Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: riverogue ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 02:40AM

Can anyone conform that?

I read this on another post asking how the GAs maintain their composure so well:

"And if the example of my brother isn't enough, consider D.
Michael Quinn. He's a specialist in early Mormon history.
Nobody knows the problems in the Mormon store better than he
does. He's where a lot of us learned about it from.

He was excommunicated from the Church, so there's no earthly
reason for him to claim belief in the Church. Yet he firmly
believes the Book of Mormon is an actual,. historical document,
and that the Brethren hold actual priesthood authority.

So, as far as I can see, the GA's are like my brother, or D.
Michael Quinn. Long ago they made a firm decision that they
are going to believe no matter what. And, they do."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: poopstone ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 08:25AM

They see both sides of the issue. They generally call themselves "jack mormons." They appreciate the disbelievers but know their facts better than most.
1) They are fully aware that there is a debate on the authenticity of the BOM and know that there still isn't any conclusive evidence showing that it's made up.
2) They are aware that even though many intellectuals think the BOA was made up, still it mysteriously conforms quite nicely to other ancient documents that old joe didn't have around at his disposal at the time.
3) That the dna debate still doesn't prove anything yet.
4) That even though Old Joe went after lots of young girls yet there isn't much conclusive evidence of illegitimate children. They still believe that these marriages were never consummated.

In short Jack Mormons are still waiting for ex-mormons to conclusively prove that mormonism is wrong.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: axeldc ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:02AM

I wouldn't claim to know that the church isn't true, but there are far too many doubts to waste my life and money on LDS, Inc.

When someone like Quinn clings so dearly to something he knows is so deeply flawed, I wonder what psychologically is wrong with him. The emotional attachments to the church if you grew up in it last longer than the intellectual underpinnings, but at some point you just have to move on.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: poopstone ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:56AM

He must look at it like christian's look at evolution. They view contradictions from an intellectual point of view and appreciate both ideas. psychologically they compartmentalize their thinking. Even McKay was reported to have said that evolution was a beautiful idea.

I think there is also a nostalgia and longing for that leave it to beaver 1950's patriarchal mormon society where there is no diversity, everyone is above average, no gays, no divorce, no debauchery. It's a pleasant dream. Deep down a lot of jack Mormons long for that and see it as the ideal, even if they don't fit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 08:36PM

Most Christians do not reject evolution. Don't brand all Christians with the hot iron of literalists.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 10:27AM

Please find my interlinear remarks below.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They see both sides of the issue. They generally
> call themselves "jack mormons." They appreciate
> the disbelievers but know their facts better than
> most.

Facsimile 3: This may well be true. However, while they may know the facts, they are apparently very poor at connecting the dots.

> 1) They are fully aware that there is a debate on
> the authenticity of the BOM and know that there
> still isn't any conclusive evidence showing that
> it's made up.

Facsimile 3: There are very numerous facts in the BoM that are falsifiable, which makes the BoM falsifiable as well. There is no actual debate among non-LDS scholars, and the only "debate" is perpetuated by belief, not facts. My understanding of Quinn's testimony is that it is firmly rooted in a mission experience where he tracted into some non-member Hebrew scholar (female?) that spoke of her interest in the BoM's Hebrew origins that she detected on her own from the text. Not sure if she was some kind of mission plant or just fooled by all the Bible plagiarism, but this experience firmly rooted his testimony.

> 2) They are aware that even though many
> intellectuals think the BOA was made up, still it
> mysteriously conforms quite nicely to other
> ancient documents that old joe didn't have around
> at his disposal at the time.

Facsimile 3: This is only true if you believe Nibley's BS. The fact is that non-LDS scholars have also invalidated the text of the BoA, not just the translations.

> 3) That the dna debate still doesn't prove
> anything yet.

Facsimile 3: I am nearly certain that Simon S. et al would soundly disagree with this conclusion. The DNA evidence has firmly supported the archaeology and linguistics that had already conspired to disprove the BoM. That is not the worst of it, however, it is not like the BoM brought new ideas to the debate in the early 19th Century. Instead, it was a crude attempt to confirm many of the ideas that were circulating at the time and it was only decades later that science began to disprove those early misconceptions.

