DiscussMormonism.com

One of my very favorite informants has directed my attention to an excellent thread on the fittingly named MADboard. While the erstwhile topic of the thread is, ostensibly, the suppression of LDS history, it has morphed into a discussion of all sorts of other tangents which seem at base to be revolving around the issue of Church power.

Anyways, one of the highlights of the thread has been Prof. Peterson's insistence that it is wrong for people reading critical material of the Church (e.g., at the Tanners' site) to make assumptions about the veracity thereof. Here's a follow-up question: do you think the Good Professor applies this same kind of standard to himself?

Daniel Peterson wrote:

gitxsanartist wrote:Now lets switch the topic to Micheal Quinn. What do you know of his story?

Considerably more than I'm willing to share publicly.

gitxsanartist wrote:Did you know him personally?

Slightly.

And we've had some encounters in print over the years.

gitxsanartist wrote:
Why did he get excommunicated?

I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he, for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.

(emphasis added)

Well then, that settles it, I guess. Of course, we know from the account provided by Rollo Tomasi that it seems Quinn was (at least from his own perspective) ex'ed for mere insubordination. How odd that DCP seems to overlook this, since, as he himself points out, he "wasn't present during the disciplinary council." Either way, this just adds more weight to the argument that he A) has been guilty of gossip-mongering (and does anyone else wonder what he'd not sharing here?) and B) he engages in smear tactics. Since the phrase "homosexual activities" carries such negative weight amongst TBMs, there is really no way that one can interpret DCP's presumptuousness in this instance as being anything other than an attempt to smear Quinn.

Mister Scratch wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

gitxsanartist wrote:Now lets switch the topic to Micheal Quinn. What do you know of his story?

Considerably more than I'm willing to share publicly.

Thanks to the rumor mill among DCP's "circle."

gitxsanartist wrote:Why did he get excommunicated?

I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he, for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.

I would bet the house that DCP's "reliable source" was his "friend" who discussed Quinn's rumored sexual orientation with Quinn's SP (who wasn't even aware that the inactive Quinn had moved into his stake).

Here are some other tidbits:

1. The SP in question was Paul Hanks, a high-ranking CES employee. Hanks met Quinn for the very first time when Hanks visited Quinn's apartment (unannounced) on February 7, 1993. Quinn, sick at the time, refused to let Hanks in. Later that same day, Hanks delivered a letter to Quinn requesting that they meet to discuss (i) Quinn's recent article "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843," which was published in Maxine Hanks's (a distant relative of Paul Hanks, ironically) 1992 book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, and (ii) Quinn's comments in the Salt Lake Tribune on Dec. 6, 1992, about the Church's pressure on members to conform. The SP's letter also quoted the definition of "apostasy" from the Church Handbook of Instructions. Clearly, then, Hanks's first approach was to get Quinn on an apostasy charge.

2. Quinn refused to meet with Hanks. On Feb. 10, 1993, Quinn was quoted in an Associated Press article about Hanks's efforts to meet with him under threat of losing his membership. Hanks responded in a Feb. 23 letter to Quinn, telling him that these matters should be discussed in private. Quinn still refused to meet with him.

3. Hanks sent another letter on March 16, again urging that Quinn meet with him. Via letter dated April 6, 1993, Quinn stated that under no circumstances would he meet with Hanks (who, Quinn had learned, was consulting with Seventy Loren C. Dunn).

4. Hanks sent another letter to Quinn on May 11, 1993, which stated, for the first time: "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing." Quinn took this to mean that even though the 'real' issue was his historical writings, Hanks would use rumors of Quinn's homosexuality to get rid of him.

5. On May 18, 1993, Hanks wrote Quinn another letter and again referenced "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters unrelated to Quinn's writings. The letter also scheduled a meeting two days later, and stated that if Quinn did not attend, his refusal "is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare."

6. In a May 23, 1993 letter, Hanks informed Quinn that his refusal to meet would lead him to convene a court against Quinn on June 6th "for conduct unbecoming a member of the Church." The charge appeared to now be changed from apostasy to "conduct unbecoming."

7. Hanks again showed up at Quinn's apartment, on May 28, 1993, demanding that Quinn explain to him the "moral allegations" that Hanks had "heard" about Quinn (probably thanks to DCP's "friend").

