Church Surveillance

[_Trevor]

You know, Bob, I'm still waiting for you to provide text and page number from the Prince book, which will prove your assertion that the BYU spy ring was entirely "student instigated."

Yeah, and I notice that the reference I have provided is repeatedly ignored. Truly heartening evidence that these guys are full of intellectual integrity.

[_Trevor]

Trevor---

First, where did this occur? On MAD?

A personal message through this board.

Please note that Coggins has never even read any of Quinn's work. Please note also that he apparently believes that the BYU spy ring and stakeouts never happened! Perhaps he'll go running off to MAD in order to try and persuade one of the flunkies over there to supplement his "erudition."

Just how long was it before Fox News gave up on the fairy tale about WMD? When you talk to the true believers, you get pretty much the response you would expect.

[_rcrocket]

You know, Bob, I'm still waiting for you to provide text and page number from the Prince book, which will prove your assertion that the BYU spy ring was entirely "student instigated."

Yeah, and I notice that the reference I have provided is repeatedly ignored. Truly heartening evidence that these guys are full of intellectual integrity.

Why should I prove the point? I have said many times that Ernie Wilkinson co-opted and signed onto it, so it doesn't really matter who instigated; the BYU Administration (EW) subsumed it as its own. I have also said that my grandfather was the one who was key to righting that wrong and getting EW (not the students) reversed.

But, see references to index "Spy Ring" in EW's three-volume history of BYU. He makes his claim as to what happened and who started it. He should know.

Anonymous rants, accusing me of lack of integrity. Can't you just stick to the issues at hand rather than attacking me personally?

[_Mister Scratch]

<Ahem> So, I guess Coggins is admitting that he knows nothing about the spying and the stakeouts? Care to field this one, Bob? Meanwhile, I'll try to keep from laughing myself to death.

And while your laughing yourself to death, keep in mind that Bob has already eviscerated you and exposed you as a provocateur and a poseur on this issue as others have on so many others.

Oh, really? And where are his citations? Where are his sources, so that we can examine them? Hmmm?

You are fudging your sources, haven't read them thoroughly, and your own knowledge of the issues are completely second hand and fragmentary.

I have most of the sources quite thoroughly. Unlike some people, I prefer to actually read things before I formulate a polemical opinion on them.

Bob has already pointed out quite clearly, for which you have, again as usual, no answer, that the Church had nothing to do with any of these escapades,

Actually, he didn't. I've been hounding him over the course of several posts for him to provide text and pg. number from the Prince text. He *still* hasn't done so, and presumably won't, since it will demonstrate once again that he manipulates his sources. Rollo looked over the Prince text and came to the exact opposite conclusion as Bob. It would be so simple for Bob to cite a passage of text. And yet he does not do so.
and when it found out, did everything it could to set things aright.

You have again committed ritual intellectual suicide in this forum. Thanks again, but no thanks.

Hey, I'm not the one who got caught stating that I'd "never heard of the spy rings", and of continuing to believe they never existed, despite having not bothered to do any of the research.

[_rcrocket]

Trevor---

First, where did this occur? On MAD?

A personal message through this board.

Yeah, you just went off on some unhinged tear with no evidence.

[_Trevor]

Anonymous rants, accusing me of lack of integrity. Can't you just stick to the issues at hand rather than attacking me personally?

Read the damn book. Then come and complain about my refusal to provide references.

[_Trevor]

Yeah, you just went off on some unhinged tear with no evidence.

I am overcome by the humility with which you excoriate me when I admit my mistakes and yet fail to acknowledge your own.

[_Mister Scratch]

You know, Bob, I'm still waiting for you to provide text and page number from the Prince book, which will prove your assertion that the BYU spy ring was entirely "student instigated."

Yeah, and I notice that the reference I have provided is repeatedly ignored. Truly heartening evidence that these guys are full of intellectual integrity.

Why should I prove the point? I have said many times that Ernie Wilkinson co-opted and signed onto it, so it doesn't really matter who instigated;

Actually, it does, since you have claimed repeatedly that this was "instigated" entirely by the students. This is important, since this claim is clearly meant to absolve the Church of any wrongdoing. But is it true? Please provide text from the Prince book, Bob.

the BYU Administration (EW) subsumed it as its own. I have also said that my grandfather was the one who was key to righting that wrong and getting EW (not the students) reversed.

But, see references to index "Spy Ring" in EW's three-volume history of BYU. He makes his claim as to what happened and who started it. He should know.

He also had good reason to lie. Tell me, Bob---how well does his account square with others'?