> 4) That even though Old Joe went after lots of
> young girls yet there isn't much conclusive
> evidence of illegitimate children. They still
> believe that these marriages were never
> consummated.

Facsimile 3: True, apologists try to pretend no sex took place, but with no basis for that assertion other than wishful thinking. Apologists do recognize, however, that there were some cases of plural marriage sex for Joseph, and even one case is too many since it was illegal (subtlely acknowledged in a recent Church essay) due to the contradiction of D&C 58:21 - Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. I know that Quinn is aware of this problem, but I think that he simply counts plural marriage as one of Joseph's many personal errors--a position that most members would not accept.

>
> In short Jack Mormons are still waiting for
> ex-mormons to conclusively prove that mormonism is
> wrong.

Facsimile 3: This can be done, but it requires time to have a conversation to connect the dots. When I have tried to do this with my own siblings and parents it only fails because they are unwilling or unable to maintain coherent or consistent base assumptions like translation models, BoM geography theories, views on science, etc. Leading them through their own logic inevitably finds them altering their assumptions on an ad hoc basis to avoid one contradiction, only to create another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2016 06:14PM by Facsimile 3.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lapsed ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:22AM

I met him at a dinner party in the 80's. He hadn't been ex'd at this point but the church was trying to track him down so they could "serve him papers" I guess. At that time he believed JS was a prophet and the BOM was what it claimed to be. My jaw dropped into my soup when he said that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: hurting ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:46AM

I don't know the date that John Dehlin interviewed Quinn, but in that podcast he stated that he still believes the book of mormon and the church are true.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heresy ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 10:56AM

Steve Benson has repeatedly posted here that Quinn still believes, and I have a Mormon friend who knows him and agrees.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Bamboozled ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 11:21AM

Quinn is one of the most well versed people on real LDS history on the planet so he knows all the warts and BS the church has kept hidden and obfuscated through the years. Not only that, he's gay. I am unable to comprehend his allegiance to the so called restoration through Joseph Smith and the so called church which is descended from him.

The thought makes reason stare.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Pathway ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 01:46PM

I was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Quinn a few months ago. Had dinner with him and a bunch of other ex-mormons / progressive Mormons. Does he still believe? yes, he does, but that does not make him a TBM nor a supporter of the Church

He certainly sees things with very different eyes. When asked if he would ever return to Church membership, his answer was a very emphatic NO. In his mind, the Church would have to make some massive and sweeping changes before he would ever consider going back; changes he mentioned that the Church was unlikely to even consider in his remaining lifetime.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anagrammy ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 02:17PM

One of the traits we all share is a tendency to believe testimonies. If a person says they truly believe, then they truly believe.

I would like to suggest that we use the template we use, say, for dating to determine the truth. We look at what the person DOES, not what they say.

See what you think of these arguments.

Michael Quinn is a dedicated scholar and researcher (he digs up little known facts and has achieved a measure of fame in limited circles for his success)

He has published findings which would/could/might damage people's testimonies.

Being excommunicated says that his priesthood leaders think his work would/could/has damaged people's testimonies.

Michael Quinn himself said that outside of Mormon circles, no one has any interest in his research. There is no employment available for him other than these circles of interest.

His encyclopedic knowledge of Mormon historical detail is of no interest to anyone other than Mormon scholars on both sides (pro and con).

People have to survive. Michael Quinn's testimony is him surviving in the only world where he can make a living. Otherwise, there's just us exmos and atheists and you can see from this board how many historical scholars are here.

Not judging, btw, just observing.



Kathleen

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hedning ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 02:31PM

He does not believe. He needs to keep some interest in himself to sell books and get interviews.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 02:27PM

There is great power in believing by faith in the claims of Joseph Smith Jr. and some, no matter the contrary information will cling steadfastly to their claim in a "spiritual witness", for instance, that cancels out any and all other opinions or suggestions.

This is the level of faith that I saw exemplified by my husband. He went to his grave never wavering in his testimony.

His faith belief was so well imprinted into his mind/brain that nothing could challenge it. It was a faith by belief in Heavenly Father and is son Jesus Christ and the restoration of the "one true church" to act in His name. Period. Anything contrary was from that evil trickster Satan, the father of all lies. It worked for him. It created his World View from a young age, and reinforced by a mission.

