Mike Quinn

[_DonBradley]

Crock,

I ignored your initial question about where you've lied, because the question itself is an example of the very disingenuous techniques I've described here. What I've repeatedly said is that you use a disingenuous and opportunistic polemical style (yes, Crock, these are all words you should have learned in college). You contradict yourself repeatedly as you move from one argument to the next. There is obviously no concern for consistency behind your posts, which indicates a lack of sincerity in the views expressed: not even you could hold all those contradictions in your head as actual beliefs. You just grab on to whatever is useful in the moment, whether it is believable--even to you, or not; and shift to something contradictory as needed. This is fundamentally dishonest.

So, even in your question, you were dishonest: I didn't make the claim about you that you said I did.

However, although this was not what I was talking about before, you've also deliberately misrepresented data, as when you claimed the Walker book Wayward Saints demonstrated that the University of Illinois accepts self-funded "vanity" works. Following up on your claim, I found that publication of the book had been "supported by grants from," three academic institutions, none of them named "Ron Walker," and that the University of Illinois offered no disclaimer that the book was accepted only because of money; rather, they presented the book under the imprimature of the University of Illinois Press just like any other academic work they publish.

So, as evidence of your dishonesty, we have:

1) Your disingenuous polemical style, which I've described at length above, and the record of which you've left scattered across the entire thread;
2) Your misrepresentation, even in your 'question,' of what I described above; and,
3) Your blatant misrepresentation of the Walker book as evidence that the University of Illinois Press sidelined as a "vanity" press.

I could list more, if I were willing to wade once more through the swill you would call "evidence" and "argument;" but I really don't have the interest. You've embarrased yourself thoroughly in this discussion, regardless of what your supporter thinks (note the singular).

Having refuted your points and identified the dishonest techniques you've used and continue to use, there's nothing left for me to do with this discussion but let it stand as a monument to your sloppy and disingenuous polemics.

You may (and will) continue to post away, claiming to refute all this and laying out further "challenges" (i.e., red herrings), claiming victory if I don't respond. Fine. You may feel free to take pride in the "victory" of not having your final "arguments" responded to, because you, and they, aren't worth the time.

Don Bradley

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Hi all,

On Mike Quinn and Mormonism:

1) Mike Quinn is absolutely a true believer in Mormonism. I've known Mike for sixteen years, and have found him consistent and unwavering in his testimony of foundational LDS beliefs.

And yet he's spent over a decade, at least, writing books on Mormonism unmistakably hostile toward it. How many "true believers" could, I wonder, dance on the head of a pin? We've got some other TBMs of this kind here as well. We have Scratch and Harmony. TBMs. With TBMs of this kind, who, one may be forgiven for asking, needs apostates?

2) Mike acts as and considers himself an apologist for Mormonism. He recently wrote a piece in Sunstone defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Could have fooled me. Must be the dioxin...

The principal problem FARMS-type apologists have had with Quinn is not that he believes too little, but that he believes too much. Mike Quinn is (somehow) able to actually believe the magic-related parts of Mormonism, believe that God inspired some of Joseph Smith, et al's. violent behavior, etc., etc. FARMS apologists and the like can't believe these things, so they feel compelled to deny that they ever occurred. Hence they shoot the messenger.

The problem is whether or not Quinn ever demonstrated the above claims (such as the idea that there is any such thing as a "magic world view" in the Church and among its people) in a logical or unambiguous documentary manner. He never has. The "magic world view" as regards the Church is a theoretical model created in Quinn's own imagination to make a point--a very derogatory and condescending point--regarding the kind of minds that tend to be attracted to the Church. If this makes Quinn an apologist, the linguistic and psychological gymnastics necessary to maintain such a claim given his actual behavior and literary output regarding the Church, can only end in cognitive dissonance for the intellectually honest.

How did a scholarly apologist for the Church manage to get himself excommunicated? The answer (obviously) is that Quinn's own self perceptions of of little relevance to his actual literary work, which has not been apologetic but consistently antagonistic.

I don't know anything about what relationships Mike has, or hasn't, had since his divorce. And unless one has much better evidence that Crocket's "recollections" of imaginary events of 1980, there is little or nothing that can be said about this.

This is a sign of desperation manifesting itself early in the argument. How does this individual know what rc, who was also an eyewitness to the phenomena involved, did or did not observe?

[_Dr. Shades]

Don:

It's my understanding that Mike Quinn has given us, page-for-page, more Mormon history than any other single historian ever.

Am I right about this?

[_Coggins7]

Crock,

I ignored your initial question about where you've lied, because the question itself is an example of the very disingenuous techniques I've described here. What I've repeatedly said is that you use a disingenuous and opportunistic polemical style (yes, Crock, these are all words you should have learned in college). You contradict yourself repeatedly as you move from one argument to the next. There is obviously no concern for consistency behind your posts, which indicates a lack of sincerity in the views expressed: not even you could hold all those contradictions in your head as actual beliefs. You just grab on to whatever is useful in the moment, whether it is believable--even to you, or not; and shift to something contradictory as needed. This is fundamentally dishonest.

So, even in your question, you were dishonest: I didn't make the claim about you that you said I did.

