Lou Midgley: An LDS "Capo"?

[_rcrocket]

Although I do think Quinn is a bad historian, it is not because he has gone to graduate school, nor because he is a revisionist, nor because he has been excommunicated from the LDS Church. I think Quinn is a bad historian solely because he writes bad history.

I should add that Hamblin provide the following footnote for these remarks:

I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

So, not only is Hamblin engaging in character assassination in print, he is spreading his cancerous viewpoints to his students. QED.

I see Hamblin's comment is in direct response to Quinn claiming that Hamblin's role as defender has subverted his historical training.

So, the only specific examples I've been give by you and Rollo about apologists engaging in career assassination are this one, Midgley "sneering" in a photograph, Midgley heckling Grant Palmer at a book signing, and Mormon donors not wanting to fund Quinn's research. I've provide some more (James White, Walter Martin).

Since I assume the two of you are giving me the very best you can give me, I rather struck by the paucity of your examples. Or, rather instead, how little you really personally know about Mormon history and historians. It seems that the limits to your knowledge of the Church are really based upon what you read on this and that other board. No?

[_Gadianton]

I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

And imagine if one of those Mormon students thought the book was good history? Well then, the well-docummented temper of his professor in combination with this professor's personal war against Quinn's honesty would have ensured this student never finished that seminar. Not to mention that publically siding with Quinn's book would have at once placed him in the category of sympathizing wtih "anti-Mormons" or, how does the TR question go? Groups or individuals who hold "contrary views" to the teachings of the church? So not only would this student had failed Hamblin's class, but would have been in danger of losing his temple recommend, getting kicked out of BYU, and excommunicated. It truly is amazing that these Mormon students "discovered flaws" in an "anti-Mormon's" book as instructed to do by their homophibic and "angry at the critics" instructor teaching at the Lord's University. It's astounding.

I wonder, what does such an "experiment" say about Hamblin's professional methodology?

[_Trevor]

As I have noted before in this thread, it was Quinn's excommunication that killed his career as a university professor, pure and simple. Mormon Studies is coming into its own much like Jewish Studies did, with no small amount of self-laudatory, "gee, isn't it great to be an "X," spirit about it. There is no way that a community like the LDS community would support a perceived (however wrongly) enemy in an academic position of this type. Unfortunately, it has long been the case that the preferred candidates for academic positions dealing with a particular tradition were expected to belong within the boundaries of the community, as though insiders are always the best scholars to comment on a tradition.

For the kinds of folks who have influence in these matters, the only thing they would need to know is that he was "ex'ed" in order for them to oppose the appointment. This opposition could have come from LDS alumni of the university, LDS donors, local LDS leaders, members, you name it. Excommunication is all it would take. No conspiracy of apologists is required. No effort on their part is needed. All apologists would likely do is fall in line in the condemnation of the excommunicated, if anything. In this case, they were happy to lay on thick the slurs about his sexuality, condemn his scholarship as much out of prejudice as anything else, and protest his participation in the conference, but I would wager that Quinn would have been toast anyway. To be excommunicated in this situation is to be an untouchable.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The picture is in the OP of this thread. Midgely is not sneering at all.

I know Lou personally -- trust me, that is a sneer.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So, the only specific examples I've been give by you and Rollo about apologists engaging in career assassination are this one, Midgley "sneering" in a photograph, Midgley heckling Grant Palmer at a book signing, and Mormon donors not wanting to fund Quinn's research. I've provide some more (James White, Walter Martin).

You forgot about BYU's threat (in which DCP was involved) to pull out of the Yale conference (along with its funding) if Quinn were allowed to speak.

[_rcrocket]

As I have noted before in this thread, it was Quinn's excommunication that killed his career as a university professor, pure and simple. Mormon Studies is coming into its own much like Jewish Studies did, with no small amount of self-laudatory, "gee, isn't it great to be an "X," spirit about it. There is no way that a community like the LDS community would support a perceived (however wrongly) enemy in an academic position of this type. Unfortunately, it has long been the case that the preferred candidates for academic positions dealing with a particular tradition were expected to belong within the boundaries of the community, as though insiders are always the best scholars to comment on a tradition.

For the kinds of folks who have influence in these matters, the only thing they would need to know is that he was "ex'ed" in order for them to oppose the appointment. This opposition could have come from LDS alumni of the university, LDS donors, local LDS leaders, members, you name it. Excommunication is all it would take. No conspiracy of apologists is required. No effort on their part is needed. All apologists would likely do is fall in line in the condemnation of the excommunicated, if anything. In this case, they were happy to lay on thick the slurs about his sexuality, condemn his scholarship as much out of prejudice as anything else, and protest his participation in the conference, but I would wager that Quinn would have been toast anyway. To be excommunicated in this situation is to be an untouchable.

It didn't seem to bother Dr. Quinn at the time. He didn't even appear for his trial.

I have the greatest respect for Dr. Quinn. I cite his works. He doesn't publish anonymous hit pieces against the Church. He has a decent measure of integrity. But, had he had a defense to his excommunication he would have appeared to make it. He isn't a timid rabbit. And it wasn't a foregone conclusion; Grant Palmer appeared for his trial and was not excommunicated.

[_beastie]

I have the greatest respect for Dr. Quinn. I cite his works. He doesn't publish anonymous hit pieces against the Church. He has a decent measure of integrity. But, had he had a defense to his excommunication he would have appeared to make it. He isn't a timid rabbit. And it wasn't a foregone conclusion; Grant Palmer appeared for his trial and was not excommunicated.

