Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Was Murphy's upcoming tenure evaluation discussed on any of the listservs?

Not that I know of.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Was it discussed among members of FAIR, FARMS, or SHIELDS?

Not that I'm aware of.

Doctor Scratch wrote:How, I'm prompted to wonder, as I sit here, contemplating all of this, did Tvedtnes ever wind up finding out that Murphy was about to go through the tenure process?

I have no idea.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Wasn't Murphy in a completely different state at the time?

Yes.
_Ray A

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Ray A »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Ask...Mike Quinn.


In an April 2006 article, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden wrote that Quinn has become unhireable because almost all the funding for professorships in Mormon studies comes from Mormon donors. In 2003, Brigham Young University threatened to withdraw funding for a conference it was co-sponsoring at Yale if Quinn were allowed to speak. More recently Arizona State University administrators vetoed the department of religious studies in its recommendation to hire Quinn. ASU faculty believe officials fear alienating ASU’s 3,700 LDS students and offending Ira Fulton, a powerful Mormon donor who, according to Golden, has called Quinn a “nothing person.”


One has to wonder if a historian at any other university would receive treatment like this. Perhaps it has happened, but I'm not aware of it. One case I can think of that has some similarity is that of Father Paul Collins.

Collins resigned from the priesthood, but was not excommunicated.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

I'm absolutely certain that no other university ever takes into account the preferences or aversions of its donors, and that no conference or society ever pays any attention to the attitudes of those whose sponsorship it seeks.

A donor's or sponsor's responsibility is to fork over and shut up.

Come on.

Mike Quinn's hiring problem, I suspect, rests mostly on the relatively narrow focus of his research and publication. There simply aren't that many schools out there who, in seeking to fill a (relatively rare) vacancy in the history department with somebody who could remain there for many years, would opt to choose someone almost entirely (or entirely) devoted to Mormon studies.

An evil Mormon conspiracy could conceivably account for Mike's failure to be hired in the Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont -- though few would argue that Richard Bushman wasn't an absolutely stellar hire for that chair, and something of a coup, and there seems no moral obligation, on Mormon donors' parts, to hand over their money for the hiring of someone to whom they object -- but it doesn't account for his failure to be hired at any one of the many hundreds if not thousands of other college and university history departments in the English-speaking world.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Ray A

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm absolutely certain that no other university ever takes into account the preferences or aversions of its donors, and that no conference or society ever pays any attention to the attitudes of those whose sponsorship it seeks.

A donor's or sponsor's responsibility is to fork over and shut up.


One donor was Ira Fulton:

Ira A. Fulton (born November 12, 1931 in Tempe, Arizona) is an Arizona philanthropist, land developer, and businessman. BusinessWeek has listed Fulton 36th on its list of "The 50 Most Generous Philanthropists" for 2006.[1] The Arizona Legislature has also recognized his generosity.[2]


This is the "philanthropist" who called Quinn a "nothing person".
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

I've met him.

So?
_Ray A

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've met him.

So?


So you agree with what he did, and his view of Quinn?
_JohnStuartMill
_Emeritus
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:12 pm

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _JohnStuartMill »

A "nothing person". Heh. Might as well have called him a "poopooface".
"You clearly haven't read [Dawkins'] book." -Kevin Graham, 11/04/09
_Ray A

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Ray A »

This is Quinn's account of what happened:

The things that I was learning that were not pleasing to the leaders of the church that I had been publishing about were policy changes in the LDS Church; the existence of certain councils, such as a theocratic Council of Fifty that I published about that the LDS Church leaders didn't know about themselves, and if they did know about, they didn't want rank and file to know that there was a theocracy that was a part of Mormonism; polygamy, and the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto, that had been secretly practiced or practiced by Joseph Smith before it was publicly announced in 1852 as a doctrine of the LDS Church.

These kinds of things, policy changes and doctrinal changes, were things that I had written about and had tried to put into a context of seeing this as a process of change and a process of revelation, but nonetheless to acknowledge that there were these problem areas, but they didn't need to be problem areas. They could be understood as a part of the human experience or as a part of God's changing patterns of dealing with the LDS Church, or as a part of the LDS Church responding to differing circumstances. But it became clear that criticisms from apostles of the LDS Church -- Mark E. Peterson, Boyd K. Packer, [Ezra Taft] Benson -- were being directed directly at the kinds of things I was publishing, and in some cases, by title, at some of these publications of mine.

