1. All sources which are favorable to the LDS church are true. All sources which are unfavorable to the LDS church are false.
   
   Author and historian D. Michael Quinn said it best: "Apologists extend the broadest possible latitude to sources they agree with, yet impose the most stringent demands on sources of information the apologists dislike" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Expanded Edition. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998. p. 47). Like clockwork, any statement or document which makes the LDS church look good is automatically assumed to be 100% reliable, whereas any statement or document which makes the LDS church look bad is automatically assumed to be "biased" and "anti-Mormon," which in an apologist's mind immediately translates to "false." Amazingly, they never see their own double-standard, namely that pro-LDS sources are usually just as (if not more) "biased," only in the opposite direction.
   
   This may seem like an over-generalization, and Mormon apologists are sometimes quick to point that out, but it is, amazingly, true: If one asks an LDS apologist which statement hostile to Mormonism is true and reliable, they are unable to come up with a response.


2. Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.
   
   Once again, the apologists themselves routinely deny operating this way, but "the proof is in the pudding:" In actual practice, if someone voices his or her disagreement with any part of Mormonism, then his or her views are immediately discounted as being "anti-Mormon," no matter how many facts, sources, and documentation he or she uses to back up his or her statements.
   
   For example, LDS apologists usually dismiss the horrific accounts of polygamy found in the book Wife Number 19, since the author was a critic of Mormonism. This is in spite of the following three facts:
   
   
   1. The author was a former polygamous wife of Brigham Young,
   2. As such, she was often privvy to the goings-on at the highest levels of Mormonism, and
   3. All her formative years took place in early Utah when polygamy was at its height.
   
   Apologists routinely discount her as "a disgruntled former member with an axe to grind." Unfortunately for them, she wasn't born disgruntled. Pro-LDS people never admit that she had a number of extremely good reasons for becoming disgruntled in the first place.
   
   Interestingly, this assumption often spills over onto sincere Mormons who are having struggles with some part of their religion and who innocently ask questions in order to resolve their concerns. Apologists often assume that the questioner is a "troll," in this case an ex-Mormon trying to bait the apologists or otherwise set a trap for them. As a result of having been treated this way, more than one member has become convinced that LDS apologetics is intellectually bankrupt--along with the church itself--and left Mormonism entirely.


3. Apologists are unable to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities.
   
   When they come up with defenses for their faith, LDS apologists and their sympathizers automatically assume that the scenario they've concocted, however unlikely, is "good enough" to provide Mormonism with an "out," at which point all criticism is dismissed. For example, when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy, the characters written down the left margins of three of the four manuscripts prove that the recovered papyrii were indeed the source of the Book of Abraham and not any "missing black and red scroll." Yet some apologists say that the scribes went "maverick" and wrote the characters in the margins on their own without any input from Joseph. The fact is that Joseph was broken of his habit of loaning out scriptural manuscripts way back in 1828. The idea that he would let scribes "have their way" with such important documents may be an extremely remote possibility, but is not a probability by any means.


4. If a scientist or anti-Mormon is wrong about one thing, it is safe to assume that he or she is wrong about everything.
   
   FARMS Review of Books was the pioneer of this apologetic tactic. Often, after sniping away at one minor quibble in a critical book, they discount everything in the entire volume and advise their readers to do likewise.
   
   This tactic has since gained great popularity and is used by LDS defenders of all stripes. For example, nowadays, if an article appears showing how some prior scientific assumption has turned out to be incorrect, apologists then "take the ball and run with it," making arguments which boil down to, "You see? Scientists are often wrong anyway. Therefore we can discount anything they say regarding the Lamanite/DNA issue." Yet they fail to recognize that although scientists may be wrong about some aspect of the DNA controversy, it hardly follows that they're entirely wrong on all aspects of it and that the Lamanites are, therefore, the principal ancestors of the American Indians.


5. Apologists routinely accuse critics of "telling us what we believe." They follow up by saying, "We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics."
   
   This line of thinking is more common among the less-educated apologists. This is because their ignorance of their own history has rendered them unable to recognize that their religion has changed and evolved over the years. Such apologists assume that the church they have come to know--three hours of church on Sunday, Boy Scount campouts, home teaching, Relief Society activity night, etc.--is the way Mormonism always was. Unfortunately, Mormonism in its early years had far more in common with the Branch Davidian compound than it does to Mormonism today.
   