However, although this was not what I was talking about before, you've also deliberately misrepresented data, as when you claimed the Walker book Wayward Saints demonstrated that the University of Illinois accepts self-funded "vanity" works. Following up on your claim, I found that publication of the book had been "supported by grants from," three academic institutions, none of them named "Ron Walker," and that the University of Illinois offered no disclaimer that the book was accepted only because of money; rather, they presented the book under the imprimature of the University of Illinois Press just like any other academic work they publish.

So, as evidence of your dishonesty, we have:

1) Your disingenuous polemical style, which I've described at length above, and the record of which you've left scattered across the entire thread;
2) Your misrepresentation, even in your 'question,' of what I described above; and,
3) Your blatant misrepresentation of the Walker book as evidence that the University of Illinois Press sidelined as a "vanity" press.

I could list more, if I were willing to wade once more through the swill you would call "evidence" and "argument;" but I really don't have the interest. You've embarrased yourself thoroughly in this discussion, regardless of what your supporter thinks (note the singular).

Having refuted your points and identified the dishonest techniques you've used and continue to use, there's nothing left for me to do with this discussion but let it stand as a monument to your sloppy and disingenuous polemics.

You may (and will) continue to post away, claiming to refute all this and laying out further "challenges" (I.e., red herrings), claiming victory if I don't respond. Fine. You may feel free to take pride in the "victory" of not having your final "arguments" responded to, because you, and they, aren't worth the time.

Don Bradley

Really, how much of this kind of obnoxious ad hominem bloviation against someone who takes a perfectly rational opposing view in this argument, while at the same time jumping up and down waving pom poms for Michael Quinn, must we be made to endure?

Franky, I think this is too personal for Mr. Bradly to be an intellectually honest broker of the other side of the argument in his own right.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Yeah, I'm not doubting that you heard him say that. I just doubt that it's really true that he still believes it. I find it very, very difficult to conceive how someone could so clearly demonstrate the man-made nature of the organization and then still insist that, underneath it all, it's really God's one true church anyway.

He was still trying to operate in an intellectual environment where being "anti-mormon" essentially closed off all opportunities, and closed off all minds, and basically would exclude one from any kind of serious attention by the overwhelming majority of church members. Of course he had to defuse the notion that he was now an anti-mormon. I don't know whether this was a cynical ploy on his part, or if he somehow really did pull off a miracle of compartmentalized thinking and really did still believe it. I just don't know. I just find it hard to believe is all.

Don Bradley has confirmed on this thread the Quinn is currently a believer.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi all,

On Mike Quinn and Mormonism:

1) Mike Quinn is absolutely a true believer in Mormonism. I've known Mike for sixteen years, and have found him consistent and unwavering in his testimony of foundational LDS beliefs.

And yet he's spent over a decade, at least, writing books on Mormonism unmistakably hostile toward it. How many "true believers" could, I wonder, dance on the head of a pin? We've got some other TBMs of this kind here as well. We have Scratch and Harmony. TBMs. With TBMs of this kind, who, one may be forgiven for asking, needs apostates?

2) Mike acts as and considers himself an apologist for Mormonism. He recently wrote a piece in Sunstone defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Could have fooled me. Must be the dioxin...

The principal problem FARMS-type apologists have had with Quinn is not that he believes too little, but that he believes too much. Mike Quinn is (somehow) able to actually believe the magic-related parts of Mormonism, believe that God inspired some of Joseph Smith, et al's. violent behavior, etc., etc. FARMS apologists and the like can't believe these things, so they feel compelled to deny that they ever occurred. Hence they shoot the messenger.

The problem is whether or not Quinn ever demonstrated the above claims (such as the idea that there is any such thing as a "magic world view" in the Church and among its people) in a logical or unambiguous documentary manner. He never has. The "magic world view" as regards the Church is a theoretical model created in Quinn's own imagination to make a point--a very derogatory and condescending point--regarding the kind of minds that tend to be attracted to the Church. If this makes Quinn an apologist, the linguistic and psychological gymnastics necessary to maintain such a claim given his actual behavior and literary output regarding the Church, can only end in cognitive dissonance for the intellectually honest.

How did a scholarly apologist for the Church manage to get himself excommunicated? The answer (obviously) is that Quinn's own self perceptions of of little relevance to his actual literary work, which has not been apologetic but consistently antagonistic.

I don't know anything about what relationships Mike has, or hasn't, had since his divorce. And unless one has much better evidence that Crocket's "recollections" of imaginary events of 1980, there is little or nothing that can be said about this.

This is a sign of desperation manifesting itself early in the argument. How does this individual know what rc, who was also an eyewitness to the phenomena involved, did or did not observe?

Coggins

Can you tell us which of Quinn's books you have read entirely?

[_DonBradley]

Cogs,

You came on to this thread asking when I was going to contribute substance. You evidently wouldn't know substance if you saw--because, if you've read the thread, you saw plenty of data that I've contributed. Far more than Crocket, who has contributed vanishingly little, and infinitely more than you, who have contributed none. Your idea of substance is apparently a comment about my appearance that shows you to be as blind physically as you are mentally--and this made as you chastise me for addressing something besides the data on Mike Quinn. You manage to be opportunistic and disingenuous, and yet obnoxious.

