How are we to take D. Michael Quinn's writings?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think you are simply beginning to shy away from the constant drubbing you get here.

That's quite true, in a sense.

I'm tired of aggressively hostile idiocy.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'm tired of aggressively hostile idiocy.

Then give yourself a much-needed rest by not employing that tactic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Goodbye, everybody.

[_Mister Scratch]

Even if Scratch could read accurately, and even if he actually knew something about the field, he wouldn't be worth conversing with.

Prof. P.---you are putting me in a difficult position here. I want to believe you. I really and truly would like to know what your sources were when you claimed that there was some wide body of scholarship supporting your contention that "magic" is a slippery and inherently negative term. I want to believe that there is a "large body of scholarship" or a "consensus." But I cannot find this stuff, and you refuse to tell us where you found it. Your only real clue was your mention of the John Gee article---and, lo and behold, the Gee article does not support your claims. If anything, the Gee article is a gross distortion and manipulation of what scrupulous and legitimate academics actually believe. Further, I do not believe that you are an expert in the field of "magic," are you? Why don't you just tells us what your sources were. (And that Gee piece was really, truly horrible. If Gee's reputation had not already been tainted via "Ritnergate," it certainly ought to be on account of this vicious, malignant smear article. You ought to be embarrassed for even citing it, Prof. P.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Goodbye, everybody.

Am I to take it that you're leaving because you've been caught with your pants around your ankles? It seems that we've uncovered that fact that you seriously and grossly exaggerated the scholarly support for your position, Prof. P., which seems, in actuality, to be virtually non-existent.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Goodbye, everybody.

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit you have no back-up for the "consensus" statement in your review of Quinn's book? Taking your ball and leaving the playground is a tad immature, don't ya think?

[_Dakotah]

"Why are you suggesting we take his writings differently post-excommunication? I find such questions useless and indicative of bias."

So you find them useless and indicative of bias. Good for you.

I find many reasons to question a pre/post excommunication writing. The often bitter feelings and experiences that surround something like this can have an effect on the objectivity of many of us. Why not Michael Quinn? I am not saying this is what happened but it sure can.

Suggestions in later writings of gay experiences/tendencies, magical experiences and conclusions that are much different than earlier writings might bring objectivity into question.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Why are you suggesting we take his writings differently post-excommunication? I find such questions useless and indicative of bias."

So you find them useless and indicative of bias. Good for you.

I find many reasons to question a pre/post excommunication writing. The often bitter feelings and experiences that surround something like this can have an effect on the objectivity of many of us. Why not Michael Quinn? I am not saying this is what happened but it sure can.

Suggestions in later writings of gay experiences/tendencies, magical experiences and conclusions that are much different than earlier writings might bring objectivity into question.

I don't think that's the case, Dakotah. There is a pretty clear consistency and thoroughness in all of his published work. While I can see your point re: objectivity, I don't really think that figures in. Besides, the only post ex'ing book, I believe, was Same-sex Dynamics.

[_Dakotah]

Mr. Scratch, thanks for the information on the post membership publication. I was under the impression that more of his works were actually finished after he was ousted or at least finished up while the process was going on.

This type of persecution would effect anyone, at least that is my feeling on it.

I do like his footnotes and references. They allow me to look things up and help a lot in finding information and sources. I do agree with Boyd K. Packer that 'some things that are true aren't very useful', but I don't let that keep me from looking. I can decide for myself it is useful for me. I realize leaders are human and that doesn't bother me. The idea that they need to be perfect is as dumb as anything I can think of.

I enjoy Quinns writings and wish he would do at least one more updated one on the 'extensions of power' theme with more on the current leadership. Gordy B of the Big 3 would seem to me to be a treasure trove of subject matter and the top contenders for future President even better. Would make some good reading.

[_lynnr]

Scratch & Rollo,

As an outsider, I respond from a visceral, gut level.

Why judge another man’s servant?

Dr. P. is the Lord’s servant. To me, that lets him off the hook regarding all of us. (And the sword is two-edged. It points in both directions.) If Dr. P is indeed another man’s servant, then he is totally outside my domain of demands or expectations. Premised on the reality of his being another man’s servant, it really, when you get right down to the visceral level, should not concern me in the least whether or not the man perhaps embellishes his scholarship. The matter is moot. We’re full circle: the man is another man’s servant. His conduct, character, and courtesies (or lack) is his Master’s domain of concern. Not mine.

I am simply to enjoy him.

I have not the privilege of asking for his accountability regarding his potential rightness or wrongness – whether in small things or large; i.e., academic honesty, or lying about his love for donuts. In Missouri terms, you have no right to chew or bite his ass. Only his Master can take him out behind the woodshed.

Lynn