   Defenders of Mormonism put this catch-phrase to good use when they need to deny or discount embarrassing statements from past prophets, especially Brigham Young. They fall into the trap of interpreting all previous prophetic pronouncements through the lenses of modern-day Mormonism as opposed to going by the plain-English meaning. For example, when responding to Brigham Young's teaching that Adam "is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do," apologists assume that it is utterly impossible that he meant exactly what he said.
   
   (Unknown to them, this sends the apologists on the slippery-slope of believing that their interpretation of the prophets' words--not the prophets' interpretations themselves--are correct. See my webpage on Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism for a more in-depth exploration of this subject.)


6. Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."
   
   Although it is true that Mormon apologists have been active nearly as long as Mormonism has existed, it does not follow that all their attempts to refute their critics have succeeded. I am unaware of any objection to Mormonism that hasn't been addressed to some degree, but at the same time I am aware of very, very few such objections that have ever been addressed competently or believably. Pro-Mormons almost universally fail to recognize that there is a huge difference between an "adequate refutation" and a "lame excuse"--and pro-Mormons produce far, far more of the latter than they do the former. For example, when an anti-Mormon brings up Joseph Smith's marital infidelities, LDS defenders often claim that Joseph Smith was sealed to his already-married plural wives for eternity only--to provide salvation for them--and not for "time." This excuse hardly counts as a "debunking" and is, of course, much closer to a "lame excuse," since these women could just as easily have been sealed for eternity to their legal husbands as to Smith.


7. All arguments are made in a vacuum.
   
   In other words, defenders of the LDS faith are inconsistent and do not apply their logic in one scenario to all scenarios. A good case is the horse/deer debate surrounding The Book of Mormon. Specifically, they sometimes claim that Book of Mormon peoples used the tapir as a pack and riding animal, but since Joseph Smith was unfamiliar with tapirs he used the name of the animal that filled the same role in his own society--the horse. However, apologists conveniently forget their own argument when it comes to the curelom/cummom debate. They say that Joseph used the original Nephite words because he didn't know the equivalent English names of these animals.
   
   (This methodology also extends outside of Mormonism. Specifically, apologists rarely, if ever, apply their defenses of Mormonism to other religions. For example, they nearly always extoll the "milk before meat" approach to potential LDS converts, but castigate the Scientologists for their pattern of withholding vital information from their own recruits.)

1. You get unsolvable conundrum of "speaking as a prophet" v. "speaking as a man"
2. You get extraordinary contradictions amongst the Q15 over time. Who needs the LGT when you got JofD (which really aren't contradictions at all if deeply understood and understood in the proper context)
3. You get a loose cannon like McConkie who makes an utter ass of himself by making ridiculous claims and predictions while writing as half man-half prophet and it's your job to divine which one is speaking. So a talk entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" is really nothing but a take it-or-leave it tirade.
4. You get "the couplet" doctrine and the doctrine of "we don't teach that anymore". Once again you must understand at a more mature and sophisticated level of meaning and nuance, and understand it in the correct context and once done, "JS loves Fanny" is No Problemo!
5. You get one confusing, impossible to follow doctrinal cluster that makes your head spin. (Kind of like the expression on Austin Power's face when he is introduced to the Italian Bird named Alotta Vagina)

• You've mischaracterized my position, but that doesn't matter because I was right and you were wrong before you ever mischaracterized my position
• You simply don't get it and you never will get it because you lack the ability to penetrate the deeper meaning of Godly things and you fail to appreciate the proper context in which seemingly disturbing things were said or done.
• Don't waste your time because here at FARMS we win them all, and that's before the game is ever played. We Guarantee It!

"Over time, Joseph became aware that people trusted him and that he could be an influence for good or ill, that even through nefarious means, God worked through him when his heart was right. He realized this when he led groups in search of Spanish treasure in New York and Pennsylvania. Although no treasure was found, the men sincerely believed that Smith had a spiritual gift and could see where casks of gold were hidden in the earth. This training ground in spiritual leadership was invaluable because the prophet learned how to create an environment for belief - one in which people could exercise faith and be converted to Christ through the sensible influence of the Spirit, all prior to the overarching work of restoring primitive Christianity."