Most of our behavior in our life seems, in my observation, to a learned level of self-preservation and survival. We learn, early on how to gain acceptance and where to place our allegiance in our home and with our parents.

BTW: I am convinced that Quinn was exed because he is gay. That automatically makes his writings suspect in the eyes of the leaders as being gay is, in their view, the work of Satan.

It's all about good and evil in Mormonism (and most religions- especially Christianity) and finding a way to manage our lives preserving our best chance for survival on many levels.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: en passant ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 02:53PM

Steve Benson posted a thread on Quinn's belief some time ago. Can someone dig it up?

Steve, where are you?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: topped ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 05:13PM

(Posted by: steve benson, RfM, Date: September 22, 2011)

My Own Interactions with Mike Quinn: His state of personal belief regarding Mormonism . . .

Note: What follows is an overall wrap-up of my understanding of Mike's situation--although there is, of course, more that can be had, as more becomes known. Much of what I relate below is based on what Mike has personally shared with me; other information is gleaned from my own research.
_____


--How I Became Personally Acquainted with Mike Quinn--

I have known Mike as a personal friend for several years and admire him greatly, both as an individual and as a scholar, although we disagree on some fundamental matters.

I first came into contact with him in 1993, after he had published an incredibly insightful article on my grandfather Ezra Taft Benson’s political conflicts with other members of the Quorum of the Twelve (see D. Michael Quinn, "Ezra Taft Benson and Mormon Political Conflicts,” in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,” 26(2), Summer 1993: pp. 1-87).

I was so impressed with Mike’s “Dialogue” essay that I called him, identified myself and congratulated him on a very well researched and responsible piece of historical analysis. Except for one minor error (in which my father, Mark A. Benson, had been incorrectly said to have been an official member of the John Birch Society when, in fact, he was not, although he was a fervent supporter of Bircher anti-Communist teachings and goals), I had absolutely no beef with Mike’s analysis, only admiration.

The phone call apparently surprised Mike, given that it came out of the blue and we had never before had contact with one another. Mike confessed to me that when he realized that the grandson of Ezra Taft Benson was calling about his authored “Dialogue” piece, he assumed I was planning to gripe about it. He was pleasantly surprised to hear that, in fact, I was phoning to praise him for the extraordinarily good job he had done.

After I left the LDS Cult later that same year, I had ample occasions to talk directly with Mike about his own perspectives and beliefs pertaining to his personal Mormon beliefs.
_____


--Quinn’s Abiding Testimony in the Truthfulness of the Mormon Faith As God’s Restored Church On Earth--

In personal discussions, Mike shared with me his testimonial belief that the “Book of Mormon” was a literal historical record of ancient and accurate vintage; that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to reveal His divine truth to the world; that through Joseph Smith the golden plates were translated and that following the death of Joseph Smith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy through the corruption and sin of its leadership--and that this "falling away," if you will, of the Mormon Church from the purposes and designs of God's original 1830 restorative act, has continued up to the present time.

Mike told me that it was his belief that a second Restoration (i.e., one occurring after the initial return of God's true Church to the earth in 1830 through the hands of Joseph Smith) was necessary in order to rehabilitate the Mormon Church and again make it the organization through which God would lead and guide His children to eventual salvation.
_____


--Quinn’s Book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View": His Own Research vs. His Own Views on the Case for Mormonism--

I asked Mike how he could profess a testimony in Mormonism’s historical and doctrinal foundations, especially given what many consider to be his devastatingly critical and historical dissection of Mormon origins and extensions of power.

From my own personal standpoint, Mike's compellingly documented book, “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1987, 313 pp.) had not only knocked out, but blown out, the struts out from under any serious claim that Mormons might attempt as to the alleged divinity of the LDS Church.

