DiscussMormonism.com

Hello folks,

Daniel Peterson saw one of my posts within the An Anniversary: Revisiting a Mopologetic Milestone thread and responded to it (and me) via e-mail. We went back and forth a couple of times, and I convinced him to allow me to post a portion of our exchanges since I believe it contains very relevant information. In the following copy-&-paste, I've omitted portions that were about other topics. ALL BOLD EMPASIS IS MINE, NOT HIS:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:[SNIP!] I’ve just noticed your attempt to sum up the alleged anti-Quinn gossipmongering campaign in which I and others were supposedly engaged:

Dr. Shades wrote:“Judging by what you and Mister Scratch have said, let's see if this is the most likely scenario:

A) Rumors of Quinn's bisexuality swirled among the apologetic intelligentsia for X amount of time. B) It remains unclear who started them or how they began. C) When it was discovered that Quinn had moved back to Utah, one of them jumped at the opportunity to tell Quinn's stake president about it for punitive reasons.

Does that sound about right?

No. It’s crucially wrong at points A and C, though B is accurate.

A. Mike Quinn’s sexual orientation was widely known among people involved in Mormon studies (not merely, or even primarily, among “apologists” or faithful Church members) for many years prior to his official “coming out” in 1996. My impression is that just about everybody seriously involved with Sunstone and the Mormon History Association, for example, seems to have been aware of it. I suspect this to be the case because, when he finally announced his homosexuality, I heard not a single exclamation of surprise. Not one. Precisely how the news got around or how his homosexuality came to be recognized I could not begin to say. As I’ve noted before, I first heard that Quinn was gay when, with Todd Compton, sometime (I believe) between 1982 and 1985, I was visiting in the home of a person in southern California (where I then lived) who would be widely recognized as more sympathetic to Quinn’s theological and historical views than, say, to Bruce McConkie’s. This man was astonished that Todd and I were unaware of something that he thought was universally known. As it turns out, Quinn’s homosexuality truly was just about universally known in (believing and unbelieving) Mormon studies circles, and Todd and I were simply among the last to hear about it. (In my case, the explanation may reside in the fact that I had been living in the Middle East essentially from the end of 1977 to the middle of 1982.) Neither Todd Compton nor the man who told us about Quinn would typically be counted among the “apologist community.”

C. Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.) And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject. The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.

[SNIP!] In the small and close-knit community of people involved in Mormon history or Mormon studies, a community containing both faithful believers and dissidents, there’s a lot of informal conversation. That’s how human communities work. It would have been astonishing had Quinn’s sexual orientation not surfaced in some of those chats. But that’s all there ever was. There was no rumor-mongering crusade, and I certainly wasn’t involved in one. I would guess that the subject of Quinn’s homosexuality came up in conversations in which I was involved on maybe half a dozen occasions between the time I first heard of it and his formal “coming out.” I don’t recall ever, not even once, initiating the discussion, and I don’t believe that any of those instances went much beyond mere mention of the fact.

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

I’ve said this repeatedly. I can’t think of any clearer way than what I’ve already said to state that I was involved in no smear campaign against Mike Quinn and that, in fact, so far as I know, there was no smear campaign against Mike Quinn. [SNIP!]

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

P.S. On reflection, 1982-1985 seems a bit early to me for my having heard about Quinn’s homosexuality, though I can’t rule it out. Perhaps the conversation occurred during a subsequent visit to California (which I typically visit quite often, because I grew up there and still have family there). So that would mean that I may have known of Quinn’s sexual orientation for as little as, say, only around five years before he came out of the closet. But no less. For various reasons, I think it cannot have been any later than the beginning of the 1990s when I was told of Quinn’s being gay by a very liberal figure in the Mormon studies community, in company with another very liberal member of that community.

MY COMMENTARY:

For my part, this sounds wholly believable to me. Let's face it, if we attempt to incriminate DCP for "gossipmongering," apparently we'll have to incriminate the entire Mormon Studies community.

I also believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and since DCP was obviously an eyewitness to all this, I see no reason not to take his explanation at face value.

Hmmmm. Well that tells me some things and not others.

My concern has always been more with petty and snide remarks and insinuations in written articles, than in any social gossiping. Though narking someone out to their ecclesiastical superior would go far beyond mere gossip.