8. Quinn didn't attend the disciplinary council on June 6, 1993 -- the result was that Quinn was put on formal probation, which was contingent on, among other things, Quinn's meeting with Hanks within 30 days. Quinn did not meet with Hanks; consequently, on July 9 Quinn received a letter from Hanks scheduling another court on July 18th. Quinn didn't attend; Quinn was then disfellowshipped.

9. On September 13, 1993, Quinn received a letter scheduling a third court for Sept. 26. The charge in the summons: "Failure to meet personally and privately with President Hanks to discuss serious allegations leading to the charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy." (emphasis in original). Quinn did not attend this court, either. He was informed by Hanks, in a telephone call on Sept. 30, that he had been excommunicated. In the official letter notifying Quinn of his excommunication, the reason therefor was "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church" in refusing to meet with Hanks. No mention of apostasy or homosexuality -- really just insubordination.

10. Thus, Quinn became one of the "September Six." Quinn learned from Hanks that the council had taken 6 hours, which seemed odd since the final conviction was for mere insubordination (which Quinn thought was a no-brainer, given his refusal to meet with Hanks). A friend who attended that council as a witness favorable to Quinn, later informed Quinn that the council could not agree on whether Quinn had committed apostasy due to his historical writings, and that Hanks admitted during the meeting that BKP was pressuring him to excommunicate Quinn. Apparently, after 6 hours of debate, insurbordination (not apostasy) was the only thing they could agree on (I have seen no evidence one way or the other that Quinn's rumored homosexuality was considered at the council).

My conclusion from the above: the Church (particularly BKP) wanted Quinn out because his controversial writings and speeches were causing problems. in my opinion, Quinn's rumored homosexuality (and, later, his insubordination) was mere pretext to bring about the predetermined result of excommunication.

My sources for the above information:

D. Michael Quinn, "Dilemmas of Feminists & the Intellectuals in the Contemporary LDS Church," Sunstone vol. 17:1, pp. 67-73 (June 1994);

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters (Signature Books 2002).

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

gitxsanartist wrote:Now lets switch the topic to Micheal Quinn. What do you know of his story?

Considerably more than I'm willing to share publicly.

Thanks to the rumor mill among DCP's "circle."

gitxsanartist wrote:Why did he get excommunicated?

I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he, for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.

I would bet the house that DCP's "reliable source" was his "friend" who discussed Quinn's rumored sexual orientation with Quinn's SP (who wasn't even aware that the inactive Quinn had moved into his stake).

Here are some other tidbits:

1. The SP in question was Paul Hanks, a high-ranking CES employee. Hanks met Quinn for the very first time when Hanks visited Quinn's apartment (unannounced) on February 7, 1993. Quinn, sick at the time, refused to let Hanks in. Later that same day, Hanks delivered a letter to Quinn requesting that they meet to discuss (i) Quinn's recent article "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843," which was published in Maxine Hanks's (a distant relative of Paul Hanks, ironically) 1992 book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, and (ii) Quinn's comments in the Salt Lake Tribune on Dec. 6, 1992, about the Church's pressure on members to conform. The SP's letter also quoted the definition of "apostasy" from the Church Handbook of Instructions. Clearly, then, Hanks's first approach was to get Quinn on an apostasy charge.

2. Quinn refused to meet with Hanks. On Feb. 10, 1993, Quinn was quoted in an Associated Press article about Hanks's efforts to meet with him under threat of losing his membership. Hanks responded in a Feb. 23 letter to Quinn, telling him that these matters should be discussed in private. Quinn still refused to meet with him.

3. Hanks sent another letter on March 16, again urging that Quinn meet with him. Via letter dated April 6, 1993, Quinn stated that under no circumstances would he meet with Hanks (who, Quinn had learned, was consulting with Seventy Loren C. Dunn).

4. Hanks sent another letter to Quinn on May 11, 1993, which stated, for the first time: "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing." Quinn took this to mean that even though the 'real' issue was his historical writings, Hanks would use rumors of Quinn's homosexuality to get rid of him.

