Daniel Peterson wrote:My statement implies that the number of Mormon historians who approved of Mike Quinn's writing dropped palpably as the years went by.
And I know for a fact that some who never published a word critical of him were, nonetheless, critical of his writing and disappointed by it. I know, because they told me. And this includes some who had defended him, befriended him, and etc.
Perhaps like Klaus Hansen, with his "Quinnspeak" review. But the point is that his subsequent "dropping palpably" had nothing to do with why he was originally threatened by Packer, and told to only write "faith-promoting" history. His 1996 publication has nothing to do with why he was initially told to "shut up" and only write faith-promoting history. I've already provided the quotes.
Ray, the catalog isn't yet on line, and I don't know when I'll get up there again. But I'm positive that they have all of his books.
harmony wrote:How much of that feeling was because of the status of his membership and how much was a result of his scholarship? And how much was a result of the disapproval of BKP and the rest of the Brethren?
Among the people I spoke with, everything had to do with his writing. None of it had to do with his membership status or the opinion of the Brethren.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Ray, the catalog isn't yet on line, and I don't know when I'll get up there again. But I'm positive that they have all of his books.
I hope so. Now just to clear up a misconception, I don't think that when Quinn speaks, "the thinking has been done". But I object to censorship, of any kind, and I vehemently object to the excommunication of David Wright. And though it may offend you I can describe it as nothing other than a modern inquisition, where a scholar was excommunicated for his honestly held views. Let me do my own thinking, thank you, without ecclesiastical control or bullying into submission.
harmony wrote:How much of that feeling was because of the status of his membership and how much was a result of his scholarship? And how much was a result of the disapproval of BKP and the rest of the Brethren?
Among the people I spoke with, everything had to do with his writing.
What does "his writing" mean? His conclusions? His research? His publisher?
Are we talking hundreds of people... or tens... or two?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Just as the morning sun casts its golden rays over this eastern Appalachian forest a realization dawned on me in a similar manner as I review this thread. Dr. Quinn was and is a victim of “slow slicing”, or better known as death by a thousand cuts.
In China, slow slicing was generally reserved for the most heinous crimes like patricide, or treason. I believe Dr. Quinn, in similar fashion was guilty of the worst sin in Mormonism: Treason. Dr. Quinn was viewed as having not only betrayed the Mormon Church’s trust and confidence, but was also disloyal when he declined to whitewash his church’s history. The Mormon Church generally gives members wide latitude in attitude, ideology, and behavior, however the one incontrovertible maxim you cannot undermine and expect to remain a member is:
The Church is true.
And as a result of Dr. Quinn’s efforts that maxim was undermined, and thus he was a traitor.
And so, just as a death by a thousand cuts was meant to prolong the victim’s death, humiliate him publicly and to serve as a reminder and warning to others, it is no wonder Dr. Quinn is a pariah. Academics, where there a large Mormon populations, are not willing to risk raising the ire of the Mormon Church and its agents, and Dr. Quinn serves as a living reminder as to what happens to an honest Mormon historian.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Trevor wrote:What makes you think it's "nonsense"?
My conviction that it's grossly false.
For the record, I did not ask that question.
Daniel Peterson wrote:In what way is the Maxwell Institute responsible for John Tvedtnes's action? Was it done on the orders or with the encouragement of the Maxwell Institute? You or Scratch may certainly be in a better position to know, but, so far as I'm aware, it was not.
When did I ever claim that they were responsible? It just happens to be the most visible and flagship of the Mormon apologetics organs, so things its associates happen to do in the apologetic cause could affect its image.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Did Tvedness actually try to block Murphy's tenure and the attempt was either stopped or ignored by the institution? Or is this simply conjecture?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Ray A wrote:Let me do my own thinking, thank you, without ecclesiastical control or bullying into submission.
Everybody is entirely free to do his or her own thinking. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
harmony wrote:What does "his writing" mean? His conclusions? His research? His publisher?
His conclusions and his research, not his publisher.
harmony wrote:Are we talking hundreds of people... or tens... or two?
More than two. Fewer than ten. My personal acquaintances, in direct conversation with me.
The community of serious scholars of Mormon history is fairly small.
The people I have in mind are among the very most prominent members of that community, though, with decades of publishing and leadership behind them. None of them known as an "apologist," either.
harmony wrote:Did Tvedness actually try to block Murphy's tenure and the attempt was either stopped or ignored by the institution? Or is this simply conjecture?
I know no more about this than what Scratch has cited.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:And so, just as a death by a thousand cuts was meant to prolong the victim’s death, humiliate him publicly and to serve as a reminder and warning to others, it is no wonder Dr. Quinn is a pariah. Academics, where there a large Mormon populations, are not willing to risk raising the ire of the Mormon Church and its agents, and Dr. Quinn serves as a living reminder as to what happens to an honest Mormon historian.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
Doctor:
You're absolutely right. The "thousand cuts" still haven't ended. You can still read fairly recent posts on MAD---posts written by highly respected and prominent Mopologists which strongly advise TBMs that Quinn's writing is "untrustworthy." Every possible effort has been made to undermine and discredit him.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14