Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Many of us have wondered about how much the Mopologists really want to "wound" critics. Despite their denials, it seems beyond obvious by now that, at the very least, LDS apologists want to harm critics' credibility. This has been seen time and time again both online, and in the pages of journals like the FARMS Review. But does this desire to harm go any deeper than that? Thanks to a recent tip, I learned that the answer to that is, "Yes."

Many here no doubt know the controversial poster known as "Infymus." Infymus is well-known for his often acerbic style, and his obvious disdain for the LDS Church. He's also extremely important in the world of ex-Mormons and critics because he maintains the high-traffic site, The Mormon Curtain, which received something like 7,000,000 hits last year. With that kind of activity, it makes sense that Infymus would have found himself targeted by the more aggressive apologists. Indeed, The Mormon Curtain received its own spot on SHIELDS's "Critic's Corner" page:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics.htm

Those who've read over this material before know that the Infymus link contained a now-infamous (yes, pun intended) email exchange between Infy and Dr. Peterson. In it, Peterson went on to claim that "not one dime" of his salary came from apologetics (except, one hastens to add, the $20,000+ that was apportioned for his FARMS work), and to request that Infymus re-write the DCP entry on The Mormon Curtain. Some of the text from the exchange had been edited out by the SHIELDS administrators, so we were always missing context, but the final entry showed an Infymus who had finally been provoked into using some profanity. In other words, DCP had engaged in a series of increasingly condescending and snide exchanges with Infymus until, at last, Infymus had had enough and utilized "strong" language.

This brings me to my main point. If you click on the Mormon Curtian link from the "Critic's Corner" page, you are taken here:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... urtain.htm

And if you click on the "Dr. Daniel C. Peterson and Infymus" link, you'll go here:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... ymus01.htm

Here is Stan Barker's lead-in to the exchange:

Critics of the LDS Church hate Dr. Daniel C. Peterson. In fact, it seems from looking at certain places on the Internet that many of them have an obsession with Dr. Peterson. One wonders why the venom from these apostates? Can it be that they have got him "dead to rights?" We resoundingly shout NO! They are not close to telling you about the real Dr. Peterson, a man with incredible humor and kindness. This we know from firsthand experience with him. From our experience, critics like to insult and lambaste Dr. Peterson, but think he is mean when he responds to them calling them on their actions.

Such an experience is reproduced below in an exchange wherein Dr. Peterson attempts to get Mr. Hoenie to correct his lie about Dr. Peterson in his The Mormon Curtain internet blog:

But, what follows is not the exchange. What you'll notice, instead, is that the old correspondence has been removed and has instead been replaced with this text:

We have removed said correspondence due to [Infymus] threatening a law suit. Apparently Mr. Hoenie is ashamed of what he had to say and while he maintains similar correspondence on his website, it appears that like most critics they take actions then are ashamed of them and seeminly the only way to handle it is a law suit.

At a future point we will reconsider what to do with the material of this correspondence.

Now, this is intriguing. Infymus has long been known to all of us as a guy who can be somewhat combative, but who tends to stand by everything he says. So what was going on here? I got in touch with Infymus to learn the details.

As with most of the email material on SHIELDS, Infymus's comments to DCP were posted without any kind of permission. Furthermore, as you can see if you click on the links, Infymus's in real life name is freely used---again, without any apparent permission. I asked Infymus why, after all this time, he wanted the material taken down. This is what he said:

Obviously my problem is that when you search for my name, SHIELDS research comes up #1. Two prospective employers have informed me that information obtained by first page searches on Google for my name led to their selecting another candidate. These two searches were both from SHIELDS. While I am not aware of the religious affiliation of those I have interviewed with, I am sure it has something to do with Mormonism (as I live in a very Mormon State).

