A closer look at FROB 3, Part 1

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, by saying I disagreed, I wasn't exactly calling him a hack. He may be a wonderful scholar in many ways. That I do not like one review he wrote is not a blanket condemnation.

I know.

I had the Scartcholeptic community in mind, not you.

[_Trevor]

I had the Scartcholeptic community in mind, not you.

Scartcholepsy. Love it. Care to outline the symptoms? Or is it too obvious to bother?

[_Mister Scratch]

He and his colleagues have worked extremely hard to discredit Quinn, going to so far as to suggest that he was engaged in "sad incidents" with a member of his ward, and that his "then-Stake President" was blabbing about it. DCP was also responsible for stating, on multiple occasions, that Quinn's work is "untrustworthy," and for suggesting that Quinn's homosexuality--rather than his honest scholarship---was the leading cause of his excommunication.

We've been over all this, and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it, before.

And it is "a function of informed but personal judgment", rather than an honest assessment of scholarship, isn't it?

Another thing worth pointing out is that DCP never deals directly with Quinn's actual work. This is ironic and hypocritical, since The Good Professor is constantly saying, "Deal with the actual reviews!" or "read the actual reviews," or whatever else, but when it comes to Quinn's work, he always defers to his reviewers. Does this mean that he agrees, to the letter, with the nasty and appalling things his reviewers said? Is this reflective of a "hive mentality" when it comes to Quinn?

It's easy, on line, to identify all of the reviews of Mike Quinn's work that the FARMS Review has published, to read them, and to judge whether the Scartchmeister's characterization of them is just or fair.

I'm not quite sure why Scartch thinks it's a character failing on my part to have solicited reviews of Quinn's books from other scholars,

It is the same as asking other people to "do your dirty work."

but he's wrong in suggesting that I've never addressed Quinn directly, myself:

Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, “The Mormon as Magus,” review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), Sunstone 12 (January 1988): 38-39.

I'm talking about your messageboard posts. Where have you ever dealt with the substance of Quinn's work? You never do. It is all about character assassination for you when it comes to Quinn. Sure, you can say, "Bah! Master Scartch calling me a 'character assassin! Hah, that's rich! Ho ho ho!" But that's exactly the point: you are a hypocrite. You go ballistic when the same tactics you've long endorsed are applied to you.

On this last point, recall that Louis Midgley paid several visits to the Tanners' bookstore, and that during these visits, he would often vocally slam Quinn's work, saying offensive things like, "Oh, you still have this queer's books?!?"

This is anecdotal hearsay, it doesn't appear in the FARMS Review (which is ostensibly the topic of discussion on this thread), I've never visited the Tanners' bookstore, and believing Latter-day Saints don't constitute a "hive mind."

So how, exactly, is this relevant?

I didn't say that LDS constitute a "hive mind." I suggested that members of the "l-skinny" crew may constitute a general, gang-like spirit of animosity towards certain critics and scholars.

More evidence that bias underlies his treatment of Quinn can be found in his reaction to Rollo Tomasi on the old, ironically named FAIRboard. When DCP began gossiping about Quinn's sexual orientation, and Rollo called him on it, DCP flipped out and was given permission to post a "Boring Clarification" on a closed, locked-down thread. Later, he sent Rollo a series of condemnatory emails in which he indicated that he hoped that Rollo would suffer in the afterlife. Are these the actions of someone who deals fairly with critics? Are these the actions of someone who is unbiased?

Good grief, you're bizarre.

And much of the above is substantially false. Just for the record.

Nothing is untrue about "the above" and your empty claim that it's "substantially false" (with no evidence, I might add) is only reflective of your usual techniques in dealing with the truth. Rollo can re-post the condemnatory emails and folks can judge for themselves. It'll be fun to see you try and wriggle out of this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scartcholepsy. Love it. Care to outline the symptoms? Or is it too obvious to bother?

The chief symptom seems to be a hostile obsession with a certain mild-mannered academic at BYU -- hence the alternative name DCP Derangement Syndrome -- and a conviction that he's lying as long as he's breathing. Scartcholepsy is invariably malignant, and appears to be extraordinarily resistant to any known medical regimen.

[Guest]

On this last point, recall that Louis Midgley paid several visits to the Tanners' bookstore, and that during these visits, he would often vocally slam Quinn's work, saying offensive things like, "Oh, you still have this queer's books?!?"