See this thread for how much crocket "respects" Quinn. I'll share just a few quotes:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ight=quinn

I was also working at BYU when Quinn was readying his magic book for publication, and it depended largely upon the legitimacy of the Salamander letter. Whilst in the midst of proofing, I recall (it was in a very advanced stage), the Hoffman affair was exposed and Quinn was forced to rewrite the book without the benefit of a major prong in his argument. The result was a very poor work which set himself up for failure. I say all this because by the mid-1990s, Dr. Quinn was a very public figure. I don't think that folks can be guilty of "gossip" for talking about a very public figure whose orientation was self-outed long before the gossip.

I ran a social sciences statistical program to generate a random number of footnotes which I could check so that I could formulate a conclusion based upon significance and probabilities. Then, with those numbers, I ran to ground about 14 random footnotes. I can thus state that with a 1.5% margin of error there is a significant error in Quinn's footnotes.

I don't really dispute his qualifications as far as they go. I have some concerns, which the Wall Street Journal pointed out. He doesn't publish at academic powerhouses, thus his work isn't closely read by scholars before publication.

He is undisciplined, rather than disciplined. I have his works -- most of them -- and it seems to me that no editor has really put a heavy hand on his later works. His Clark books -- now there is fine writing. But, what happened after them? There's a lot more to being a historian than "indexing and cross-referencing notes."

Sorry. I may not be an academic, but I hire them. I know the difference between one published at academic houses and one not. Aside from his book on homosexuals (which is not Mormon history), Quinn is published either at church-sanctioned presses or the uber-vanity press known as Signature Books. I'd say, therefore, that if I were out looking to hire somebody to teach at my respectable university, Quinn just ain't gonna qualify -- the very point the Wall Street Journal made.

But, go ahead and publish your work at a vanity press. I'll be impressed.

I may not be entirely familiar with all of Quinn's books, but as far as I can tell he has never published at any academic publisher (except BYU) on any Mormon topic. He may indeed being a national expert on buggery, but he doesn't meet the usual qualifications as a historian if he hasn't published in academic journals.

Well, to be honest, I don't have Same Sex Dynamics but I read a heavily-edited chapter from the book in Dialogue. Based upon reviews I've read, it is not a book on Mormonism, but it has a chapter on Mormon buggery. The book qualifies him for expertise in what is known as queer studies, but not Mormonism.

A professor of English at NAU characterizes the work as: a richly impressionistic survey of American culture. It presents numerous cases, incidents and characters--some banal, some heartrending and some revolting--which provide a fascinating picture of varieties of social interchange common in the last century. I don't dispute that the entire work has an emphasis on Mormonism, but this is not Mormon history.

As far as the charge exists that LDS scholars have blackballed the poor boy, I would say that he certainly built the bedframe, made the mattress and the bed before lying down in it. Almost no peer-reviewing of his published works. One must wonder why he chose to publish his mangum opi at Signature.


There is no doubt that Quinn is a Mormon historian. But, only a minor unpublished one.

[_Chap]

rcrockett:

... publish his mangum opi ...

Don't you love people who:

(a) Are pretentious enough to want to show how scholarly they are by sprinkling in a bit of Latin

but

(b) Get the Latin so wrong that it becomes obvious that they have no functional knowledge of the language?

That's magna opera. (Neuter nominative plural form of adjective 'magnus', nominative plural of third declension neuter noun 'opus')

There is nothing wrong with not knowing Latin. There is however a certain silliness in acting as if you do when you don't, especially when you do so in the course of a prolonged sneer at someone else's scholarly credentials.


Of course if beastie mistyped, I beg leave to withdraw the above remarks on my learned friend's linguistic pretensions.

[_rcrocket]

Nothing in Beastie's post contradicts my view that I have respect for Dr. Quinn as a historian. Does that mean that I am not critical of him? Not at all. Historical analysis is not as polarized as Beastie would think; I don't need to respect an historian and be forced to accept him hook line and sinker. But I certainly have little respect for Beastie's analysis and writing; her posts demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the historical method. Mayans had no written language, as Dr. Coe admits.

More on Dr. Quinn:

He participated in a radio interview in 2006 here: http://www.stevenrinehart.com/uploads/M ... erview.mp3.

He says in this interview that his inability to get a job has nothing to do with his departure from BYU; indeed, a stance for academic freedom may be seen as an advantage.

Rather, he says, his field is study is too narrow, too "parochial." He says: "It is not a detriment in academic circles to be hostile to Mormonism. But my focus on things Mormon is a detriment to professors of history." [Rough paraphrase.]

He says that he has applied for positions at other universities but has not even made the short list, but the fact that he left BYU has nothing to do with his problems. He says that the market is poor for history professors, and that the fact that he has limited his publications to Mormon topics has made him unmarketable.


In his 2003 Sunstone talk, Dr. Quinn also says that "I did not want to be excommunicated," but that after he was excommunicated he had a profound sense of peace about it. "The LDS Church promulgates policies and doctrines I do not support." "I have given support to Mormon fundamentalists." "If a person wants to practice plural marriage in a loving relationship, he or she ought to be able to do it." [A rough paraphrase.]

And, I don't know Latin; "magnum opi" was intended to be a deliberate corruption of "magnum opus." Thank you for correcting my use of Latin.

[_beastie]

Well, of course one has the “greatest respect” for an historian that one uses the following to describe: very poor work which set himself up for failure, significant error in Quinn's footnotes, his work isn't closely read by scholars before publication, undisciplined, indexing and cross-referencing notes, not qualified to teach at a respectable university, national expert on buggery, doesn’t meet qualifications for an historian, no peer-reviewing of his published works, a minor, unpublished historian.