Yeeouch! It seems that DCP's passing along of these private emails to SHIELDS, and SHIELDS's subsequent posting of the emails, has led to some serious in real life consequences. But, hey: sometimes these things happen. People are people, and one always hopes that things can be worked out in a reasonable way. And, per Infymus, that's the way things started:

I sent a DMCA (digital millennium copyright act) notice to the three owners of SHIELDS stating they had 1 week to take the material down, or at least change it to a fair use. I claim my emails as being copyright (c) by ME, 2005.

I have not heard anything nor have they taken it down.

You would think that, given the real-world problems that this caused, these Christian brothers would have immediately worked to remedy the situation. But, instead, Infymus's pleas were completely ignored. Sure: people might take issue with Infymus's sometimes harsh tone and tactics.... But is it really right to continue to do things that affect his ability to find employment? I think not.

According to Infymus, it was time to ramp things up a bit:

Today I sent a DMCA take down notice to their ISP. Their ISP then immediately contacted them, which forced Stan's hand. I emailed him four days ago and heard absolutely nothing. So I pushed him, HARD with this DMCA take down.

Indeed, that did the trick. Barker replied with one of his standard, grumpy replies:

What the heck is your problem? In your email to me on 6/11/2009, you
> gave us one week to remove the article. We are working on it to do a
> Fair Use as your provided in your email. If the request below, in any
> way affects the SHIELDS website, we will move to sue you for such
> action as well as sue you for copyright infringement on your site
> wherein you have included photos that are copyrighted from the SHIELDS
> website as well as our logo. You have 1 week to remove them from your
> site.

Rather than doing the right thing---i.e., just deleting the material---Barker turns around and threatens to file a lawsuit of his own.

As Infymus shared these details with me, I wondered: Was Barker made aware of the fact that Infymus's employment was being affected by SHIELDS's unauthorized posting of the emails?

[Infymus],

It seems you do not understand context. So, let me be specific:

[SNIP!]

4. Lost job opportunities: Apparently they did not look at your site. You have
essentially the same garbage-mouthed stuff there that you wrote in your own email.
5. Originally, we had decided to just remove the page altogether because you were such a
small fish in the pond. Now, however, we are reconsidering and may very well put up a
Fair Use version of your stupid nonsense.

For that matter, on your page (since you are prone to criticize what I threw up in a
minutes notice) you can't even get the attributions correct. Stuff I wrote you attribute
to Dan Peterson. Yet, it was very clear on our site that Dan didn't write it. And you
should be very ashamed of what you wrote to Dan. It was not only full of errors about
Dan's employment, but it was so full of venom and gutter-class language that any normal
human being would blush. Since you seem to not have enough class to be able to
communicate with any higher level language than what the dregs of the earth use, then
perhaps, just perhaps that may be the reason you were denied a job. But be that as it
may, I leave that to your miserable life.

Stan Barker

One can practically see the flecks of spittle flying from Barker's gritted teeth. The abject hatred here, the intense desire to see critics suffer, is overwhelming. And frightening. Barker clearly is a disturbed, violently hateful, and cruel individual. It boggles the mind that a Latter-day Saint would behave so callously as this.

So, what is the point of all this? For one thing: maintain your anonymity if you are a critic. As this incident shows, the apologists do not care in the least if you suffer, or if your life takes a downturn due to their smear tactics. Be careful if you engage in emails with them. We already know that many of the main apologists pass around critic emails via skinny-l and other means, but beware that you may be baited into an outburst which will then find its way over to SHIELDS. Ultimately, I hope that the SHIELDS apologists opt to shut down their site, or at least to remove the problematic material that is harming peoples lives. I hope, too, that DCP, Hamblin, Midgley and others reconsider their practice of passing emails along to S. Barker and company. If enough people get hurt (and there is a long list of individuals on that SHIELDS page), there could be some serious trouble.

In any case: be on alert. These apologists want harm to befall you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Boo!

LOL.

I vahnt to drink your blood, Scratchie!

[_Ray A]

In any case: be on alert. These apologists want harm to befall you.

