To Mr Scratch

[_Mister Scratch]

He did, antishock. He would tell the people on MAD/FAIR that he believed that "Quinn's sexual orientation was known to his then-Stake President." DCP would say this in the context of a discussion on whether or not Quinn was ex'ed for his historical writings. It seemed clear that DCP was attempting to get the TBM posters on MAD/FAIR to believe that Quinn was ex'ed for some sort of sexual sin.

I think it's simplistic and perhaps even ideologically-driven-disingenuousness to insist that Quinn's excommunication was purely for his historical writing.

Who was insisting that, though? You are changing the subject. The real question is: Why even raise the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation in the first place? To discredit what you believe is an "ideological-driven" agenda?

I would rather not talk about the subject, but I also don't feel comfortable sitting silently by while things are said that I believe to be untrue. I've never expanded upon the subject, but I have said, when discussants were clearly making unjustifable assumptions about the excommunication, that Quinn's sexuality -- an open secret among Mormon studies people, believers and non-believers alike -- might well have been a factor.

Do you honestly think that it is more likely that it was the sexual orientation that led to the excommunication, rather than the publications? Or, was that merely what you preferred that people think? This really cuts to the heart of my criticism of your actions in this arena. Let's face the obvious here: no one gets excommunicated simply for being gay. Excommunication, as per the CHI, can only occur if there has been sexual sin. So, without ever saying so directly, you were rather sneakily suggesting to all the TBMs that Quinn was engaging in illicit gay sex.

When you pile this on top of his many assertions that Quinn's writing is "untrustworthy," it's pretty easy to see the outlines of a smear campaign.

It's no more a smear of a historian to suggest that his work is unreliable than it is a smear of a novelist to say that his writing is wooden, or a smear of a composer to say that his compositions lack subtlety, or a smear of a dramatist to say that his characters are unbelievable, or a smear of a musician to say that his performance was lackluster.

Such opinions are ethically permissible. Such judgments are not immoral. In fact, they're virtually inevitable.

Then you have no grounds for objecting to my criticisms of your apologetic and online writings. That, I believe, is what antishock was getting at earlier: sure, you might be able to fault me for writing quite a *lot* of criticism of you, but, then again, none of my comments have had anywhere near the real-life impact of your Quinn (or Ritner, or Southerton, or Metcalfe) comments.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You wish HBO ill for vindictive reasons.

I don't wish HBO ill. I would like them not to profane temple ordinances.

Don't ascribe your obsessive vindictiveness to others. Most of the world isn't like you in that regard. I'm certainly not.

Do you hope that Big Love's writers get fired?

I've never even thought about that, but No.

Or that the show gets terminated?

I've never even thought about that, but No.

I realize that you'll probably challenge me, either insinuating or outright saying that I'm lying when I say that I don't hope that Big Love will be canceled or that its writers will be fired, but that's the simple truth. I don't.

You've created a monstrous caricature of me. It's not accurate.

[_Yoda]

Question:

Dan, when you were the chairman for FARMS, and the $20K agreement was made, what was FARMS' association with BYU?

I know that the Maxwell Institute is now solidly tied with BYU now, but wasn't there more of a "dotted line" connection between FARMS and BYU prior to the formal Maxwell Institute tie?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The real question is: Why even raise the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation in the first place? To discredit what you believe is an "ideological-driven" agenda?

To suggest that the basis of his excommunication may have been more complex than merely the Church's concern over his historical writing, when it has been alleged that the sole reason for his excommunication was the Church's concern over his historical writing.

Do you honestly think that it is more likely that it was the sexual orientation that led to the excommunication, rather than the publications?

I don't know.

I wasn't there. (Were you?)

Nor have I claimed to know.

So, without ever saying so directly, you were rather sneakily suggesting to all the TBMs that Quinn was engaging in illicit gay sex.

I've suggested only that his sexuality may have been an issue.

I have no way of knowing whether he was celibate or not. (Do you?)

Then you have no grounds for objecting to my criticisms of your apologetic and online writings.

The novelist, dramatist, composer, musician, or artist who has been criticized has as much right to reply as the critic has to criticize.