Anonymous rants, accusing me of lack of integrity. Can't you just stick to the issues at hand rather than attacking me personally?

Sure. Would you please supply text from the Prince book in which it's asserted that the BYU spy ring was "student-instigated"?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Or, as is more likely the case, I can't stand it when the real complexity of matters is reduced to pablum fit for children's programming.

More standard intellectual posing (SIP). Complexity is always the leftists opt out from moral and intellectual clarity. Intellectual precision, as well as any sense of conclusiveness or certitude within the context of moral, cultural, or value issues, is the unremitting enemy of the leftist worldview because the will to power tolerates no constraints or delimitations upon its presumptions. The Gospel, making claims of certitude regarding aspects of the universe, including moral and value aspects, is pure poison to the Postmodern socio-cultural frame of reference.

Noggins=0 wrote:

All I'm saying is that most of Quinn's work is transparently tendentious, which is not arguable. Quinn has never, to my knowledge, taken a strictly dispassionate position on anything he's ever written about in a mass market non-fiction book. His agenda is social and doctrinal change within the Church and he has never written a book on Mormon issues or history that does not overtly exude this overarching theme.



No, that is not all you are saying. You attribute the motivation of all of Quinn's hard work to his personal vendetta against Mormonism, when he has, through much of that work, professed a deep and abiding belief in and love of Mormonism. It is this mind reading of yours that I have challenged.

If D. Michael Quinn had a deep and abiding love of Mormonism, he never would have left the Church, never would have published his tendentious scholarly works attacking it, and would have done everything within his power to conform his life to it.

He has not. He has made his peace with his homosexuality. That is not an abiding and deep love of Mormonism, but a willful and gross violation of what he knows perfectly well to be among the most sacred commandments of the Lord regarding human relations. There are homosexuals in the Church who struggle with SSA and who are celibate and live in accordance with the Church's teachings. I've known a couple of them.

Quinn has chosen another path openly and of his own free will, and has spent most of his literary life attempting to alter Church teachings by polemicizing against them using a scholarly literary veneer. The fact that you happen to agree with both the substance of his work and his agenda changes nothing regarding the larger issues of its quality.

[_rcrocket]

Sure. Would you please supply text from the Prince book in which it's asserted that the BYU spy ring was "student-instigated"?

I'd say the story starts in detail at page 175; Wilkinson claims it was started by a student; student cracks under pressure and names a BYU administrator involved in the ring; three people, including my grandfather, appointed to ferret out the truth. I can't tell where the truth really lies today, but it appears students were the soldiers and in on its formation, the instigators. But, again, it doesn't matter. Admin was involved and they were to blame.

Actually, it does, since you have claimed repeatedly that this was "instigated" entirely by the students. This is important, since this claim is clearly meant to absolve the Church of any wrongdoing. But is it true? Please provide text from the Prince book, Bob.

I mentioned it once in passing and then again only as you brought it up. I know it as history because my family was involved and I have heard the story many times. I have interviewed professors involved. (They tell a different story than Prince.) But, the mention of student involvement has nothing to do with offering to absolve anybody of anything. The truth is that once the Church figured out what was going on it brought down the hammer. So please stop making an argument I have never made, and if you think I have argued that student instigation implies that somebody or something should be absolved, I retract any such argument.

He also had good reason to lie. Tell me, Bob---how well does his account square with others'?

Umm, as I have indicated, I think he did lie. But you can't study history to determine the truth without studying the words of the person most intimately involved. At least I read the books I cite, rather than do as you do, cite sources you don't have.

How do you know it did not receive any kind of editorial or peer review, Bob? Or are you just guessing? Quinn's list of "thank yous" is mighty indeed, and it seems clear that significant portions of these texts were reviewed by Leonard Arrington, Jan Shipps, Dan Vogel, and others.

I think this proves a point I have made several times. You are not an academic and do not know a thing about academic publications by this very comment of yours. Not that I think that one has to be an academic to say something intelligent, but when it comes to the concept of understanding and explaining what it means to be peer reviewed, you are out of your league. And, yes, his books were not peer reviewed. It has been an oft-repeated criticism of his work that there was insufficient editorial control. (I have never said or implied that he didn't have an editor.) by the way, regarding FARMS Review, I was delighted so see that FARMS does indeed, contrary to your oft-repeated screed, publish alternative points of view. There's a great EV article in 17/1 criticizing DCP's analysis of Psalm 82. I found the article quite educational and fascinating, and agreed with parts.