What you and Bob refuse--again, opportunistically--to acknowledge is that I've made my (accurate) observations about Bob's polemical strategy in addition to providing substantial data (e.g., Quinn's awards, peer-reviewed publication count, fellowships, the copyright text for Same-Sex Dynamics [where Bob gave only misrepresentations of it], quotations from academic reviewers, etc., etc., etc.). That Bob disingenuously pretends I've done only one of these because I've done the other only--once again--serves to verify my description of his dishonest tactics. That you do the same, identifies you as perpetrating the same sort of dishonesty.

To save time in this discussion, just read everything I said about Bob's dishonesty, and triple it for yourself.

There's nothing more for me to say to you--or anyone else of your dishonest, opportunistic polemical style.

I'm done with this thread and won't be reading it anymore.

So spew out screed to your little heart's (and little mind's) content.

Don Bradley

[_Coggins7]

Cogs,

You came on to this thread asking when I was going to contribute substance. You evidently wouldn't know substance if you saw--because, if you've read the thread, you saw plenty of data that I've contributed. Far more than Crocket, who has contributed vanishingly little, and infinitely more than you, who have contributed none. Your idea of substance is apparently a comment about my appearance that shows you to be as blind physically as you are mentally--and this made as you chastise me for addressing something besides the data on Mike Quinn. You manage to be opportunistic and disingenuous, and yet obnoxious.

What you and Bob refuse--again, opportunistically--to acknowledge is that I've made my (accurate) observations about Bob's polemical strategy in addition to providing substantial data (e.g., Quinn's awards, peer-reviewed publication count, fellowships, the copyright text for Same-Sex Dynamics [where Bob gave only misrepresentations of it], quotations from academic reviewers, etc., etc., etc.). That Bob disingenuously pretends I've done only one of these because I've done the other only--once again--serves to verify my description of his dishonest tactics. That you do the same, identifies you as perpetrating the same sort of dishonesty.

To save time in this discussion, just read everything I said about Bob's dishonesty, and triple it for yourself.

There's nothing more for me to say to you--or anyone else of your dishonest, opportunistic polemical style.

I'm done with this thread and won't be reading it anymore.

So spew out screed to your little heart's (and little mind's) content.

Don Bradley

This is the same kind and tone of verbiage Dartagnon spits out at anyone who punctures his precious little translucent bubble of pseudo-certainty regarding his beliefs.

All you've done is go around and around the sugar bowl but you have not refuted rc's main point, that Quinn's publication history with respect to serious academic presses is thin.

[_Coggins7]

Crock,

I ignored your initial question about where you've lied, because the question itself is an example of the very disingenuous techniques I've described here. What I've repeatedly said is that you use a disingenuous and opportunistic polemical style (yes, Crock, these are all words you should have learned in college). You contradict yourself repeatedly as you move from one argument to the next. There is obviously no concern for consistency behind your posts, which indicates a lack of sincerity in the views expressed: not even you could hold all those contradictions in your head as actual beliefs. You just grab on to whatever is useful in the moment, whether it is believable--even to you, or not; and shift to something contradictory as needed. This is fundamentally dishonest.

So, even in your question, you were dishonest: I didn't make the claim about you that you said I did.

However, although this was not what I was talking about before, you've also deliberately misrepresented data, as when you claimed the Walker book Wayward Saints demonstrated that the University of Illinois accepts self-funded "vanity" works. Following up on your claim, I found that publication of the book had been "supported by grants from," three academic institutions, none of them named "Ron Walker," and that the University of Illinois offered no disclaimer that the book was accepted only because of money; rather, they presented the book under the imprimature of the University of Illinois Press just like any other academic work they publish.

So, as evidence of your dishonesty, we have:

1) Your disingenuous polemical style, which I've described at length above, and the record of which you've left scattered across the entire thread;
2) Your misrepresentation, even in your 'question,' of what I described above; and,
3) Your blatant misrepresentation of the Walker book as evidence that the University of Illinois Press sidelined as a "vanity" press.

I could list more, if I were willing to wade once more through the swill you would call "evidence" and "argument;" but I really don't have the interest. You've embarrased yourself thoroughly in this discussion, regardless of what your supporter thinks (note the singular).

Having refuted your points and identified the dishonest techniques you've used and continue to use, there's nothing left for me to do with this discussion but let it stand as a monument to your sloppy and disingenuous polemics.

You may (and will) continue to post away, claiming to refute all this and laying out further "challenges" (I.e., red herrings), claiming victory if I don't respond. Fine. You may feel free to take pride in the "victory" of not having your final "arguments" responded to, because you, and they, aren't worth the time.

Don Bradley

You see, as compared to rc's generally calm and civil tone, we have above what appears to be the rantings of a cornered demagogue.

No wonder Harmony looks at you with those big, puppy dog eyes.

[_Jason Bourne]

Coggins

I ask again, what of Quinn's books have you read? I wonder because in a post above you were quite critical of his works. I will assume that no response from you means you have not read any of his books.