Mike Quinn

[_Mister Scratch]

Too bad he's gay right?

Is he really? I didn't realize that. That explains a lot.

Such as what?

A sidenote: I cannot help but notice the relatively large number of views this thread has received. I am willing to bet that a number of the views are from apologists---notably DCP---who are crapping themselves in fear that their gossipmongering and smear campaigns against Quinn are about to be hashed out yet again.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not really sure I believe that he's really a believer. I agree that some of his material is really damning to the church. He'd have to have multiple personality disorder or something. The sense I get from things I've read from Quinn is that the church is a manmade institution. Have you read Origins of Power? If you don't come away from that book thinking "man, this church sure looks like a manmade institution" there's something certifiably wrong with you.

Seth

I heard it from the man's mouth on podcast. Now as noted, I believe the talk was give shortly after he was ex'd. But he gave as plain of a fast and testimony meeting testimony as you have ever heard. And he made sure he pointed out that he was not playing word games and he meant exactly what he said. Now that was what, 15 years ago? Maybe things have changed since then.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]. Now that was what, 15 years ago? Maybe things have changed since then.

According to a friend of John W’s (a.k.a. “Runtu”), who recently dined with Quinn, he still believes.

John/Runtu can give details if he wishes.

[_rcrocket]

Too bad he's gay right?

Is he really? I didn't realize that. That explains a lot.

Such as what?

A sidenote: I cannot help but notice the relatively large number of views this thread has received. I am willing to bet that a number of the views are from apologists---notably DCP---who are crapping themselves in fear that their gossipmongering and smear campaigns against Quinn are about to be hashed out yet again.

Really? What "gossipmongering" and "smear?" You are the king of sleazy smear. The diadem of anti-Mormonism rests well on your crown.

Now, as I recall, at some point in his academic life -- around 1980 or so -- Quinn really didn't care one way or the other about people knowing of his orientation. He was public about it and was seen in MHA meetings with his paramour. But, quite naturally, that would set BYU Profs' tongues a-waggin', primarily because they wondered how long such a prominent person could last at BYU in his public condition.

Is that truly gossiping, when Dr. Quinn was open about it? Come now; you continually anonymously smear Dr. Peterson of his talking about Quinn's orientation in the 1990s when it was all old news and public news. Quinn basically set himself up for all this chatter with his ridiculous same-sex dynamics book which really torpedoed his career for its silly concluusions.

I was also working at BYU when Quinn was readying his magic book for publication, and it depended largely upon the legitimacy of the Salamander letter. Whilst in the midst of proofing, I recall (it was in a very advanced stage), the Hoffman affair was exposed and Quinn was forced to rewrite the book without the benefit of a major prong in his argument. The result was a very poor work which set himself up for failure. I say all this because by the mid-1990s, Dr. Quinn was a very public figure. I don't think that folks can be guilty of "gossip" for talking about a very public figure whose orientation was self-outed long before the gossip.

However, you continue to be the vile poster that you are, maliciously and anonymously attacking the reputations of real persons with little regard to the facts. Go ahead; I'm in your cross-hairs once again.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

Too bad he's gay right?

Is he really? I didn't realize that. That explains a lot.

What does it explain? Can't a gay person be a believer? Do you think he went down the path he did on LDS history because he was gay? Do you think his books are inaccurate, lies, distortions? Are other historians who write openly about the Church gay? what about Bushman? he cites Quinn quite a bit in RSR. Is Bushman some sort of sinner and is hta why he wrote an open and fairly honest bio of Joseph Smith?

[_rcrocket]

Do you think his books are inaccurate, lies, distortions?

Yes; I have run to ground some of his footnotes -- particularly ones that mention my ancestors.

I think "lies" is too strong a word; distortions is very accurate. If there are intersticies in the evidence, he'll fill them in slant them against the Church. But, van Wagoner was the champion of that tactic. Quinn was schooled at his feet.

My posts are not about Bushman; you are changing the subject. But merely because one cites a work doesn't mean one accepts it. I've cited to Quinn in published works.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

Do you think his books are inaccurate, lies, distortions?

Yes; I have run to ground some of his footnotes -- particularly ones that mention my ancestors.

What % have you run to ground?

I think "lies" is too strong a word; distortions is very accurate. If there are intersticies in the evidence, he'll fill them in slant them against the Church. But, van Wagoner was the champion of that tactic. Quinn was schooled at his feet.

Do you have examples per chance?

My posts are not about Bushman; you are changing the subject. But merely because one cites a work doesn't mean one accepts it. I've cited to Quinn in published works.

It seems odd to me that one would reference a work that one does not think is fairly accurate in what is says or portrays.

[_BishopRic]

Too bad he's gay right?

Is he really? I didn't realize that. That explains a lot.

I'm very interested in what this means! Do "gays" think differently than straights?

[_rcrocket]

What % have you run to ground?

I ran a social sciences statistical program to generate a random number of footnotes which I could check so that I could formulate a conclusion based upon significance and probabilities. Then, with those numbers, I ran to ground about 14 random footnotes. I can thus state that with a 1.5% margin of error there is a significant error in Quinn's footnotes.

Or, perhaps, instead I ran to ground about three of them relating to my ancestors and struck gold on all of them.

I can't recall which I did. One or the other.

Do you have examples per chance?

Not really; they related to some crimes in Springville and Spanish Fork. Indictments, convictions.

It seems odd to me that one would reference a work that one does not think is fairly accurate in what is says or portrays.

It seems odd that you think it would be odd. I may think Bertrand Russell is an illogical atheist but if he says something about Christianity with which I agree, and it supports my thesis, you bet I'd cite him because it is coming from the enemies' camp. Citing people of like mind is like preaching to the choir.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Too bad he's gay right?

Is he really? I didn't realize that. That explains a lot.

I'm very interested in what this means! Do "gays" think differently than straights?

Aren't they more cheerful?