So impressed was I, in fact, with his book (which had a profound role in undermining my own belief in Mormonism), that I asked Mike to personally inscribe my copy, which he graciously agreed to do. On the title page, he wrote:

”Dear Steve,

“Great to meet you this morning just before the film crew arrived to interview you here! [At that time, I was in Salt Lake City to be interviewed by the press about the declining health of my grandfather and his mental and physical inability to effectively lead the Mormon Church]. Look forward to more talks and association with you. Best wishes, Mike (alias D. Michael) 7-14-93”

During our personal discussions, Mike acknowledged to me that he knew that his belief in Mormonism did not sound logical but that he nonetheless possessed an inward testimony of the “Book of Mormon,” of the prophetic calling by God of Joseph Smith and of the truthfulness of the Mormon Gospel as God's One and Only True Church.

I found Mike's testimony startling, incongruous and at significant odds with his unparalleled research that, in my opinion, clearly exposed the fraud, frailties and fictions of Mormonism.

But Mike's ultimate testimony in the Mormon faith seemed to rest on his firm belief that it was initially restored by God's hand in pure and true form, then became corrupted through the human-caused downfall of its leaders who subsequently followed Joseph Smith into power in the post-Smith era.

Simply and fundamentally put, Mike holds on to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains God's true Church on the earth--but that it is in dire need of a complete restorative overhaul in order to bring it back to its original integrity, purpose, luster and exaltation-providing power.
_____


--Spencer W. Kimball’s Blessing to Quinn That Someday He Would Become an Apostle--

Mike also spoke to me during our talks together about a blessing he had received from then-Apostle Spencer W. Kimball. In it, Kimball promised Mike that if he remained faithful and obedient, he would someday become an Apostle in the Mormon Church. At the time of the Kimball blessing, Mike was still an active, temple-endowed, well-respected member of the Church.

Mike has written publicly about this blessing he received under Kimball’s hands.

In an autobiographical essay entitled, “The Rest Is History" (“Sunstone,” December 1995, p. 54), Mike addressed his personal consuming desire to someday become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and how Kimball helped him deal with this distraction through the laying on of hands:

"President Kimball asked if I would like to have a blessing. As he laid his hands upon my head, I expected him to give me the comfort and strength to overcome my aspirations for Church office. Instead, Spencer W. Kimball promised me that one day God would call me to be an apostle. After the blessing, President Kimball told me not to work for the office or try to ‘curry favor’ with Church leaders, but just to live as I felt the Lord desired for me. There was no way I could logically explain that experience, then or now."

When we talked, it was clear to me, however, that Mike’s belief in Mormonism seemed to be much more personal and deeper than any anticipation he might have had of advancing into the upper echelons of LDS Church leadership. Mike’s testimony of the Mormon Gospel was a quiet, soft-spoken type of conviction about which he did not make a big deal---but to which he appeared genuinely committed.
_____


--Quinn’s Academic Credentials, Personal Travails and Ecclesiastical Persecution, Starting with His Excommunication for Telling the Truth About Post-Manifesto Polygamy--

What is all the more amazing about Mike's deep-rooted faith in the LDS Church is that his devotion to the basic claims of Mormonism has remained strong through the years, despite all that he has been through--often at the hands of the Mormon Church itself.

At the peak of his professional career, Mike was a highly-regarded expert in his chosen field of history, both in out and of the Church.

Sandra and Jerald Tanner have reviewed his stellar academic career as follows:

”Dr. D. Michael Quinn, who was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in 1993, was at one time considered to be one of the Church's top scholars. He published articles for the Church's official publication, the ‘Ensign’ and also wrote for ‘Brigham Young University Studies.’

“Quinn obtained a Ph.D. in history at Yale University and was formerly Professor of American Social History at the Church's Brigham Young University. Unfortunately for Quinn, he dug too deeply into the secret documents in the Church Historical Department. Quinn was able to see these documents because he had an inside track at the Historical Department under Dr. Leonard Arrington, who was formerly Church Historian.

“In a speech Quinn gave in 1981, he noted that he had ‘spent a decade probing thousands of manuscript diaries and records of Church history’ that he ‘never dreamed’ he would view. (“On Being a Mormon Historian,” a lecture given by D. Michael Quinn, Brigham Young University, Fall 1981)

“When Dr. Quinn began publishing some of his more critical research--especially that regarding how the Church secretly sanctioned the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto--some Church leaders were incensed. In the book, "Faithful History,” edited by George D. Smith, p. 109, Quinn wrote the following:

“’In June 1986 the staff of the Church Historical Department announced it was necessary to sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship for any archival research completed before signing the form. I and several others refused to sign the form and have not returned to do research at LDS Church archives since 1986.’