• The LDS Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites
• Potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information.
• We cannot drive the enemies of the Church off the Internet, but we can displace their prominent positions.
• millions of people are not Christians, but need Christ introduced to them.
• The project is to use the Internet to 1) drive down the enemies of the Church off prominent search pages, and 2) use the Internet as a missionary tool.
• The business plan will be placed in front of major potential donors.

Create a Business Plan to Help LDS Church

“Our foundation needs help to create a business plan or fundraising. The project is to use the Internet to 1) drive down the enemies of the Church off prominent search pages, and 2) use the Internet as a missionary tool. The business plan will be placed in front of major potential donors. Here is an overview of the project and request. Thanks for your help.”

"...needs help...fundraising...Thanks for your help." This sounds like a scam to blike naive TBMs???

Larry Barkdull, president
Latter-day Foundation for the Arts, Education and Humanity
(801)427-2193
lwb224 AT msn.com Who and what is Larry B. other than Pres of this foundation??

The Latter-day Foundation for the Arts, Education and Humanity was formed in 1990 to help promote LDS arts and artists. Later, its purpose was expanded to assist with educational and humanitarian efforts. Recently, the foundation has become actively involved with Internet missionary initiatives to (1) drive down Church enemies from prominent search engine positions and (2) teach the gospel of Jesus Christ via the Internet. Our initiative is called “Flooding the Internet with Truth.”

How successful was/is this group in their initial endeavor re "arts and artists"?
Introduction

A recent “conservative” advice columnist on MSN.com recommended premarital sex to a young virgin: “If you are sure you are in a long-term relationship, why not?” Must have been a no-news-day?
A missionary in England reported his “golden” contact excitedly consulting the Internet about Mormons after the first discussion. The investigator found a mountain of anti-Mormon material and immediately cancelled all future appointments with the missionaries. Fool's gold?

Need

At present, the Internet has few conservative, moral voices that are willing to combat immorality and anti-Mormon sentiments. The LDS Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites in the English language, whose content dominates search results. Thousands more dominate search engine positions in other languages. Potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information. (Emphasis added.) Only vast quantities of positive material, correctly optimized, can resolve this problem. We cannot drive the enemies of the Church off the Internet, but we can displace their prominent positions. Moreover, millions of people are not Christians, but need Christ introduced to them. Much of the present information about Christ on the Internet is either embarrassing or inaccurate. Finally, as the world grows increasingly more dangerous, middle- and upper-class people are retreating to gated communities, places that are difficult for missionaries to enter. How can we reach these people? Through their computers.

And make LDSism look more absurd than ever! Might the world be getting smarter? A natural barrier to misinformation, superstition and quackery!

We need a network of conservative information that:
• Points readers to moral, Christian principles There are thousands doing that at the moment!
• Offers clear-cut information on LDS members and their doctrines Is Christianism or Mormonism the focus?
• Scientifically presents material in a way that displaces immoral and anti-LDS material on search engines.

"Scientifically...in a way..." Really? Truth distortion, brain washing, spinning, subliminal flashes??

Solution

During the last three years, we have worked with Church departments and potential content providers to identify the problem and construct a solution strategy. We work closely with the More Good Foundation to gather information about in-danger keyword searches, which tells us where content needs to be placed, and how it should be optimized and published. We have created two initial Web sites, and we are in the process of creating a network of gospel-oriented sites.

What "Church depts & ...content providers"? "...gospel-oriented sites? More sites to frequent for us, eh?
Projected results

We took random samples of mainstay Christian and LDS terms and researched their monthly searches. The resulting audience was enormous–over 4 million. We can apply the same tools and science that professional e-commerce sites incorporate to make money and use them to defend the Church and teach the gospel. We believe we can reach millions of people. Our call to action is (1) ask for a free copy of the Book of Mormon, (2) order free Church materials (DVDs, pamphlets, etc.), and (3) request the missionaries. Busy work? How productive? How profitable for the "Foundation"?

