On Being a Mormon Historian - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 08-22-2006, 08:46 PM

I'm curious (being out of the loop as I am and is my wont), why the anger at Quinn? So he's gay. Call him a sinner, a freak, whatever (from devout Mormons' perspective), but hate him for that? I'm not being pedantic or preachy here, it just strikes me as curious that he would arouse such strong antipathy just for being gay--people would go out of their way to black ball him, deny him a means to earning a decent living. Okay, so he's written well-researched and persuasive stuff that arguably casts doubt on Joseph Smith's claims. So has Bushman and other devout Latter-Day Saint scholars, and others who are not devout Mormons and have not aroused such rage in conservative Mormon circles. I confess to not having been a great consumer of Quinn's writing, but I doubt it's as Archea represents. As I understand the situation nobody considers him to be anti-Mormon in a vitriolic, Tanner-like way; there are sound bases for all of his viewpoints.

So I find it curious that he attracts such venom. Am I wrong about any of the facts? My guess is that people are so angry because he was once in so exalted a position in the Church.

MikeWaters · 08-22-2006, 08:56 PM

On what basis are you saying he attracts venom?

Based on what people have said about him on this thread?

I get the impression that he is considered a somewhat flawed scholar, based on some of his recent work. Meaning that it wasn't up to par. But "Friend" for example, feels like he could regain his standing if he did work more akin to his earlier stuff (and less wildly speculative stuff with an agenda).

Again, I've met to meet someone who reads Mormon history and speaks venomously about Quinn. We must run in different circles.

SeattleUte · 08-22-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

On what basis are you saying he attracts venom?

Based on what people have said about him on this thread?

I get the impression that he is considered a somewhat flawed scholar, based on some of his recent work. Meaning that it wasn't up to par. But "Friend" for example, feels like he could regain his standing if he did work more akin to his earlier stuff (and less wildly speculative stuff with an agenda).

Again, I've met to meet someone who reads Mormon history and speaks venomously about Quinn. We must run in different circles.

All I'm basing my post on is this thread and the Wall Steet Journal article. That's why I asked whether my assumed facts were right.

By the way, the WSJ article looks a lot like a PR firm piece/plant to me. That's what they do, is plant stories. In fact, on any given day half the business section in any paper may have been written or contrived by PR firms. There's a symbiotic relationship there--the news outlets constantly need fresh material about emerging stars in their field or controversial figures and PR firms are in the business of building positive public images or repairing battered images.

As far as my "circle" in Mormonism, you guys are pretty much it except for my family, and we don't much discuss this stuff.

Jeff Lebowski · 08-22-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

On what basis are you saying he attracts venom?

Based on what people have said about him on this thread?

I get the impression that he is considered a somewhat flawed scholar, based on some of his recent work. Meaning that it wasn't up to par. But "Friend" for example, feels like he could regain his standing if he did work more akin to his earlier stuff (and less wildly speculative stuff with an agenda).

Again, I've met to meet someone who reads Mormon history and speaks venomously about Quinn. We must run in different circles.

I would second Mike's comments. It appears that most LDS history buffs both in and out of the church respect his scholarship and his contributions to LDS history. But once he became "exed" and "outed", he will forever be persona non grata to the vocal conservative core of the church. It's a real pity since (to the best of my understanding), he has been a relatively friendly apostate. He still claims to believe the core tenets of the faith, for crying out loud.

MikeWaters · 08-22-2006, 09:12 PM

Maybe I'm off, but the average Mormon conservative is not likely to be a history buff. Sustained interest in Mormon history usually induces a bit of "liberalism" in the sense of being able to sustain multiple views and ideas at the same time.

Jeff Lebowski · 08-22-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Maybe I'm off, but the average Mormon conservative is not likely to be a history buff. Sustained interest in Mormon history usually induces a bit of "liberalism" in the sense of being able to sustain multiple views and ideas at the same time.

Agreed.

SeattleUte · 08-22-2006, 09:24 PM

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

Archaea · 08-22-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

All I'm basing my post on is this thread and the Wall Steet Journal article. That's why I asked whether my assumed facts were right.

By the way, the WSJ article looks a lot like a PR firm piece/plant to me. That's what they do, is plant stories. In fact, on any given day half the business section in any paper may have been written or contrived by PR firms. There's a symbiotic relationship there--the news outlets constantly need fresh material about emerging stars in their field or controversial figures and PR firms are in the business of building positive public images or repairing battered images.

As far as my "circle" in Mormonism, you guys are pretty much it except for my family, and we don't much discuss this stuff.

His early stuff was helpful, reasonably well-researched and well-received, but his post excommunication stuff, was not up to par, and appeared to have an agenda.

Mike summarized the sentiments toward him. Fulton's words are telling, "he's a nothing person," meaning there isn't venom toward, but really apathy because he's not longer in good graces and no longer producing quality stuff. He went from historian with no agenda to fiction writer with an agenda.

As SU has pointed out, it's a narrow field, and if your stuff isn't any good, absolutely nobody has use for you. So there isn't venom, just apathy, and no desire to hear an old guy with an agenda.

Jeff Lebowski · 08-22-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mike summarized the sentiments toward him. Fulton's words are telling, "he's a nothing person," meaning there isn't venom toward, but really apathy because he's not longer in good graces and no longer producing quality stuff. He went from historian with no agenda to fiction writer with an agenda.

I know Ira Fulton and he is a great guy with a big heart and a ton of money, but hardly what I would call an LDS history buff.

Archaea · 08-22-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I know Ira Fulton and he is a great guy with a big heart and a ton of money, but hardly what I would call an LDS history buff.

Then you travel in bigtime circles if you personally know Ira. My circles are with small guys and nobody of that wealth, that I know of.

08-22-2006, 08:46 PM	#31
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	I'm curious (being out of the loop as I am and is my wont), why the anger at Quinn? So he's gay. Call him a sinner, a freak, whatever (from devout Mormons' perspective), but hate him for that? I'm not being pedantic or preachy here, it just strikes me as curious that he would arouse such strong antipathy just for being gay--people would go out of their way to black ball him, deny him a means to earning a decent living. Okay, so he's written well-researched and persuasive stuff that arguably casts doubt on Joseph Smith's claims. So has Bushman and other devout Latter-Day Saint scholars, and others who are not devout Mormons and have not aroused such rage in conservative Mormon circles. I confess to not having been a great consumer of Quinn's writing, but I doubt it's as Archea represents. As I understand the situation nobody considers him to be anti-Mormon in a vitriolic, Tanner-like way; there are sound bases for all of his viewpoints. So I find it curious that he attracts such venom. Am I wrong about any of the facts? My guess is that people are so angry because he was once in so exalted a position in the Church. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 08-22-2006 at 09:10 PM.

08-22-2006, 09:24 PM	#37
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

08-22-2006, 08:56 PM	#32
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	On what basis are you saying he attracts venom? Based on what people have said about him on this thread? I get the impression that he is considered a somewhat flawed scholar, based on some of his recent work. Meaning that it wasn't up to par. But "Friend" for example, feels like he could regain his standing if he did work more akin to his earlier stuff (and less wildly speculative stuff with an agenda). Again, I've met to meet someone who reads Mormon history and speaks venomously about Quinn. We must run in different circles.

08-22-2006, 09:12 PM	#35
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Maybe I'm off, but the average Mormon conservative is not likely to be a history buff. Sustained interest in Mormon history usually induces a bit of "liberalism" in the sense of being able to sustain multiple views and ideas at the same time.