I came late to the discussion. I wasn't paying attention to anything related to Mormonism for many years, and only rather recently started playing catch up. I think I have a general idea of the contremps Quinn---at least enough to sketch out the history and shape of New Mormon History and other scholarly/academic (BYU firings) developments of the time. I've got the written record and while it does help to understand the context in which things were written, in the end, my conclusions are based on what kind of thing someone felt comfortable enough to publish.

Shades quoting DCP:

Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Without Quinn involved in this discussion, the underlined portion seems inappropriate.

Dr. Shades wrote:Hello folks,

Daniel Peterson saw one of my posts within the An Anniversary: Revisiting a Mopologetic Milestone thread and responded to it (and me) via e-mail. We went back and forth a couple of times, and I convinced him to allow me to post a portion of our exchanges since I believe it contains very relevant information. In the following copy-&-paste, I've omitted portions that were about other topics. ALL BOLD EMPASIS IS MINE, NOT HIS:

Thank you very much for posting this, and for persuading the Good Professor to allow you to post it. However, I am still confused on a number of points. Before I go through his remarks, let me respond to your final words, Shades:

Dr. Shades wrote:MY COMMENTARY:

For my part, this sounds wholly believable to me. Let's face it, if we attempt to incriminate DCP for "gossipmongering," apparently we'll have to incriminate the entire Mormon Studies community.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. For one thing, mention of homosexuality among liberal LDS is likely to occur with entirely different motives than it would amongst TBMs, or apologists. For another thing, even if the "gossipmongering" was as widespread as DCP claims, that does not make it any less of a breech of ethics.

Dr. Shades wrote:I also believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and since DCP was obviously an eyewitness to all this, I see no reason not to take his explanation at face value.

I gather that there is still some question as to just what---if anything---DCP has been guilty of. I think Rollo and myself have maintained all along that the sort of gossip he and his "circle" would have been engaging in on this topic would necessarily (due to his adherence to Church orthodoxy) have been malicious in nature. Moreover, we know that DCP has fun gossiping about his acquaintances and ridiculing them, as evidence by this post (I covered this in an earlier thread):

Daniel Peterson wrote:
There's a famous quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to G. K. Chesterton, to the effect that, when people surrender belief in Christianity, they don't surrender belief. In fact, they'll believe almost anything. An analogous phenomenon sometimes seems to occur when Mormons surrender their faith: A neighbor, following a very bitter and ugly divorce, decided that the Church isn't true. But she believes devoutly in every single New Age superstition, every conspiracy theory, every alien abduction, every quack medicine, every nutritional fad, and, when available, every evil rumor about ward and stake leaders. It's positively astonishing.

So, I guess my question to you, Shades, is this: What is it that we should presume DCP is "innocent" of? There doesn't seem to be any disagreement as to whether or not he did, in fact, engage in gossip. That much is quite clear. I suppose we could continue to debate whether or not his participation in this gossiping was malicious in nature, however, and my take on it is: Yes, it was malicious in nature.

Anyways, on to his email:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:[SNIP!] I’ve just noticed your attempt to sum up the alleged anti-Quinn gossipmongering campaign in which I and others were supposedly engaged:

Dr. Shades wrote:“Judging by what you and Mister Scratch have said, let's see if this is the most likely scenario:

A) Rumors of Quinn's bisexuality swirled among the apologetic intelligentsia for X amount of time. B) It remains unclear who started them or how they began. C) When it was discovered that Quinn had moved back to Utah, one of them jumped at the opportunity to tell Quinn's stake president about it for punitive reasons.

Does that sound about right?

No. It’s crucially wrong at points A and C, though B is accurate.

A. Mike Quinn’s sexual orientation was widely known among people involved in Mormon studies (not merely, or even primarily, among “apologists” or faithful Church members) for many years prior to his official “coming out” in 1996. My impression is that just about everybody seriously involved with Sunstone and the Mormon History Association, for example, seems to have been aware of it. I suspect this to be the case because, when he finally announced his homosexuality, I heard not a single exclamation of surprise. Not one. Precisely how the news got around or how his homosexuality came to be recognized I could not begin to say. As I’ve noted before, I first heard that Quinn was gay when, with Todd Compton, sometime (I believe) between 1982 and 1985, I was visiting in the home of a person in southern California (where I then lived) who would be widely recognized as more sympathetic to Quinn’s theological and historical views than, say, to Bruce McConkie’s. This man was astonished that Todd and I were unaware of something that he thought was universally known.

