DiscussMormonism.com

Well, it seems that the Good Professor has learned a very sobering lesson from his experience battling it out with the likes of myself and Rollo Tomasi. As many here know all too well, Dan Peterson spent many, many posts on this board belaboring the point that he "never gossiped" about Mike Quinn---a claim which is facetious and baloney to the core. Anyone who has followed my postings on this issue (or anyone who has spent any appreciable time reading the FAIR/MADboards) knows that DCP has said all manner of negative things about D. Michael Quinn, including:
---Quinn was ex'ed for homosexuality
---Quinn is a liar, and an "untrustworthy" manipulator of sources
---Quinn was behind a "sad incident" involving a member of his ward, an "incident" which, DCP implied, had a sexual angle.
---Quinn deserved to be demoted from presenting at the Yale conference

These are really just the basics, though. What I find interesting, in this new set of postings from The Good Professor, is his reticence. In other words, he seems to have backed off somewhat from his more explicit smear tactics. The following comes from the MAD thread entitled "Historicity of Book of Mormon". Observe:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

4truth wrote:I find it relevant that serious scholars who study Mormon history and publish their findings can then find themselves in danger of excommunication apparently due to the subject matter.

Don't presume that Mike Quinn's excommunication occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing. It may have. It may not have. The Church will never make any reason public; disciplinary council proceedings are confidential.

(emphasis added)

Perhaps the Church itself "will never make any reason public"; but, of course, nothing is stopping high-ranking Mopologists from stating all sorts of well-poisoning reasons. In fact, DCP went to great lengths to insinuate that "homosexual sinning" was at the heart of Quinn's Church disciplinary council. DCP stated that he had procured this "insider knowledge" via the gossipy grapevine to which he's privy---a grapevine which extends, apparently, all the way to Quinn's former Stake President, Paul Hanks.

However, it seems that DCP, having had his gossipmongering and smear tactics exposed to the light of day, has now retreated from this method of attack.

The poster called "4truth" continued to press the issue:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

4truth wrote:So then were his historical writings and excommunication mere coincidence?

Probably not.

When I say that his historical writings may or may not have been the sole reason for his excommunication, or even the primary reason, I'm not denying that they may well have been, and probably were, among the reasons. As several here are undoubtedly aware, though, there may have been other factors.

4truth wrote:
What I find remarkable is that even in the face of his excommunication for simply following the historical evidence and presenting it as best he could

A description that may or may not actually represent reality.

In any event, excommunication for apostasy need not indicate insincerity on the part of the person whose doctrinal or historical positions necessitate the withdrawal of fellowship. An apostate may well be sincere. Most probably are, in fact.

Mike Quinn chose not to attend the church disciplinary council that excommunicated him, and, as mentioned previously, the Church never publicly states its reasons for discipline.

(italics ibid)

Wow! Quite a bit of dancing going on here. Sure, Quinn did not attend the council; but he had a friend there who later told him what happened. (Quinn's friend's account fits more squarely with 4truth's suggestions that the main reason behind the ex'ing was the "historical writings" hypothesis.) So, rather than simply pursuing his old, careworn tactic of using the "homosexual sinner" card, DCP is now resorting to the somewhat sneakier smear tactic that he used against Robert Ritner: just imply wrongdoing, and hope that people assume the worst. It is perhaps telling---revealing as to how much of a threat Quinn is to the Mopologists' status-quo views---that DCP would first stoop to the full-blown smear tactics I've elsewhere documented. It is telling, too, that he's now shifted his tactics away from those more obvious attacks, and back into the techniques he applied during "Ritnergate."

So are you saying that the "homosexual sinner" card was merely a way for the Church to avoid unpleasant recriminations of trying to hide the past, rather than saying he published unuseful truths?

moksha wrote:So are you saying that the "homosexual sinner" card was merely a way for the Church to avoid unpleasant recriminations of trying to hide the past, rather than saying he published unuseful truths?