We interviewed former mission presidents about convert-to-missionary contact ratios. The results were these: basically 30,000 companionships will each contact about 100 people per month or 3 million people. Of that number, 25,000 people are baptized each month–less than 1% of the number contacted. Interesting stats. If true they certainly beg many questions and much analysis! Our goal is to publish vast amounts of positive content and place it strategically where millions of monthly searches–“contacts”–can occur. An interesting mathematical exercise (using industry standards for Internet readership “captures” as compared to convert-to-missionary contact ratios) suggests that the Internet can greatly increase positive awareness of the Church and become an incredible missionary tool. And too, it can and will be more negative than positive. Net folks are generally better educated--ask questions, want 'answers' not "testimonies"
Sounds like an "Edsel" to me. To be taken seriously? Hardly!

1. The flood of Noah did not cover the whole earth, but rather a small part of it.
2. The flood did not take place in the year/time frame that the scriptures say it did (ie-2000-3000BC) but rather many thousands of years before those times (ice age)
3. We need to stop teaching the flood in the literal sense and rather think of the teachings the flood story illustrates.

Some have asked why someone who is obviously white would put together this Web site. Encouragement from Renee Olson and Marvin Perkins, along with a feeling that somebody needed to do it, motivated him in this endeavor. He is careful to pay attention to suggestions given to him by his advisors.

"I had an opportunity to really delve into and learn in-depth what the Church was all about....So, here I am. It hasn't been an easy process, but I've learned a lot about patience and forgiveness. A lot of people I've encountered insist on telling me this is a racist Church, but I say, 'Hey, there's racism everywhere in the world.

*These three quotes listed above come from the book Why I Believe, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah (2002) as quoted in the brochure The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Harlem.

When I returned from Germany I started attending True Vine Missionary Baptist Church. Where I preached for the next 6 years. During that period of time I learned how dark the priest craft. I didn’t know then it was priest craft. Things had gotten so dark that I went to church one Sunday and prayed for a change or I would never attend church again. Nothing changed and I never returned to that church again.

In June of 1995 on a Monday night, I met my wife who I am now sealed to on the city bus I was driving. We saw her every Monday night. One night she was reading her Relief Society Manuel and I asked her what it. When she told me, I thought she was in some kind of Masonic group. She told me she was L.D.S., and I had no idea what she was talking about. Then she said we are referred to as Mormons. I said "no way. There are no black Mormons". She smiled and said, "Well now you have met one". I wanted to know more about this religion that I had no idea that black people were apart of. She told me if I wanted to know more about it she had some friends that would give me all the I wanted. I didn’t understand why she couldn’t tell me.

Through lots of love, patience, understanding and non-judgmental friends I came to see the real "truth" behind the LDS Church. I realized I had been brainwashed before and started doing my own thinking.

From my reading about the church, I knew that the prophets had always said this day would come, so I thought I had better go back to church and see what was happening. I have been active ever since. Also, this revelation did not affect me personally as I am Caucasian.

Over the next few weeks, to my observation, every member of the Church I saw was absolutely thrilled by this development. I personally did not encounter a single negative reaction.

I remember my father called my sisters and I together and told us that the blacks could now hold the Priesthood. I remember feeling relief that really I had nothing any longer to feel embarrassed about because of my church membership

Immediately I was filled with a warm feeling throughout my whole body, from head to toes. As I marveled at this experience I felt a life time of racial prejudice being swept out of my heart. Amazingly, I was never aware of being prejudiced until that moment when I felt the prejudice leaving me.

When I got in the car, my mother told me she had just heard on the radio that the church had announced that the blacks would get the priesthood. My mother and I sat in the car and cried. We talked about how the work was going forward. We were really excited for a black man in our ward who was ordained two weeks after the announcement.

There was back slapping and hugs for those members who were affected.

The Following quotes came from J. Golden Kimball from the book J. Golden Kimball Stories: Mormonism's Colorful Cowboy copyright 1999 White Horse Books. There are two volumes of the book.

J. Golden Kimball comments on the KKK

"The most difficult thing Golden faced on his second mission was harassment by the Ku Klux Klan. In the years following the Civil War, the Klan was a powerful and intimidating force in the Old south. Along with Jews, Catholics, and African Americans, Mormons were targets for tar and feathering, whipping, and murder."

