Was D. Michael Quinn Right Or Wrong?

[_Ray A]

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.

I think there's some truth in that:

After corresponding directly with Neal A. Maxwell, Steve Benson (grandson of Ezra Taft Benson), related that Maxwell stated, "one of the purposes of F.A.R.M.S. was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics."

Wiki.

On Quinn (emphasis added):

Michael Quinn decided that it wasn't worth appealing and so has decided not to. He did not feel a desire even to attend his Disciplinary Council, but wrote a defense instead. In that defense he wrote:-

"I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."

But he did reaffirm his faith that:-

"Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today."

Michael is not attending meetings with the main body of the Church, but is still actively engaged in talking at group meetings outside the Church, and historical research.

In his research Quinn discovered that for a number of years after the 1890 Manifesto, which the Church claims was supposed to stop the practice of plural marriage, a number of prominent Church leaders and others were secretly given permission to take plural wives. Quinn pursued information concerning this subject but found that Church leaders would not allow him to examine some important documents in the First Presidency's vault. In his article, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)", Michael Quinn wrote the following:-

"President Hinckley telephoned in June 1982 to say that he was sympathetic about a request I had written to obtain access to documents in the First Presidency's vault but that my request could not be granted...

In May 1984 my College Dean told me he had been instructed by "higher authority" to ask me not to publish a paper I had just presented to the Mormon Historical Association. It was a historical survey of the public activity of General Authorities in business corporations. The Dean apologized for having to make this request. I agreed not to publish my presentation and told no one about the incident.

In 1985, after "Dialogue" published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904", three apostles gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend... I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The Stake President was also told to "take further action" against me if this did not "remedy the situation" of my writing controversial Mormon history... I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren". The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU...

I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites - access to information, uninhibited inquiry, and freedom of expression."(Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History. Edited by George D. Smith.1992. pps. 90-93,95.)

With reference to an address that Boyd K. Packer made in the Summer of 1981 (Packer's address printed in BYU Studies, Summer 1981) D. Michael Quinn made a momentous lecture at Brigham Young University on November 4th 1981. I feel that more than anything, this talk, impressive and often inspired, did a lot towards Quinn's reputation being tarnished in the eyes of the leaders of the Church.

"Newsweek" described the talk by Quinn as a "stirring defense of intellectual integrity. To close this article we quote from D. Michael Quinn's talk:-

"...General Authorities in recent years have criticised Mormon historians for re-publishing in part or whole out-of-print Church publications such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, the Journal of Discourses (edited and published for thirty-two years under the auspices of the First Presidency), and statements taken from former Church magazines published for the children, youth, and general membership of the Church. It is an odd situation when present General Authorities criticize historians for re-printing what previous General Authorities regarded not only as faith-promoting but as appropriate for Mormon youth and new converts.

...A more serious problem of Mormon history is involved in the implications of Boyd K. Packer's demand that historians demonstrate that "the hand of the Lord has been in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning to now." Every Mormon historian agrees with Ezra Taft Benson that "we must never forget that ours is a prophetic history," but there are serious problems in the assertion or implication that this prophetic history of Mormonism requires the "hand of the Lord" in every decision, statement and action of the prophets"

The September Six.

Perhaps Quinn was right in the sense that Bushman is trying to do what Quinn was doing in the 1980s. But as you seen from some reviews/opinions here, some feel that even Bushman was tip-toeing.

Will Shryver, however, posted on MAD that he felt Bushman gave the critics too much "ammunition" and could have avoided that. I'm paraphrasing.

[_Ray A]

More from Wiki:

FARMS has been cited as representative of a new trend within Mormonism: the emergence of progressive forms of Mormon orthodoxy. This trend is committed to the literal reality of Mormon faith claims, but is simultaneously willing to rethink traditional understandings of those claims. A prominent example of this trend is the work FARMS has produced supporting a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon: suggesting that the events chronicled in the Book of Mormon occurred in a much smaller region than the traditional understanding, which argues the same events occurred across the entire Western hemisphere. Supporters of this limited geography idea--including some high-ranking church leaders--believe this model is consistent with anthropological, archaeological and genetic findings about ancient American peoples, as well as with the Book of Mormon text. (Emphasis added)

[_Ray A]

This may also interest some:

HOW APOLOGETICS IS RESHAPING Mormon ORTHODOXY. (pdf)

By analogy, Mormon apologetics would be the “defense of
[Mormonism] on intellectual grounds” by attempting to
demonstrate that the basic ideas of Mormonism are “entirely
in accordance with the demands of reason.” . . .
Under this definition, I am an “apologist”; indeed, I am
proud to be a defender of the Kingdom of God.
—WILLIAM J. HAMBLIN

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, Ray, part of my theorizing concerning apologetic motives has had to do with the assumption that most of them feel pretty embarrassed about the Church. They dislike---intensely dislike, I reckon---that intellectuals and others might be laughing at them for believing in things like Lamanites-as-Israelites, or Jaredite barges, or whatever else. Hamblin and DCP have both stated that a major goal of their writing and research is to prove that Mormon beliefs are "reasonable" and/or "rational."