“In 1994, Quinn published his book, ‘The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power.’ This, of course, was very distressing to the leaders of the Church and to many of those associated with Brigham Young University and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Quinn's second volume was published in 1997. It is entitled, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" . . .

“Dean C. Jessee is a scholar who is well known to students of Mormon history. He is currently serving as a research historian in the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at Brigham Young University. For many years, however, Jessee worked at the Church Historical Department and had access to a vast number of sensitive documents.

“When Michael Quinn's first volume was published, Jessee expressed concern that Quinn had given too much attention to the 'messy' matters researchers encounter when studying early Mormon history. He also wrote 'that the story he tells is not as free from speculation and faulty interpretation as his bold writing style and abundant source notes would imply.' (‘Journal of Mormon History,’ Fall 1996, pp. 164-165)

“Nevertheless, Dean Jessee acknowledged that Quinn did, in fact, have access to important Church documents and that he did ‘painstaking research.’ Jessee wrote the following in his review:

‘Few historians have been in a better position to study the Mormon past than D. Michael Quinn. With degrees in English and history, including a doctorate at Yale, employment in the LDS Church Historical Department and wide-ranging access to its holdings, a dozen years of teaching history at BYU and painstaking research in seventy-five repositories . . ., Quinn has spent a substantial part of his life studying Mormon history. This book and a second volume to follow are the outgrowth of research that led to a master's thesis, continued through a doctoral program and is the crowning accomplishment of thirty years work. . . .

“’The Mormon Hierarchy’ is a valuable contribution in terms of identifying sources and understanding the groundwork of the organizational structure. . . . While ‘Hierarchy’ has laid important groundwork, the definitive study remains to be written.'

“Over the years Dr. Quinn has often found himself faced with serious problems with Church leaders and officials at Brigham Young University.”


Indeed, it was Mike's daring and ground-breaking research regarding the Mormon Church's deceptive practice of post-Manifesto polygamy (which the Church had strenuously tried to keep hidden from the public) that eventually led to his excommunication.

Mike has written in detail about his fall from Mormon grace, culminating in his exile from the LDS ranks in 1993 on the grounds of apostasy.

In the 1998 edition of his “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” (p. xiii), Mike summarized what ended up happening to him kneeling before the ecclesiastical executioner's chopping block:

"At the publication of ‘Early Mormonism and the Magic World View,' I was full professor and director of the graduate history program at BYU. I resigned within several months because of administrative pressures against my continuing to work on controversial topics. In 1993 LDS officials formally charged me with 'apostasy' (heresy) for my historical writings, and I was excommunicated from the LDS Church.”


Mike had earlier, and more extensively, detailed the increasing pattern of mistreatment, disrespect, lack of cooperation and growing pressures on him to remain quiet on certain controversial topics of Mormon history--all of which were coming at him from the highest ranks of the Church.

After tape recordings and transcriptions of Mike's talk, "On Being a Mormon Historian," began to be published and circulated without his permission, national attention to Quinn's views was heightened by a February 1982 issue of “Newsweek,” headlined "Apostles vs. Historians."

From that point forward, the Mormon squeeze play on Mike began in earnest.

Of that, Mike wrote:

"A few days [after publication of the 'Newsweek' article], a General Authority invited me to his office. He warned me that he found Elder Packer to be easily offended and vindictive years afterward.

"In May [1982], my stake presidency informed me that five former bishops had recommended me to be the ward's new bishop but that Apostle Mark E. Petersen had blocked the appointment. He asked the stake presidency, 'Why is Michael Quinn in league with anti-Mormonism,' apparently referring to the unauthorized publication of my essay by the Tanners.

"Elder Petersen arranged for the Stake Presidency to bring me to the Church Administration Building at 47 East South Temple to meet with Apostles Petersen, Benson and Packer. The Second Counselor in the Stake Presidency accompanied me. The Apostles were careful not to ask me a single direct question. In order of seniority (Apostle Benson first, me last), each of us expressed his own views of the 'Newsweek' article, the 'problems' of writing Mormon history and the effects of all this on the faith of LDS members. The meeting was congenial and supportive."

