An Anniversary: Revisiting a Mopologetic Milestone

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure, Rollo may have been right about the strict, dictionary definition of "gossip," but in my world, gossip is not that big of a sin.

My beef was how the gossip was used to destroy a man's career (and continues to this day, in light of the Wall Street Journal article). LDS scholars like DCP want to destroy Quinn because of his controversial writings. Quinn's sexual orientation provided them with the perfect tactic to do this, particularly among homophobic Mormon leaders and members. The gossip in this case was neither harmless nor "entertaining." It was aimed at destroying a man's life ... and, in this case, they succeeded. I see nothing to be "fond" of, Doc.

It's been repeated that Quinn's homosexuality was made obvious by Quinn himself thanks to that Mormon History Association symposium (or whatever) incident. In my opinion, that made him "fair game" for talk to commence. Let's face it, open homoerotic displays are quite rare--and therefore noteworthy--in the LDS metacommunity.

It's been repeated by only one that I know of -- our very own rcrocket. No one else has claimed to have seen this purported "open homoerotic display." And, in my opinion, rcrocket's timing (1980 or 1981 MHA conference) is way off, since Quinn continued at BYU until 1988.

Talk is cheap, and I think the only thing objectionable was when DCP's colleague told the tale to Quinn's Stake President. That's because up to that time, nobody could directly punish Quinn in any way, but telling the Stake President opened the door to punitive action, so the colleague--not DCP himself--should've kept his mouth shut in the presence of the Stake President (but not necessarily anyone else).

I agree, this was a major offense, among many in this matter.

But when a person openly displays an otherwise private matter for all the world to see, then all bets are off.

Again, you're basing this on the claim of just ONE person -- rcrocket. He has yet to provide any collaboration, so I'd take his charge with a grain of salt.

In other words, I think DCP is essentially innocent.

Not me. I think DCP was in the thick of it, just like he was front and center for BYU's threat to pull out of the Yale conference if Quinn were allowed to present a paper.

Now let the flaming begin (no pun intended).

See above.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Rollo, Shades. The TBM context of this particular variety of gossip makes it far more dangerous and venomous, in my opinion.

I also agree that our dear friend Bob/rcrocket/Plutarch's "account" is highly dubious. Let's not forget that this is the same rcrocket who conveniently deleted key information from his "bombshell" MMM article.

[_moksha]

I think DCP was in the thick of it, just like he was front and center for BYU's threat to pull out of the Yale conference if Quinn were allowed to present a paper.

Universities can host conferences to bring in money. I assume the Church wished to host the conference at a prestigious American University. I assume this was a conference Yale was willing to host as a paid enterprise. Why did Yale wish to see Dr. Quinn deliver a paper? Did the Church have the option of going to Harvard, Princeton or Stanford instead? I know in life many people are willing to abandon their principles for money. Was Yale offered more money to cave in for their wish to see Dr. Quinn deliver a paper or was just the threat of losing the conference enough? Why not host the conference at one of their own universities where they would have complete control?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Universities can host conferences to bring in money. I assume the Church wished to host the conference at a prestigious American University. I assume this was a conference Yale was willing to host as a paid enterprise. Why did Yale wish to see Dr. Quinn deliver a paper? Did the Church have the option of going to Harvard, Princeton or Stanford instead? I know in life many people are willing to abandon their principles for money. Was Yale offered more money to cave in for their wish to see Dr. Quinn deliver a paper or was just the threat of losing the conference enough? Why not host the conference at one of their own universities where they would have complete control?

An LDS guy at Yale is the one who set up the conference, and also fought for Quinn to be able to present a paper (the ultimate compromise was allowing Quinn to introduce a presenter). It was a feather in BYU's cap to be able to discuss Mormonism at such a prestigious university, so they jumped at the chance to do the conference, only then to threaten to pull out because of Quinn's scheduled involvement.

[_TAK]

Somethings never change.
Its interesting that a few years ago on ZLMB during the Steve Benson saga with Boyd and Packer, ol' DCP was posting away how he knew real content of those conversatons and what the really said, and how Steve was a liar. When asked how he was aware of these private conversations - the back peddling began ..

[_Dr. Shades]

My beef was how the gossip was used to destroy a man's career (and continues to this day, in light of the Wall Street Journal article).

When gossip is just idle chatter, I don't really have a problem with it. But when it's used to destroy a person's career I agree with you that it crosses the line in a BIG way.

LDS scholars like DCP want to destroy Quinn because of his controversial writings. Quinn's sexual orientation provided them with the perfect tactic to do this, particularly among homophobic Mormon leaders and members. The gossip in this case was neither harmless nor "entertaining." It was aimed at destroying a man's life ... and, in this case, they succeeded. I see nothing to be "fond" of, Doc.

