Lou Midgley: An LDS "Capo"?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The WSJ concluded, among other things, and right or wrong, that Quinn didn't have a career because his focus in things Mormon was too narrow and he didn't publish books in academic presses.

False. The WSJ article makes no such conclusion, and most of the schools cited in the article refer to Quinn's status as an excommunicated member, not his "focus," as the reason he couldn't get a job. Only one school cited in the article, ASU, mentioned his "focus" and non-university press articles (and even that is suspect, because the chairman of ASU's religious-studies department brought up in an email the risk of alienating the local Mormon community by hiring Quinn).

But, if you were to identify a particular apologist who did the assassination that led to his career being torpedoed, whom would that be? [I'll then just ask Mike if he agrees.]

The WSJ article brings up the 2003 incident when BYU threatened to pull out of the Yale Mormonism conference if Quinn were allowed to speak. DCP admitted on FAIR that he (who presented at the conference) was involved in BYU's threat to pull out.

[_Mister Scratch]

But runtu, while I've certainly witnessed juvenile message board hi-jinx among some exmormons (not any that I'd actually deem serious critics, however), I've never seen anything close to the vindictive attempts at character and career assassination that Mormon apologists have carried out in many, much less ephemeral, venues.

What is your best example of a career assassination by an apologist?

Mike Quinn. Specifically, I refer you to the Wall Street Journal article you found and posted (I believe at FAIR) a couple of years ago.

The WSJ concluded, among other things, and right or wrong, that Quinn didn't have a career because his focus in things Mormon was too narrow and he didn't publish books in academic presses.

But, if you were to identify a particular apologist who did the assassination that led to his career being torpedoed, whom would that be? [I'll then just ask Mike if he agrees.]

As I have labored to point out, it was not any one person in particular. Clearly, it was a group effort that involved DCP, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, and Lord knows who else. (Matt Roper? Gary Novak?) I have little doubt that they coordinated their attacks via the "l-skinny" listserve.

[_silentkid]

I'm making this comment based on a couple years of observation on this board. I don't read MADB and don't care what goes on there. From what I've gleaned here, Scratch attacks the apologetics of DCP and others. He criticizes the apologetic efforts of FARMS. I don't think I've ever read an instance of him attacking DCP's professional career (that of professor of Islamic Studies at BYU or whatever it is) or personal life outside of his apologetic endeavors. If he has, I don't condone it. I have witnessed some amateur apologists make real-life threats against certain critics, claiming that they could "out" those critics to their local bishops or stake presidents. That's the kind of crap that I find bothersome.

[_rcrocket]

The WSJ concluded, among other things, and right or wrong, that Quinn didn't have a career because his focus in things Mormon was too narrow and he didn't publish books in academic presses.

False. The WSJ article makes no such conclusion . . . .

False again.

Some key quotes from the article: "In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. At least three other secular schools plan new professorships in Mormon studies, but he appears to be a long shot for these posts, too -- not because he lacks qualifications, but because almost all the funding for the jobs is coming from Mormon donors."

It was the failure of "Mormon donors" to support his very narrow focus, and not the "career assassination" you charge. Such hyperbole.

The article also cites the Church's Rolfe Kerr, who denies a campaign against him.

A quote from a single UoU professor: "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."

But, from the UofU officially: "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."

From ASU officially: "ASU's administration vetoed Mr. Quinn's hiring. Simon Peacock, then associate dean for personnel, says Mr. Quinn lacked expertise to teach Christianity and Judaism courses left uncovered by a professor's departure. Mr. Peacock says Mr. Quinn's excommunication was discussed but had no effect on the decision."

But, from a single ASU professor: "However, the chairman of the religious-studies department, Joel Gereboff, wrote in an email to faculty that Dean Peacock and another dean asked him to review the "risks and benefits" of the hire and "thought that it is probably not wise to undertake such risks" for a one-year appointment. Prof. Gereboff says the deans were referring to the risk of alienating the Mormon community."

But, try as I might, I see nothing in the article to support your (you didn't make it, but you adopt it as your own) charge that a particular apologist has engaged in "career assassination." It seems, rather, that these institutions did not value his Mormon expertise. As the UofWyoming put it, a chair of a Mormon studies program is "not going to be a chair of anti-Mormon studies."

As I have labored to point out, it was not any one person in particular. Clearly, it was a group effort that involved DCP, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, and Lord knows who else. (Matt Roper? Gary Novak?) I have little doubt that they coordinated their attacks via the "l-skinny" listserve.