In the case of Quinn, they weren't out to harm him, but virtually murder his reputation in cold blood, beginning with the BYU spying incidents post-1985. Then there was the Mc Cue incident where unsubstantiated charges were made about his "adulterous behaviour". It seems that the degree of retribution is relative to the degree of criticism. If someone is a real threat to the Church, they will dig for all the dirt they can find, but this isn't unique to apologists. Many years ago there were suggestions by some not friendly to the Church that Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in covert homosexuality. To their credit, the Tanners came to his defence. It goes both ways. Speculation about the private lives of Church leaders isn't a rare phenomenon on RFM.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ray:

Who's "they"? Is it an actual organization? Do "they" meet to plot strategy?

[_Ray A]

Ray:

Who's "they"? Is it an actual organization? Do "they" meet to plot strategy?

Here's what Steve Benson wrote:

D. MICHAEL QUINN: A BANISHED BUT STILL IN-THE-HEART BELIEVER

With regard to Quinn, he is no longer a member of the Mormon Church, having been excommunicated for apostasy in 1993 for his published research on post-Manifesto polygamy.

Quinn is a friend of Steve Benson (who voluntarily left the Mormon Church in 1993) and who, according to Benson's account of personal visits with Quinn, has nonetheless remained a faithful believer in what Quinn regards as the restored truthfulness of the Mormon Church.

In a previous RfM post made in July 2005, Benson wrote of Quinn's situation, as follows:

"Michael Quinn . . . has chosen to remain a believer in the supposed truthfulness of Mormonism.

"I have known Mike as a personal friend for several years and admire him greatly, both as an individual and as a scholar, although we disagree on some fundamental matters.

"After I left the LDS cult in 1993, I had more than one occasion to talk directly, and in person, with Mike about his own perspectives and beliefs pertaining to Mormonism.

". . . Mike shared his testimonial belief with me that the Book of Mormon was a literal historical record of ancient and accurate vintage, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to reveal His divine truth to the world, that through Joseph Smith the golden plates were translated and that following the death of Joseph Smith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy through the corruption and sin of its leadership--and that this 'falling away,' if you will, of the Mormon Church from the purposes and designs of God's original 1830 restorative act, has continued up to the present time.

"Mike told me that it was his belief that a second Restoration (i.e., one coming after the initial return of God's true Church to the earth in 1830 through the hands of Joseph Smith) was necessary in order to rehabilitate the Mormon Church and again make it the organization through which God would lead and guide His children on earth.

"I asked Mike how he could believe such things, especially given what many have considered his devastatingly revealing historical dissection of Mormon origins and its extensions of power.

"Mike acknowledged to me that he knew that his belief in Mormonism did not sound logical but that he nonetheless possessed a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon, of the prophetic calling by God of Joseph Smith and of the truthfulness of the Mormon Gospel as God's one and only true Church." ______

QUINN THE PROPHESIED APOSTLE, QUINN THE PHONE-TAPPED APOSTATE, QUINN THE TARGET OF DEATH THREATS AND QUINN, THE MAN ABANDONED

In a further RfM post, also in August 2005, Benson noted some information about which Quinn had himself spoken publicly--namely, that Spencer W. Kimball had promised Quinn that if he remained faithful, one day he would be an apostle:

"Mike [spoke of] . . . a promise made to him by then-apostle Spencer Kimball, at the time Mike was still an active, temple-endowed, well-respected member of the Church.

"Mike said that Kimball promised him that if he continued in faithfulness and obedience, he, too, would one day become an apostle.

"'Mad_Viking' then asked me [Benson], 'So, was it your impression that he held on to his beliefs of Joseph Smith's divine mission, despite his admission of it being illogical, simply because of this statement made to him from Spencer W Kimball?'

"I replied:

"Mike Quinn told me he had a testimony of the Mormon Church as God's true Church; the gold plates as genuine, translated artifacts; and the mission of Joseph Smith as being God's chosen prophet of the Restoration.