That seeming support was to eventually evaporate, as those same three Apostles began a deliberate and on-going campaign to have Mike discredited, isolated and deposed, despite the fact that Mike had proven himself to be a highly regarded researcher and acclaimed educator.

As Mike noted:

"In the spring of 1986, graduating history majors at BYU voted me 'outstanding professor.' That fall BYU's administration had my name dropped from a list of participants in an upcoming celebration of Mormonism in Britain. Then, for the second year in a row, BYU's administration denied my application for 'Professional Development Leave.' This time the college dean invited me to his office to explain why. He said the Apostles on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had prepared a list of faculty members and research topics which BYU administrators were forbidden to support. 'I have always hoped that one day BYU will become a real university,' the dean said, 'but this makes me feel that that day will never arrive.'

"By January 1987 pressures on me increased. BYU's administration required the History Department and Charles Redd Center for the American West to withdraw funds they had promised me to give a paper on general American religion at the University of Paris. It did not matter that the advanced text of the paper, entitled 'Religion, Rationalism and Folk Practices in America to the mid-19th Century,' made no reference to Mormonism. I paid my own way to France to represent BYU.

"Despite all that that had happened, until January 1987 I could not yet believe that my life's hopes were at an end. A new department chair let me know that my situation would improve only if I stopped doing research which implied Mormon studies. . . . Abandoning Mormon history may have been safe in the climate of repression but it as unacceptable to me, especially as an option of duress. 'Publish or perish' is the experience of scholars at most universities, but for this Mormon historian it was 'publish and perish' at BYU.

"After publication of my ‘Early Mormonism and the Magic World View’ in mid-1987, two members of BYU's History Department circulated the rumor that my stake High Council was excommunicating me for apostasy. The rumor was completely false but, more important, I had thought these rumor-mongers were my colleagues and friends. When a student asked the Dean of Religious Education if BYU was going to fire me, he replied that the Board of Trustees had decided against it. 'Like stirring up a turd on the ground,' he told the student, “firing Mike Quinn would only make a greater stink.” At this point, I began applying for research fellowships that would allow me to leave BYU. . . .

"On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation . . . At the time of my resignation, I had tenure ('continuing status'), was Full-Professor of History and was Director of the History Department's graduate program. My letter of resignation represented my formal acknowledgment of failure--personal and institutional. . . .

"I again addressed [the issue of academic freedom] in 1991 after a rarely-used joint declaration by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles condemned the annual Sunstone Symposium . . . . Those who questioned this statement were being summarily dropped from Church positions and both Church and BYU administrative pressure was directed against a junior professor of anthropology at BYU who had given a symposium paper. I observed in a newspaper story; 'Consistently, from the beginning, the [LDS] Church leadership has always been uncomfortable with open forums that have been organized by the rank and file.' However, I added, 'in the 19th-century, the leadership recognized the existence of a loyal opposition and the 20th does not.'. . .

"Since leaving BYU and Utah, I have been an independent free-lance writer. I still do Mormon history. People of various persuasions still seem eager for it."

(D. Michael Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in George D. Smith, ed., “Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History” [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 89-90, 92-96)
_____


--Years Later Amongst the Quorum of the Twelve: Babbling Baloney About History and Bubbling Bitterness Over Quinn--

Additional sordid details behind the excommunication of Mike Quinn seeped out some eight years after his post-Manifesto essay was first published.

These facts were provided by two of the Mormon Church's highest henchmen--“Apostle-ologists” Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks.

On 9 September 1993, I met with Oaks and Maxwell in Maxwell's Church office, #303, located in the Church Administration Building in downtown Salt Lake City.

I had approached them with a list of detailed and wide-ranging questions about fundamental doctrines, teachings, practices and policies of the Mormon Church that significantly troubled us--and about which we felt we deserved credible and straight-forward answers.

In the broad sense on the polygamy question, I wanted to know from these pre-eminent damage controllers why the Mormon Church had not been more forthcoming and honest with its history with regard to the official practice (and later blatant denial of) polygamy.