Could it be that this anonymous man was (drum roll) Robert Crockett, who happens to live in Los Angeles, and who is the sole person to ever have said that Quinn's sexual orientation was "common knowledge"?

As it turns out, Quinn’s homosexuality truly was just about universally known in (believing and unbelieving) Mormon studies circles, and Todd and I were simply among the last to hear about it.

I wish he would have provided some more explanation as to this remark. I.e., since he'd been in the dark for so long, how did he suddenly come to understand that this "was just about universally known"? Did he go around to a bunch of different people, tugging on their sleeves and saying, "Hey, did you know about Mike Quinn"?

(In my case, the explanation may reside in the fact that I had been living in the Middle East essentially from the end of 1977 to the middle of 1982.) Neither Todd Compton nor the man who told us about Quinn would typically be counted among the “apologist community.”

This seems like mere semantic games on his part. I.e., like he was objecting to your summary of the events because you used the term "apologist community." Once again, however, I think this cuts to a central point about the ethics of this whole issue. I ask again: Is an apologist going to be likely to discuss homosexuality in a charitable light?

C. Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Frankly, I find this last bit appalling. What the hell is DCP doing making insinuations of this kind? A very, very nasty sort of low blow, in my opinion. I would be interested in seeing him clarify this.

And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject.

Again, what does this mean? Why is Prof. P. being so vague and cagey? What is this SP, who, according to DCP, did not even *know* Quinn, doing discussing him like this?

The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.

"Emerged in passing"? Are you kidding me? Once more, what does this mean?

[SNIP!] In the small and close-knit community of people involved in Mormon history or Mormon studies, a community containing both faithful believers and dissidents, there’s a lot of informal conversation. That’s how human communities work. It would have been astonishing had Quinn’s sexual orientation not surfaced in some of those chats. But that’s all there ever was. There was no rumor-mongering crusade, and I certainly wasn’t involved in one. I would guess that the subject of Quinn’s homosexuality came up in conversations in which I was involved on maybe half a dozen occasions between the time I first heard of it and his formal “coming out.” I don’t recall ever, not even once, initiating the discussion, and I don’t believe that any of those instances went much beyond mere mention of the fact.

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

This last bit is extremely suspect, in my opinion. He says he "sat on it, quietly." To me, this implies that he felt that he could use this information as a weapon, and, in fact, that he had thought of doing so. It is like he was doing a calculus in his mind where he said, "Gee! What a bombshell I've got! I could totally besmirch Mike Quinn's reputation, but, because I am such a nice and ethical guy, I won't publish anything about it at all. But I could." I think his statement betrays his sense of his own power.

I’ve said this repeatedly. I can’t think of any clearer way than what I’ve already said to state that I was involved in no smear campaign against Mike Quinn and that, in fact, so far as I know, there was no smear campaign against Mike Quinn. [SNIP!]

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

Then why did he post that material on the FAIRboard, thus initiating one of the Great Moments in Mopologetic history? Did he mention this little story as "mere facts"? Or was he trying to damage Quinn's reputation? Further, why was he involved in the push to get Quinn demoted at the Yale Conference? Basically, I don't think that DCP has really addressed any of the fundamental questions that I still have about this issue.

P.S. On reflection, 1982-1985 seems a bit early to me for my having heard about Quinn’s homosexuality, though I can’t rule it out. Perhaps the conversation occurred during a subsequent visit to California (which I typically visit quite often, because I grew up there and still have family there). So that would mean that I may have known of Quinn’s sexual orientation for as little as, say, only around five years before he came out of the closet. But no less. For various reasons, I think it cannot have been any later than the beginning of the 1990s when I was told of Quinn’s being gay by a very liberal figure in the Mormon studies community, in company with another very liberal member of that community.

Well, this reflects pretty badly on his earlier assertion that this information was as "widely known" as he claims. I don't think that he's bluffing, per se, but something about his account stinks.

A further thing we have not touched on at all is his extreme, apoplectic reaction to our viewing his postings as "gossipmongering." Why has he gotten so bent out of shape over it? That has never made sense to me. After all, we have caught him doing all kinds of things---screwing up his sources in an academic document, for example, or his blunders with the 2nd Watson letter---and he didn't get anywhere near as angry about those things. Why is this Quinn business such a sore spot for him? (The only thing I know of that can compare is when we criticize the peer review process at FROB.)

