DCP and Quinn

[_Daniel Peterson]

No doubt his "last word" would be yet another of his dumb jokes.

This farce deserves nothing more.

He ought to just apologize and admit he was wrong, and thus put this matter to rest once and for all.

Except, alas, for the fact that he wasn't and, thus, can't.

People all claim to be sick of discussing it, and yet all but two people believe he gossiped. Thus: he should admit his wrongdoing.

News Flash for Scratch Senior: I don't believe that message board polls (let alone a poll on this board) determine reality or alter the past.

I also don't acknowledge the claims of astrology, despite the fact that millions consult their horoscopes every day.

Since I'm disinclined to perjure myself for your satisfaction, it looks as if you're going to have to continue pursuing this topic for the indefinite future. I might drop in, from time to time, in order to spur you on to greater exertion (I myself voted for the harshest of the poll options here), but the main burden of the crusade will continue to rest, as it always has, on you and Scratch Junior.

[_rcrocket]

Again, I must reiterate.

Long ago, probably before Dr. Peterson was even in grad school, I was a BYU research assistant. A kid. Around 1980 or so. Not sure the exact date but I know who I was working for at the time. A prominent LDS scholar invited me to attend an MHA meeting with him at Weber State. I went.

I was discussing with him Quinn's book on J. Reuben Clark. He pointed out Quinn in attendance with his boy friend, saying it was common knowledge that Quinn was homosexual. He remarked that it was fairly astonishing that Quinn had no desire to hide his orientation, and that he wondered why it was that BYU hadn't done anything about it.

And, so, when I joined my law firm in 1982, I met in Los Angeles one of my future law partners who had worked for Quinn. He, also, confirmed to me that Quinn really made no secret about his sexuality. The two of us are Mormon liberals so to us it was nothing.

I admire Dr. Quinn intensely. His work on Clark was extraordinary. His two fat books on Mormon power contain lots of useful information. I happen to believe that he would not deny his openness about his sexuality. To me, I don't judge his works on the basis of his sexuality and I would criticize those who do, whether they be FARMS Review authors or not.

Being the public figure that he was, and his openness, to me it matters not whether Dr. Peterson talked about it, whether some random stake president talked about it, or whether we talk about it now.

But, Scratch and Roll-Over-Beethoven's approach to this issue with Dr. Peterson is despicable. Anonymous character attacks and all. Such cowardice. Why Dr. Peterson spends any time defending himself against anonymous attacks is beyond me.

And, no, I never manipulated MMM sources and never admitted to doing so. I admit getting the start date of the massacre by the Indians wrong -- off by one day in a regrettable typo. The only specific flaw Bagley has ever identified to me or anybody else.

Dr. Peterson is incorrect about one thing. I have met him. I shook his hand at a fireside many years ago, one of dozens who did so.


rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

Again, I must reiterate.

Long ago, probably before Dr. Peterson was even in grad school, I was a BYU research assistant. A kid. Around 1980 or so. Not sure the exact date but I know who I was working for at the time. A prominent LDS scholar invited me to attend an MHA meeting with him at Weber State. I went.

I was discussing with him Quinn's book on J. Reuben Clark. He pointed out Quinn in attendance with his boy friend, saying it was common knowledge that Quinn was homosexual. He remarked that it was fairly astonishing that Quinn had no desire to hide his orientation, and that he wondered why it was that BYU hadn't done anything about it.

And, so, when I joined my law firm in 1982, I met in Los Angeles one of my future law partners who had worked for Quinn. He, also, confirmed to me that Quinn really made no secret about his sexuality. The two of us are Mormon liberals so to us it was nothing.

I admire Dr. Quinn intensely. His work on Clark was extraordinary. His two fat books on Mormon power contain lots of useful information. I happen to believe that he would not deny his openness about his sexuality. To me, I don't judge his works on the basis of his sexuality and I would criticize those who do, whether they be FARMS Review authors or not.

You had better start criticizing DCP, then, since he put his stamp of approval on articles in the FARMS Review which accused Quinn of having an "homosexual agenda." DCP has further labeled Quinn's work as "tendentious." C'mon, Bob. Prove to me you're not a hypocrite by laying down some criticism. Put your money where your mouth is.

And, no, I never manipulated MMM sources and never admitted to doing so. I admit getting the start date of the massacre by the Indians wrong -- off by one day in a regrettable typo. The only specific flaw Bagley has ever identified to me or anybody else.