5. On May 18, 1993, Hanks wrote Quinn another letter and again referenced "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters unrelated to Quinn's writings. The letter also scheduled a meeting two days later, and stated that if Quinn did not attend, his refusal "is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare."

6. In a May 23, 1993 letter, Hanks informed Quinn that his refusal to meet would lead him to convene a court against Quinn on June 6th "for conduct unbecoming a member of the Church." The charge appeared to now be changed from apostasy to "conduct unbecoming."

7. Hanks again showed up at Quinn's apartment, on May 28, 1993, demanding that Quinn explain to him the "moral allegations" that Hanks had "heard" about Quinn (probably thanks to DCP's "friend").

8. Quinn didn't attend the disciplinary council on June 6, 1993 -- the result was that Quinn was put on formal probation, which was contingent on, among other things, Quinn's meeting with Hanks within 30 days. Quinn did not meet with Hanks; consequently, on July 9 Quinn received a letter from Hanks scheduling another court on July 18th. Quinn didn't attend; Quinn was then disfellowshipped.

9. On September 13, 1993, Quinn received a letter scheduling a third court for Sept. 26. The charge in the summons: "Failure to meet personally and privately with President Hanks to discuss serious allegations leading to the charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy." (emphasis in original). Quinn did not attend this court, either. He was informed by Hanks, in a telephone call on Sept. 30, that he had been excommunicated. In the official letter notifying Quinn of his excommunication, the reason therefor was "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church" in refusing to meet with Hanks. No mention of apostasy or homosexuality -- really just insubordination.

10. Thus, Quinn became one of the "September Six." Quinn learned from Hanks that the council had taken 6 hours, which seemed odd since the final conviction was for mere insubordination (which Quinn thought was a no-brainer, given his refusal to meet with Hanks). A friend who attended that council as a witness favorable to Quinn, later informed Quinn that the council could not agree on whether Quinn had committed apostasy due to his historical writings, and that Hanks admitted during the meeting that BKP was pressuring him to excommunicate Quinn. Apparently, after 6 hours of debate, insurbordination (not apostasy) was the only thing they could agree on (I have seen no evidence one way or the other that Quinn's rumored homosexuality was considered at the council).

My conclusion from the above: the Church (particularly BKP) wanted Quinn out because his controversial writings and speeches were causing problems. in my opinion, Quinn's rumored homosexuality (and, later, his insubordination) was mere pretext to bring about the predetermined result of excommunication.

My sources for the above information:

D. Michael Quinn, "Dilemmas of Feminists & the Intellectuals in the Contemporary LDS Church," Sunstone vol. 17:1, pp. 67-73 (June 1994);

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters (Signature Books 2002).

Thank you very much for re-posting this material, Rollo. I agree with your conclusions re: the "rumored" homosexuality, and thus feel more than ever that DCP's comment, cited above, is evidence yet again of his rumormongering and smear tactics.

Ya know, it's pretty pathetic when a person is ex-ed simply because they are what they are.

harmony wrote:Ya know, it's pretty pathetic when a person is ex-ed simply because they are what they are.

Except that doesn't appear to be the real reason! Instead, we have DCP reporting this baloney, apparently as part of his on-going smear campaign (which includes ridiculing his scholarship as being "tendentious" and "embarrassing") against Quinn.

Mister Scratch wrote:

harmony wrote:Ya know, it's pretty pathetic when a person is ex-ed simply because they are what they are.

Except that doesn't appear to be the real reason! Instead, we have DCP reporting this baloney, apparently as part of his on-going smear campaign (which includes ridiculing his scholarship as being "tendentious" and "embarrassing") against Quinn.

Like DCP has anything to brag about. It's FARMS' scholarship that is tendentious and embarrassing.

So, the new story is that they (Southerton and Quinn) were execommunicated not because of what they wrote, but because of their relationships? Will that fly? Maybe this is just a trial balloon? Could be a spoof, since Dr. Peterson has an excellent sense of humor.