No, not "the Church"; rather, Professor Peterson. As DCP was so kind to point out, the Church itself, as an institution, does not publish nor proclaim the reasons behind a member's ex'ing. Of course, this fact does not and cannot stop individual members---such as DCP himself---from playing this "homosexual sinner card," as it were. And I *do* think that's precisely what DCP and his ilk (yes: this includes Bob Crockett) have been doing---i.e., using the "card" as a means of deflecting TBM attention away from the so-called 'unuseful' history. A very, very rotten tactic indeed.

Mister Scratch wrote:It is perhaps telling---revealing as to how much of a threat Quinn is to the Mopologists' status-quo views"

I've known quite a few apologists who appreciate Quinn's scholarship.

Mike Reed wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:It is perhaps telling---revealing as to how much of a threat Quinn is to the Mopologists' status-quo views"

I've known quite a few apologists who appreciate Quinn's scholarship.

On the other hand, DCP is a well known Con Artist, Charlatan, who is cursed to play the role of "Disingenuous and liar
for his church.
He is, indeed well equipped to be a Bishop.

Mister Scratch wrote:No, not "the Church"; rather, Professor Peterson. As DCP was so kind to point out, the Church itself, as an institution, does not publish nor proclaim the reasons behind a member's ex'ing. Of course, this fact does not and cannot stop individual members---such as DCP himself---from playing this "homosexual sinner card," as it were. And I *do* think that's precisely what DCP and his ilk (yes: this includes Bob Crockett) have been doing---I.e., using the "card" as a means of deflecting TBM attention away from the so-called 'unuseful' history. A very, very rotten tactic indeed.

I think the church does it too (card playing). Isn't this what happened to Southerton? He was for all intents and purposes an inactive member for a long period of time. Was he called into a court for his writings? No, it was for adultery when he was separated from his wife if I recall from his postings elsewhere. How many inactive members do you think the church calls in for a council for committing adultery?

Chris <><

Interesting, Scratch. This quote is particularly disturbing to me:

Dr. Peterson wrote:Mike Quinn chose not to attend the church disciplinary council that excommunicated him, and, as mentioned previously, the Church never publicly states its reasons for discipline.

If the contents of the disciplinary hearing are supposed to be kept confidential, why is he publicly stating whether or not Mike Quinn attended?

liz3564 wrote:Interesting, Scratch. This quote is particularly disturbing to me:

Dr. Peterson wrote:Mike Quinn chose not to attend the church disciplinary council that excommunicated him, and, as mentioned previously, the Church never publicly states its reasons for discipline.

If the contents of the disciplinary hearing are supposed to be kept confidential, why is he publicly stating whether or not Mike Quinn attended?

Methinks Rabbi Quinn gave out the information as it's on the "Support Mike Quinn" site.

Mike Reed wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:It is perhaps telling---revealing as to how much of a threat Quinn is to the Mopologists' status-quo views"

I've known quite a few apologists who appreciate Quinn's scholarship.

Perhaps. But how many of them have published this "appreciation" in FARMS Review? The "powers that be" operate that journal, and all the others like it, with a Brethren-sanctioned iron fist. It has been clear for some time that a campaign aimed at discrediting Quinn has been underway in the pages of FROB.

christopher wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:No, not "the Church"; rather, Professor Peterson. As DCP was so kind to point out, the Church itself, as an institution, does not publish nor proclaim the reasons behind a member's ex'ing. Of course, this fact does not and cannot stop individual members---such as DCP himself---from playing this "homosexual sinner card," as it were. And I *do* think that's precisely what DCP and his ilk (yes: this includes Bob Crockett) have been doing---I.e., using the "card" as a means of deflecting TBM attention away from the so-called 'unuseful' history. A very, very rotten tactic indeed.

I think the church does it too (card playing). Isn't this what happened to Southerton? He was for all intents and purposes an inactive member for a long period of time. Was he called into a court for his writings? No, it was for adultery when he was separated from his wife if I recall from his postings elsewhere. How many inactive members do you think the church calls in for a council for committing adultery?

Chris <><

The big difference here is that there is *NO* proof that Quinn engaged in any kind of "homosexual sinning." In fact, I have read accounts from the likes of Don Bradley stating precisely the contrary. Moreover, Quinn did not publicly "come out" until a few years after his disciplinary council. DCP & Co. have been "playing this card" solely to discredit and smear Quinn within the hardcore LDS circles.