Bull. You admitted to finagling that MMM letter, omitting a key phrase which effectively changed the meaning of the text. You even apologized for this, which I would have been happy to lay to rest, except that here you are, denying it again. Not very honest, Bob! If you're not going to be straight-up with us on this, how are we supposed to believe your cockamamie account of Quinn?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was discussing with him Quinn's book on J. Reuben Clark. He pointed out Quinn in attendance with his boy friend, saying it was common knowledge that Quinn was homosexual. He remarked that it was fairly astonishing that Quinn had no desire to hide his orientation, and that he wondered why it was that BYU hadn't done anything about it.

And, so, when I joined my law firm in 1982, I met in Los Angeles one of my future law partners who had worked for Quinn. He, also, confirmed to me that Quinn really made no secret about his sexuality.

Things like this tend to circulate around human communities.

It's my fault.

I admire Dr. Quinn intensely. His work on Clark was extraordinary. His two fat books on Mormon power contain lots of useful information.

He's a prodigious researcher. No question about that.

I used to be an enthusiastic admirer of his historical work -- I considered him the best and brightest of the Mormon historians, and the rising star -- but, to put it mildly, my enthusiasm has been tempered considerably over the past twenty years.

I don't judge his works on the basis of his sexuality and I would criticize those who do, whether they be FARMS Review authors or not.

Fortunately, no FARMS Review author has dismissed his work on the basis of his sexuality.

Why Dr. Peterson spends any time defending himself against anonymous attacks is beyond me.

It's beyond me, too. On a board such as this, at least, and with critics like Scratch One and Scratch Two.

I'll probably cut considerably back on it, since there's really no point in the effort.

And, no, I never manipulated MMM sources and never admitted to doing so. I admit getting the start date of the massacre by the Indians wrong -- off by one day in a regrettable typo. The only specific flaw Bagley has ever identified to me or anybody else.

I thought as much. Though I wasn't familiar with the discussion to which Scratch One has alluded, I'm familiar with the way he likes to cast me as "admitting" things that I haven't admitted at all.

Dr. Peterson is incorrect about one thing. I have met him. I shook his hand at a fireside many years ago, one of dozens who did so.

I also once shook hands with the Shah of Iran -- though not at that fireside.

[Physics Guy]

No doubt his "last word" would be yet another of his dumb jokes.

This farce deserves nothing more.

He ought to just apologize and admit he was wrong, and thus put this matter to rest once and for all.

Except, alas, for the fact that he wasn't and, thus, can't.

You gossiped. Admit it. Lay the matter to rest.

People all claim to be sick of discussing it, and yet all but two people believe he gossiped. Thus: he should admit his wrongdoing.

News Flash for Scratch Senior: I don't believe that message board polls (let alone a poll on this board) determine reality or alter the past.

I also don't acknowledge the claims of astrology, despite the fact that millions consult their horoscopes every day.

Since I'm disinclined to perjure myself for your satisfaction, it looks as if you're going to have to continue pursuing this topic for the indefinite future. I might drop in, from time to time, in order to spur you on to greater exertion (I myself voted for the harshest of the poll options here), but the main burden of the crusade will continue to rest, as it always has, on you and Scratch Junior.

Yeah, terrific. You know, I popped in on the MADboard the other day, and noticed that you were trotting out your usual BS about how FARMS Review uses "peer review." What you neglected to tell the poor person doing the investigation, is that by "peer" you mean, "a loyal TBM who will provide us with a rubber-stamp of approval and who will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, go against Church orthodoxy."

[_Daniel Peterson]

You had better start criticizing DCP, then, since he put his stamp of approval on articles in the FARMS Review which accused Quinn of having an "homosexual agenda." DCP has further labeled Quinn's work as "tendentious." C'mon, Bob. Prove to me you're not a hypocrite by laying down some criticism. Put your money where your mouth is.

Good grief. The publicly-out-of-the-closet Quinn published a plainly tendentious book on the subject of homosexuality and Mormonism. The FARMS Review published two critiques of that book, the first written by two believing Latter-day Saints and the second written by a prominent non-believing historian, both of which said that the book was tendentious and both of which provided evidence to support their criticism on that score.

I don't apologize for publishing heavily documented reviews by reviewers with opinions, and there was nothing inappropriate in what they said.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What you neglected to tell the poor person doing the investigation, is that by "peer" you mean, "a loyal TBM who will provide us with a rubber-stamp of approval and who will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, go against Church orthodoxy."

As I've said, I don't traffick in falsehoods. That's your bailiwick.

[_Mister Scratch]

You had better start criticizing DCP, then, since he put his stamp of approval on articles in the FARMS Review which accused Quinn of having an "homosexual agenda." DCP has further labeled Quinn's work as "tendentious." C'mon, Bob. Prove to me you're not a hypocrite by laying down some criticism. Put your money where your mouth is.

