rcrocket wrote:7. Harmony challenges my assertion that Utah State is an “academic powerhouse.” This is kind of irrelevant, but Utah State really is a fine publisher of western history, publishing the Western Historical Quarterly. It has also published Arrington’s Great Basin Kingdom and Bigler’s great work on western history. I have asked her whether she thought those works qualified as great works; radio silence. I don’t expect to hear from her. I doubt she even possesses Great Basin Kingdom, probably one of the top ten Mormon publications ever.
You're the one who brought the academic powerhouse issue up, not me. You didn't say "academic powerhouse in Western History", so I am absolved from being required to have read Arrington or Bigler. I'm not disputing that USU is an academic powerhouse in Western history. I'm disputing that USU is an academic powerhouse overall. You said "academic powerhouse" with no qualifiers or disclaimers about individual courses of study. I agree that Stanford is an academic powerhouse overall. I fail to see how USU is in the same catagory.
My point has always been for you to clarify why you think USU is an academic powerhouse along the same lines as Stanford is. You have failed to do this. I guess I should point out the crickets chirping in the silence.
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.
Nevertheless, when Utah's faculty voted on whether to offer Mr. Quinn the job, Prof. Clayton opposed him. Now retired, he says: "There was a concern by several of us in the department that Mike was not the right person to head up any kind of Mormon history or Mormon studies program given the fact he's very publicly excommunicated. There would be quite a number of people in the Mormon community who would look unfavorably on that. That gave me pause."
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. Utah eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with an active Mormon church member.
10. In conclusion, I am trying to be fair, but I just don’t think Dr. Quinn can carry the water of a Fawn Brodie.
rc, I understand Brodie was taken to task in the 90s by many of her peers for her sloppy historical work on Thomas Jefferson, and that she's never been regarded as a historian of any great weight.
In that case, the claim that she is, in general, Quinn's superior, is quite interesting (and no wonder it drives the anti-Mormons to fits.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
The only UofU professors that I can find that are specified for "Mormon studies" are Margaret Toscano and David Knowlton. I'll go out on a ledge and guess Knowlton was the one hired when Quinn was rejected. Anyone familiar with his work?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
You're the one who brought the academic powerhouse issue up, not me. You didn't say "academic powerhouse in Western History", so I am absolved from being required to have read Arrington or Bigler. I'm not disputing that USU is an academic powerhouse in Western history. I'm disputing that USU is an academic powerhouse overall. You said "academic powerhouse" with no qualifiers or disclaimers about individual courses of study. I agree that Stanford is an academic powerhouse overall. I fail to see how USU is in the same catagory.
My point has always been for you to clarify why you think USU is an academic powerhouse along the same lines as Stanford is. You have failed to do this. I guess I should point out the crickets chirping in the silence.
Don't worry rc, Harmony wouldn't know that an "academic powerhouse" was if it reared up and French kissed her. Harmony is, at all events, a little Dr. Phil, and not a serious intellectual.
At least, in as many years, if she was, some evidence of that would have shown up either here or at ZLMB.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
It's only mind-boggling if you expect rationality and consistency from Bob. Don't you know better?
Bob is an opportunistic polemecist. He'll use whatever is at hand to promote his current argument, no matter how inconsistent it makes him among arguments. The arguments can all contradict each other across time (e.g., Bob's shifts between denigrating Quinn and saying he "admires" him and uses him, maybe just not enough to satisfy others...), so long as he can promote his current point.
Bob's debating style is utterly dishonest. It puts me in mind of whatever Emerson said of those who disingenuously pretend to weigh evidence in order to more effectively push their foregone conclusion:
Who on earth is this tendentious provocateur? He looks like one of the Gen X pot heads I used to see hanging out in malls in the late 80s, but perhaps looks are decieving (although is polemical, insubstantive arguements style does not bode well).
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:Who on earth is this tendentious provocateur? He looks like one of the Gen X pot heads I used to see hanging out in malls in the late 80s, but perhaps looks are decieving (although is polemical, insubstantive arguements style does not bode well).
Don is a respected critic. He's been around for a very long time. That you insult him is proof positive of the effectiveness of his argument. That you've never encountered him is proof of your ethnocentrism.
rcrocket wrote:I don't get it. I'm made a pretty good point about Quinn not being adequately published, citing the UofU Humanities Dept. You all just want to divert my point to hooey and irrelevancy. Afraid of my point?
I don't get it, either. You still haven't discussed the long list I posted above of the many Quinn publications by esteemed publishers. Afraid of my point?
"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)
rcrocket wrote:Even so, Same Sex Dynamics is not a book about Mormon history. Quinn has limited credentials.
Bob, you're really exposing yourself as an idiot. Just cut your losses and admit (yet again) that you screwed up on this one.
"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)
beastie wrote:The only UofU professors that I can find that are specified for "Mormon studies" are Margaret Toscano and David Knowlton. I'll go out on a ledge and guess Knowlton was the one hired when Quinn was rejected. Anyone familiar with his work?
Knowlton's specialization is Latin American Studies and he has published some articles about the church in Latin America. He was denied tenure at BYU when he published an article explaining the church's image problem in Latin America (specifically in Bolivia, where two missionaries were murdered).