"Mike did not tell me that he held on to those beliefs in the hope that he would someday become an apostle (as then-apostle Spencer W. Kimball promised him, if Mike remained faithful), and I did not draw a link between the two because Mike did not make one. His belief in Mormonism seemed more personal and much deeper than any anticipation of advancement through the ranks. It was a quiet, soft-spoken type of conviction about which Mike did not make a big deal--but to which he appeared truly committed.

"I found Mike's testimony startling, incongruous and at significant odds with his unparalleled research that clearly, in my opinion, exposed the fraud, frailities and fictions of Mormonism.

"But Mike's ultimate testimony in Mormonism seemed to rest on his belief that it was initially restored by God's hand in pure and true form, then became corrupted through the human-caused downfall of its leaders who subsequently followed Joseph Smith into power in the post-Smith era.

"Mike Quinn holds on to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains God's true Church on the earth--but that it is in dire need of a complete restorative overhaul in order to bring it back to its original integrity, purpose, luster and exaltation-providing power.

"What is all the more amazing about Mike's deep-rooted faith is to see how his devotion to the basic claims of Mormonism has remained strong, despite all that he has been through.

"At the peak of his career as an historian, Mike was a highly-regarded profesional in his field, both in out and of the Church.

"Then, Mike's daring and ground-breaking research on the Mormon Church's deceptive practice of post-Manifesto polygamy (which the Church tried hard to keep hidden from the public) led to his excommunication on the grounds of apostasy. Dallin Oaks, in particular, was bitterly incensed at Mike's decision to air his findings and told me personally that Mike was a person without character who could not be trusted.

"Mike's stake president also darkly hinted to him that he was being investigated on "moral" charges (relating, in all probability, to Mike's honest acknowledgement of being gay).

"Mike told me that his home phone was tapped (most likely by Mormon Church security), and that, moreover, he was able to verify the power drain on his telephone line (indicating a deliberate intrusion) through the use of special phone equipment. He said that the likelihood of the drain actually being a tap was supported by employees at the local SLC phone company.

"Mike was also the subject of death threats. His heterosexual marriage of many years ended in divorce and his teenage son committed suicide by hanging himself in one of Salt Lake City's surrounding canyons. Mike's professional career subsequently took a nose dive. He found himself unemployed and without the necessary grant funding to continue his historical research.

"He moved to Mexico for a time to live with a friend and, at one point, was literally living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth.

"Through it all, Mike has maintained his testimony in what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church. This bespeaks a personal devotion greater than any hoped-for call to Mormon apostleship. At this point in his life, Kimball's promise to Mike in that regard seems, shall we say, a tad out of reach.

"Nevertheless, Mike's sincere belief in the LDS Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm.

"Go figure." _____

WHY QUINN WAS EXCOMMUNICATED

In another RfM post in August 2005, Benson provided background details on the reasons why Quinn was excommunicated from the LDS Church--including the privately-expressed vitriolic reaction (behind closed doors of a Mormon apostle's office) to Quinn's published writings on post-Manifesto polygamy:

"Inquiries have recently been made . . .about what constituted the basis for the excommunication of D. Michael Quinn from the Mormon Church for supposed 'apostasy.'

"Not coincidentally, prior to getting the ecclesiastical axe, Quinn--a noted historian and former tenured BYU professor--had written at least six articles for the LDS Church’s premiere magazine, the Ensign, as well as had published several more in the LDS-owned and operated journal, BYU Studies.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtm... _____

"As to what exactly prompted Quinn’s expulsion from Mormonism’s ranks, RfM poster, 'Mad_Viking,' asked the following:

"'In light of [Quinn's post-excommunication expression of his personal testimony in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church], it is simply amazing that he would maintain faith. I amhonestly baffled by it.

"'Is the research that got him excommunicated available to the public?'

