A Farewell to Daniel Bashing

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh, it was? And what have you done to help establish this as fact? Or, do you mean "real" merely in the sense that "it existed"? Because we know for certain that you were lying extensively on it.

No, "we" do not know that for a fact.

You're going to blow a gasket, Scratch, if you maintain this level of anger for long.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I see that Scratch has effectively taken over this thread. How ironic.

And it's always about personalities with him. That won't change.

I'll respond to a couple of points here, though:

You've said a lot of really vicious things about Quinn.

No I haven't.

You suggested on FAIR/MAD that he was excommunicated for "homosexual sin," (rather than for his controversial historical work) and you repeated that accusation here

That's not quite precisely accurate. I suspect that his homosexuality played a role, but I don't exclude a role for his historical writing.

What's vicious about that?

Is Quinn homosexual? Yes. Does the Church excommunicate people for matters related to homosexuality? Yes. Does it seem incredible, in that light, to think that Quinn might have been excommunicated, at least in part, for matters related to homosexuality? Is it vicious to think so?

Among the TBMs over on MAD/MDD, you've said again and again that you "don't trust" Quinn's work.

That's correct. It's a historiographical criticism. I think that his footnoted materials too frequently don't say what he reports them as saying.

I've never understood why you get so indignant about this, as if it were slander. It's a pretty commonplace type of disagreement among historians.

This is very different from saying, I have disagreements with some of historical observations.

Somewhat different, yes. But related. And, for what it's worth, I also have disagreements with some of his historical observations.

You've also overseen some remarkably vicious articles that were published in the FARMS Review.

They've been quite critical. I don't agree that they've been "vicious."

You're obviously very emotionally invested in Mike Quinn. I find it puzzling.

you're making the rather ridiculous argument that the focus of the work has rendered him unhireable in contemporary academia.

I've said that it makes him much less likely to be hired. Not that he's somehow "unhireable."

And, in fact, he has not been hired -- a fact in need of an explanation.

The implicit explanation that you and some of your comrades seem to be offering is that a cabal of nasty Mormons has managed in some way to block him from being hired at even a single American or Canadian university, college, or junior college. (There are thousands of such schools.) Do you really, seriously, find that explanation more likely than the one I suggested -- which has also been offered up by the Wall Street Journal and which Kishkumen, like me a practicing academic, finds plausible?

You may want to try and claim that you're being purely objective, and merely reflecting on the state of hiring in the U.S.,

I don't know about the notion of "pure objectivity," but, yes, I think I'm being quite reasonable and fair.

I wish that Mormon studies were a more promising road to a job than it is, but it isn't.

your admission that you're harboring a grudge on account of the fact that "Mike Quinn has, by the way, published far more harsh things about me than I have ever published, or would ever publish, about him"

I said nothing whatever about "harboring a grudge." I'm a pretty sunny personality, and tend not to hold grudges. I certainly don't hold one against Mike Quinn.

But the simple fact is that he has published some really, really harsh things about me, while I can't think of anything comparable that I've published about him.

the fact that you're trying to cut him down, to minimize his contributions

Not really.

Saying that Richard Bushman is almost universally recognized as the dean of Mormon historians is not to denigrate Mike Quinn. It's not even, strictly speaking, to mention him.

to make him seem irrelevant

I don't think he's irrelevant. The appearance of a new Mike Quinn book is always worthy of note.

dishonest

I don't think he's dishonest. I think he's tendentious, agenda-driven, and that it has seriously undermined his scholarly work.

and incompetent.

I don't think I've ever used that word to describe Mike Quinn, and I don't think I ever would.

I think he's brilliant, as a matter of fact. But seriously flawed.

That, at base, is my objection.

And it's always been baseless.

[Guest]

You've said a lot of really vicious things about Quinn.

No I haven't.

You have, and you know it. It's why you went ballistic in your series of imitation-GA emails to Rollo Tomasi.

You suggested on FAIR/MAD that he was excommunicated for "homosexual sin," (rather than for his controversial historical work) and you repeated that accusation here

That's not quite precisely accurate. I suspect that his homosexuality played a role, but I don't exclude a role for his historical writing.

What's vicious about that?

Is Quinn homosexual? Yes. Does the Church excommunicate people for matters related to homosexuality? Yes. Does it seem incredible, in that light, to think that Quinn might have been excommunicated, at least in part, for matters related to homosexuality? Is it vicious to think so?

Yes, it is. You were maliciously engaging in this speculation on the FAIRboard. Are you seriously going to try and claim that you're completely ignorant about the sorts of effects that might have? The reason you did is was precisely to cast doubt on the claim that it was chiefly the historical work. *That* is why you did it, and there's literally no way that you can spin this into some kind of innocent "positive".