Of course, getting back to your OP, Quinn's philosophy would totally complicate these goals. Following Quinn's plan to its fruition would involve, for the apologist, not only showing how Mormonism is "rational," but also trying to explain away the sheer mountain of nastiness and crap. E.g., is it "rational" and/or "reasonable" to shrug off Joseph Smith's many wives, or the shifting accounts of the First Vision? Is it "rational" and/or "reasonable" to ignore the Council of Fifty, or the Danites, or Blood Atonement?

I think that, on one level, Hamblin is being totally honest. But it goes well beyond just that, as is evidenced by the endless character assassinations and ad hominem attacks that litter the pages of the FARMS Review. It's not just about establishing "reasonableness"; it's about totally demolishing any and all opposing viewpoints.

[_Ray A]

I think you'll find Duffy's Suntone article very informative, Scratch, which I linked above (if you haven't read it).

Here's an interesting excerpt for those who don't want to read the whole article:

HOSTILITY AND CONTEMPT
IN LDS APOLOGETICS
Tone is everything!
—NEAL LAMBERT1

LDS APOLOGISTS, FARMS in particular, have gained a reputation
for rancor.2 Even an article in the Church-owned Deseret News
once characterized polemical essays in the FARMS Review as
“vitriolic.”3 Though not all apologists write this way,4 there is
an unmistakable trend within LDS apologetics toward hostility
and contempt—sometimes blatant, sometimes relatively
muted. Apologists who write this way insist that anti-
Mormonism requires this response: as one team of writers puts
it, when dealing with some anti-Mormons, it’s impossible to
“tell it like it is and still satisfy conventional expectations about
politeness and fair play.”5
Apologists profess to be both “amused and disgusted” by
their enemies: amused by the absurdity of critics’ arguments,
disgusted by critics’ fraudulence.6 Two themes, then, recur in
LDS apologetic discourse: (1) the stupidity and (2) the mendacity
of anti-Mormons. Not only their arguments, but anti-
Mormons themselves are said to be stupid. This point is made
over and over, in hostile reviews,7 in cartoons,8 in jokes,9 even
in insulting statements made directly to non-LDS correspondents.
10 But in addition to being stupid, anti-Mormons are also
accused of being liars. They knowingly misrepresent LDS beliefs;
11 they lie about their credentials;12 it is even said that
anti-Mormons have posed as Church members or investigators
in order to infiltrate the flock.13
Apologists are happy to publicize samples of anti-Mormon
discourse they believe exemplify their enemies’ stupidity:
hence Gary Novak’s Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web,14 Wade
Englund’s catalogue of anti-Mormon fallacies,15 and the
Philastus Hurlbut award that Daniel Peterson and other apologists
launched to “recognize” the most absurd anti-Mormon
statement of the year.16 By contrast, when apologists encounter
discourse they regard as mendacious, they strive to
suppress it. Much of the correspondence between apologists
and countercultists that is archived at SHIELDS was initiated for
this purpose. In some cases, apologists have taken a soft approach
to trying to convince countercultists to retract allegedly
false claims—professing concern for the countercultists’ reputation,
for instance.17 At other times, the approach has been
more peremptory.18 Unable to make the countercultists yield, apologists may bear witness against them in the name of Christ
or command them to repent:19 Peterson quite bluntly accuses
one countercultist of serving Satan.20
A related strain of apologetic discourse represents anti-
Mormons as people who know deep down that they’re wrong
but who persist in fighting the truth.21 If a correspondent declines
to engage further, apologists often take this to mean that
the anti-Mormon has seen his arguments cannot prevail and is
fleeing the scene: apologists have dubbed this the “Robert
McKay maneuver” after a countercultist with whom William
Hamblin corresponded.22 In their exchanges with anti-
Mormons, apologists almost invariably claim the last word.23
LDS apologists often appear to be driven by strong emotion.
Peterson’s writing, in particular, shows signs on occasion of
having been produced in a surge of scorn or anger.24 In their
correspondence with countercultists, apologists seem to
champ at the bit, impatient for their opponents to respond so
they can continue the debate.25 Their zeal to “score points” or
“demolish” enemy arguments26 may cloud apologists’ reason,
leading them to rebut a claim that an opponent didn’t make,27
or to claim to have rebutted an argument when they patently
have not.28
Occasionally apologists “admit” that anti-Mormons make
them angry.29 But fearing, perhaps, that this will give their enemies
the satisfaction of thinking they’ve struck a nerve, apologists
are more likely to claim that anti-Mormonism merely
amuses them.30
Apologists firmly resist accusations of “verbal viciousness,”
31 preferring instead to describe their polemics with
words such as “forthright” or “hard-hitting.”32 If accused of acrimony,
they may protest that they are simply being “droll” and
that their opponents should “lighten up.”33 Alternatively, they
may deflect the accusation back to their critics.34 When
Eugene England chastised FARMS for being proud and unmerciful
during a public conflict with Signature Books in 1991,