'Waste of a good sheet,' was Golden's opinion." (from page 31)

"He described to his brother Elias how the Klan dressed. 'They cover themselves in a white sheet and there's a hood for the head with two small openings for their eyes. This hood has a point to it, which is more than could be said for their beliefs.' (From page 97)

"Mormon missionaries were accused by the Klan of seducing the wives and daughters of the White South to be taken back to live in polygamous slavery in Utah. Golden said one only had to look at their wives and daughters to know that such a thing couldn't possibly be true. Even polygamists have standards." (From page 97)

"With questions among LDS scholars about its accuracy, why didn't the change come sooner?

Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change."

"I don't think it means very much for anyone," he said. "The assumptions may have been and may be in the minds of some that the previous phrasing had substance to it. As a matter of fact, it was a sheer accident of someone – probably (Elder) Bruce McConkie – regarding 'principal ancestors.' No one checked it or questioned it, so it was put in the introduction."

"Another change in the book's introduction may be of interest to those who question whether Latter-day Saints are Christians, but church officials declined comment about when that change was made.

The second sentence of the introduction in many editions says the book is "a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel."

The 2004 edition produced by Doubleday for non-Latter-day Saints omits the phrase, "as does the Bible." A church spokesman declined comment on when the change was first made or an explanation of why.

LDS leaders have long emphasized that the book is a second witness for Christ's gospel beyond what is contained in the Bible alone."

• The tendency to attack, denigrate and even mock the individual who disagrees with their view of the world.
• The tendency towards anger, hatred, sarcasm, and mean-spiritedness.
• The general unwillingness to express things like, “That’s a valid concern.” or “Yep…that’s a tough one.”
• The apparent willingess to defend at all costs…sometimes with little trace of a desire to remain objective.
• The tactic of avoiding the overall “mosaic” of an issue, by delving into obscure details and justifications.
• In summation, a lack of credibility in the eyes of many of they honest, open, sincere, thoughtful folk I interact with.

• D. Michael Quinn, noted LDS historian, ex'ed in 1993 for unclear reasons
• Daniel Peterson, Chief LDS Apologist, messageboard poster, BYU professor, and editor of FARMS Review
• Rollo Tomasi, messageboard participant, liberal LDS
• Don Bradley, LDS scholar
• Opie Rockwell, LDS sockpuppet and wannabe "Danite"
• Paul Hanks, Quinn's former Stake President
• Dr. Shades, founder and operator of MormonDiscussions.com
• UNKNOWN #1, a gossipy friend of DCP's
• UNKNOWN #2, a Los Angeles resident who also engaged in gossip

Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time (although, vicious thugs that we are, we never mentioned it in print or any other comparable venue) -- and, I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president.

How in the world would you know this? Are you contending that Quinn's sexual orientation had something to do with the outcome of his disciplinary council?

A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council.

Why, given the nature of homosexuality, do you assume that Quinn's homosexuality could have been known only to Quinn unless Quinn spoke of it? And why do you assume that Quinn's public announcement in a magazine was his first utterance on the subject to anybody?

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, Quinn's stake president at first didn't even know that (the totally inactive) Quinn lived within the boundaries of his stake.

A Boring Clarification:

I got moderator permission to add a clarification to this thread (which will then be locked again). On the oddly-named "Recovery" board, a poster has characterized my comments here as describing an unethical "smear campaign" engaged in by, among others, Mike Quinn's former stake president, in which the supposedly private personal fact of his homosexuality was widely insinuated in order to discredit Quinn. This is not at all true, so far as I'm aware (and I find the notion unlikely on its face). But I realize that, in my comments here, I've left what I said open to the kind of mischaracterization that I've described (and that, of course, flourishes like a rank weed on the strangely-named "Recovery" board, where a clarification such as this would never be allowed).

Just to be clear: When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier on this thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated. I did not say, and did not intend to imply, that Quinn's former stake president disclosed Quinn's homosexuality to my friend and former colleague. The latter individual already knew about it, as did, to the best of my knowledge, virtually everybody else, believer or not, who was seriously involved in Mormon studies at the time. I don't even know that it was the former stake president who brought the subject up. And I stress, yet again, that the stake president was not disclosing confidential information from Mike Quinn, with whom he had not discussed the matter. Quinn's orientation was common knowledge in certain circles for many years, and not merely among Latter-day Saints or believers.

