Mike Quinn

[_Tidejwe]

I'm a little late to this thread (been busy lately), but I'd like to thank Jason for mentioning the podcast, I've downloaded it and will also listen to it myself. I currently own several of Quinn's works, and have read much more by him that I don't own. He is my all time favorite LDS historian by far. In terms of Mormon heroes, he'd be close toward the top of my list. He believes there is truth to it, that it has spiritual value, that God's hand was involved...but he isn't afraid of admitting the flaws and fallibilities involved or being upfront about historical truth and seeking the answers regardless of what they end up being. The man's downright amazing in my opinion. Sure, his books are riddled with personal interpretation after he cites/states the facts involved, but usually the personal opinions are obvious (and yes, in one of the Hierarchy Books I got the feeling he felt a little disgruntled with how the church treated him in the end, so it was kind of a slap in the face back to them), and if you want to make your own conclusion based on the sources, you are free to do so. He even leaves TONS of detailed references/sources for you to check out yourself (when possible) and interpret them all individually. I've personally done so with many of them.

There is much that could be said about Quinn and his works, but I can say for myself that I look forward to the new "Mormon Hierarchy" volume which is supposedly scheduled to be released by Signature Books sometime here in 2008. Anyone have anymore information on that new Book?

[_Coggins7]

I'm a little late to this thread (been busy lately), but I'd like to thank Jason for mentioning the podcast,

I've downloaded it and will also listen to it myself. I currently own several of Quinn's works, and have read much more by him that I don't own. He is my all time favorite LDS historian by far. In terms of Mormon heroes, he'd be close toward the top of my list. He believes there is truth to it, that it has spiritual value, that God's hand was involved...but he isn't afraid of admitting the flaws and fallibilities involved or being upfront about historical truth and seeking the answers regardless of what they end up being. The man's downright amazing in my opinion. Sure, his books are riddled with personal interpretation after he cites/states the facts involved, but usually the personal opinions are obvious (and yes, in one of the Hierarchy Books I got the feeling he felt a little disgruntled with how the church treated him in the end, so it was kind of a slap in the face back to them), and if you want to make your own conclusion based on the sources, you are free to do so. He even leaves TONS of detailed references/sources for you to check out yourself (when possible) and interpret them all individually. I've personally done so with many of them.

There is much that could be said about Quinn and his works, but I can say for myself that I look forward to the new "Mormon Hierarchy" volume which is supposedly scheduled to be released by Signature Books sometime here in 2008. Anyone have anymore information on that new Book?

Two points. Much of this looks like more personal cheerleading for the man, and appears to add nothing Old Testament the debate. The second italicized phrase is important because one of the main criticisms of Quinn by LDS scholars is the footnote stuffing he engages in. Footnoting is, of course, very important to scholarly work, but large quantities of it do not necessary add any degree of certainty or legitimacy to a thesis or argument.

The presence of vast quantities of footnoting can give the impression of scholarly strength that may be belied if one actually does (and who has the time for this?) search them out for oneself. When such notations runs to many pages, however, that task becomes little more than a pie-in-the-sky ideal for all but professional scholars with the time, temperament, and resources to do so.

[_beastie]

coggies,

One would think that even you would have enough sense to refrain commenting on the scholarship of an author when you haven't read even ONE of his books, but then, one would be wrong.

[_Mister Scratch]

Since I am not tenured, and don't work for a university (except as a lawyer; I work for several), let me pose some questions:

1. Should Fawn Brodie's five published best-selling biographies be discounted somewhat because there were published by textbook publishers (and, for No Man, a popular publisher) rather than university houses? When I mean discounted, when a hiring committee looks at a resume would they look askance at these to any degree?

See? This is why your entire line of argument is flawed. A university hiring committee---depending on the job---will look at a variety of factors, including publication record, public service, and teaching. (Quinn was voted Best Teacher by his students, as I recall.) Your insistence that he was not hired to the Utah position merely because of "lack of books published" simply isn't true.

2. Would a hiring committee place more emphasis upon published books rather than essays in journals?

Not necessarily. A fluff book put out by a reputable press (CF. DCP's recent book on Islam) won't count as much as an impressive article in the top journal.

I mean, is a published book at a university publisher a more significant event in an academic's life than a published essay at a university journal? (It would seem so, wouldn't it, because authors like to publish in journals advance chapters of their books, right?)

See above.

3. Do you know if the academic rigor (in terms of peer review) of a Signature Books book would be less than that for a book on the same subject published by a major university?

I don't know. I *do* know that Quinn tends to document his claims more thoroughly than any other LDS scholar I'm aware of.