But you don't criticize my arguments. You rarely even mention them. Instead, you assault my character, and that's a fundamentally different thing.

A novelist, dramatist, composer, musician, or artist whose character was attacked by a critic would have not only the right to respond but, in certain cases, to take legal action. (Don't worry. I'm not threatening you. That's another bogeyman of your own invention. But what you're doing, anonymously, to me is very serious business.)

none of my comments have had anywhere near the real-life impact of your Quinn (or Ritner, or Southerton, or Metcalfe) comments.

I'm genuinely curious as to what actual damage you imagine I've ever done to either Mike Quinn or Robert Ritner or Simon Southerton or Brent Metcalfe.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Question:

Dan, when you were the chairman for FARMS, and the $20K agreement was made, what was FARMS' association with BYU?

I know that the Maxwell Institute is now solidly tied with BYU now, but wasn't there more of a "dotted line" connection between FARMS and BYU prior to the formal Maxwell Institute tie?

My chairmanship of FARMS was almost entirely taken up with the process by which FARMS affiliated with BYU. That matter consumed almost all of my time, to the point of nearly driving me mad. It was enormously draining. We were working out all the details of our relationship to the University -- financial, administrative, even geographical.

But the deal with BYU -- which was worked out by others -- had little or nothing, as I understand it, to do with my chairmanship of FARMS. It had to do with my direction of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. The Foundation purchased my time from my department so as to free me from teaching duties. The time that I would have spent in teaching was then devoted to the direction of METI and to editing the fourteen volumes that we've produced so far.

[_harmony]

I have no way of knowing whether he was celibate or not.

Shouldn't the assumption be... he was?

[_antishock8]

I think it's simplistic... to insist that Quinn's excommunication was purely for his historical writing.

... but I have said... that Quinn's sexuality... might well have been a factor.

It's no more a smear of a historian to suggest that his work is unreliable ...

Such opinions are ethically permissible. Such judgments are not immoral. In fact, they're virtually inevitable.

So. The bottom line is Mr. Quinn's excommuncation (and his subsequent firing) was a combination of his historical writings, which upset Mormon leadership, and his homosexuality, which contributed to their decision to get rid of him. The homosexuality angle was discussed.... Why? It had no bearing on his professional life; unless he admitted to an active homosexual lifestyle his standing in the Mormon church would have been assured. Did you ever discuss his homosexuality with people that had the authority to remove him from the church or his employment? Did you ever discuss his homosexuality with people who could influence those decision makers?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So. The bottom line is Mr. Quinn's excommuncation (and his subsequent firing) was a combination of his historical writings, which upset Mormon leadership, and his homosexuality, which contributed to their decision to get rid of him.

That's possible. Even likely.

The homosexuality angle was discussed.... Why? It had no bearing on his professional life; unless he admitted to an active homosexual lifestyle his standing in the Mormon church would have been assured.

I don't know whether it was discussed or not, and I don't know whether he was sexually active or not.

I feel no obligation (and have no basis on which) to stake out a position on either of those issues. I wasn't there, and I suspect (though I'm not completely certain) that nobody else on this board was there, either.

Did you ever discuss his homosexuality with people that had the authority to remove him from the church or his employment?

No.

Did you ever discuss his homosexuality with people who could influence those decision makers?

No.

The Scratchite attempt to blame me, to some extent or another, for Mike Quinn's departure from BYU and for his eventual excommunication from the Church is misconceived for several reasons, as well as flatly false.

One of the Scratchite errors appears to be an unconscious assumption that my current position as purported Chief Apologist, Advisor to the General Authorities, and Vicious, Powerful Enemy of Truth-Telling Critics is an eternal verity.

But in 1988, when Mike Quinn resigned from BYU, I was still an instructor -- not even an assistant professor -- and I was still working on my doctoral dissertation. I wasn't in the same BYU college, let alone the same department, as Quinn was. The FARMS Review hadn't even been established yet, I had no official ties to FARMS at all, and FARMS was still a small shoestring operation. By 1993, when Quinn was excommunicated, I was a lowly assistant professor without tenure. I hadn't yet attained Mopologetic Omnipotence (to put it mildly). The FARMS Review was, by then, three or four years old, but had never published a review of anything by Quinn.