It became clear to me, when I published a long article, almost 100 pages, about plural marriage after the Manifesto, that this was coming to a breaking point between me and the church, because my local LDS Church president, the stake president, was visited by a General Authority and told that I was to be called in and punished, and that at a minimum I was to lose my temple recommend, which was the basis for church employment, and I was a professor at BYU.

Then the leader of this meeting said, "And if this doesn't keep him from doing this kind of thing, you should take further action as appropriate." And he started to get up and walk out. He thought that was the end of it. And the stake president said, "Now, wait a minute." He said: "Michael Quinn gave me a copy of this article on plural marriage after the Manifesto. I and my counselors have read it, and we don't find anything in it that is contrary to faith. It talks about some difficult experiences the church went through, but we don't see this as a reason to punish him. ... And he hasn't done this secretly, and we don't see -- we've read it." And they asked, "Have you read it?" And he said, "No, I wouldn't read anti-Mormon trash." And they said, "Well, how can you judge that what he's written is destructive of the faith if you haven't read it?" And it went around and around, and finally after two and a half hours, the stake president said, "Well, I'll call Michael Quinn in, and I will explain to him what you have said to us, and then we'll go from there."

And this representative said: "Oh, no. You can't tell him that I told you what I've told you. You can't tell him that this came from church headquarters. This has to be your objection that he is to be informed of, that you have objected to, and that you're going to punish him for." And the stake president said: "I'm not going to lie to him, so you decide: Am I going to tell him the truth and call him in, or am I not going to say anything to him? Because I am not going to lie to him." This stunned this General Authority who had been sent from church headquarters, and he said, "Well, then you do [what] you feel you need to do."

So the stake president called me in and explained this whole process, including the fact that he had been told to lie to me and to say that this was his personal objection to what I'd published. The stake president said: "I feel obligated to do something. I have to do something." And he said: "I'm taking your temple recommend. You will not be able to go back to the temple without it. But," he said, "I'm afraid that they're going to use this as a grounds for firing you from BYU if you do not have temple recommend. So," he says, "if anyone at BYU asks if you have a valid temple recommend, you tell them yes, and don't volunteer that it's in my desk drawer. And when it expires, I'll renew it, but I'll keep it in my desk drawer."

And I knew at that moment that I was dead meat, that as long as that stake president was there to protect me I would be protected, but as soon as he was relieved of his position -- and these are temporary positions; it's a lay ministry -- and another stake president who was more compliant was in the position, or if I happened to move ... out of his stake, then I was dead meat. ...
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Ray A wrote:So you agree with what he did, and his view of Quinn?

I've said nothing about what he did, and, no, although I have strong reservations about Mike Quinn's historical work, I don't agree with his view of Quinn.

But if you think that Ira Fulton is somehow obliged to continue to hand over millions of dollars of his own money to a university that hires people he finds objectionable in fields that he considers important, I'd like to understand the basis of that ethical obligation a little bit more than I currently do. And if you think that the president of any university that has received (as I understand it) more than fifty million dollars from a donor is going to be indifferent to the possibility of grievously offending that donor, well, all I can say is that you're not likely to be the president of a university any time soon.
_Ray A

Re: Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've said nothing about what he did, and, no, although I have strong reservations about Mike Quinn's historical work, I don't agree with his view of Quinn.


That's good to know.

Daniel Peterson wrote:But if you think that Ira Fulton is somehow obliged to continue to hand over millions of dollars of his own money to a university that hires people he finds objectionable in fields that he considers important, I'd like to understand the basis of that ethical obligation a little bit more than I currently do. And if you think that the president of any university that has received (as I understand it) more than fifty million dollars from a donor is going to be indifferent to the possibility of grievously offending that donor, well, all I can say is that you're not likely to be the president of a university any time soon.


I get the picture. Ira Fulton doesn't want Quinn anywhere near a university he sponsors because Quinn's historical writing is offensive to him. The point is not whether Quinn's account of, for example, post-Manifesto polygamy, is the truth (as explained by his stake president), but whether it "denigrates faith".

Big bucks and wealthy sponsors Trump the search for historical truth. No, I'm not denying the "reality" of this, but the message is clear:

ASU faculty believe officials fear alienating ASU’s 3,700 LDS students and offending Ira Fulton, a powerful Mormon donor who, according to Golden, has called Quinn a “nothing person.”


Fulton must have well absorbed Packer's admonition that "some truths are not very useful". Every one who reads this should now understand the genesis of Quinn's excommunication. Money is more important than truth.
Post Reply