In any case, thank you again for getting this material to us, Shades. As someone who is interested in the history of Mopologetics, I found this incredibly enlightening, and enjoyed it as a kind of "insider's view" into a world which is oftentimes quite secretive. Of course, it still does not change my view that DCP behaved unethically when he posted that material on the FAIRboard.

I will be extremely curious to read Rollo Tomasi's reaction to the above.

Edited to add: I think we need to further take into account the fact that DCP's oversaw/edited the FARMS Review's response to Quinn's Same-Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. When asked, Prof. P. will happily point to that work as the key example of why Quinn is an "embarrassment." He, like the authors of the FROB article, has a low opinion of homosexuals, and believes that they always have "an agenda." (There were two articles, and the lengthier of the two is quite frank in its hostility towards gays.) I think we need to view his participation in the gossip with these views and attitudes (which he implicitly and editorially espouses) in mind.

marg wrote:Shades quoting DCP:

Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Without Quinn involved in this discussion, the underlined portion seems inappropriate.

I agree with Marg here. DCP pleads innocence but it is obvious that he just talks too much. He makes it a habit to implicate people by innuendo. Can you imagine yourself being TBM and confessing your sins to DCP the bishop?

In addition, the stake president here is out of line. If there was an incident involving Michael Quinn, his Stake President is committed to discretion. It is easy to visualize a whisper campaign against Quinn.

Before I respond to Mister Scratch--which will take a while--I'd better hurry and address both Marg and Yong Xi:

marg wrote:Shades quoting DCP:

Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Without Quinn involved in this discussion, the underlined portion seems inappropriate.

Perhaps you're right, but I included it to show how the Stake President knew about the issue before discussing anything with anyone else. As DCP stated, the Stake President asked first.

Yong Xi wrote:I agree with Marg here. DCP pleads innocence but it is obvious that he just talks too much. He makes it a habit to implicate people by innuendo. Can you imagine yourself being TBM and confessing your sins to DCP the bishop?

In addition, the stake president here is out of line. If there was an incident involving Michael Quinn, his Stake President is committed to discretion. It is easy to visualize a whisper campaign against Quinn.

The "sad incident" had nothing to do with confidences shared with the Stake President. The Stake President was informed of it after the fact. So, he broke no ecclesiastical confidentiality.

Dr. Shades wrote:Before I respond to Mister Scratch--which will take a while--I'd better hurry and address both Marg and Yong Xi:

marg wrote:Shades quoting DCP:

Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Without Quinn involved in this discussion, the underlined portion seems inappropriate.

Perhaps you're right, but I included it to show how the Stake President knew about the issue before discussing anything with anyone else. As DCP stated, the Stake President asked first.

Yong Xi wrote:I agree with Marg here. DCP pleads innocence but it is obvious that he just talks too much. He makes it a habit to implicate people by innuendo. Can you imagine yourself being TBM and confessing your sins to DCP the bishop?

In addition, the stake president here is out of line. If there was an incident involving Michael Quinn, his Stake President is committed to discretion. It is easy to visualize a whisper campaign against Quinn.

The "sad incident" had nothing to do with confidences shared with the Stake President. The Stake President was informed of it after the fact. So, he broke no ecclesiastical confidentiality.

Wait a sec.... What was this "sad incident"? Who "informed" the SP? (And given that the SP was unaware that Quinn was even a member of his stake, how/why was he being "informed" in the first place?) And how is telling DCP's friend about the "sad incident" not a breaking of ecc. confid.? Does this not just sink DCP and his "circle" in even more deeply?

1. Shades, I commend you for your ability to at least acknowledge the sincerity of and accept at face value the explanation that Dr. Peterson has offered. Rollo Tomasi and Mr. Scratch would do well to follow your example in this matter.

2. Mr. Scratch, you are, without a doubt, one of the most despicable characters I have ever come across in all my years. Your deep-rooted bitterness towards all things LDS, and specifically towards certain members of the apologetic community, is a reflection not on the church or the objects of your constant derision, but rather upon yourself as a very, very small-minded and morally-challenged human being.

You ask about Quinn’s stake president and what he knew and why he knew it. Well, I know a little bit about this whole affair, since my wife and I lived, at the time, in the same neighborhood with them all. The stake president was Paul Hanks, a humble and noble man, and a man full of sincere love and concern for the members of his stake. During this period of time, Mike Quinn was actively engaged in homosexual activity with another member of the stake. That is how President Hanks learned about Quinn’s inclinations – although during this period, Mike wasn’t trying very hard to keep any of this a secret. It was quite apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And President Hanks wasn’t the source of any of this information being disseminated – what was happening with Quinn and the other party was in wide circulation long before it came to the attention of the bishop or stake president.