Among the TBMs over on MAD/MDD, you've said again and again that you "don't trust" Quinn's work.

That's correct. It's a historiographical criticism. I think that his footnoted materials too frequently don't say what he reports them as saying.

There's a difference between saying, "I disagree with the reading/interpretation of this source" versus saying "I don't trust his work."

I've never understood why you get so indignant about this, as if it were slander. It's a pretty commonplace type of disagreement among historians.

I think that even you understand the difference between disagreeing on interpretation versus saying someone's work is "untrustworthy".

you're making the rather ridiculous argument that the focus of the work has rendered him unhireable in contemporary academia.

I've said that it makes him much less likely to be hired. Not that he's somehow "unhireable."

And, in fact, he has not been hired -- a fact in need of an explanation.

The implicit explanation that you and some of your comrades seem to be offering is that a cabal of nasty Mormons has managed in some way to block him from being hired at even a single American or Canadian university, college, or junior college. (There are thousands of such schools.) Do you really, seriously, find that explanation more likely than the one I suggested -- which has also been offered up by the Wall Street Journal and which Kishkumen, like me a practicing academic, finds plausible?

I don't find your distorted rendering here plausible, no. But you're twisting what I've been saying. I do think that a "cabal of nasty Mormons" has worked to seriously damage Quinn's reputation, and I think you're a member of that "cabal." I bet you yukked it up mightily when Prof. Midgley returned from his escapades at the Tanners' bookstore, and I bet you yukked it up again when Prof. Hamblin handed in his novella-length tirade against Early Mormonism and the Magical World View.

You can't oversee the systematic trashing of the man's work on the one hand, and then shrug your shoulders and find it baffling that he's been blackballed from Mormon Studies positions on the other.

your admission that you're harboring a grudge on account of the fact that "Mike Quinn has, by the way, published far more harsh things about me than I have ever published, or would ever publish, about him"

I said nothing whatever about "harboring a grudge."

Uh, the fact that you're sitting here summoning up some supposedly "harsh" thing that was said about you---what, years ago? do you have your own system of "files," Dr. Peterson?---would seem to be a textbook case of carrying a grudge.

I'm a pretty sunny personality, and tend not to hold grudges.

Tell that to the people on RfM whose quotes you "archived."

But the simple fact is that he has published some really, really harsh things about me, while I can't think of anything comparable that I've published about him.

"Published"? Or merely "said"? And I rather doubt that he said anything about your sexuality, or that he made sinister insinuations about some "sad incident" in your ward.

the fact that you're trying to cut him down, to minimize his contributions

Not really.

Saying that Richard Bushman is almost universally recognized as the dean of Mormon historians is not to denigrate Mike Quinn.

But that's not what you were doing, Dan. Go back up and re-read the exchange. You brought up Bushman and Givens as a means of minimizing Quinn.

to make him seem irrelevant

I don't think he's irrelevant. The appearance of a new Mike Quinn book is always worthy of note.

Don't you mean, "worthy of ridicule and bashing in the FARMS Review"? You're backpedaling now.

dishonest

I don't think he's dishonest. I think he's tendentious, agenda-driven, and that it has seriously undermined his scholarly work.

Lol. "[h]e has published some really, really harsh things about me, while I can't think of anything comparable that I've published about him."

Wow. Just hilarious, Dan. Are you now going to shrug and play dumb and claim that this is just all in a days work of historians and academics criticizing one another?

I think he's brilliant, as a matter of fact. But seriously flawed.

How would you like it if someone were to describe you this way?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh, it was? And what have you done to help establish this as fact? Or, do you mean "real" merely in the sense that "it existed"? Because we know for certain that you were lying extensively on it.

No, "we" do not know that for a fact.

Oh yes we do. Sorry if that bothers you!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You were maliciously engaging in this speculation on the FAIRboard.

I was, non-maliciously, pointing out to those who were somehow certain that Mike Quinn had been excommunicated solely because of his historical "truth-telling," that there were other obvious and readily available potential grounds for his excommunication -- grounds that, by that time, had been announced in print by Mike Quinn himself.

I'm really, despite your caricature of me, and even despite your (perhaps) sincerely fervent belief, about as non-malicious a person as I know. I have many flaws, but malice just isn't among them.

The reason you did is was precisely to cast doubt on the claim that it was chiefly the historical work. *That* is why you did it, and there's literally no way that you can spin this into some kind of innocent "positive".

Well, yeah. See above. Is there anything controversial about the fact that, whether you like it or not, the Church excommunicates people for matters related to homosexuality? Is this shocking? Is it a secret?

I do think that a "cabal of nasty Mormons" has worked to seriously damage Quinn's reputation, and I think you're a member of that "cabal."

I know you do.

You're wrong.