(Mad_Viking,”Re: No, that was not my impression," Recovery from Mormonism Board, 4 August 2005, 1438 hours) _____

"Yes, Quinn's research on the subject is publicly available.

"In a nutshell, Quinn’s 'sins' were having had published in the Spring 1985 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a devastating historical account of the shell game played for decades by the Mormon Church in its deliberate campaign of misdirection and misinformation.

"Quinn’s Dialogue article has been praised thusly:

”'This essay is one of the best pieces of Mormon literature we have. [Quinn] went to Gordon [B.] Hinckley before he ever published this essay and showed him what he had. He then told . . . Hinckley that if he did not want it published then [Quinn] would not publish it. . . . Hinckley toldMike that he needed to do what he felt best so [Quinn] published it because he felt it dealt with a very sensitive issue that needed to be addressed.'

http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... _____

"Quinn himself explained the post-Manifesto reasons for his excommunication in his article, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)':

“'In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904," three apostles [Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson] gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the Church Historical Department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it . . . Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The Stake President was also told to ‘take further action’ against me if this did not ‘remedy the situation’ of my writing controversial Mormon history. . . .

"'I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren" (to use Ezra Taft Benson’s phrase). . . . The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU. . . .

“'At various stake and regional meetings, Apostle Packer began publicly referring to "a BYU historian who is writing about polygamy to embarrass the Church." At firesides in Utah and California, a member of BYU’s Religious Education Department referred to me as "the anti-Christ of BYU." . . . Church leaders today seem to regard my post-Manifesto polygamy article . . . as "speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed" because they themselves regard certain acts and words of those earlier Church leaders as embarrassing, if not actually wrong. I do not regard it as disloyal to conscientiously recreate the words, acts and circumstances of earlier prophets and apostles. . . . .

“'No one ever gave me an ultimatum or threatened to fire me from Brigham Young University. However, University administrators and I were both on the losing side of a war of attrition mandated by the General Authorities. . . .

“'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation, effective at the end of the current school semester. . . . I explained [that] "the situation seems to be that academic freedom merely survives at BYU without fundamental support by the institution, exists against tremendous pressure and is nurtured only through the dedication of individual administrators and faculty members." . . .

“'Three months after my departure, it angered me to learn to learn that BYU had fired a Hebrew professor for his private views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although I personally regard the Book of Mormon as ancient history and sacred text, I told an inquiring newspaper reporter: "BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That’s like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind." . . .

“'When BYU’s Associate Academic Vice-President asked me if that was an accurate quote, I confirmed that it was. "Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the University’s Board of Trustees [meaning the Quorum of the Twelve] and administrators," I wrote. "By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era). . . .

“'"It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites --access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.” (Quinn, D. Michael. 'On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).' In Smith, George D., ed. Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 91-95). _____

"THE COMPLETE TEXT OF QUINN'S EXPLOSIVE ESSAY

"Quinn's essay on post-Manifesto polygamy that so propelled paranoid Mormon leaders into hanging him can be found at:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... . . . " _____

In a subsequent RfM post in August 2005, Benson referenced the following additional, published information about Quinn's excommunication:

"After tape recordings and transcriptions of Quinn's talk, 'On Being a Mormon Historian,' began to be published and circulated without his permission, national attention to Quinn's views was heightened by a February 1982 issue of Newsweek headlined, 'Apostles vs. Historians.'

"From that point forward, the Mormon squeeze play on Quinn began in earnest.

Writes Quinn:

"'A few days [after publication of the Newsweek article], a General Authority invited me to his office. He warned me that he found Elder Packer to be easily offended and vindictive years afterward.

"'In May [1982], my stake presidency informed me that five former bishops had recommended me to be the ward's new bishop but that Apostle Mark E. Petersen had blocked the appointment. He asked the stake presidency, "Why is Michael Quinn in league with anti-Mormonism," apparently referring to the unauthorized publication of my essay by the Tanners.

