Was D. Michael Quinn Right Or Wrong?

[_Yoda]

His field of study is very narrow. Mormon studies?

His resume shows that the only book he has ever had published by an academic publisher (other than BYU) is a queer studies book. (That is the technical term for the area used by the library of congress; I am not being disparaging.) He has other books, all on Mormon subjects, all published by either BYU or Signature Books (maybe others like Signature).

He certainly has many published peer-reviewed articles, but almost all on Mormon topics.

What institutions would be interested in a Mormon studies professor? USU doesn't want them. UofU doesn't want them. UVU doesn't want them. Claremont has a single chair.

But, Bob, if he pursued some things outside the box, aren't there other things he could do, while possibly pursuing the more narrow field? Surely, he could teach history, sociology, courses involving American culture that fit the time period of the Mormon Church in its infancy.

ANY of the public schools in North Carolina would welcome him. Of course, he wouldn't be making a professor salary, but public school teachers here do quite well. If you have a degree, they will snatch you up in a heartbeat.

He could also make very good money teaching Continuing Education courses. Normally, those teaching contracts are without benefits, but the pay is quite good. It just seems like there are a lot of options that he hasn't chosen to explore. I'm puzzled.

Edited to add----There are also a number of online divinity schools, colleges, and universities that would probably welcome his talent.

[_karl61]

I read that he was visiting lecturer at USC. What was he teaching there?

[_hobart]

Why was it so hard for him to find a job? He has a frickin' PhD for pete's sake. Surely some of his college transcript show that he took courses that would relate to the history of the real world. Any junior college would be delighted to have him on their faculty.

His field of study is very narrow. Mormon studies?

His resume shows that the only book he has ever had published by an academic publisher (other than BYU) is a queer studies book. (That is the technical term for the area used by the library of congress; I am not being disparaging.) He has other books, all on Mormon subjects, all published by either BYU or Signature Books (maybe others like Signature).

He certainly has many published peer-reviewed articles, but almost all on Mormon topics.

What institutions would be interested in a Mormon studies professor? USU doesn't want them. UofU doesn't want them. UVU doesn't want them. Claremont has a single chair.

Both USU and UVU have Mormon Studies programs, though UVUs is too small to warrent hiring another professor to just do that. UofU just recently started getting involved in Mormon Studies. BYU has more of a devotional religious studies program--like institute. Clarmont's work is also too small to bring in more faculty. I think that's it as far as Mormon Studies goes.

But his doctorate in history from Yale would seem to make him a better candidate than just doing Mormon studies. One of my professors told me one time that Quinn has essentially wasted his time doing Mormon studies as he is such a brilliant historian--which I'd have to agree. There were really two reasons why I heard that Quinn wasn't extended a position at ASU (I think that was where it was) last Summer. First, he didn't have enough experience in other religious studies (like Islam and Judaism), and because it would cause a potential loss of money from Mormon donors and students. The problem with Mormon studies is that those interested in funding and furthering the field are the Latter-day Saints themselves. And what Mormon would like to read or fund a man like Quinn who has been so (seemingly) critical of the church?

There was an article about the new fellowship at UofU in Mormon Studies that quoted people talking about Mormon studies as if were some institute, faith-promoting field--which proves most people don't even grasp what academic religious studies is.

[_Ray A]

Anyway, back to the OP. I don’t think Quinn approached this realistically. Having said that, I will always be grateful for his honesty in articles like LDS plural marriages post-1890. I don’t believe any other Mormon historian would have had the gumption to publish that. It bowled me over like a ton of bricks at the time, so much that I initially had trouble believing it.

I think it’s really a problem. The more Mormon historians reveal, the more casualties there will be. And from what I understand, this is even true of Bushman’s biography. Mormon history is a powder keg. The only way to maintain faith, as I said before, will be to trust in the “spiritual witness”, and there will be no other way. It’s sort of like an “over-ride” function, or, to use a better known term, “shelving”. “I don’t understand that, and it troubles me, but I know the Church is true.” Perhaps this is what Quinn had in mind, and he seems to have retained his belief (though even that has been questioned). It should be duly noted too, which I picked up in some of Quinn’s writings, that his primary reason for continuing to believe is because of “spiritual experiences” he’s had. He mentioned this in both Pillars of My Faith, and the PBS interview.

On that note, I refer you to a thread on MAD which my good and very kindhearted friend Will started: The Paramount Importance of Spiritual Experiences, Are they absolutely essential to maintaining faith?.

Enjoy.

[_Kishkumen]

On that note, I refer you to a thread on MAD which my good and very kindhearted friend Will started: The Paramount Importance of Spiritual Experiences, Are they absolutely essential to maintaining faith?.

This was my favorite bit:

The rational processes of the human mind, no matter how valuable and generally reliable they can be in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, if allowed to rule our minds unilaterally, will ultimately erode, if not outright betray the thing we commonly term “faith.”

In other words, folks, the rational mind is bad because it keeps you from believing the irrational. Geniuses one and all. I weep for humanity. I really do.

[_bcspace]

Did Quinn posit tacit acceptance of homosexual relations by the Church without any real evidence or not?

Did Quinn go off on a personal, homosexual, tangential gospel hobby or not?

[_Ray A]

Did Quinn posit tacit acceptance of homosexual relations in the Church without any real evidence or not?

I think he misread a Joseph Smith statement, quite badly.

Did Quinn go off on a personal, homosexual, tangential gospel hobby or not?

I think he was just trying to make Mormons realise that people like him don't choose a homosexual orientation. Many homosexuals go through the "program", trying to be heterosexual, but in the end realising that they can't be heterosexual, any more than you can be homosexual.

So the question is, what does God really think of this? And the obvious question: "Why did he create me this way?" Upon which you'll launch into Evergreen "studies" trying to show that changing orientation is as easy as deciding to give up strawberry ice cream.

I wouldn't try to change the Church, and as far as I'm concerned it can retain all of its homophobic beliefs, but count me out. But Quinn has this thing called a "spiritual witness", and he can't, it seems, reconcile that and his biological orientation with Church teachings.

If it was me, I wouldn't bother.

[_bcspace]

So the question is, what does God really think of this? And the obvious question: "Why did he create me this way?" Upon which you'll launch into Evergreen "studies" trying to show that changing orientation is as easy as deciding to give up strawberry ice cream.

I just turn to Ether 12:27

[_Ray A]

I just turn to Ether 12:27

I don't even have to look it up, I know what it says.

Section 137:

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

If I can phrase it in Aussie lingo, I don't think God will gave a rat's arse what your sexual orientation is. It's how you behave, how you treat people, and whether you understood what Paul taught:

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Part of that charity is understanding the plight of people you may not currently understand.

And again, I not saying the Church should open it's doors to anyone. Have your policies, programs, and temple attendance codes.

I see something larger than that. You don't have to change. I'm not even asking you to change.

But count me out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A few points:

First, great thread, Ray. This is a provocative question. My sense is that Quinn is right, but his "rightness" also means that there would need to be a colossal change in the doctrine, teachings, and so on of the Church. Basically, Mormonism would look totally different if it were to adopt his outlook: I believe it would be far more liberal, and far less inclined towards <ahem> "magical thinking." I suppose the real question, for me, lies in why the Brethren were willing to accept the apologists' brand of revisionism over Quinn's. It could be that the Brethren began sanctioning the work of the FARMS crowd as a response to Quinn and his ilk, but that is just a surmise.