imperfect.

You know, I had completely forgotten about BKP's involvement in the whole Quinn/September 6 thing. I think that it would be entirely reasonable to assume that BKP---or one of his emissaries---initiated the Hanks investigation, possibly with support from the SCMC or Church Security, who have been rumored to stake out places around Utah and Wyoming where gays meet up.

And Daniel has connections to the SCMC, if I recall correctly.

Yes... But I'm not sure how relevant that is in this instance.

[_harmony]

That still remains to be seen. Obviously, someone leaked this information to the SP. I doubt that that person was DCP, but DCP did know about all of it, and his disclosure of these facts still seems like a significant slip-up. I think that, in the end, we can account for DCP's erratic behavior and adamant denials on all of this by viewing what he was doing as an attempt to cover up other people's misdeeds.

Or covering up for his own talking about a subject about which he had been told confidential information. Perhaps he realized he stepped over the line when he claimed to know a bit of the background, background that his friend wouldn't be happy to see all over the FAIR boards. So he's still backpeddling, hoping to get the horse back in the barn so he can close the door again before anyone notices that he gave out information about something he shouldn't have.

[_Ray A]

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.

I think you're being way too generous, and maybe even a little naïve.

[_Opie Rockwell]

---1992??: Stake President Paul Hanks begins a disciplinary investigation (possibly at the behest of Elder Boyd K. Packer) into Quinn's personal life.

You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I knew (and it was all-but-public knowledge) several years before 1992 that Quinn was gay, or at least bi-sexual. And neither I, nor anyone I knew who knew about Quinn, learned it from Pres. Hanks, who I am quite confident wasn’t even aware of it nearly as early as everyone else.

… DCP and Opie both say that Hanks was investigating Quinn's sex life …

I never said any such thing. Not only that, but I know that such was not the case. No one had any need to “investigate” anything. Quinn’s “private” life was hardly private at the time – there was no “investigation” necessary. This just once again proves that you’re a compulsive liar – a trait all too common among the apostate crowd.

This again makes me think that Hanks was given marching orders from the top.

Now here is some authentic gossip mongering! And it’s founded in 100% baseless speculation.

You’re a complete imbecile, Mr. Scratch. You’re a rampant speculator who requires no knowledge whatsoever to make your outrageous assertions. You’re completely out of control, and were it not for the fact that you have, on this board, a large number of fellow disgruntled ex-LDS who are willing to accept any conspiracy theory you can come up with, you would be laughed to scorn. What a tragic joke you are!

… I wonder if the "former colleague" in question was our own "Opie Rockwell"---aka (perhaps) Bill Hamblin or Lou Midgley.

I am not nor have I ever been a “colleague” of Dan Peterson. Fact is, I am completely disassociated from the entire BYU/FARMS crowd. I’m sure Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and Lou Midgely wouldn’t even know who I was if they passed me on the street. No, my dear Mr. Scratch, I’m simply a third party who just happened to live in the Salt Lake Stake at the time and was casually aware of some of these things going on. And if I knew about Mike Quinn then, I can assure you it was no secret. You’re just so desperate for a club to beat your perceived enemies that you’ll resort to anything in your Ahab-esque quest to smite Mormonism. What a freakish little imp you are! I picture you, Gollum-like, hunkered over your computer in a darkened room, with pictures of your nemeses taped on the walls – darts protruding from their faces.

But keep it up. Your pathological pursuit will get you nowhere in the end, except further alienated from reality and the light you used to enjoy.

As I said before, I actually feel sorry for you. What a pathetic tragedy your life has become …

[_harmony]

---1992??: Stake President Paul Hanks begins a disciplinary investigation (possibly at the behest of Elder Boyd K. Packer) into Quinn's personal life.

You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I knew (and it was all-but-public knowledge) several years before 1992 that Quinn was gay, or at least bi-sexual. And neither I, nor anyone I knew who knew about Quinn, learned it from Pres. Hanks, who I am quite confident wasn’t even aware of it nearly as early as everyone else.

So when did it become all-but-public knowledge? And what exactly is "all-but-public" knowledge? That sounds remarkably like the rumor-mill our leaders are constantly reminding us to avoid. Funny how all this time they were referring to the LDS apologists, when I have always thought they were referring the Relief Society ladies counting on their fingers every time a new bride shows an early pregnancy.

Daniel says he didn't know about it until the late 80's/early 90's, which would have been 6-8 years before Quinn made any public announcement. So when did the gossiping actually begin? (You can color it whatever color you want, but it's still gossiping.)

… DCP and Opie both say that Hanks was investigating Quinn's sex life …

I never said any such thing. Not only that, but I know that such was not the case. No one had any need to “investigate” anything. Quinn’s “private” life was hardly private at the time – there was no “investigation” necessary.

And yet Quinn didn't publically come out until 1996. So essentially you agree that people were gossiping about him, instead of actually investigating, which seems to have a more official sound, if not purpose.

This just once again proves that you’re a compulsive liar – a trait all too common among the apostate crowd.

I didn't suppose you could write an entire paragraph without a gratuitous insult, and I was right. And aren't we glad you have the freedom to make those insults without fear of getting banned, unlike our dear MAD board.

This again makes me think that Hanks was given marching orders from the top.

Now here is some authentic gossip mongering! And it’s founded in 100% baseless speculation.