"'Elder Petersen arranged for the stake presidency to bring me to the Church Administration Building at 47b East South Temkple to meet with Apostles Petersen, Benson and Packer. The second counselor in the stake presidency accompanied me. The Apostles were careful not to ask me a single direct question. In order of seniority (Apostle Benson first, me last), each of us expressed his own views of the Newsweek article, the "problems" of writing Mormon history and the effects of all this on the faith of LDS members. The meeting was congenial and supportive.'

"That seeming support was to eventually evaporate, as those same three Apostles began a deliberate pressure campaign to have Quinn discredited, isolated and deposed, despite the fact that Quinn had proven himself to be a highly regarded researcher and acclaimed educator.

"Notes Quinn:

"'In the spring of 1986, graduating history majors at BYU voted me 'outstanding professor.' That fall BYU's administration had my name dropped from a list of participants in an upcoming celebration of Mormonism in Britain. Then, for the second year in a row, BYU's administration denied my application for "Professional Development Leave." This time the college dean invited m to his office to explain why. He said the Apostles on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had prepared a list of faculty members and research topics which BYU administrators were forbidden to support. "I have always hoped that one day BYU will become a real university," the dean said, "but this makes me feel that that day will never arrive."

"'By January 1987 pressures on me increased. BYU's administration required the History Department and Charles Redd Center for the American West to withdraw funds they had promised me to give a paper on general American religion at the University of Paris. It did not matter that the advanced text of the paper, entitled "Religion, Rationalism and Folk Practices in America to the mid-19th Century," made no reference to Mormonism. I paid my own way to France to represent BYU.

"'Despite all tha that had happened, until January 1987 I could not yet believe that my life's hopes were at an end. A new department chair let me know that my situation would improve only if I stopped doing research which implied Mormon studies. . . . Abandoning Mormon history may have been safe in the climate of repression but it as unacceptable to me, especially as an option of duress. "Publish or perish" is the experience of scholars at most universities, but for this Mormon historian it was "publish and perish" at BYU.

"'After publication of my Early Mormonism and the Magic World View in mid-1987, two members of BYU's History Department circualted the rumor that my stake high council was excommunicating me for apostasy. The rumor was completely false but more important, I had thought these rumor=mongers were my colleagues and friends. When a student asked the Dean of Religous Education if BYU was going to fire me, he replied that the Board of Trustees had decided against it. "Like stirring up a turd on the ground," he told the student, 'firing Mike Quinn would only make a greater stink.' At this point, I began applying for research fellowships that would allow me to leave BYU. . . .

"'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation . . . At the time of my resignation, I had tenure ("continuing status"), was Full-Professor of History and was Director of the History Department's graduate program. My letter of resignation represented my formal acknowledgement of failure--personal and institutional. . . .

"'I again addressed [the issue of academic freedom] in 1991 after a rarely-used joint declartion by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles condemned the annual Sunstone Symposium. . . . Those who questioned this statement were being summarily dropped from Church positions and both Church and BYU administraive pressure was directed against a junior professor of anthropology at BYU who had given a symposium paper. I observed in a newspaper story, "Consistently, from the beginning, the [LDS] Church leadership has always been uncomfortable with open forums that have been organized by the rank and file." However, I added, "in the 19th-century, the leadership recognized the existence of a loyal opposition and the 20th does not.". . .

"'Since leaving BYU and Utah, I have been an independent free-lance writer. I still do Mormon history. People of various persuasions still seem eager for it.'"(D. Michael Quinn, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath),' in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 89-90, 92-96) _____

Eventually, Benson met with two Mormon apostles in private conversation--where the ugly truth behind Quinn's excommunication became apparent in raw, personal terms:

"YEARS LATER AMONG THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE; BABBLING BALONEY ABOUT HISTORY AND BUBBLING BITTERNESS OVER QUINN

"Additional sordid details behind the excommunication of Quinn seeped out some eight years after his post-Manifesto essay was first published.