I see. On the one hand it is known "clearly" and "I have little doubt." On the other hand, it is "not any one person in particular." You are unable to cite a single instance of a single Mormon apologist engaging in "career assassination?" Not one?

If you have "little doubt" that career assassinations are coordinated on l-skinny, can you cite me an example -- a particular post? I mean, "little doubt" means you have proof, right?

I'm making this comment based on a couple years of observation on this board. I don't read MADB and don't care what goes on there. From what I've gleaned here, Scratch attacks the apologetics of DCP and others. He criticizes the apologetic efforts of FARMS. I don't think I've ever read an instance of him attacking DCP's professional career (that of professor of Islamic Studies at BYU or whatever it is) or personal life outside of his apologetic endeavors. If he has, I don't condone it. I have witnessed some amateur apologists make real-life threats against certain critics, claiming that they could "out" those critics to their local bishops or stake presidents. That's the kind of s*** that I find bothersome.

The charge that Mormon apologists engage in "career assassinations" cannot so easily be deflected by the argument that Scratch does not engage in career assassination of Dr. Peterson.

I mean, Blixa (I know the comment above was made by silent kid, but the "career assassination" is yours), put up or shut up. Your best evidence of a Mormon apologist engaging in career assassination.

Moreover, "outing somebody" to their bishop is not "career assassination." I see nothing wrong with bringing to a bishop's attention the public apostasy of a person who claims to be in good standing in the Church and otherwise meets the standards for private discipline. If you want to play with fire, you ought to be able to withstand the heat when you put your membership on the line. And that is exactly what you do on this board.

Now, having said all that, I don't dispute that an apologist here or there attacks the professional credentials of an anti-Mormon to say what he or she says. James White comes to mind. (Apologists attack the fact that his Ph.D came from a diploma mill.) Dr. Walter Martin comes to mind. (Apologists attack the fact that he does not really have a doctorate.) Grant Palmer comes to mind. (But, his career was over and he continues to pull his pension.) Tom Murphy comes to mind. (I believe there were inquiries at his community college where he taught as to his credentials; his college president confirmed them.)

But, when you put your credentials on the line, you open yourself up to attack as to those credentials. "Career assassination" would be completely improper where attacks are made upon somebody's professional reputation, where that reputation has nothing to do with asserted credentials. For example, a few, including Road to Hana, have threated to contact my firm's managing partner to "out" me as to my participation on this Board.

So, let's make sure that your "without a doubt" argument has some currency. Just some.

I'm sorry, Blixa. For such an intelligent person your arguments are often unsupported, and you are not willing to rise to the occasion to support them. Thin.

[_Mister Scratch]

But, try as I might, I see nothing in the article to support your (you didn't make it, but you adopt it as your own) charge that a particular apologist has engaged in "career assassination." It seems, rather, that these institutions did not value his Mormon expertise.

Hmm. Why wouldn't they value his expertise? Could this be, perhaps, thanks to the "character assassinations" of various apologists?

As I have labored to point out, it was not any one person in particular. Clearly, it was a group effort that involved DCP, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, and Lord knows who else. (Matt Roper? Gary Novak?) I have little doubt that they coordinated their attacks via the "l-skinny" listserve.

I see. On the one hand it is known "clearly" and "I have little doubt." On the other hand, it is "not any one person in particular." You are unable to cite a single instance of a single Mormon apologist engaging in "career assassination?" Not one?

Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic"; Lou Midgley's public smearing at the UTLM bookstore; DCP various statements that Quinn's scholarship is "untrustworthy"; apologetic claims that Quinn's work is "agenda-driven." The list goes on and on and on. On top of this, thanks to DCP's big mouth, we also know that there was much gossip-mongering concerning Quinn's sexual orientation---something which should have zero bearing on his standing as a scholar. And yet, this was used to try and discredit him in the TBM community. You yourself have played a role in this, Bob, with your completely unsupported accusation that Quinn was "holding hands" with another man in public.

If you have "little doubt" that career assassinations are coordinated on l-skinny, can you cite me an example -- a particular post? I mean, "little doubt" means you have proof, right?

It means that I have about as much "proof" as you do in regards to Quinn holding hands w/ another man circa 1981. I have seen the apologists use "l-skinny" as a means of launching "gang-up" attacks on critics, such as James White, which is evidence enough for me to conclude that the use it as a means for "coordinating" their "maneuvers".

[Guest]

Moreover, "outing somebody" to their bishop is not "career assassination."

