Corrections 2

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm still (barely) in the United States until tomorrow morning, so I thought I would take a glance at some of the latest allegations against me (and my associates) here. Having done so, I see that a number of corrections are in order. I'll make just a few:

* Professor Louis Midgley may, conceivably, be responsible for Michael Quinn's departure from BYU. If he is, though, it was before I had any real connection with him. However, I have never heard him say a word, not anything, that would suggest that he played any central role in it, nor even, really, a peripheral one. Nor have I heard anybody else at BYU say so, either. Beyond simple deduction from his general wickedness, I wonder if there's any actual evidence to support the accusation here.

* There seems to be a consensus among two or three people here that I, or FARMS, bear at least some direct responsibility, large or small, for Michael Quinn's failure to gain a permanent academic appointment since his departure from BYU in 1988 (when I was a new instructor at BYU, still working on my dissertation, housed in a separate college). I'm curious to know whether anybody claims any actual evidence for this (beyond a sense that it simply must be so).

* It would seem to me that Michael Quinn's status as a vocal critic of the Church and its leadership, eventually coupled with his being openly gay and excommunicated -- whatever one may personally think of any of those things -- is quite sufficient to explain why Mormon donors might be unenthusiastic about giving large amounts of money to endow a chair of Mormon studies for him to occupy it, or about a school to which they were major contributors hiring him. There seems no need to invoke any influence from the diabolical FARMS Review in order to account for the situation. (Consider Ockham's Razor.)

* I don't see that there is any obligation on the part of anybody, Mormon or not, to contribute voluntarily to something that he or she doesn't support.

* I'm not sure that I see how the FARMS Review can be responsible for Michael Quinn's failure to gain permanent employment at any of the many hundreds of non-Mormon colleges and universities in North America over the past near quarter-century.

* I would suggest that Michael Quinn's narrow focus on Mormon studies may have been the major factor behind his general failure to secure a permanent job in any of the hundreds of history departments across North America. Moreover, while one or two critics here are fiercely critical of their caricature of Maxwell Institute peer review procedures, they don't seem to have noticed that Michael Quinn's books on Mormonism have largely been published by the non-academic Salt Lake City publisher Signature Books, which may or may not have any actual peer review process at all. (He did publish his book on Mormonism and same-sex attraction with the University of Illinois Press, but it was not particularly well received by scholars of Mormonism -- and I include in this the FARMS Review critiques by Klaus Hansen, an inactive, unbelieving member of the Church, and by Rhett Stephens James and George Mitton.)

* The FARMS Review makes no more pretense of being non-partisan or neutral than do The Nation and National Review. Readers of such periodicals know that they are seeing a response from a particular point on the ideological spectrum. There is nothing illegitimate about this.

* There is also nothing intrinsically unethical about writing or publishing negative book (or film or theater or music) reviews, or critiquing an author's work in a seminar. These are not, as such, "smears."

* I do not use the acronym "NAMIRS." It doesn't appeal to me. But it also doesn't "outrage" me.

I may or not be back here before my departure for the Middle East.

-dcp
Miami

[_Doctor Scratch]

* There seems to be a consensus among two or three people here that I, or FARMS, bear at least some direct responsibility, large or small, for Michael Quinn's failure to gain a permanent academic appointment since his departure from BYU in 1988 (when I was a new instructor at BYU, still working on my dissertation, housed in a separate college). I'm curious to know whether anybody claims any actual evidence for this (beyond a sense that it simply must be so).

Yes, the evidence includes the articles you edited/published in the Review, your various comments on the boards, and the things you've said about your gossip-mongering. You could argue (I suppose) that the Review is an irrelevant "junk" publication that nobody reads or takes seriously, but I doubt you'll do that. If we accept that the Review is widely read among influential Mormons, however, then it's reasonable to say that the articles have had an impact on opinions of Quinn.

* The FARMS Review makes no more pretense of being non-partisan or neutral than do The Nation and National Review. Readers of such periodicals know that they are seeing a response from a particular point on the ideological spectrum. There is nothing illegitimate about this.

Do those publications feature the same juvenile, "locker-room" antics that are the signature of the FARMS Review? E.g., what is the National Review's equivalent of "Metcalfe is Butthead"?

* There is also nothing intrinsically unethical about writing or publishing negative book (or film or theater or music) reviews, or critiquing an author's work in a seminar. These are not, as such, "smears."

There's a difference between a negative assessment of someone's work vs. calling that someone a "snake oil salesman" (as Greg Smith did of Rod Meldrum). I suspect that you guys have been doing this for so long that you no longer recognize or understand the difference.

[_Enuma Elish]

Do those publications feature the same juvenile, "locker-room" antics that are the signature of the FARMS Review? E.g., what is the National Review's equivalent of "Metcalfe is Butthead"?.

FYI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtN-ZpJQ8xU&feature=share

[_Buffalo]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=622

Is FARMS supposed to be writing scholarly reviews of books? Because this reads like a hasty, poorly-thought out rebuttal from an angry teenager.

[_bcspace]

* It would seem to me that Michael Quinn's status as a vocal critic of the Church and its leadership, eventually coupled with his being openly gay and excommunicated -- whatever one may personally think of any of those things -- is quite sufficient to explain why Mormon donors might be unenthusiastic about giving large amounts of money to endow a chair of Mormon studies for him to occupy it, or about a school to which they were major contributors hiring him. There seems no need to invoke any influence from the diabolical FARMS Review in order to account for the situation. (Consider Ockham's Razor.)

I'd say that's it. It's suprising to me how apostates can wonder why they are excommunicated or why the Church as an organization or as a people doesn't support them in their apostasy. Jesus won't save people in their sins so it ought to be clear why the Church, as an organization and as a people, takes this stance.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Do those publications feature the same juvenile, "locker-room" antics that are the signature of the FARMS Review? E.g., what is the National Review's equivalent of "Metcalfe is Butthead"?.

FYI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtN-ZpJQ8xU&feature=share

ROFL!!! I like how he says, "that was essentially done out of pure spite." Yes, Dr. Hamblin---we know. We know.

[_Enuma Elish]

ROFL!!! I like how he says, "that was essentially done out of pure spite." Yes, Dr. Hamblin---we know. We know.

As I understood Bill Hamblin's statement, I believe he meant that Dionysius the Renegade created the acrostic to "spite" Heraclides, i.e. "annoy" and/or "tease." Hence, one might compare Dionysisus' effort to spite Heraclides to the creation of the following website:

http://theencyclopediaofmopologetics.blogspot.com/

[_Doctor Scratch]

ROFL!!! I like how he says, "that was essentially done out of pure spite." Yes, Dr. Hamblin---we know. We know.

As I understood Bill Hamblin's statement, I believe he meant that Dionysius the Renegade created the acrostic to "spite" Heraclides, i.e. "annoy" and/or "tease." Hence, one might compare Dionysisus' effort to spite Heraclides to the creation of the following website:

http://theencyclopediaofmopologetics.blogspot.com/

Ha ha! Come on now, Dave---you know that you're just jealous because there isn't an entry on you yet.

[_Joseph]

What is it that you feel so guilty about that you come on here with this foolishness?

[_Dr. Shades]

FYI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtN-ZpJQ8xU&feature=share

??? Where did his neck go?