4. Do you agree with Dr. Newman's published statement that Dr. Quinn's credentials are too thin

No, I don't.

(for the reasons he stated; please rely upon the WSJ's characterization and not how I characterize it here)

I'd be glad to, since the WSJ states (via Prof. Clayton) that part of the reason Quinn was not hired was due to worries about pressure from the LDS community. (A fact you've neatly been side-stepping.)

to be offered a tenured position? Why or why not?

Cf. Dr. Shades's remarks, and Prof. Clayton's remarks from the WSJ. If Quinn is even the "2nd Best" LDS historian, after Bushman, then why not give him the job? Plus, as I've already noted, hiring committees take other things into consideration beyond publication. Quinn's publication record and scholarship are clearly not the main thing which prevented him from getting the job.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm a little late to this thread (been busy lately), but I'd like to thank Jason for mentioning the podcast,

I've downloaded it and will also listen to it myself. I currently own several of Quinn's works, and have read much more by him that I don't own. He is my all time favorite LDS historian by far. In terms of Mormon heroes, he'd be close toward the top of my list. He believes there is truth to it, that it has spiritual value, that God's hand was involved...but he isn't afraid of admitting the flaws and fallibilities involved or being upfront about historical truth and seeking the answers regardless of what they end up being. The man's downright amazing in my opinion. Sure, his books are riddled with personal interpretation after he cites/states the facts involved, but usually the personal opinions are obvious (and yes, in one of the Hierarchy Books I got the feeling he felt a little disgruntled with how the church treated him in the end, so it was kind of a slap in the face back to them), and if you want to make your own conclusion based on the sources, you are free to do so. He even leaves TONS of detailed references/sources for you to check out yourself (when possible) and interpret them all individually. I've personally done so with many of them.

There is much that could be said about Quinn and his works, but I can say for myself that I look forward to the new "Mormon Hierarchy" volume which is supposedly scheduled to be released by Signature Books sometime here in 2008. Anyone have anymore information on that new Book?

Two points. Much of this looks like more personal cheerleading for the man, and appears to add nothing Old Testament the debate. The second italicized phrase is important because one of the main criticisms of Quinn by LDS scholars is the footnote stuffing he engages in. Footnoting is, of course, very important to scholarly work, but large quantities of it do not necessary add any degree of certainty or legitimacy to a thesis or argument.

The presence of vast quantities of footnoting can give the impression of scholarly strength that may be belied if one actually does (and who has the time for this?) search them out for oneself. When such notations runs to many pages, however, that task becomes little more than a pie-in-the-sky ideal for all but professional scholars with the time, temperament, and resources to do so.

Coggins

Why should we care about your opinion on Quinn's works when you have read none of them?


As a hobby apologist I used to think Quinn was the devil's spawn. The man had an ax to grind it seemed. I read all the FARMs reviews about his works that I could find. I believed his footnotes were often bogus. But guess what? I confess I had never read one of his books. I had read only snippets. I came to a point where to be honest I felt I had to read some of his books. So I now have read two-the ones on Mormon Hierarchy. I though they were decent books. Yes he may have opined or even spun some things. His notes seemed to be similar in nature to sources used by Bushman and other LDS historians. I have not chased them down. But he did not seem like a anti LDSer with an ax to grind.

The man now intrigues me given what he has written because sure, most Mormons sitting in the pews would be shocked by what he writes, yet he is still a believer in spite of it all as well as in spite of his life choices. He in not a hero for me but he seems to know his stuff.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins

Why should we care about your opinion on Quinn's works when you have read none of them?

I've read enough excerpts from his work, as well as reviews of his work, to get the gist of his views. I have no particular interest in becoming an expert on D. Michael Quinn; he is an irrelevancy to my intellectual and spiritual life. The endless cheerleading for this man and his threadbare attempts to alter Church policy on homosexuality via his scholarly, and not so scholarly, sniping at its leadership and history, and the wailing cries for sympathy and valorization for an individual who, of his own free will and because of his own behavior, legitimately brought excommunication upon himself, and who has spent his entire literary career tying to delegitimize and impugn my church, and especially, its leaders, are old, tired, boring, and a real drag.

As a hobby apologist I used to think Quinn was the devil's spawn.

Quinn's work is tendentious, even when it is good; its driven by an agenda, and a desire to justify to himself and the world the rightness of his cause and the crime of his excommunication. Its just that simple.