Then, specifically, I wanted to know about what I have come to refer to as “the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission."

In that meeting, “good cop” Maxwell offered unconvincing rationalizations for the Mormon Church’s failure to be honest and forthcoming about its practice of polygamy.

“Bad cop” Oaks followed up by launching a shockingly shabby attack on Mike's personal integrity.
_____


--Maxwell's Murky Meanderings--

In answer to the larger inquiry, Maxwell cagily replied by noting that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete.

He handed me a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, “Out of Obscurity.” However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to us contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the "Ensign," 10, November 1984, p. 11).

Quoting from a "Tribute to Neville Chamberlain," delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared:

"History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days."

The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of "floating mosaic tiles":

"The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding.

"The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit . . .

"So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written.

"The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece—the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ."


What Maxwell’s excuses lacked in clarity, Oaks’ made up for in character assassination.
_____


--Oaks’ Vindictive Personal Attacks Against Quinn for Writing and Publishing the Truth About Post-Manifesto Polygamy--

In my meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, Oaks was incensed at Mike's decision to air his findings on post-Manifesto polygamy and told me that Mike was an individual without character who could not be trusted. He angrily complained about Mike’s decision to publish the incontrovertible evidence that, despite its claims to the contrary, the LDS Church had secretly and dishonestly sanctioned and solemnized post-Manifesto polygamous marriages.

That publication (in the Spring 1985 issue of "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought”) led directly to Mike’s excommunication on grounds of supposed “apostasy.”

But it wasn’t as if Mike hadn’t previously been upfront with Mormon Church officials about his post-Manifesto research and his intentions to air it.

Mike explained in his article, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," how his investigations into post-Manifesto polygamy took form, despite a decided lack of cooperation from the highest levels of the Mormon Church:

"President Hinckley telephoned in June 1982 to say that he was sympathetic about a request I had written to obtain access to documents in the First Presidency fault [about post-Manifesto polygamy] but that my request could not be granted. Since I now knew all I ever would about post-Manifesto polygamy, I told him I would go ahead and publish the most detailed and supportive study I could of the topic. President Hinckley said the decision was up to me, that he had done what he could to help."

(Quinn, "On Being A Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in Smith, “Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History,” p. 90)

Oaks’ fussing and fuming aside, Mike’s published findings stand unparalleled and unquestioned in terms of their depth, scope and accuracy.

Mike himself explained the post-Manifesto reasons for his excommunication in his article, “On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)”:

“In 1985, after 'Dialogue' published my article ‘LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904’, three apostles [Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson] gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the Church Historical Department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it . . . Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of ‘speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.’ The Stake President was also told to ‘take further action’ against me if this did not ‘remedy the situation’ of my writing controversial Mormon history. . . .

"I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might ‘offend the Brethren’ (to use Ezra Taft Benson’s phrase). . . . The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU. . . .

“At various stake and regional meetings, Apostle Packer began publicly referring to ‘a BYU historian who is writing about polygamy to embarrass the Church.’ At firesides in Utah and California, a member of BYU’s Religious Education Department referred to me as ‘the anti-Christ of BYU.’ . . . Church leaders today seem to regard my post-Manifesto polygamy article . . . as ‘speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed’ because they themselves regard certain acts and words of those earlier Church leaders as embarrassing, if not actually wrong. I do not regard it as disloyal to conscientiously recreate the words, acts and circumstances of earlier prophets and apostles. . . . .

“No one ever gave me an ultimatum or threatened to fire me from Brigham Young University. However, University administrators and I were both on the losing side of a war of attrition mandated by the General Authorities. . . .

“On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation, effective at the end of the current school semester. . . . I explained [that] ‘the situation seems to be that academic freedom merely survives at BYU without fundamental support by the institution, exists against tremendous pressure and is nurtured only through the dedication of individual administrators and faculty members.’ . . .

“Three months after my departure, it angered me to learn to learn that BYU had fired a Hebrew professor for his private views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although I personally regard the Book of Mormon as ancient history and sacred text, I told an inquiring newspaper reporter: ‘BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That’s like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.’ . . .