That's how the SCMC works, Opie. Didn't you know that? After all, Quinn had just slapped down Packer himself. It's no stretch to imagine that Packer was pissed about that, and used the SCMC to get a bit of his own pound of flesh in return. (Our leaders are so righteous, you know.)

You’re a complete imbecile, Mr. Scratch. You’re a rampant speculator who requires no knowledge whatsoever to make your outrageous assertions. You’re completely out of control, and were it not for the fact that you have, on this board, a large number of fellow disgruntled ex-LDS who are willing to accept any conspiracy theory you can come up with, you would be laughed to scorn. What a tragic joke you are!

One, two, three, four, five, six... SEVEN! Seven insults in one paragraph. Is that a record for you? Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides "trust me" and insults?

… I wonder if the "former colleague" in question was our own "Opie Rockwell"---aka (perhaps) Bill Hamblin or Lou Midgley.

I am not nor have I ever been a “colleague” of Dan Peterson. Fact is, I am completely disassociated from the entire BYU/FARMS crowd. I’m sure Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and Lou Midgely wouldn’t even know who I was if they passed me on the street. No, my dear Mr. Scratch, I’m simply a third party who just happened to live in the Salt Lake Stake at the time and was casually aware of some of these things going on. And if I knew about Mike Quinn then, I can assure you it was no secret. You’re just so desperate for a club to beat your perceived enemies that you’ll resort to anything in your Ahab-esque quest to smite Mormonism. What a freakish little imp you are! I picture you, Gollum-like, hunkered over your computer in a darkened room, with pictures of your nemeses taped on the walls – darts protruding from their faces.

I'm sure they appreciate your support. But if you knew about Mike Quinn then, you are part of the gossip chain. I, on the other hand, didn't know about Quinn, and if I had, I wouldn't have cared about Quinn or his sexual orientation. Some of us care about the quality of his work... others worry about his sex life. Which of us gossips about him, do you suppose?

But keep it up. Your pathological pursuit will get you nowhere in the end, except further alienated from reality and the light you used to enjoy.

As I said before, I actually feel sorry for you. What a pathetic tragedy your life has become …

You make assumptions, Opie. Assumptions based on facts not in evidence. YOu have no reason to believe that Scratch is alienated from reality or light. Nor do you have any reason to assume pathos or tragedy in his life. Stick to the subject of the thread: DCP, gossip, Quinn.

[_Opie Rockwell]

harmony:

That sounds remarkably like the rumor-mill our leaders are constantly reminding us to avoid.

“Our” leaders? That’s rich, coming from you! If I were your stake president, I’d have your apostate ass in a disciplinary court so fast it’d set records. And you’d never need to lie in a temple recommend interview again.

So when did the gossiping actually begin?

I knew Quinn was a buggerer no later than 1985. It could have been earlier. I didn’t make any note of it in my journal at the time. He was just another pasty-faced would-be intellectual as far as I was concerned. It was several years later that I actually read any of his works of “history.”

And as far as your “holier-than-thou” condemnation of what you call “gossiping” is concerned – take your deceitful, two-faced, afraid-to-show-your-true-colors, faux intellectualism and go back to your single-wide and fry something.

And yet Quinn didn't publically come out until 1996. So essentially you agree that people were gossiping about him …

Yes. Everyone knew Mike Quinn was a buggerer for a decade or more before his oh-so-dramatic “coming out” party. Call it what you want, you shameless dissembler.

I didn't suppose you could write an entire paragraph without a gratuitous insult, and I was right.

You’re so very, very right. When in Rome …

That's how the SCMC works, Opie. Didn't you know that?

Why don’t you explain it to us? You seem to know all about it. My only question is why they haven’t contacted your stake president and ridden you out of the chapel on a rail? As I said, if it were up to me, I’d purge the church of everyone like you and your friends here on this board. You’re all a bunch of phony cowards who don’t have the guts to stand up for what you really believe. At least people like Steve Benson can be credited for standing by their principles; putting on the full-fledged uniform of the apostate instead of skulking in the shadows of feigned belief. You wouldn’t see him lying through his teeth in a temple recommend interview just so he could attend a child’s wedding. You disgust me.

After all, Quinn had just slapped down Packer himself.

Quinn “slapped down” Elder Packer? You and Scratch live in such an ornate fantasy world. Quinn is a miserable wretch who is increasingly tormented by the prospect of coming face to face with his God. Boyd K. Packer is a holy man who will, not many years hence, face that same heavenly Father with self-confidence and joy. The only person Mike Quinn has “slapped down” in life is himself and those fools (like you and Mr. Scratch) who have been persuaded by his radical distortions of LDS history.

You make assumptions, Opie. Assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

No, harmony. I make valid judgments based on easily-observable facts. That’s how I know that you are an ugly-hearted, bitter old woman who blames God and the church (along with its leaders) for the tribulations of your life – tribulations incident to your own stupid decisions and failure to properly exercise your own agency. Mr. Scratch is a bitter young man who blames God and the church (along with its leaders) for the fact that he is an inconsequential and pathetic loser. And D. Michael Quinn is now an intellectually and spiritually shriveled old man who started out with great promise, only to sacrifice it all on the altar of depravity and excess.

And I’m through debasing myself further by stepping foot in this execrable forum frequented almost exclusively by people like you and Scratch who can no longer discern truth from error nor virtue from vice …