The man had an ax to grind it seemed. I read all the FARMs reviews about his works that I could find. I believed his footnotes were often bogus. But guess what? I confess I had never read one of his books. I had read only snippets. I came to a point where to be honest I felt I had to read some of his books. So I now have read two-the ones on Mormon Hierarchy. I though they were decent books. Yes he may have opined or even spun some things. His notes seemed to be similar in nature to sources used by Bushman and other LDS historians. I have not chased them down. But he did not seem like a anti LDSer with an ax to grind.

He's not anti in the sense many here are. What he is is a textbook wolf in sheep's clothing; a camel that wants to get its entire body into the tent. He's Scratch and Harmony but without the viscousness. The fact of the matter is, his primary focus has always been to subvert any faith or benefit of the doubt people may have in the leaders of the Church, their intellectual honesty, or ethical competency to lead the Church. Mormonism and the Magic World View was an attempt to impugn the Church's claim of divine ministerial authority by calling into question its divine origin, and postulating a purely sociological context for much of its early development. He has chosen history as his club. The end of all this is the acceptance of open homosexuality in the Church. We have seen this all before. He is on a fools errand if he imagines any success here, but I don't think his ego will let him stop.

The man now intrigues me given what he has written because sure, most Mormons sitting in the pews would be shocked by what he writes, yet he is still a believer in spite of it all as well as in spite of his life choices. He in not a hero for me but he seems to know his stuff.

What saying he is a believer means, in the context of what he has actually written, is open to anyone's guess. A "believer" believes all of it, period. The Gospel is a holistic system, not a cocktail of unrelated concepts. The doctrines of the Church are too logically and conceptually interrelated to separate willy nilly because one has problems with this or that historical anomaly or doctrinal implication. He lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. He doesn't second guess the Prophets, he doesn't graze at the cafeteria, and he doesn't steady arks. He lives by the Spirit, within the Spirit of revelation. Quinn, nice a guy as he may be, has put his trust in the "arm of flesh"...a spiritually lethal conceit, according to the Book of Mormon.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins

Why should we care about your opinion on Quinn's works when you have read none of them?

I've read enough excerpts from his work, as well as reviews of his work, to get the gist of his views.

Wow. It's the trip-to-MAD-in-order-to-try-and-save-face-after-getting-reamed-by-Dartagnan-about-the-BoA all over again. You really got to admire the "intellectual seriousness" of this sort of behavior. C'mon, Jas---Cogs doesn't read anything other than thefrontpage.com

I have no particular interest in becoming an expert on D. Michael Quinn; he is an irrelevancy to my intellectual and spiritual life. The endless cheerleading for this man and his threadbare attempts to alter Church policy on homosexuality via his scholarly, and not so scholarly, sniping at its leadership and history, and the wailing cries for sympathy and valorization for an individual who, of his own free will and because of his own behavior, legitimately brought excommunication upon himself, and who has spent his entire literary career tying to delegitimize and impugn my church, and especially, its leaders, are old, tired, boring, and a real drag.

Want to be that Coggins does not even know why Quinn was excommunicated?

As a hobby apologist I used to think Quinn was the devil's spawn.

Quinn's work is tendentious, even when it is good; its driven by an agenda, and a desire to justify to himself and the world the rightness of his cause and the crime of his excommunication. Its just that simple.

Again: Why was Quinn ex'ed? Is the Church releasing this information now?

Mormonism and the Magic World View was an attempt to impugn the Church's claim of divine ministerial authority by calling into question its divine origin, and postulating a purely sociological context for much of its early development. He has chosen history as his club. The end of all this is the acceptance of open homosexuality in the Church. We have seen this all before. He is on a fools errand if he imagines any success here, but I don't think his ego will let him stop.

Once more: Where is the evidence for any of this? Has Quinn issued a public call for a change in the Church's treatment of homosexuals? Was this published in thefrontpage.com?

[_Jason Bourne]

Coggins

Why should we care about your opinion on Quinn's works when you have read none of them?

I've read enough excerpts from his work, as well as reviews of his work, to get the gist of his views. I have no particular interest in becoming an expert on D. Michael Quinn; he is an irrelevancy to my intellectual and spiritual life. The endless cheerleading for this man and his threadbare attempts to alter Church policy on homosexuality via his scholarly, and not so scholarly, sniping at its leadership and history, and the wailing cries for sympathy and valorization for an individual who, of his own free will and because of his own behavior, legitimately brought excommunication upon himself, and who has spent his entire literary career tying to delegitimize and impugn my church, and especially, its leaders, are old, tired, boring, and a real drag.

As a hobby apologist I used to think Quinn was the devil's spawn.