If that's indeed the case, then I agree with you. But here's where the water gets a little murky, in my opinion: Was the gossip about Quinn purposefully delivered to the Stake President by committee (if that makes any sense) with the intent to destroy? Or, as I'm thinking, did one guy simply "go maverick" and mistakenly fail to keep his trap shut around the wrong person?

It's been repeated that Quinn's homosexuality was made obvious by Quinn himself thanks to that Mormon History Association symposium (or whatever) incident.

It's been repeated by only one that I know of -- our very own rcrocket. No one else has claimed to have seen this purported "open homoerotic display." And, in my opinion, rcrocket's timing (1980 or 1981 MHA conference) is way off, since Quinn continued at BYU until 1988.

Here's where I'm apparently confused. If rcrocket's account isn't to be trusted, then how did DCP and his friends discover that Quinn was bisexual? I guess I just assumed that that's how DCP et. al. found out.

In other words, I think DCP is essentially innocent.

Not me. I think DCP was in the thick of it, just like he was front and center for BYU's threat to pull out of the Yale conference if Quinn were allowed to present a paper.

Now that was unnecessary pettiness, I agree.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Rollo, Shades. The TBM context of this particular variety of gossip makes it far more dangerous and venomous, in my opinion.

That may be so, but I think the issue may well hinge on whether the leak to the Stake President was intentional or merely a boneheaded blunder. If the former, then I agree that Rollo is absolutely right with everything he said. My only contention is that it sounds like it could easily have been the latter.

I also agree that our dear friend Bob/rcrocket/Plutarch's "account" is highly dubious. Let's not forget that this is the same rcrocket who conveniently deleted key information from his "bombshell" MMM article.

Touché.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Rollo, Shades. The TBM context of this particular variety of gossip makes it far more dangerous and venomous, in my opinion.

That may be so, but I think the issue may well hinge on whether the leak to the Stake President was intentional or merely a boneheaded blunder. If the former, then I agree that Rollo is absolutely right with everything he said. My only contention is that it sounds like it could easily have been the latter.

I don't think so. In fact, I think that it is literally impossible for gossip about a person's homosexuality to "a boneheaded blunder" within a TBM context. In other words, there is no such thing, within a hardcore LDS context, as an easy-going, light-hearted, "Hey, did you know so-and-so is a homosexual?" Homosexuality is universally viewed as a sin to be condemned and wiped out by these people, hence why I think there can be no mistaking DCP & et. al.'s gossip as being anything other than malicious. (Sidenote: I noticed that DCP is taking a jab at me on a thread over on the aptly named MADboard. He's apparently upset about our reminiscing on his little "slip up.")

I also agree that our dear friend Bob/rcrocket/Plutarch's "account" is highly dubious. Let's not forget that this is the same rcrocket who conveniently deleted key information from his "bombshell" MMM article.

Touché.

LOL....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Was the gossip about Quinn purposefully delivered to the Stake President by committee (if that makes any sense) with the intent to destroy? Or, as I'm thinking, did one guy simply "go maverick" and mistakenly fail to keep his trap shut around the wrong person?

I don't know that any "committee" was involved in the sexual orientation disclosure to the SP, but Quinn believes Loren Dunn and BKP were involved in the apostasy charges. My own belief is that it was just DCP's "friend" (likely Lou Midgely, in my opinion), not a "committee," that approached the SP with the sexual orientation rumors.

Here's where I'm apparently confused. If rcrocket's account isn't to be trusted, then how did DCP and his friends discover that Quinn was bisexual? I guess I just assumed that that's how DCP et. al. found out.

DCP has never stated (nor anyone else, other than rcrocket) that he saw Quinn holding hands with another man at the early 80's MHA conference.

That may be so, but I think the issue may well hinge on whether the leak to the Stake President was intentional or merely a boneheaded blunder. If the former, then I agree that Rollo is absolutely right with everything he said. My only contention is that it sounds like it could easily have been the latter.

Quinn's SP didn't even know that Quinn (who had recently moved in from California and was totally inactive) was in his stake -- I think all the information the SP received about Quinn was very intentional, indeed.

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't know that any "committee" was involved in the sexual orientation disclosure to the SP, but Quinn believes Loren Dunn and BKP were involved in the apostasy charges. My own belief is that it was just DCP's "friend" (likely Lou Midgely, in my opinion), not a "committee," that approached the SP with the sexual orientation rumors.

Ahh, Louis Midgley. He seems the likeliest candidate to pull such a disgusting stunt.

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?

[_moksha]

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?

Except that it was California rather than Utah, and Midgley would have needed to fly down there. Perhaps Bond could do a Rube Goldberg diagram for us to better understand the chain of events.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Except that it was California rather than Utah, and Midgley would have needed to fly down there. Perhaps Bond could do a Rube Goldberg diagram for us to better understand the chain of events.

Actually, no. Quinn was ratted out after he moved to SLC (from California). The SP in question was Paul Hanks, a senior CES employee in the Utah-Davis area office at the time. An easy drive for Lou ....