It depends on the individual situation. I lost my belief while in the middle of my master's program at BYU. Had I been "outed" by someone in the know, it would have affected my career as a student and my pursuit of my degree. Sure, I could have left and started over somewhere else and I probably should have if I didn't care about wasting the 2 years and the money I had already invested in my program. I've mentioned before that two BYU professors with whom I have had lengthy discussions admitted that they no longer believe in Mormonism but keep up the appearance to protect their tenure. You might be okay with "outing" them. I consider that poor ethics.

I see nothing wrong with bringing to a bishop's attention the public apostasy of a person who claims to be in good standing in the Church and otherwise meets the standards for private discipline. If you want to play with fire, you ought to be able to withstand the heat when you put your membership on the line. And that is exactly what you do on this board.

I do see something wrong with it. This kill or be killed mentality is juvenile. It's not your job or anyone else's to tattle on someone. Grow up.

[_rcrocket]

But, try as I might, I see nothing in the article to support your (you didn't make it, but you adopt it as your own) charge that a particular apologist has engaged in "career assassination." It seems, rather, that these institutions did not value his Mormon expertise.

Hmm. Why wouldn't they value his expertise? Could this be, perhaps, thanks to the "character assassinations" of various apologists?

Put up or shut up. Give me a specific example of a career assassination of Quinn by an apologist which influenced a university's decision not to hire. Just one. Speculation just doesn't cut it here.

Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic"; Lou Midgley's public smearing at the UTLM bookstore; DCP various statements that Quinn's scholarship is "untrustworthy"; apologetic claims that Quinn's work is "agenda-driven." The list goes on and on and on. On top of this, thanks to DCP's big mouth, we also know that there was much gossip-mongering concerning Quinn's sexual orientation---something which should have zero bearing on his standing as a scholar. And yet, this was used to try and discredit him in the TBM community. You yourself have played a role in this, Bob, with your completely unsupported accusation that Quinn was "holding hands" with another man in public.

Lou Midgley did no "public smearing" at the bookstore. I have been at the bookstore, the one near the baseball stadium. I have had nice debates with Sandra. (I have purchased many books, in person, from her. Check with her yourself; I am on her mailing list as well.) Unlike Midgley I don't beat my chest about my encounters. But, this is not "career assassination" by any means. It is not "career assassination" to disagree with the statements of a critic. Otherwise, every book review would fall peril to your outlandish assertion of ethics.

This is the best you can do? Once again, dear readers, we can see that Mr. Scratch is all hyperbole and no substance. Equating disagreement between warring groups of critics as "career assassination" is ridiculous indeed. But, really, hyperbole is your stock in trade.

Blixa -- where is your support? Can't provide any? Unwilling to rise to the occasion? Just willing to smear?

[_Mister Scratch]

But, try as I might, I see nothing in the article to support your (you didn't make it, but you adopt it as your own) charge that a particular apologist has engaged in "career assassination." It seems, rather, that these institutions did not value his Mormon expertise.

Hmm. Why wouldn't they value his expertise? Could this be, perhaps, thanks to the "character assassinations" of various apologists?

Put up or shut up. Give me a specific example of a career assassination of Quinn by an apologist which influenced a university's decision not to hire. Just one. Speculation just doesn't cut it here.

Bob---

Why are you avoiding my questions? Let me ask you again: What influenced the universities' decisions? I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic"; Lou Midgley's public smearing at the UTLM bookstore; DCP various statements that Quinn's scholarship is "untrustworthy"; apologetic claims that Quinn's work is "agenda-driven." The list goes on and on and on. On top of this, thanks to DCP's big mouth, we also know that there was much gossip-mongering concerning Quinn's sexual orientation---something which should have zero bearing on his standing as a scholar. And yet, this was used to try and discredit him in the TBM community. You yourself have played a role in this, Bob, with your completely unsupported accusation that Quinn was "holding hands" with another man in public.

Lou Midgley did no "public smearing" at the bookstore.[/quote]

How do you know? Were you there? The folks who were there testify the Midgley was using homosexual slurs in reference to Quinn's books.

I have been at the bookstore, the one near the baseball stadium. I have had nice debates with Sandra. (I have purchased many books, in person, from her. Check with her yourself; I am on her mailing list as well.) Unlike Midgley I don't beat my chest about my encounters. But, this is not "career assassination" by any means. It is not "career assassination" to disagree with the statements of a critic. Otherwise, every book review would fall peril to your outlandish assertion of ethics.

There is a clear difference between normal book reviews in peer-reviewed journals vs. what turns up routinely in FARMS Review.

[_rcrocket]

Moreover, "outing somebody" to their bishop is not "career assassination."