I want that to be clear, because I do not wish a possibly ambiguous statement on my part to provide ammunition (as if they really need ammunition!) for certain critics to use as a basis for questioning my ethics, nor the ethics of my friend, nor those of the former stake president, nor those of the Church as a whole. There was, simply, no "smear campaign." There was no organized program of whispers. There was nothing sinister. And those who knew about Mike Quinn's orientation never wrote anything about it. Not even vicious unprincipled thugs such as myself.

1. DCP states, "When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier on this thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated." But why did he say this? Did he want readers to think that Quinn had been excommunicated for "sexual sin," rather than for his historical writings?
2. Was some sort of systematic smear campaign underway, in which TBMs in the Mopologetic community attempted to undermine Quinn's credibility?

[SNIP!] I’ve just noticed your attempt to sum up the alleged anti-Quinn gossipmongering campaign in which I and others were supposedly engaged:

Quote: Dr. Shades wrote:

“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?

No. It’s crucially wrong at points A and C, though B is accurate.

A. Mike Quinn’s sexual orientation was widely known among people involved in Mormon studies (not merely, or even primarily, among “apologists” or faithful Church members) for many years prior to his official “coming out” in 1996. My impression is that just about everybody seriously involved with Sunstone and the Mormon History Association, for example, seems to have been aware of it. I suspect this to be the case because, when he finally announced his homosexuality, I heard not a single exclamation of surprise. Not one. Precisely how the news got around or how his homosexuality came to be recognized I could not begin to say. As I’ve noted before, I first heard that Quinn was gay when, with Todd Compton, sometime (I believe) between 1982 and 1985, I was visiting in the home of a person in southern California (where I then lived) who would be widely recognized as more sympathetic to Quinn’s theological and historical views than, say, to Bruce McConkie’s. This man was astonished that Todd and I were unaware of something that he thought was universally known. As it turns out, Quinn’s homosexuality truly was just about universally known in (believing and unbelieving) Mormon studies circles, and Todd and I were simply among the last to hear about it. (In my case, the explanation may reside in the fact that I had been living in the Middle East essentially from the end of 1977 to the middle of 1982.) Neither Todd Compton nor the man who told us about Quinn would typically be counted among the “apologist community.”

C. Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.) And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject. The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.

[SNIP!] In the small and close-knit community of people involved in Mormon history or Mormon studies, a community containing both faithful believers and dissidents, there’s a lot of informal conversation. That’s how human communities work. It would have been astonishing had Quinn’s sexual orientation not surfaced in some of those chats. But that’s all there ever was. There was no rumor-mongering crusade, and I certainly wasn’t involved in one. I would guess that the subject of Quinn’s homosexuality came up in conversations in which I was involved on maybe half a dozen occasions between the time I first heard of it and his formal “coming out.” I don’t recall ever, not even once, initiating the discussion, and I don’t believe that any of those instances went much beyond mere mention of the fact.

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

I’ve said this repeatedly. I can’t think of any clearer way than what I’ve already said to state that I was involved in no smear campaign against Mike Quinn and that, in fact, so far as I know, there was no smear campaign against Mike Quinn. [SNIP!]

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

P.S. On reflection, 1982-1985 seems a bit early to me for my having heard about Quinn’s homosexuality, though I can’t rule it out. Perhaps the conversation occurred during a subsequent visit to California (which I typically visit quite often, because I grew up there and still have family there). So that would mean that I may have known of Quinn’s sexual orientation for as little as, say, only around five years before he came out of the closet. But no less. For various reasons, I think it cannot have been any later than the beginning of the 1990s when I was told of Quinn’s being gay by a very liberal figure in the Mormon studies community, in company with another very liberal member of that community.

As I've mentioned in a previous thread, I spoke with Dan Peterson a few times in the BYU Bookstore prior to Quinn's public "coming out," and don't remember Dr. Peterson having ever passed on any rumors about Quinn, even though, as I recall, we spoke somewhat about specific "critics" and controversial figures and about the relationship of apostasy to lifestyle choices.

While I wasn't part of any inner circle of dastardliness (I.e., donut hole) he may have headed up at the time, my experience with him would suggest that he wasn't repeating any of the rumors already in the air about Quinn. This is not to say that I didn't hear any secondhand information from him that might constitute "gossip," but I certainly did not get the least sense that he was orchestrating private campaigns against any scholar, critic, or other individual. And, yes, he's a nice guy.