"These facts were provided by two of the Mormon Church's highest henchmen—'Apostle-ologists' Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks.

"On 9 September 1993, my wife Mary Ann and I met with Oaks and Maxwell in Maxwell's Church office, #303, located in the Church Administration Building, in downtown Salt Lake City. We had approached them with a list of detailed and wide-ranging questions about fundamental doctrines, teachings, practices and policies of the Mormon Church that significantly troubled us--and about which we felt we deserved credible and straight-forward answers.

"In the broad sense on the polygamy question, we wanted to know from these pre-eminent damage controllers why the Mormon Church had not been more forthcoming and honest with its history with regard to the official practice (and later blatant denial of) polygamy.

"Then, specifically, we wanted to know about what I have subsequently referred to as 'the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission.'

"In that meeting with us, 'good cop' Maxwell offered unconvincing rationalizations for the Mormon Church’s failure to be honest and forthcoming about its practice of polygamy.

“'Bad cop' Oaks followed up by launching a shockingly shabby attack on Quinn’s personal integrity. _____

"MAXWELL'S MURKY MEANDERINGS

"In answer to the larger inquiry, Maxwell cagily replied by noting that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete.

"He handed us a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, 'Out of Obscurity.' However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to us contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the Ensign, 10, November 1984, p. 11).

"Quoting from a 'Tribute to Neville Chamberlain,' delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared:

"'History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days.'

"The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of 'floating mosaic tiles':

"'The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding.

"'The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, donot seem to fit . . .

"'So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written.

"'The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece—the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ.'

"What Maxwell’s excuses lacked in clarity, Oaks’ made up for in character assassination _____

"OAKS' VICIOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON QUINN

"While Oaks was much less colorful than his charming so-charlatan Maxwell, he was much more direct in dealing with the substance of our question.

"Oaks acknowledged that he had read Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, covering the period from 1890 into the early 20th century.

"Oaks also confessed that the Mormon Church had not, in fact, been honest about its practice of polygamy during that time. He admitted that the case, as laid out by Quinn, was, in fact, true. Oaks admitted that, in his opinion, lies had indeed been told by Mormon Church leaders about the continuing practice of polygamy after it supposedly was ended by the Manifesto of 1890.

"But enough of admitting Church wrongdoing.

"Oaks then proceeded to attack Quinn personally by accusing him of breaking his word.

"Oaks said that Quinn had been given access to all of J. Reuben Clark's papers for the purpose of writing a book on Clark's years of Church service. Oaks said he had assured the Church that Quinn was credible, in order that Quinn could be given access to those records. Oaks noted that shortly after Quinn's research was published on Clark, out came Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy.

"Quinn, Oaks told us angrily, had violated Oaks' confidence. He accused Quinn of having taken more information out of Church archives than he had been given permission to examine and research, going in.

"Oaks said that Quinn was not an innocent victim in this affair. Oaks informed us that he subsequently wrote Quinn a letter, in which he expressed his "deep disappointment" with him and telling Quinn he had exceeded the limits of their original understanding.

"In that letter, Oaks further said, he told Quinn that he now regarded him as someone who could not be trusted. Oaks added that Quinn would not tell us about these things, if asked, because of Quinn's involvement.

"On that last point, I wanted to see for myself.

"In August 2001, in a personal visit with Quinn at a gathering in Fort Worden, Washington, hosted by a group of gay Mormon fathers (where Mary Ann and I had been invited to speak), I recounted to him Oaks' version of events and asked him for his own recollections.

"Visibly agitated but in a controlled and quiet voice, Quinn emphatically denied that he had violated any research agreement with the Church Historical Department.

"He told me that it was clearly understood going in that he had open access to archival materials."

[see: http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... , Part 4] _____

"CONCLUSION: A FINAL WORD ON MICHAEL QUINN

"Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell, I know Michael Quinn.

