Mike Quinn

[_DonBradley]

For anyone interested, (and I can't imagine why any of us are), Bob continues to change what the fundamental issue or question is. A look at his first several posts on the thread shows him bouncing around among a variety of issues--Quinn's homosexuality, the accuracy of his footnotes, whether he has books published by academic presses, etc. It took a while for him to decide that the significant issue was a statement to the press by a U professor giving the alleged reason for refusing to hire Quinn. Now, that rationale offered to the press is the issue. The issue is not Quinn's many peer-reviewed and academic-press publications, his positive reviews by prominent academics, and the remarkable ensemble of prestigious academic institutions that have granted him awards, fellowships, and other honors. Once Quinn is show to meet Crocket's criteria for academic respectability, Crocket shifts the criteria to exclude him. Bob is not a truth-seeker or even an honest defender of his faith. He is an opportunistic polemicist and, to use the technical term from the DSM-IV, a total ass.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I am curious to know how many other Mormon Historians have published more then a few books through academic publishers. How does Quinn stack up. Off the top of my head I know of only two Mormon History books published by Bushman in other venues besides BYU or Mormon publishers.

I do not know if Quinn is the greatest Mormon historian ever but he is certainly much more then a flash in the pan. I am curious how Crocket can arrive at that conclusion given the bibliography provided in this thread.

I wonder the same thing. Mormon history has to be a niche market. Seems natural that most Mormon books be printed Mormon publishers.

[_rcrocket]

Bob,

Your standards slip quite a bit when doing your own "research" in defense of the faith. Cyrus Gordon and articles from 50 + years ago??

No they don't. Look, I don't dispute the fact that the consensus of scientific writers is that there were no pre-Columbian horses in the past 5000 years. I don't dispute the quality of the papers and books to establish the consensus opinion. But, there is a contrary view there. Cyrus Gordon was heavily published in academic houses; I also acknowledge that today he has been discredited. The C. Ray article is, yes, 50 years old and yes, it stands out among all the rest against it, but it has never been refuted. I find the contrary view interesting, but if I were forming an anthropology dept at a university I probably would not hire Gordon. If I were trying to write a work on horses and publishing it, I would not advance the minority view because there is so little there.

Perhaps it is an overstatement to call Quinn a flash in the pan. But, he hasn't published books of the same caliber as others on Mormonism at academic powerhouses.

Will Bagley -- University of Oklahoma

Dale Morgan -- University of Nebraska

David Bigler -- Utah State University

Juanita Brooks -- Stanford and University of Oklahoma

Leonard Arrington -- University of Illinois

To name a few. When a writer submits his work to an academic press, they are subject to rigorous scrutiny (although for some reason editors did not read a number of Bagley's footnotes -- cites which just did not exist). Other than Same Sex D, Quinn's books were submitted either to BYU Press, making him basically a writer of church books, or Signature Books -- a rather high-end vanity press.

Again, I respect Quinn and read his books and use them for reference. I cite to them in my own papers and publications. But, he is not the greatest Mormon historian ever -- a claim made up in this thread by one of you.

rcrocket

[_Dr. Shades]

Okay, I'll bite: Who is a better historian of Mormonism than Mike Quinn?

[Physics Guy]

To name a few. When a writer submits his work to an academic press, they are subject to rigorous scrutiny (although for some reason editors did not read a number of Bagley's footnotes -- cites which just did not exist). Other than Same Sex D, Quinn's books were submitted either to BYU Press, making him basically a writer of church books, or Signature Books -- a rather high-end vanity press.

Again, I respect Quinn and read his books and use them for reference. I cite to them in my own papers and publications. But, he is not the greatest Mormon historian ever -- a claim made up in this thread by one of you.

rcrocket

Bob, you've dug yourself into too deep of a hole here. Nice going, but you've been busted---rather like your dishonest elipsis in your MMM article. I'll be patiently waiting to see if you or anyone else provides a real answer to Dr. Shades's question.

by the way: here is a quote from the same Wall Street Journal article Bob's been mentioning:

When Mr. Quinn came to the school's Salt Lake City campus for a job interview, history professor James Clayton hosted a reception for him. Prof. Clayton had been Mr. Quinn's friend for years, and joined him in criticizing church censorship. He describes Mr. Quinn as the second-best historian of Mormonism, behind retired Columbia University professor Richard Bushman.

