Finally, nobody here disputes Mike Quinn's autobiography. And I certainly don't deny that he's an extraordinarily bright and industrious scholar. He was, for many years, probably my favorite writer on Mormon history. But then my doubts about his work began to grow, and to grow, and to grow.
The issue isn't Mike Quinn's intelligence or his Yale degree. The issue is his reliability. In fact, it turns out, his use of evidence is often tendentious, and (as the reviews to which I provided links above plainly show) he is agenda-driven on certain matters to an extraordinary and unusual degree. (The reviews of his Same-Sex Dynamics book make that especially -- and, I think, indisputably -- clear.)
Well, I have to say I'm kind of shocked. Quinn was Dan's "favourite writer on Mormon History"? (I'm blown away, to be frank) I knew we always had something in common! What I'd like to ask Dan is this: How does one book by Quinn discredit everything he has said about Mormon history? Or does it? Why did your doubts "continue to grow and grow", Dan? Or were your doubts in place from the very beginning? And even if Quinn "distorted" Same-Sex Dynamics, how does that render his earlier work "obsolete"? Or was Same -Sex Dynamics just an excuse to render his early controversial history "obsolete"?
I don't buy this, Dan. But I'll give you the full right of reply to refute anything I've said. (I have no choice, it's a free speech board).
>
>
>
>