BTW, based on Quinn's own accounts, he wasn't excommunicated for any gossip, nor for anything having to do with his personal homosexuality, of which his stake president may not even have known. He was excommunicated for his piece on women and the priesthood, for a statement to the press about the LDS hierarchy wanting "cookie cutter" members, and for 'insubordination' to church government in the form of not appearing at his disciplinary councils.

And if Quinn had been excommunicated for homosexuality, this would hardly have been excommunication on the grounds of false rumor. He is, in fact, by his own public and private acknowledgment, gay. In a two-hour phone conversation in about 1997, Mike told me how he'd discovered and come to terms with his homosexuality. While I wouldn't post the details of that conversation online, and, frankly, don't know what his lifestyle is, I think Mike's homosexuality should now be recognized as fact, rather than mere rumor.

BTW, I have not followed all the discussion on this topic. What is the evidence that Mike "confessed" his homosexual orientation to a church leader, and that this leader blabbed to someone who blabbed to someone who blabbed to DCP, who blabbed to Mike's Salt Lake stake president? And how did DCP happen to know who Mike's stake president was, given that Mike had never been active in that stake, had lived there only a short while, and didn't even know who his own stake president was?

And, a question for Dan, why was I left out of the loop on this one? Here you went and told Mike's stake president, whom you likely didn't even know, and couldn't have even known the identity of, and you didn't tell me while we gabbed in the bookstore? Did my donut offerings displease you??

Quinn's homosexuality was indeed long "an open secret." I first heard tell of it in early 1991, and understand that it was the reason Mike and his wife divorced around 1987, and that this reason was explained to Blake and Craig Ostler, and undoubtedly others, around the time of the divorce. (FWIW, Mike didn't leave his wife to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. As I understand it, she suggested that, as a gay man, he should leave their heterosexual relationship and pursue his deeper inclinations.)

Also, for whatever it's worth, although I knew of Michael Quinn's homosexuality while at BYU, and had conversations with Professor Peterson at that time about various controversial scholars and their motivations, I don't recall him bringing up Mike Quinn's homosexuality, and don't believe he did bring it up. (I don't believe we discussed it at all.) Furthermore, I've never had the impression that Prof. Peterson has anything against Mike Quinn. He disagreed openly, and politely, with Quinn over the definition of "magic"; but hasn't, in my admittedly faulty memory, made Quinn a particular 'target' of his criticism or wit. (Perhaps someone is confusing him with Bill Hamblin!)

Don

On Mike Quinn's homosexuality:

1) Contrary to Bob Crocket's claims, Mike Quinn was not openly gay nor living a gay lifestyle anywhere near 1980, nor at all while he worked for BYU. Mike didn't even tell his own parents of his homosexual orientation until shortly before his Same-Sex Dynamics book in the 1990s. And he lived a completely heterosexual, married lifestyle until his divorce in the late 80s.

2) Contrary (again) to Crocket's assertions, there weren't rumors of Mike being gay during his time at BYU. Colleagues of Mike's with whom I've spoken didn't hear about his homosexual orientation until well into the 90s.

3) My information on this subject comes from reliable sources. I've known Mike himself since 1991, and he once recounted to me at some length (and before his homosexuality was publicly known) his "story" with regard to his sexual orientation, from his early life up through the aftermath of his divorce. I also know Mike's former wife Jan and have been at her house, have met two of his children, know longtime friends of his such as Maxine Hanks, and spoke about early rumors of his homosexuality with two close colleagues of his.

4) I don't know anything about what relationships Mike has, or hasn't, had since his divorce. And unless one has much better evidence that Crocket's "recollections" of imaginary events of 1980, there is little or nothing that can be said about this.

Mr. Scratch, you are, without a doubt, one of the most despicable characters I have ever come across in all my years. Your deep-rooted bitterness towards all things LDS, and specifically towards certain members of the apologetic community, is a reflection not on the church or the objects of your constant derision, but rather upon yourself as a very, very small-minded and morally-challenged human being.

