Ray A wrote:My guess is that Quinn would be above direct, personal and prolongated attacks like this.
I agree. Mike Quinn would not engage in the type of rumor mill directed towards him and his personal life.
A subtle nuance here. Rollo's sarcasm. But we will get to the bottom of this. I want to know what Quinn thinks of you and Scratch's smear campaign. If Quinn agrees with this quasi-Inquisition, it will lower him. I don't believe he will do that. I think, rightly or wrongly at this stage, that whatever "issues" he has with the leaders, he will not go as low or mean as you and Scratch have.
Ray,
What have we done that is so "low or mean"? Please be specific.
Ray A wrote:A subtle nuance here. Rollo's sarcasm. But we will get to the bottom of this. I want to know what Quinn thinks of you and Scratch's smear campaign.
A not-so-subtle nuance here: your absurd claim of a smear campaign against those who orchestrated a smear campaign against Quinn, is nothing more than 'the pot calling the kettle black.'
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Ray A wrote:A subtle nuance here. Rollo's sarcasm. But we will get to the bottom of this. I want to know what Quinn thinks of you and Scratch's smear campaign.
A not-so-subtle nuance here: your absurd claim of a smear campaign against those who orchestrated a smear campaign against Quinn, is nothing more than 'the pot calling the kettle black.'
You have yet to prove a "smear campaign" by DCP, and with this faux pas you have already hung yourself.
Ray A wrote:A subtle nuance here. Rollo's sarcasm. But we will get to the bottom of this. I want to know what Quinn thinks of you and Scratch's smear campaign.
A not-so-subtle nuance here: your absurd claim of a smear campaign against those who orchestrated a smear campaign against Quinn, is nothing more than 'the pot calling the kettle black.'
You have yet to prove a "smear campaign" by DCP, and with this faux pas you have already hung yourself.
Label it however you wish, but it could not be more clear that Mormon scholars were discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back for years.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Label it however you wish, but it could not be more clear that Mormon scholars were discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back for years.
Not very much, in my experience. The subject came up exceedingly rarely, and then was only mentioned, never dwelt upon. I know, for example, that my good friends Davis Bitton and Jim Allen, the two former assistant Church historians, really liked Mike from his days of working with them in the Church Historical Department, and I never heard them say anything negative about him as a person. Not once. (Which is not to say that they weren't critical of some of his scholarship.)
And on what basis do you claim that only "Mormon scholars" ever brought the subject up? Do you really have any evidence to support the insinuation that non-Mormons and unbelievers never did? Do you have any actual evidence at all? Can you give us some idea of the ratio between LDS and non-LDS, involved in Mormon studies, who mentioned Mike Quinn's sexual preference?
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Label it however you wish, but it could not be more clear that Mormon scholars were discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back for years.
And so was everyone else. From the land of Oz it took me longer to work out Quinn's homosexuality, but I did, and NOT through the FARMS Review. Or anything published or uttered by DCP. If I had to go to DCP or anything Mormon-oriented I would not have worked this out. I would have remained in the dark. It was, believe it or not, mainly through reports in Sunstone that I concluded Quinn was gay (recall the news section in particular?). Do I hold that against him? Absolutely not.
Daniel Peterson wrote:And on what basis do you claim that only "Mormon scholars" ever brought the subject up?
I never used the word "only."
Do you really have any evidence to support the insinuation that non-Mormons and unbelievers never did? Do you have any actual evidence at all? Can you give us some idea of the ratio between LDS and non-LDS, involved in Mormon studies, who mentioned Mike Quinn's sexual preference?
I used the qualifier "Mormon" not to draw a distinction between believer and non-believer, but rather to refer to those involved in Mormon scholarship and studies. This reference is based on something you once said in your "boring clarification" on FAIR back in April 2006:
"[Your friend who spoke with Quinn's SP] already knew about [Quinn's sexual orientation], as did, to the best of my knowledge, virtually everybody else, believer or not, who was seriously involved in Mormon studies at the time." (brackets and bold added).
I hope this clarifies.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Label it however you wish, but it could not be more clear that Mormon scholars were discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back for years.
Not very much, in my experience. The subject came up exceedingly rarely, and then was only mentioned, never dwelt upon. I know, for example, that my good friends Davis Bitton and Jim Allen, the two former assistant Church historians, really liked Mike from his days of working with them in the Church Historical Department, and I never heard them say anything negative about him as a person. Not once.
But you did hear your "friend" (and others in your "circle") say something about Quinn's sexuality, and moreover, that Quinn's SP had been gossiping about it.
Why not just admit that you did wrong? Bob Crockett was able to, about his fudged MMM article (which managed somehow to slip through that rigorous peer-review process of yours), and he felt much better afterwards. Further, I haven't felt the need to give him a hard time about it anymore.