(emphasis added)

It's interesting that rcrocket left Bushman off his list of "greater" Mormon historians above. Why might that be? Perhaps it's because Rough Stone Rolling was published by Knopf/Vintage, which, last time I checked, is not an "academic" press. D'oh!

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]But, he is not the greatest Mormon historian ever -- a claim made up in this thread by one of you.

rcrocket

Yep, the person who "made up" this claim was you.

Huh?

And you continue to proffer baloney, evidence-free defenses of behavior which helped to destroy the career and livelihood of the greatest of all LDS historians.

[_Mister Scratch]

Steuss---

Hey, you're right; I overlooked that bit as I was reviewing the thread. Thanks for pointing that out!

I had in mind this quote:

As I have said before, Quinn is one of the most valuable historians that the Church has ever had. Thanks to his honesty and professional standards, we have works that paint a fuller picture of Mormonism than we otherwise would have had. I think your post also shows how a smear campaign was set up, following the dictates of BKP.

*I* certainly do feel that Quinn is the best, most important, etc. of all Mormon historians, and, along with Dr. Shades, I too am interested in hearing who is "greater." Do you have anything to contribute to this thread along those lines, or were you just interested in correcting my error?

[_Doctor Steuss]

*I* certainly do feel that Quinn is the best, most important, etc. of all Mormon historians, and, along with Dr. Shades, I too am interested in hearing who is "greater." Do you have anything to contribute to this thread along those lines, or were you just interested in correcting my error?

I was mostly looking for clarification (I knew of your comment in this thread where you made the claim, but I didn't know if there was a prior one made by RC that I wasn't aware of).

But, if a “contribution” is being solicited for my opinion, I think Harold Schindler is (or was rather) the best of all Mormon historians (but that’s mostly because of my love of the little tidbits he felt were important, and his love to share things that are usually considered only interesting to “historians”). As for the “most important,” I think that title should probably go to BH Roberts. I don’t know if I would put Quinn next, or not in the line. I might put Arrington ahead of him (but it would be a close tie, so maybe Quinn and Arrington shall share a space together). Perhaps I would then put Bushman, and then Bitton. I’m not 100% sure where I’d put Anderson in the line-up, but I think he deserves a place (as well as Brodie and Brooks). Kane (Thomas) probably deserves an honorable mention as well.

[_rcrocket]

Okay, I'll bite: Who is a better historian of Mormonism than Mike Quinn?

It is subjective, I'll admit.

I think Arrington, Brodie, Brooks, Bancroft in their own fields and areas come to mind. Roberts, Compton, Bigler (pioneer), Backman (Kirtland), Leonard (Nauvoo), Bushman (early), Shipps, Flake (Smoot era) also come to mind.

Scratch thinks Quinn is the greatest because he doesn't have these other books in his library.

[_rcrocket]

For anyone interested, (and I can't imagine why any of us are), Bob continues to change what the fundamental issue or question is. A look at his first several posts on the thread shows him bouncing around among a variety of issues--Quinn's homosexuality, the accuracy of his footnotes, whether he has books published by academic presses, etc. It took a while for him to decide that the significant issue was a statement to the press by a U professor giving the alleged reason for refusing to hire Quinn. Now, that rationale offered to the press is the issue. The issue is not Quinn's many peer-reviewed and academic-press publications, his positive reviews by prominent academics, and the remarkable ensemble of prestigious academic institutions that have granted him awards, fellowships, and other honors. Once Quinn is show to meet Crocket's criteria for academic respectability, Crocket shifts the criteria to exclude him. Bob is not a truth-seeker or even an honest defender of his faith. He is an opportunistic polemicist and, to use the technical term from the DSM-IV, a total ass.

I don't think so. Those aren't my issues.

My issue is simply whether you think the following concern was a legitimate one to express: "Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses."

I am not talking about a Momon Studies professor. I'm talking about someone who can teach in a major University's history department -- Mormon Studies or otherwise.

Y'all just are afraid to engage me aren't you? You just want to call me stupid, not an honest seeker of truth, an opportunist, and all sorts of other names. Can't quite respond to my specific question, can you. It is bolded above. Do you agree with Newman's assessment, or not?

rcrocket