So what?

You seem to go absolutely berserk, come unhinged, when the topic of Mike Quinn arises. You become irrational. It's really quite striking. I'm sure that it means something. Perhaps, someday, somebody will care enough to figure out what.

I bet you yukked it up mightily when Prof. Midgley returned from his escapades at the Tanners' bookstore,

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that I've ever heard the story from him or anybody who was there. I've only really heard it here, from the likes of you. And what, anyway, does it have to do with Mike Quinn?

When you get really upset, you tend to simply empty your files out on the head of your target. Who is, quite commonly, me.

I bet you yukked it up again when Prof. Hamblin handed in his novella-length tirade against Early Mormonism and the Magical World View.

I published the review. I still think it raised several very serious issues and made very serious points.

You don't ever seem to speak about the issues it raised. You don't seem to care about issues. You appear to prefer soap opera. Things are always personal with you. Rather like a vengeance-driven Bizarro World edition of People Magazine.

It has occasionally occurred to me that you might even be Mike Quinn. You seem to take it really personally when I fail to genuflect before him. But I don't think so. His is a more rational mind than yours, and he would certainly show much more interest in historical substance than you do. I can scarcely remember your ever rising above malevolent gossip, revengeful vendettas, and personalities.

You can't oversee the systematic trashing of the man's work

I've published some negative reviews. Negative reviews are published all the time.

I've received them. You probably will, too, if you ever publish anything. It goes with the territory.

Why you regard writing or publishing a negative review as some sort of criminal act is absolutely beyond me. Always has been.

Uh, the fact that you're sitting here summoning up some supposedly "harsh" thing that was said about you---what, years ago? do you have your own system of "files," Dr. Peterson?---would seem to be a textbook case of carrying a grudge.

Nope. And I couldn't quote them. I would have to look them up. But I do remember them. They appeared in his revision of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.

But the simple fact is that he has published some really, really harsh things about me, while I can't think of anything comparable that I've published about him.

"Published"? Or merely "said"?

Well, here's what I wrote. Let's see if we can figure out whether I was referring to published comments or to unpublished oral remarks:

But the simple fact is that he has published some really, really harsh things about me, while I can't think of anything comparable that I've published about him.

Hmmmm. Maybe the sentence was just too danged inscrutable for us to be able to reach a solid conclusion.

And I rather doubt that he said anything about your sexuality,

He formally announced his homosexuality in a magazine article, and then wrote a book about Mormonism and homosexuality, for heaven's sake.

Is nobody permitted to comment on his publications at all? Can nobody review him, unless it's hagiographically? Are you so hypersensitive that, even when he himself has raised the issue of his sexuality, nobody else is permitted to say a word?

We never, as a matter of fact, published a word about his sexual orientation until he went public with it. And, even so, we weren't harsh about it.

Good grief. You seem utterly unreasonable. (Why on earth am I still surprised at that?)

You brought up Bushman and Givens as a means of minimizing Quinn.

You had declared that, in "the world of historians," Quinn is regarded as el supremo numero uno. That's just not true. It simply isn't. Richard Bushman is the most eminent living Mormon historian by -- I would think -- almost universal consensus among people who pay attention to such things. I mentioned Bushman and Givens and Welch because they're the current superstars. And Hardy because he's a rising star.

I think he's brilliant, as a matter of fact. But seriously flawed.

How would you like it if someone were to describe you this way?

People have said precisely that about me.

It's not my favorite thing.

And many, many things much worse have been said about me -- and not only by you.

But criticism goes with the territory. If you're really hypersensitive to criticism, you probably shouldn't write books or plays or music. Or else, at the least, you shouldn't read reviews.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh yes we do. Sorry if that bothers you!

Funny, because that Facebook account represented the truth. I knew you couldn't handle the truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You were maliciously engaging in this speculation on the FAIRboard.

I was, non-maliciously, pointing out to those who were somehow certain that Mike Quinn had been excommunicated solely because of his historical "truth-telling," that there were other obvious and readily available potential grounds for his excommunication -- grounds that, by that time, had been announced in print by Mike Quinn himself.

No, that's not correct. He didn't publicly come out until two or three years after the excommunication. I always love it when you blow off your own foot, Dr. P.

The reason you did is was precisely to cast doubt on the claim that it was chiefly the historical work. *That* is why you did it, and there's literally no way that you can spin this into some kind of innocent "positive".

Well, yeah. See above. Is there anything controversial about the fact that, whether you like it or not, the Church excommunicates people for matters related to homosexuality? Is this shocking? Is it a secret?

Dan, the fact remains that you brought up the homosexuality as a means of trying to smear him. It's just yet another case of the old Mormon ploy whereby an apostate is discredited due to some purported "sin." You have zero evidence that this was the case here, apart from rotten gossip. So this was just malicious speculation on your part.