So, once and for all, lay off Dan Peterson. He had nothing to do with any of this sordid affair.

Mister Scratch wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:I also believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and since DCP was obviously an eyewitness to all this, I see no reason not to take his explanation at face value.

I gather that there is still some question as to just what---if anything---DCP has been guilty of. I think Rollo and myself have maintained all along that the sort of gossip he and his "circle" would have been engaging in on this topic would necessarily (due to his adherence to Church orthodoxy) have been malicious in nature. . . So, I guess my question to you, Shades, is this: What is it that we should presume DCP is "innocent" of?

Innocent of collecting gossip with the intent to deliver the material into the lap of Quinn's Stake President.

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement as to whether or not he did, in fact, engage in gossip. That much is quite clear. I suppose we could continue to debate whether or not his participation in this gossiping was malicious in nature, however, and my take on it is: Yes, it was malicious in nature.

Well, as a gossip connoisseur myself, I strongly believe that "gossip"--or idle chatter, take your pick--only crosses the line into "malicious" when the hearer brings it to the attention of the subject's superior(s) with the express intent to cause punitive action to be taken against the subject. Since this didn't happen, I see nothing wrong with DCP, or anyone else, hearing about or discussing Quinn's orientation. Let's face it, you don't hear about gay Mormons too often, so such a specimen is bound to be commented upon, ethical considerations aside.

As I’ve noted before, I first heard that Quinn was gay when, with Todd Compton, sometime (I believe) between 1982 and 1985, I was visiting in the home of a person in southern California (where I then lived) who would be widely recognized as more sympathetic to Quinn’s theological and historical views than, say, to Bruce McConkie’s. This man was astonished that Todd and I were unaware of something that he thought was universally known.

Could it be that this anonymous man was (drum roll) Robert Crockett, who happens to live in Los Angeles, and who is the sole person to ever have said that Quinn's sexual orientation was "common knowledge"?

I have no idea about that.

As it turns out, Quinn’s homosexuality truly was just about universally known in (believing and unbelieving) Mormon studies circles, and Todd and I were simply among the last to hear about it.

I wish he would have provided some more explanation as to this remark. I.e., since he'd been in the dark for so long, how did he suddenly come to understand that this "was just about universally known"? Did he go around to a bunch of different people, tugging on their sleeves and saying, "Hey, did you know about Mike Quinn"?

He could've been merely told that it was universally known.

(In my case, the explanation may reside in the fact that I had been living in the Middle East essentially from the end of 1977 to the middle of 1982.) Neither Todd Compton nor the man who told us about Quinn would typically be counted among the “apologist community.”

This seems like mere semantic games on his part. I.e., like he was objecting to your summary of the events because you used the term "apologist community." Once again, however, I think this cuts to a central point about the ethics of this whole issue. I ask again: Is an apologist going to be likely to discuss homosexuality in a charitable light?

That's probably all it is. Remember that the first point of my original summary, which DCP disagreed with, was this:

"A) Rumors of Quinn's bisexuality swirled among the apologetic intelligentsia for X amount of time."

The reason he disagreed was because it wasn't principally or exclusively the apologetic community, but also the entire society of Sunstone & Mormon History Association types. So it couldn't all have been malicious, since many of that community are liberal and/or unbelieving themselves.

C. Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.)

Frankly, I find this last bit appalling. What the hell is DCP doing making insinuations of this kind? A very, very nasty sort of low blow, in my opinion. I would be interested in seeing him clarify this.

It's not an insinuation. The fact that he wishes to keep the details from becoming widespread speaks against him being a gossipmonger, methinks.

And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject.

Again, what does this mean? Why is Prof. P. being so vague and cagey? What is this SP, who, according to DCP, did not even *know* Quinn, doing discussing him like this?

It might be a matter of knowing about someone in your stake without ever having met him/her in person.

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

This last bit is extremely suspect, in my opinion. He says he "sat on it, quietly." To me, this implies that he felt that he could use this information as a weapon, and, in fact, that he had thought of doing so. It is like he was doing a calculus in his mind where he said, "Gee! What a bombshell I've got! I could totally besmirch Mike Quinn's reputation, but, because I am such a nice and ethical guy, I won't publish anything about it at all. But I could." I think his statement betrays his sense of his own power.

