Faith-Promoting History

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Indy is gay?

Yes, I'm a fellow lesbian.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

All I am saying is that you don't know what Quinn's situation was in 1981, and neither do I.

Maybe he "chose" to be gay many years later, as you "pro-choosers" like to believe people do.

You're lumping me in with the "pro-choosers"? Link?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Maybe not. But then again, he might change his mind.

Should I be concerned about the close contact we had during the Crowton debates that raged? His posts followed mine who followed his forever. Is it contagious? I mean there might be a reason why I have to use in-vitro......

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Yes, I'm a fellow lesbian.

VIOLATION CODE #548

ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE COOL CLUB WITH GOATNAPPER, BY MAKING AN INAPPROPRIATE SUGGESTION THAT POSTER OCCUPIES SAME "COOL SPACE" WITH GOATNAPPER, WITH NO EVIDENCE OR SUGGESTION THAT THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This brings up an interesting thought. What would have happened if Bushman had published RSR in 1981?

Actually, Bushman did publish Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonsim in 1984 and, of course, he was not disciplined. The book can't compare to RSR in scope so it covers less controversial issues but it is definitely a warts and all history of the New York period. I think this suggests that Bushman would have had no problem publishing RSR. Bushman seems to be able to walk the line of faithful and scholarly better than others.

However, it is fair to so that the book was affected by the fallout of 1981. The book was supposed to be published by the church. However, that became impossible post 81.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Technology and the proliferation of knowledge will force it.

I would think this should be the proliferation of INFORMATION, not knowledge.

And I'm not discounting that there is ugly stuff out there. It's just that there is also diverse perspective to any story.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well said, goat. Yes, it is absolutely fascinating. Quinn's article is outstanding, and his logic has withstood the test of time. The proliferation of information via the internet that we have today casts an entirely new light on Quinn's approach. I think his article would be much less controversial today than it was in 1981 due to this fact.

As you may recall, the church did a survey recently asking what members want from the LDS history dept. The number one response was "more honest history". Vindication for Quinn. (and of course, Arrington).

Quinn is a phenomenal historian. I think LDS members will have to come to grips with that fact, rather than screaming "but he is gay!" over and over when presented with something Quinn wrote.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Quinn is a phenomenal historian. I think LDS members will have to come to grips with that fact, rather than screaming "but he is gay!" over and over when presented with something Quinn wrote.

I don't scream "but he's gay!" at all. Instead I calmly say, "He is an apostate."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't scream "but he's gay!" at all. Instead I calmly say, "He is an apostate."

i.e., attack the source.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't scream "but he's gay!" at all. Instead I calmly say, "He is an apostate."

How do you know he is an apostate?

I don't think he ever claimed to not believe in the authenticity of the LDS Church's religious claims.

Do you agree with Elder Packer's opinion that a church historian is responsible to not publish history that could shake the faith of members of the LDS Church?