Quinn's work is tendentious, even when it is good; its driven by an agenda, and a desire to justify to himself and the world the rightness of his cause and the crime of his excommunication. Its just that simple.

The man had an ax to grind it seemed. I read all the FARMs reviews about his works that I could find. I believed his footnotes were often bogus. But guess what? I confess I had never read one of his books. I had read only snippets. I came to a point where to be honest I felt I had to read some of his books. So I now have read two-the ones on Mormon Hierarchy. I though they were decent books. Yes he may have opined or even spun some things. His notes seemed to be similar in nature to sources used by Bushman and other LDS historians. I have not chased them down. But he did not seem like a anti LDSer with an ax to grind.

He's not anti in the sense many here are. What he is is a textbook wolf in sheep's clothing; a camel that wants to get its entire body into the tent. He's Scratch and Harmony but without the viscousness. The fact of the matter is, his primary focus has always been to subvert any faith or benefit of the doubt people may have in the leaders of the Church, their intellectual honesty, or ethical competency to lead the Church. Mormonism and the Magic World View was an attempt to impugn the Church's claim of divine ministerial authority by calling into question its divine origin, and postulating a purely sociological context for much of its early development. He has chosen history as his club. The end of all this is the acceptance of open homosexuality in the Church. We have seen this all before. He is on a fools errand if he imagines any success here, but I don't think his ego will let him stop.

The man now intrigues me given what he has written because sure, most Mormons sitting in the pews would be shocked by what he writes, yet he is still a believer in spite of it all as well as in spite of his life choices. He in not a hero for me but he seems to know his stuff.

What saying he is a believer means, in the context of what he has actually written, is open to anyone's guess. A "believer" believes all of it, period. The Gospel is a holistic system, not a cocktail of unrelated concepts. The doctrines of the Church are too logically and conceptually interrelated to separate willy nilly because one has problems with this or that historical anomaly or doctrinal implication. He lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. He doesn't second guess the Prophets, he doesn't graze at the cafeteria, and he doesn't steady arks. He lives by the Spirit, within the Spirit of revelation. Quinn, nice a guy as he may be, has put his trust in the "arm of flesh"...a spiritually lethal conceit, according to the Book of Mormon.

That is an awful lot to say and pretty sweeping conclusions from one who has read some excerpts and some reviews.

Simply amazing.

[_Coggins7]

Wow. It's the trip-to-MAD-in-order-to-try-and-save-face-after-getting-reamed-by-Dartagnan-about-the-BoA all over again. You really got to admire the "intellectual seriousness" of this sort of behavior. C'mon, Jas---Cogs doesn't read anything other than thefrontpage.com

We have your number Scratch. We know your tactics. We know your game.

Want to bet that Coggins does not even know why Quinn was excommunicated?

Quinn was excommunicated for his continued confrontations with the Brethren and his anti-Church writings.

Once more: Where is the evidence for any of this? Has Quinn issued a public call for a change in the Church's treatment of homosexuals? Was this published in thefrontpage.com?

Maybe this will help clear the air a little on that subject, from a PBS documentary that interviewed Quinn. Quinn was asked if we would ever accept an invitation back into the Church.

I would have to say with a big if, and that is, if you stop using political power as a club against gays and lesbians. I cannot be silent about policies that I disagree with. That is the one great freedom that my excommunication has given me, because even though people thought I spoke up any time I chose, I really remained silent about deep disagreements with church policies during the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] campaign of the LDS Church. I was on the faculty at BYU. I never spoke against it; I never wrote against it, even though I felt utterly that it was wrong.

I'm not going to go back into that closet of being a silent dissenter. So no, I could not accept an invitation to join the LDS Church again, because so many of its current policies are contrary to what I believe is the will of God.

Quinn, meet Harmony.

Clearly, unless the Church became open to practicing homosexuals, Quinn would decline rebaptism. Go here http://supportmikequinn.net/biography/ and read Laverna Anderson's bio of Quinn. Quinn is a committed leftist, not just on the issue of homosexuality but on a number of other social issues as well, and that would probably have put him out of the Church eventually, sooner or later.

This is an interesting read for another reason: some of Quinn's claims regarding the Church and its internal culture, border on or cross the line into paranoia. This is something that I actually didn't expect. It appears that he has continued moving farther and farther to the cultural Left as time has gone on, and that his homosexuality is only one integral feature of his overall hostility to the Church, its culture, and its teachings. So in that sense, I'm probably wrong about homosexuality being the sole reason for his literary output being as it has been.

[_harmony]

Quinn, meet Harmony.

I should be so lucky. Alas, I doubt he gets to this part of Outer Zion very often.