Good grief. The publicly-out-of-the-closet Quinn published a plainly tendentious book on the subject of homosexuality and Mormonism.

"Plainly tendentious?" Puhleaze. You (and your pals George Mitton and Rhett James) are obviously viewing his work in a reductionist light, and trying to paint the work as being driven totally by this so-called "homosexual agenda," rather than genuine scholarly impulses.

Here is the introductory material from Mitton and James's lengthy article:

Love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.1

D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist.2 His Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example appears to be, among other things, another attempt to generate tolerance and perhaps even acceptance for the notion of a special homosexual identity. This highly controversial book also seems to be Quinn's attempt to talk Latter-day Saints into ceasing to view homosexual acts as immoral. It follows that if there is a homosexual identity, either genetically grounded or socially constructed—he seems to want to have it both ways—then apparently he thinks Latter-day Saints should cease being what he considers homophobic and make a place for homoerotic behavior within the church.

(emphasis added)

Tell me: Does it seem to you like they are focusing on his scholarship? Or are they trying to position him as a homosexual and nothing else?

Here's another interesting tidbit from the article, which rather contradicts what you and rcrocket have been saying:

Wentworth may not have been aware of Quinn's secretiveness about his homosexual passion and hence may not have known that Quinn had not previously publicly acknowledged his homosexual interests.

(emphasis added)

Huh? Here you've got one of your own apologist stating, in print that Quinn was "secretive" about his sexual orientation? Shall we chalk up another point against you, my dear Professor?

Later, Mitton and James go even further (heads up Dr. Shades):

This may have led Quinn finally to explain himself by revealing to homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile that he is "gay." Quinn told Signorile that he was once married and had four children, and hence he feels that he is "part of a complicated interaction."338 Thus in August 1996 he finally put an end to speculation by confirming rumors that had circulated for many years, announcing publicly that he does not "define [himself] as "bisexual'" because he does not "have an equal attraction to both genders." Instead, Quinn said in an interview with Signorile, which appeared in a New York City homosexual magazine called Out, that he is "overwhelmingly attracted to men."339 Quinn later acknowledged to the media in Utah that, though he had been married eighteen years, he had known he was "gay" since the age of twelve.340 This may help us to understand some of his recent revisionist Mormon history, and his reasons for writing Same-Sex Dynamics.

(emphasis added)

Mitton and James certainly seem to think that what you, your friend, and Quinn's SP (not to mention rcrocket's stuff) were trafficking in was "speculation." Further, there is no question that they are accusing him of having a "homosexual agenda," and that you signed off on this article.

The FARMS Review published two critiques of that book, the first written by two believing Latter-day Saints and the second written by a prominent non-believing historian, both of which said that the book was tendentious and both of which provided evidence to support their criticism on that score.

I don't apologize for publishing heavily documented reviews by reviewers with opinions, and there was nothing inappropriate in what they said.

I'm afraid I disagree. The Mitton and James piece was an obvious, extended ad hominem attack. Frankly, I am surprised that they actually admitted to going behind Quinn's back and trying to trashtalk him to his editor. That seems especially rotten to me.

[_Mister Scratch]

And, no, I never manipulated MMM sources and never admitted to doing so. I admit getting the start date of the massacre by the Indians wrong -- off by one day in a regrettable typo. The only specific flaw Bagley has ever identified to me or anybody else.

I thought as much. Though I wasn't familiar with the discussion to which Scratch One has alluded, I'm familiar with the way he likes to cast me as "admitting" things that I haven't admitted at all.

No, he admitted it, in a post on May 24th, at 3:33 p.m.:

You are in no position to give lectures on "accepting responsibility," at least not until you accept personal responsibility for manipulating your sources.

OK. I accept responsibility.

Remember that, Bob?

[_Daniel Peterson]

"Plainly tendentious?" Puhleaze. You (and your pals George Mitton and Rhett James) are obviously viewing his work in a reductionist light, and trying to paint the work as being driven totally by this so-called "homosexual agenda," rather than genuine scholarly impulses.

Here is the introductory material from Mitton and James's lengthy article:

It is, as you yourself admit, a "lengthy article."

Your reductionist attempt to pretend that it consists only of its opening paragraph will convince few who actually read it.

my dear Professor

What a card you are, Scratch One.

I'm afraid I disagree.

So?

The Mitton and James piece was an obvious, extended ad hominem attack.

Flatly untrue. It deals extensively with evidence related to the claims advanced in his book.

You're an obsessively malevolent loon, Scratch One.