Peterson protested that FARMS had behaved in a Christian
manner and hinted that England, on the contrary, was being
unchristian in accusing FARMS.35
At times, apologists openly denigrate those they regard as
the enemy—as when SHIELDS characterizes detractors as
people who “have nothing better to do with their pitiful
lives,”36 or when Louis Midgley calls non-LDS historian and
past MHA president Lawrence Foster “an idiot.”37 At other
times, contempt has taken the form of underhanded digs. The
most famous of these is an acrostic message, “Metcalfe is
Butthead” that William Hamblin is reported to have embedded in an essay for the FARMS Review.38 In a response to critiques leveled at the FARMS Review by John Hatch, Peterson disdained to reply to Hatch by name, but he did work four variations of the
word “hatch” into his essay—hatch, hatched, hatchery, and hatchling—apparently for the amusement of cognoscenti.39 Peterson and Midgley have made what look like furtive jabs at
the homosexuality of individuals in liberal or revisionist Mormon circles;40 and Peterson has said that he would “give
[his] right arm” to be able to fool anti-Mormons into “publish[ing] a sidesplitting satire of themselves.”41
Though they complain when detractors use epithets such as Morg or FARMSboys, 42 apologists have developed a rich
satirical vocabulary of their own: antimormonoids,
43 Deckerites,44 Signaturi,45 Quinnspeak,46 and B.S. (for
“Big Scholars”).47 Michael Ash has compiled
a whole glossary of satirical coinages, including Metcalferrhea, Quinnosis Syndrome, Tannerexia, and Tannertantrium.48 Peterson waggishly calls Dialogue “a journal of allegedly Mormon thought,”49 and there may be witty intent in D. Michael Quinn’s having been dubbed “a former Mormon historian” (former Mormon? or former historian?).
50
Another way that apologists ridicule opponents is highlighting
trivial errors in their writing—through the apparently
malicious use of “sic,” for example,51 or by caviling about the
misuse of words like evince or apocrypha.52 Obviously intended
to undermine opponents’ credibility, such moves also
let apologists revel in scorn: John Gee once offered a list of errors
in a book he was reviewing for the “amusement,” so he
said, of his readers.53
Finally, apologists have a penchant for describing their work
with metaphors of violence: blowing away zombies;54 forcefeeding
countercultists;55 stomping out weeds;56 dropping a
hydrogen bomb.57 FARMS recently published a polemic review
under the pseudonym Rockwell D. Porter, an allusion to the
legendary Mormon gunslinger Porter Rockwell.58 Apologists
implicitly invoke the threat of divine destruction for their enemies
when they compare detractors to Book of Mormon apostates Nehor or Korihor, or to New Testament dissemblers
Ananias and Sapphira,59 all of whom met violent ends.
As I read the more hostile apologists, I am reminded of literary
critic Jane Tompkins’s reflections on the “bloodless violence”
that academics perpetrate on one another through
words. Tompkins proposes that “although it’s not the same
thing to savage a person’s book as it is to kill them with a machine
gun, . . . the nature of the feelings that motivate both acts
is qualitatively the same.”60 Michael McGough, writing about
high school debaters for the New Republic, suggests that debate
provides an experience akin to that offered by fantasy roleplaying
games such as Dungeons and Dragons: “the thrill of
combat in an imaginary universe,” where victory depends on
intellectual, not physical, prowess.61 I suggest that apologetics
provides the same kind of thrill. If I’m right, this would help
explain why LDS apologists are virtually all male:62 a wealth of
research shows that males are more overtly aggressive than females
are, ergo more likely to relish an exchange of verbal hostilities.
63

I think that, on one level, Hamblin is being totally honest. But it goes well beyond just that, as is evidenced by the endless character assassinations and ad hominem attacks that litter the pages of the FARMS Review. It's not just about establishing "reasonableness"; it's about totally demolishing any and all opposing viewpoints.

True, and in my opinion this approach has failed. But I don't think it's going to change.

[_moksha]

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).

So these are specialty publishers of subject matter related to Mormons. Is this not also true regarding books on the Mormon faith published by the General Authorities?

.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think you'll find Duffy's Suntone article very informative, Scratch, which I linked above (if you haven't read it).

One of the things that's fascinating about the article is the way the Murphy cites Infante's techniques for dealing with "verbally aggressive" people. Basically, the technique(s) involve flattering the adversary, making him/her feel that "it's okay," making sure his/her ego is constantly being stroked, etc. I love this one in particular: "allow the opponent to save face." Obviously, this is a courtesy which the Mopologists themselves would never extend to their opponents, hence (yet again) the strange phenomenon whereby they'll never apologize for anything. But, if Infante's theory is indeed valid, then it pretty much tells us that all of the Mopologists are deeply insecure individuals (at least w/r/t the things they're trying to defend). I would argue once again that this probably stems from their mission experiences.