It depends on the individual situation. I lost my belief while in the middle of my master's program at BYU. Had I been "outed" by someone in the know, it would have affected my career as a student and my pursuit of my degree. Sure, I could have left and started over somewhere else and I probably should have if I didn't care about wasting the 2 years and the money I had already invested in my program. I've mentioned before that two BYU professors with whom I have had lengthy discussions admitted that they no longer believe in Mormonism but keep up the appearance to protect their tenure. You might be okay with "outing" them. I consider that poor ethics.

I see nothing wrong with bringing to a bishop's attention the public apostasy of a person who claims to be in good standing in the Church and otherwise meets the standards for private discipline. If you want to play with fire, you ought to be able to withstand the heat when you put your membership on the line. And that is exactly what you do on this board.

I do see something wrong with it. This kill or be killed mentality is juvenile. It's not your job or anyone else's to tattle on someone. Grow up.

I am grown up.

Let's look at your ethics, since you deride mine. You specifically contravene the basic requirements of the Honor Code so that you can "get yours" and "get what is coming to you." The sacrifice of tithe payers in Brazil to provide you an education doesn't mean much to you.

On occasion I'll have a BYU kid come to me and tell me he doesn't believe. I have no hesitation telling him that his continued participation in a church school with that unbelief makes a mockery of his integrity, and I urge him to get out. Your integrity is shockingly poor, and you have no basis upon which to condemn my ethics.

Your circumstance is no different than that of the student who decides he wants to secretly fornicate yet hold onto his church education. Oh, I remember well, those folks living on dirt floors in Recife, Brazil, handing their tithing to the bishop to support the likes of you, my friend.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The WSJ concluded, among other things, and right or wrong, that Quinn didn't have a career because his focus in things Mormon was too narrow and he didn't publish books in academic presses.

False. The WSJ article makes no such conclusion . . . .

False again.

Some key quotes from the article: "In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. At least three other secular schools plan new professorships in Mormon studies, but he appears to be a long shot for these posts, too -- not because he lacks qualifications, but because almost all the funding for the jobs is coming from Mormon donors."

It was the failure of "Mormon donors" to support his very narrow focus, and not the "career assassination" you charge. Such hyperbole.

You've got to be kidding. Pray tell, why did "Mormon donors" not "support his very narrow focus"? Because he was Quinn! A man whose character had indeed been assasinated, which is why "Mormon donors" did not support his "focus." As you note, Quinn's troubles do not stem from a lack of qualifications, but TBM's hatred of the man.

The article also cites the Church's Rolfe Kerr, who denies a campaign against him.

The Church had no need to "campaign" against Quinn, because others (i.e., BYU apologists and other wannabes) were already doing a fine job (the Yale conference is a good example). Indeed, you failed to note that Kerr is also quoted in the article as saying "there may be a perception [of Quinn in the Mormon community] that would cause him, in the eyes of some, to be less acceptable." Gee, I wonder what Kerr could be referring to -- Quinn's character, perhaps?

A quote from a single UoU professor: "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."

Precisely. The reason Quinn was not hired was not due to his qualifications, but the character of the man. Thanks for illustrating my point.

But, from the UofU officially: "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."

You failed to note, however, that the article highlights the absurdity of Newman's statement by immediately following with this: "[The U.] eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with an active Mormon church member." So much for Newman's claim Quinn wasn't qualified enough.

From ASU officially: "ASU's administration vetoed Mr. Quinn's hiring. Simon Peacock, then associate dean for personnel, says Mr. Quinn lacked expertise to teach Christianity and Judaism courses left uncovered by a professor's departure. Mr. Peacock says Mr. Quinn's excommunication was discussed but had no effect on the decision."

But, from a single ASU professor: "However, the chairman of the religious-studies department, Joel Gereboff, wrote in an email to faculty that Dean Peacock and another dean asked him to review the "risks and benefits" of the hire and "thought that it is probably not wise to undertake such risks" for a one-year appointment. Prof. Gereboff says the deans were referring to the risk of alienating the Mormon community."

Another great example of the LDS blackballing of Quinn.

But, try as I might, I see nothing in the article to support your (you didn't make it, but you adopt it as your own) charge that a particular apologist has engaged in "career assassination."

I agree with Mr. Scratch that it has been more of a 'group effort.' I believe it definitely happened with the Yale conference (to which DCP has admitted being a part).

Rather, that these institutions did not value his Mormon expertise.

Wrong again: The U. was offering a tenured professorship in Utah and Mormon history; Claremont Graduate U. was looking to fill its Mormon studies chair; Wyoming was considering a Mormon-studies professorship; Utah State was looking to fill a professorship in Mormon history. Sorry, counselor, but you lose on this one.