Hi There,

I do remember Daniel C. Peterson and Rollo Tomasi debating about Michael Quinn over on the "FAIR" Meesage Board back in April of last year. Is that what finally got Rollo Tomasi on the queue there, and then him being finally banned over there? Anyway, here is the URL Address to that Discussion Thread from last April on over the "FAIR"/MA&D Board: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofive ... 14656.html

Brackite wrote:Hi There,

I do remember Daniel C. Peterson and Rollo Tomasi debating about Michael Quinn over on the "FAIR" Meesage Board back in April of last year. Is that what finally got Rollo Tomasi on the queue there, and then him being finally banned over there?

That thread certainly led to my being queued in April 2006 (I was banned altogether in the summer due to my participation on this bb). In our debate about Quinn, DCP and I were discussing BYU's threatening to pull out of the Yale conference because Quinn was scheduled to present a paper; because of this threat, Quinn was relegated to introducing a speaker, rather than being a speaker. DCP claimed that the threat was reasonable because Quinn was not qualified to speak at a LDS philosophy-type conference (even though the title of the conference included "history," and Quinn is a preeminent LDS historian). In response, I pointed out that that both DCP and Blake Ostler were presenters, even though neither one was an LDS philosopher by training. This caused DCP to exhibit extreme umbrage at my questioning Ostler's qualifications (by the way, Ostler's day job is lawyering), and DCP charged me with slandering Ostler. This was the reason the Mods gave for putting me on the queue.

And the rest, as they say, is history ....

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
That thread certainly led to my being queued in April 2006 (I was banned altogether in the summer due to my participation on this bb). In our debate about Quinn, DCP and I were discussing BYU's threatening to pull out of the Yale conference because Quinn was scheduled to present a paper; because of this threat, Quinn was relegated to introducing a speaker, rather than being a speaker. DCP claimed that the threat was reasonable because Quinn was not qualified to speak at a LDS philosophy-type conference (even though the title of the conference included "history," and Quinn is a preeminent LDS historian). In response, I pointed out that that both DCP and Blake Ostler were presenters, even though neither one was an LDS philosopher by training. This caused DCP to exhibit extreme umbrage at my questioning Ostler's qualifications (by the way, Ostler's day job is lawyering), and DCP charged me with slandering Ostler. This was the reason the Mods gave for putting me on the queue.

And the rest, as they say, is history ....

Hi Rollo Tomasi,

Thanks for your imput here. The Moderators on the "FAIR"/MA&D Board love to give the LDS Apologist C. Peterson special treatment and special privileges over there. When that Discussion thread was closed down by dunamis over there, Daniel C. Peterson got special permission to Post another Message on that Discussion thread. Here is Danile C. Peterson last Post on that Discussion thread over there:

A Boring Clarification:

I got moderator permission to add a clarification to this thread (which will then be locked again). On the oddly-named "Recovery" board, a poster has characterized my comments here as describing an unethical "smear campaign" engaged in by, among others, Mike Quinn's former stake president, in which the supposedly private personal fact of his homosexuality was widely insinuated in order to discredit Quinn. This is not at all true, so far as I'm aware (and I find the notion unlikely on its face). But I realize that, in my comments here, I've left what I said open to the kind of mischaracterization that I've described (and that, of course, flourishes like a rank weed on the strangely-named "Recovery" board, where a clarification such as this would never be allowed).

Just to be clear: When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier on this thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated. I did not say, and did not intend to imply, that Quinn's former stake president disclosed Quinn's homosexuality to my friend and former colleague. The latter individual already knew about it, as did, to the best of my knowledge, virtually everybody else, believer or not, who was seriously involved in Mormon studies at the time. I don't even know that it was the former stake president who brought the subject up. And I stress, yet again, that the stake president was not disclosing confidential information from Mike Quinn, with whom he had not discussed the matter. Quinn's orientation was common knowledge in certain circles for many years, and not merely among Latter-day Saints or believers.

I want that to be clear, because I do not wish a possibly ambiguous statement on my part to provide ammunition (as if they really need ammunition!) for certain critics to use as a basis for questioning my ethics, nor the ethics of my friend, nor those of the former stake president, nor those of the Church as a whole. There was, simply, no "smear campaign." There was no organized program of whispers. There was nothing sinister. And those who knew about Mike Quinn's orientation never wrote anything about it. Not even vicious unprincipled thugs such as myself.

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=14656&st=160 , Bold Emphais Mine. )