"Michael Quinn is a friend of mine.

"You are no Michael Quinn."

The Mormon Curtain.

[_Uncle Dale]

Many of us have wondered about how much the Mopologists really want to "wound" critics. ...

I'm not disagreeing with your ideas here --

But I will offer an alternative perspective.

In the 1970s I worked as an associate missionary for the RLDS in Utah; since that
time, at least, I've qualified for the title of "critic," and "anti-Mormon." Few other
organizations have been so openly anti-LDS as were the Reorganites of past years.

Since the late 1990s I've been active on the web (and before that in the samizdat)
as an anti-Mormon contributor. In terms of sheer volume of anti-Mormon materials
posted on-line, I outrank practically any other source of "criticism."

And yet ----->and here's the important part<-------
Mormon apologists have in no way ever tried to "wound" me.

Argued with me; torn out their hair over me; tried to convert me? Yes.
Tried to demonize me -- ruin my reputation -- "wound" me? No.

Except for Art Bulla (who really does not fit into their ranks) the Mopologists have
been continually gentlemanly and ladylike to Yours Truly.

Either I'm totally missing their subtle slings and arrows -- or others are imagining them.

Comments?

Dale R. Broadhurst
The Thinking Mormon's Anti-Mormon

[_JonasS]

Do Critics Want to Destroy Apologists' Lives? Or better yet, Do Critics Want to Destroy Church Members' Lives? It's a dog eat dog world, or so this is the impression I am getting. So, if critics want to destroy the lives of church members by dragging them down, why shouldn't they have to face someone their own size? :P Anywho I think I might make some noodles. I am in two minds whether to or not because I am not really hungry but I do feel like I want to. Although I did clean the kitchen SPOTLESS this evening and think it would be ashame to make it untidy. I will most likely not. I think I will move onto the other rooms tomorow and then begin packing to go home. I can't wait.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1.

Dale, don't you remember the vicious way we treated you when you dropped by for lunch at BYU a year or two ago? If you really don't, I guess we're more incompetent in our unscrupulous cruelty than I had imagined.

2.

Ray, I think Mike Quinn is a very bright guy with superb training who has made some important contributions to Mormon historiography, and I have no doubt that he's still a believer.

I'm not quite sure, though, how that answers my question. Here's my personal perspective: If there really exists, or has existed, a conspiracy to destroy or damage Mike Quinn, I've never been a part of it nor even so much as heard of it. Which, given my situation, would be really odd.

Incidentally, I'm sure you understand that there might be other perspectives on the events recounted by Steve Benson.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, don't you remember the vicious way we treated you...
...

All I recall is that the cyanide I secretly slipped into your subway sandwich seemed
to have no effect at all. Maybe there is something to be said for J. Golden Kimball's
old "chapel chaps" personal protection remark after all.

UD

[_Ray A]

I'm not quite sure, though, how that answers my question. Here's my personal perspective: If there really exists, or has existed, a conspiracy to destroy or damage Mike Quinn, I've never been a part of it nor even so much as heard of it. Which, given my situation, would be really odd.

I'm not suggesting that you were a part of any "conspiracy to destroy Quinn".

Incidentally, I'm sure you understand that there might be other perspectives on the events recounted by Steve Benson.

Dallin Oaks will, however, need to tighten up a bit, going on how he gave contrary accounts to the media and Steve Benson (as recently discussed at length on MAD). I said on that thread I didn't think this was a capital offense, and he was obviously caught between a rock and a grizzly bear. I think both sides might sometimes take a little license in favour of themselves in any given account. It's human to be biased towards one's own viewpoint. The best we can do is read them and make our own assessments.

Incidentally, I only provided one link, and I think it's clear that some of the leaders wanted to toss Quinn overboard without a lifejacket. They may not have set out to purposely destroy his life, but that was basically the end result.