To be honest, I didn't read it that way. It sounded to me that he has a sense of chivalry and fair play, refusing to resort to (deeply & truly) personal attacks.

I’ve said this repeatedly. I can’t think of any clearer way than what I’ve already said to state that I was involved in no smear campaign against Mike Quinn and that, in fact, so far as I know, there was no smear campaign against Mike Quinn.

Then why did he post that material on the FAIRboard, thus initiating one of the Great Moments in Mopologetic history? Did he mention this little story as "mere facts"? Or was he trying to damage Quinn's reputation?

I don't remember the details, but I think it came about when someone claimed that the "real" reason Quinn was excommunicated was for homosexuality, then DCP corrected him/her by saying that it couldn't have been that way, since Quinn's homosexuality was widely known for quite some time without any sanctions ever being brought against him.

P.S. On reflection, 1982-1985 seems a bit early to me for my having heard about Quinn’s homosexuality, though I can’t rule it out. Perhaps the conversation occurred during a subsequent visit to California (which I typically visit quite often, because I grew up there and still have family there). So that would mean that I may have known of Quinn’s sexual orientation for as little as, say, only around five years before he came out of the closet. But no less. For various reasons, I think it cannot have been any later than the beginning of the 1990s when I was told of Quinn’s being gay by a very liberal figure in the Mormon studies community, in company with another very liberal member of that community.

Well, this reflects pretty badly on his earlier assertion that this information was as "widely known" as he claims. I don't think that he's bluffing, per se, but something about his account stinks.

I don't really see what you mean, since, as he said, he was merely among the last to know what was, again, widely known.

A further thing we have not touched on at all is his extreme, apoplectic reaction to our viewing his postings as "gossipmongering." Why has he gotten so bent out of shape over it? That has never made sense to me. After all, we have caught him doing all kinds of things---screwing up his sources in an academic document, for example, or his blunders with the 2nd Watson letter---and he didn't get anywhere near as angry about those things. Why is this Quinn business such a sore spot for him? (The only thing I know of that can compare is when we criticize the peer review process at FROB.)

Perhaps it's because he's against the type of "malicious" gossip of the type I described, i.e. compiling information on someone in order to deliver it into the lap of someone's superior to bring about punitive measures?

The reason I say that is due to my own experience: I always get far, far madder when I'm accused of something that's absolutely not in any way true than when I'm accused of something that has a grain (or more) of truth to it.

In any case, thank you again for getting this material to us, Shades. As someone who is interested in the history of Mopologetics, I found this incredibly enlightening, and enjoyed it as a kind of "insider's view" into a world which is oftentimes quite secretive.

You're certainly welcome. Of course, DCP is the one to thank for allowing me to copy-&-paste it.

Of course, it still does not change my view that DCP behaved unethically when he posted that material on the FAIRboard.

I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what he posted to the FAIR board. If memory serves, he only posted what he did to dispel a false rumor. Let's face it: If it's a fact that someone's homosexuality was well-known to group A, what's the harm in stating that fact?

Edited to add: I think we need to further take into account the fact that DCP's oversaw/edited the FARMS Review's response to Quinn's Same-Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. When asked, Prof. P. will happily point to that work as the key example of why Quinn is an "embarrassment." He, like the authors of the FROB article, has a low opinion of homosexuals, and believes that they always have "an agenda." (There were two articles, and the lengthier of the two is quite frank in its hostility towards gays.) I think we need to view his participation in the gossip with these views and attitudes (which he implicitly and editorially espouses) in mind.

Who were the authors of those two articles? If the author of the lengthier article is who I think it is, I might have a story to share. "Gossip," if you will :-)

But in any case, let's grant that the FARMS Review was hostile toward gays. Even so, that doesn't mean that anyone rumormongered beforehand with the intent to deliver the information to Quinn's Stake President.

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

It is hard for me to understand how somebody consciously chooses not to damage someone over something that is none of their business. Does DCP make it a habit to consciously sit on his knowledge of other's sexual orientation? Does a person have to think about whether they will publicly "out" someone?


DCP: "Yeah, I know Mike Quinn is gay, but I am not going to publish that. I'll just sit on."


Can DCP be taken at his word? It is comments like this that make me wonder. Perhaps DCP just reveals information that he really isn't privy to. I don't know.