[_Mister Scratch]

You wish HBO ill for vindictive reasons.

I don't wish HBO ill. I would like them not to profane temple ordinances.

Have you seen the episode? I'm willing to bet that you haven't. It seems instead that your reaction was "knee-jerk" in nature, hence why I think it's revelatory in terms of your base Mopologetic motivations.

Don't ascribe your obsessive vindictiveness to others. Most of the world isn't like you in that regard. I'm certainly not.

Yes, you are. Many Mopologists are. Think of the way that Stan Barker handled Walter Martin's (If I recall correctly) death. You felt that even *that* was justifiable! Sure, you said you would have not personally done that (adopting a "mask of cool disdain"), but you still obviously approved.

I realize that you'll probably challenge me, either insinuating or outright saying that I'm lying when I say that I don't hope that Big Love will be canceled or that its writers will be fired, but that's the simple truth. I don't.

You've created a monstrous caricature of me. It's not accurate.

No, I don't think so. Let's face the plain facts here: revenge has been an important part of LDS culture for hundreds of years. You claim that "most of the world" isn't like this, and perhaps you're right. But that's not really true of Mormonism. And it's especially not true of a certain segment of Mopologetics.

[_Mister Scratch]

The homosexuality angle was discussed.... Why? It had no bearing on his professional life; unless he admitted to an active homosexual lifestyle his standing in the Mormon church would have been assured.

I don't know whether it was discussed or not, and I don't know whether he was sexually active or not.

You claimed that it was! You stated---repeatedly---on MAD that Quinn's sexual orientation was "known to his then-Stake President." Don't try to deny this, Dan.

I feel no obligation (and have no basis on which) to stake out a position on either of those issues. I wasn't there, and I suspect (though I'm not completely certain) that nobody else on this board was there, either.

Then why in the hell did you? Oh, wait---that's right. You wanted to utterly destroy his credibility in the eyes of TBMs. The "taint" of homosexuality (regardless of whether he was sexually active) was a very, very convenient way for you to do that. Re-thinking about all of this only summons up all the disgust I felt in watching you conduct this smear-fest the first time around.

Did you ever discuss his homosexuality with people who could influence those decision makers?

No.

Dan, what are you doing? You said in the original FAIR thread that you learned about all this "dirt" from someone who knew President Hanks.

The Scratchite attempt to blame me, to some extent or another, for Mike Quinn's departure from BYU and for his eventual excommunication from the Church is misconceived for several reasons, as well as flatly false.

It would be if anyone had ever made that accusation. Instead, all I recall having said was that you were engaging in smear tactics. Which, even now, seems pretty plainly obvious. There is literally no way to justify telling TBMs on FAIR about Quinn's sexual orientation, and whether or not it was "known to his then-Stake President" unless you wanted to harm his credibility. You don't believe Quinn's histories are "trustworthy," and so this was a convenient (and appalling) way to hammer home that point.

You guys have hated Quinn for a long time. This has been evident in Hambln's "That Old Black Magic," and in Louis Midgley's disgustingly homophobic trash-talking at the Tanners' bookstore. You guys seem to have felt it was important to ensure that no one's testimony would ever be affected by Quinn's writings, and so you've done everything in your power to destroy his credibility.

What's you've done isn't illegal. But it is very, very immoral and unethical, and I am still amazed that you haven't just apologized for it.

But in 1988, when Mike Quinn resigned from BYU, I was still an instructor -- not even an assistant professor -- and I was still working on my doctoral dissertation. I wasn't in the same BYU college, let alone the same department, as Quinn was. The FARMS Review hadn't even been established yet, I had no official ties to FARMS at all, and FARMS was still a small shoestring operation. By 1993, when Quinn was excommunicated, I was a lowly assistant professor without tenure. I hadn't yet attained Mopologetic Omnipotence (to put it mildly). The FARMS Review was, by then, three or four years old, but had never published a review of anything by Quinn.

The charge here is not that you personally ordered up or contributed to Quinn's getting ex'ed. Rather, it is that you engaged in smear tactics against him. And you did.