Rollo Tomasi wrote:Pahoran wrote:So is yours, but that doesn't stop you from posing as an expert on all manner of LDS-related topics on which you are not more than averagely informed.
I have never claimed expertise, just opinion.
Ostler, OTOH, has a philosophy degree, is and has for some time been an adjunct professor in philosophy, and has published two important books on LDS philosophical theology.
An
undergrad philosophy degree -- that hardly makes one an "expert." He is a practicing lawyer -- that's his expertise.
Actually his published work show him to be rather more than a one-trick pony.
Quinn, whatever his other accomplishments, has not.
The Yale conference title also included "history," and no one can claim that Quinn is not a professional LDS historian.
The title of the conference was, "God, Humanity and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History." Clearly the "history" in view is a history of LDS
theological thought, not the history of the "hierarchy" or "magical world views" or "same sex dynamics."
Dan never said anything about any requirement to be a "professional LDS theologian."
He most certainly did, when he claimed Quinn was not "qualified" to discuss LDS theology because he was a historian (a strange argument to make in light of the conference's title).
He most certainly did not. As I previously also wrote, and you silently snipped, "this could hardly be a requirement when there ain't no such animal. He listed a number of participants who weren't even LDS."
Please note that, according to Dan,
none of the conference participants were "professional LDS theologians" and some weren't even LDS. Thus, your claim that he was using "professional LDS theologian" as a "criterion... to exclude Quinn" is a
blatant falsehood.
The point was that both his and Ostler's papers came within the scope of the subject of the conference, while The Mighty Quinn's did not.
DCP never claimed this, and never mentioned the topic of Quinn's paper. But DCP did admit that BYU threatened to pull out if Quinn was allowed to present, because it was Quinn.
Indeed. So what? He who pays the piper calls the tune. Neither the Church nor BYU has any financial obligation to provide a bully pulpit for our opponents.
He also frankly admitted that BYU didn't feel like they had any obligation to pay to provide Quinn with a forum in which to attack the Church, a position with which you seem to disagree.
DCP gave no evidence that Quinn intended to "attack" the Church; DCP didn't even mention what Quinn was going to present.
Excuse me, but how many times must I quote Dan's actual words to you before you will admit that he said them?
DCP wrote:There was no "vendetta" against Michael Quinn. But there was a genuine and justified concern that Mike Quinn might use the platform of the Yale Conference to mount yet another direct or indirect attack on the institutional Church. And, since BYU and FARMS were co-sponsoring and helping to fund the event at Yale, we thought that we should have some say about whether or not the conference should be used for such attacks.
How do I know you didn't just miss that? Well, because you
quoted it and
responded to it.
That's how.
Again, it was the simple fact that Quinn "the apostate intellectual" was on the schedule that riled the apologists.
Here's a news flash for you, Rollo: not every believing Latter-day Saint is an "apologist," and not every apologist is a believing Latter-day Saint. For example you, Rollo, are certainly an apologist for your rather slimy brand of anti-Mormonism, but you are not a Latter-day Saint in any meaningful sense.
Actually they closed the thread several pages after you slagged off at your own profession--and continued to participate with impunity. They also issued two warnings before closing the thread. The second was about the deteriorating quality of the discussion. The first was aimed directly at you and your "grenade" style of posting.
That's not my recollection.
Nevertheless, it's what the record shows. Do I need to prove it?
DCP was painted in a corner about his Quinn rumor-mongering and his "circle's" efforts to effectively blackball Quinn in the Mormon studies field.
That is another Rolloism. There were no such efforts.
To paraphrase GIMR, "apostates and their conspiracy theories!"
My "grenades" had nothing to do with it -- DCP's own words damned him.
No, they did not.
You "exposed" no such thing. You merely made rude comments after Dan pointed out that Quinn's sexual orientation was a well-known fact prior to his excommunication in 1988.
DCP admitted it was more than simply "knowing" about Quinn's orientation -- he and his "circle" discussed it,
Of
course they did. How else is anybody supposed to know it? By osmosis? Discussion in one form or another is how things
become known in the first place.
and one even informed Quinn's SP.
That conclusion is not available on the evidence; In other words, you fabricated it yourself. Dan explicitly said that he didn't know who brought the subject up in the discussion.
Even so, I wonder why you imagine, as you evidently do, that it shows Dan's friend in a bad light (or, if it does, why it reflects upon Dan.) You wouldn't understand this, having never been a believing Latter-day Saint, but in The Church of Jesus Christ, if someone has a serious moral problem, their priesthood leaders are regarded as the people best placed to help them.
by the way, Quinn was not ex'ed until September 1993.
That's right, he wasn't. And so?
Do you think that excommunication is automatic for homosexual transgressions? It isn't. Do you think that having a homosexual "orientation" is even a transgression
at all? It isn't.
Please note, by the way, that the only reason anybody discussed when Quinn's homosexuality became known is because
you brought it up, thus:
Rollo Tomasi Apr 10 2006, 02:18 PM wrote:I don't believe Quinn's excommunication in September 1993 had anything to with his homosexuality, because Quinn didn't "come out" until around the time his "Same-Sex Dynamics" book was published in 1996.
That's how the issue came into the discussion.
You opened that door, Rollo.
And what made you mad about Dan's response was not what you so self-righteously--and hypocritically--denounce as "rumor-mongering," but the fact that he showed that Quinn's interview in "Out" was
not the first anyone heard of his proclivities.
by the way, you never quite answered this on FAIR, so I'll give you an opportunity to answer it now: how was it "rumour-mongering?" DCP reported that he had heard about Quinn's moral problems from another source in a non-confidential setting. Is it your contention that he got it wrong--that Quinn isn't gay after all? Or are you saying that, some ten years after Quinn "came out" to a magazine appropriately named "Out," it is "rumor-mongering" to even mention this well-known fact?
DCP also admitted that he discussed Quinn's private sex life with others among his "circle."
Private sex life? No, you fabricated that one too. Dan said that his
known orientation was discussed. Perhaps you'd prefer if a kind of Victorian prudery was imposed upon such matters, so that someone's publicly paraded unorthodoxy is simply never mentioned in polite company.
Besides, you have no problem at all speculating about Joseph Smith's private sex life. Sauce for the goose?
DCP's "friend" also told him of his conversation with Quinn's SP about the topic (before the SP even knew the inactive Quinn had moved into his stake).
But the SP certainly knew who Quinn was.
Regardless of whether the gossip is true or not, talking about one's private sex life behind his back (and to his Church leader) is a perfect illustration of "rumor-mongering."
Again, there is no indication of any discussion of anyone's "private sex life." That is purely the product of your own rather salacious imagination. One participant mentioned that Quinn brought his then-current boyfriend to a rather public academic gathering in the 1980's. That's not a matter of his "private sex life" but of his public behaviour.
But that's okay, Rollo. You just wouldn't be you if you didn't distort the facts. A word of advice: next time try distorting them entirely beyond recognition. That way it won't be so easy to check up on your claims.
Check all you want -- I try to be as accurate as I can.
Then you fail miserably.
The bottom line is that DCP unwittingly revealed his and his "circle's" gossiping about Quinn's orientation,
"Unwittingly?" He freely and frankly disclosed that it was discussed. "Gossiping?" How does it constitute gossip? You bring it up yourself from time to time. Are you "gossiping" when you do?
Quinn is gay. In the late 80's he was publicly parading his homosexuality. If he didn't want it known, he could have chosen to be more discreet about it.
and try as he might, his own words continue to damn him.
I have no doubt that "damn him" were two of the more savoury words you uttered when you saw his post.
Regards,
Pahoran