You ask about Quinn’s stake president and what he knew and why he knew it. Well, I know a little bit about this whole affair, since my wife and I lived, at the time, in the same neighborhood with them all. The stake president was Paul Hanks, a humble and noble man, and a man full of sincere love and concern for the members of his stake. During this period of time, Mike Quinn was actively engaged in homosexual activity with another member of the stake. That is how President Hanks learned about Quinn’s inclinations – although during this period, Mike wasn’t trying very hard to keep any of this a secret. It was quite apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And President Hanks wasn’t the source of any of this information being disseminated – what was happening with Quinn and the other party was in wide circulation long before it came to the attention of the bishop or stake president.

I can't speak for certain, as I wasn't present during the disciplinary council that considered his case. (Nor was he, for that matter.) But I have it from a reliable source that his stake president was aware of his actively homosexual lifestyle.

Don't presume that Mike Quinn's excommunication occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing. It may have. It may not have. The Church will never make any reason public; disciplinary council proceedings are confidential.

Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time (although, vicious thugs that we are, we never mentioned it in print or any other comparable venue) -- and, I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president.

much of his evidence seems to be a kind of overkill, a sociological pigeonholing of the obvious into rather artificial categories that acquire an aura of scholarly respectability through the magic of "Quinnspeak. To be sure, this is pioneering work in virgin territory, and the author deserves some leeway. It is, after all, amazing that a book on this subject could be written by someone professing a firm testimony of the truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Quinn is very brave indeed.

We will not address in any detail Quinn's attempt to morally justify homosexual acts by perpetuating the currently fashionable political mythology of a special homosexual identity. However, readers of his book should be aware of Quinn's trendy new political agenda.

we find Quinn's arguments to be equivocal, conceptually confused, often baseless, and ultimately absurd.

In his role as apologist for homosexual conduct, Quinn has become a mythmaker. In scrutinizing this mythology, we will employ his own standards of what constitutes fraudulent and dishonest history.

We will demonstrate in detail that Quinn, from his own perspective, has been dishonest in advancing his homosexual agenda; what he has produced, instead of being competent, honest history, is an instance of fraud.

Quinn's national reputation is not well merited. Re viewers of his books have increasingly recognized the fundamentally tendentious nature of his work

At times Quinn's desperate grasping for arguments becomes absurd.

Quinn cannot be trusted to accurately understand and cite his sources.

I am not saying that Quinn is completely wrong on everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, errors and misrepresentations of this magnitude simply transcend the usual limits of the mortal condition. Something is seriously amiss. Without careful checking, it is impossible to be sure than Quinn has accurately read and represented any of his sources.

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history. It is a travesty whose labyrinth of misrepresentation will require years of work for scholars to unravel. I can only advise, in the strongest terms, that scholars use Quinn's work with the greatest caution, if at all.

When Quinn's first edition came out in 1987, the reviewers pointed out fundamental flaws–including a tortured thesis, twisted and forged evidence, and problematic and idiosyncratic use of loaded language–and it became clear that these flaws irreparably marred the entire framework of the book.

But to say that Quinn remains unrepentant and has refused to correct his errors would be an understatement. If anything, the problems with the first edition have only compounded in the second. Only a few of the numerous mistakes in the book can be detailed here. The reader can only wonder what has caused a once-talented author to write utter nonsense.

Quinn has erected an unsightly edifice on Mormon history.

Experience in checking his sources has revealed time and again that Quinn cannot be trusted to quote his sources correctly.

Quinn is where he is because of his choices. I only hope the reader chooses more wisely.

• DCP was the origin of the Internet rumor that Quinn was ex'ed for homosexuality. Due to his repeated mentioning of this, it seems clear that he sought to convince TBMs that Quinn was ex'ed for sexual sin, rather than historical writings.
• Quinn's sexual orientation was an "open secret" among a certain number of people in the Mormon studies community, including Don Bradley and the Ostlers. There's no reason to believe that DCP was responsible for starting the spread of gossip in this respect (although he does appear to be the origin of the claim that homosexuality had to do with the ex'ing).
• There has been a systematic means of dealing with Quinn's work in FARMS Review. This seems to entail, primarily, attacking the reliability and trustworthiness of Quinn's history.

"I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation. Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi's prophecy that in the last days men 'shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance' (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography 'horses' or angelic delivery or nineteenth century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues, content as well as vocabulary, revelation as well as excavation."