I have followed Professor Midgley's published commentary on Quinn for many years. As early as 1995, Midgley not-so-subtly accused Quinn of dishonesty regarding what he had said were the reasons for his excommunication:

"By avoiding contact with local congregations while courting Church discipline, and then refusing to appear before a resulting disciplinary council, one dissident has been able to announce through the press the reasons he wants the public to consider as the grounds for his excommunication. See D. Michael Quinn, 'Dilemmas of Feminists and Intellectuals in the Contemporary LDS Church,' Sunstone 17/1 (June 1994): 68, 73. I suspect that Quinn has not been entirely forthcoming about his excommunication. Be that as it may, his remarks concerning his excommunication appear calculated to make him appear an heroic figure—a kind of martyr—who is constantly being victimized simply for his being honest." Louis Midgley, "Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote a Naturalistic Humanism," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7/1 (1995): 259n.69.

Note that Quinn did not write the book under review, he did not contribute to the book under review, nor did he have any apparent connection to the book under review.

[_Trevor]

The chief symptom seems to be a hostile obsession with a certain mild-mannered academic at BYU -- hence the alternative name DCP Derangement Syndrome -- and a conviction that he's lying as long as he's breathing. Scartcholepsy is invariably malignant, and appears to be extraordinarily resistant to any known medical regimen.

The term "Scartcholepsy" reminds me of "nympholepsy." The idea of someone being possessed by Scartch is very colorfully descriptive.

Is it such a leap to the next association?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And it is "a function of informed but personal judgment", rather than an honest assessment of scholarship, isn't it?

"Informed personal judgment" and "honest assessment of scholarship" are not only not incompatible, the former is indispensable to the latter.

It is the same as asking other people to "do your dirty work."

It's silly to fault the editor of a review for asking others to write reviews.

I'm talking about your messageboard posts. Where have you ever dealt with the substance of Quinn's work? You never do. It is all about character assassination for you when it comes to Quinn. Sure, you can say, "Bah! Master Scartch calling me a 'character assassin! Hah, that's rich! Ho ho ho!" But that's exactly the point: you are a hypocrite. You go ballistic when the same tactics you've long endorsed are applied to you.

You are a character assassin. (Or, at least, an aspiring one.)

I've had very little to say about Quinn, period. You bring him up.

I suggested that members of the "l-skinny" crew may constitute a general, gang-like spirit of animosity towards certain critics and scholars.

And I've pointed out that Skinny-L is a private list of which you're not a member. And, if I'm not mistaken, you don't even know exactly who's on it.

So your opinions about Skinny-L, if accompanied by ten pennies, could buy somebody a dime.

Nothing is untrue about "the above" and your empty claim that it's "substantially false" (with no evidence, I might add) is only reflective of your usual techniques in dealing with the truth. Rollo can re-post the condemnatory emails and folks can judge for themselves. It'll be fun to see you try and wriggle out of this.

I'll probably just ignore it, if and when he does.

You seem to have a boundless appetite for this, and other sufferers from Scartcholepsy appear to do so as well. But most on this board don't live in Bizarro Scartchworld, and I think going the rounds on your accusations approximately 7,856 times is probably just about enough.

[_Trevor]

Note that Quinn did not write the book under review, he did not contribute to the book under review, nor did he have any apparent connection to the book under review.

I have to say that I would describe Quinn neither as a "cultural Mormon" nor as an atheist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have to say that I would describe Quinn neither as a "cultural Mormon" nor as an atheist.

Neither would I.

The chief symptom seems to be a hostile obsession with a certain mild-mannered academic at BYU -- hence the alternative name DCP Derangement Syndrome -- and a conviction that he's lying as long as he's breathing. Scartcholepsy is invariably malignant, and appears to be extraordinarily resistant to any known medical regimen.

The term "Scartcholepsy" reminds me of "nympholepsy." The idea of someone being possessed by Scartch is very colorfully descriptive.

Is it such a leap to the next association?

I don't think it's a leap at all.

This is the way science progresses: Once an insight becomes public, others can build on it. Subsequent discoveries often come almost in avalanches.





LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

[_Trevor]

This is the way science progresses: Once an insight becomes public, others can build on it. Subsequent discoveries often come almost in avalanches.

Let the avalanches come!