You can't oversee the systematic trashing of the man's work

I've published some negative reviews. Negative reviews are published all the time.

I've received them. You probably will, too, if you ever publish anything. It goes with the territory.

Why you regard writing or publishing a negative review as some sort of criminal act is absolutely beyond me. Always has been.

There's a difference between a negative review and sustained character assassination and smear campaigns. That's the difference, and you've been told the same thing by the OP of this very thread, of all people, among many others. It just doesn't sink in with you. Either you're delusional, or you don't understand the difference (which I doubt, because you're hyper-sensitive to it when it's directed at you), or you're so tendentious, zealous, fanatical, and vendetta-driven that you just don't care.

Uh, the fact that you're sitting here summoning up some supposedly "harsh" thing that was said about you---what, years ago? do you have your own system of "files," Dr. Peterson?---would seem to be a textbook case of carrying a grudge.

Nope. And I couldn't quote them. I would have to look them up. But I do remember them. They appeared in his revision of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.

There's nothing remotely comparable in there! Rofl! It's laughable that you would find anything he said in there about you to be "really harsh." What, were your feelings hurt that you got called a "polemicist"?

And I rather doubt that he said anything about your sexuality,

He formally announced his homosexuality in a magazine article, and then wrote a book about Mormonism and homosexuality, for heaven's sake.

Yeah, well, he didn't use your sexuality as a means of trying to discredit you or paint you as a sinner.

Is nobody permitted to comment on his publications at all? Can nobody review him, unless it's hagiographically? Are you so hypersensitive that, even when he himself has raised the issue of his sexuality, nobody else is permitted to say a word?

That's not the issue here at all and you know it.

Good grief. You seem utterly unreasonable. (Why on earth am I still surprised at that?)

I'm not the unreasonable one. You're the one whose supposed to embody the Christian spirit of humility. Instead, you've been bull-headedly denying that you've done anything wrong for some 20+ years. There's zero self-reflection on your part; just hollow, disingenuous bloviation about "bridge building," despite the fact that literally nothing has been done to atone for all the past crap you've pulled---the endless SHIELDS correspondence, the trolling on RfM, the lying to people on ZLMB, the countless hit pieces in the Review, the condescension to people with sincere questions, the interference involving Eric, etc., etc., etc., etc. Some on here have said, "Well, it's in the past. Forgive and forget." But that's not how it works, does it, Dr. P.? That's not what the Church teaches, and it's not what you believe.

The day you actually offer up some sincere apologies for all these past misdeeds is the day I finally take seriously the notion that you care about "bridge building." Other than that, I guess all we can do is hope for the day when you and the rest of the Skinny-L types bite the dust so that Bokovoy and the Mopologist Vanguard can come in and clean house.

Meanwhile, we'll just get what we've always been getting: you getting your butt kicked until some critic finally feels bad for you and declares that you've been getting picked on for too long. This is followed by you saying "Thanks, I appreciate it," but with zero acknowledgment on your part for the role you've always played in the conflict, which just starts the ball rolling again as far as your hauteur and arrogance is concerned, and thus the whole cycle starts yet again. You piss people off in increments, people get fed up with it and start in with the criticism, and then that builds until at last ill will against you comes to a head, and (again) some critic feels bad for you and the apologies start up once again.

But criticism goes with the territory. If you're really hypersensitive to criticism, you probably shouldn't write books or plays or music. Or else, at the least, you shouldn't read reviews.

Or read messageboards. Now off you go to more important things, Prof. P.! Toodle-oo!

by the way: Bob, you're welcome. I know how much you care about being right. ; )

[_Quasimodo]

As a homage to the OP, I've sort of been following the posts here as they have turned to the usual recriminations.

I have no idea who is correct (maybe everyone is). I'm starting to feel uncomfortable. Like I'm eavesdropping on a family argument. I don't know enough of the family history to truly know what's correct and what isn't.

I just feel like I'm intruding on a "private" discussion involving old hurts.

[_Simon Belmont]

Meanwhile, we'll just get what we've always been getting: you getting your butt kicked until some critic finally feels bad for you and declares that you've been getting picked on for too long.

LOL! It is very clear who is doing the butt-kicking in this thread, and in almost every thread in which you've engaged Dr. Peterson (hint: it's not you).

So, you honestly believe that a 5+ year long smear campaign is the right thing to do because you believe that Dr. Peterson did it to Dr. Quinn? Two wrongs, in your book, make a right?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh yes we do. Sorry if that bothers you!

Funny, because that Facebook account represented the truth. I knew you couldn't handle the truth.

It did? So we'll be getting the scans of your UConn Master's thesis sometime soon?