“When BYU’s Associate Academic Vice-President asked me if that was an accurate quote, I confirmed that it was. ‘Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the University’s Board of Trustees [meaning the Quorum of the Twelve] and administrators,’ I wrote. ‘By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era). . . .

“It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites--access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.”

(Quinn, D. Michael. “On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).” In Smith, George D., ed., "Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 91-95).


Oaks acknowledged that he had read Mike's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, covering the period from 1890 into the early 20th century.

Oaks also confessed that the Mormon Church had not, in fact, been honest about its practice of polygamy during that time. He admitted that the case, as laid out by Quinn, was, in fact, true. Oaks admitted that, in his opinion, lies had indeed been told by Mormon Church leaders about the continuing practice of polygamy after it supposedly was ended by the Manifesto of 1890.

But enough of admitting "divinely-inspired" Church wrongdoing.

Oaks then proceeded to attack Mike personally by accusing him of breaking his word.

Oaks said that Mike had been given access to all of J. Reuben Clark's papers for the purpose of writing a book on Clark's years of Church service. Oaks said he had assured the Church that Quinn was credible, in order that Quinn could be given access to those records. Oaks noted that shortly after Quinn's research was published on Clark, out came Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy.

Mike, Oaks told me angrily, had violated Oaks' confidence. He accused Quinn of having taken more information out of Church archives than he had been given permission to examine and research, going in.

Oaks said that Mike was not an innocent victim in this affair. Oaks informed me that he subsequently wrote Mike a letter, in which he expressed his "deep disappointment" with him, telling Mike he had exceeded the limits of their original understanding.

In that letter, Oaks further said, he told Mike that he now regarded him as someone who could not be trusted. Oaks added that Mike would not tell us about these things, if asked, because of Mike's involvement.

On that last point, I wanted to see for myself.

In August 2001, in a personal visit with Mike at a gathering in Fort Worden, Washington, hosted by a group of gay Mormon fathers (where I and my former spouse had been invited to speak about both her and my personal experiences attendant to voluntarily resigning our Mormon Church membership), I recounted to Mike Oaks' version of events and asked him for his own recollections.

When I informed Mike that Oaks had accused him of breaking an agreement regarding the parameters of subject searching through Mormon Church archives for research purposes, Mike was Visibly agitated. However, in a controlled and quiet voice, he emphatically denied that he had violated any research agreement with the Church Historical Department.

He told me that it was clearly understood going in that he had open access to archival materials. (He also had told me that he taken thousands of pages of handwritten notes while in the Church Archives doing his research).

That made no difference, of course, to the Mormon Church henchmen in its hierarchy who were bound and determined to banish Mike for speaking the embarrassing truth about its lies and deceptions.

Mike was thus branded as an apostate and given the boot.

Not coincidentally, Mike’s stake president prior to his banishment darkly hinted that he was also being investigated on "moral" charges (relating, no doubt, to Mike's open and honest acknowledgement of being gay).

The suffering that Mike experienced in the face of such personal attacks must have been horrible.

But through it all, Mike remained quietly courageous and true to self. I remember being in his Salt Lake City apartment, where I had gone to visit him. In his bedroom, above his bed and which he allowed me to see, in large letters affixed to the wall was the phrase, “Sin is in the eye of the beholder.”

It was clear that, in that bold statement alone, Mike wasn’t about to let anyone else tell him who he was or what he should do with his life.

Several years later at that conference put on by gay Mormon fathers, I listened as Mike began a stem-to-stern presentation on the world history of homosexuality.

At least he tried to give it.

In an extraordinary presentation that was some two hours in length, Mike took the audience on a review of gay global history--covering the vast territory of its accomplishments and tribulations. A stickler for the minutest of detail, Mike read from his prepared text, page by page. Unfortunately, time constraints only allowed him to give his panoramic presentation up to the early part of the 1800s. The lesson: Mike knows his stuff--and is stuffed with plenty that there is to know. He is a proud gay man who appreciates, honors and defends the historical contributions of gays to the advancement of human civilization.

Try telling that, however, to the Mormon Church.

As far as it was concerned, the fix was in. Ecclesiastically speaking, Mike was a dead man.
_____


--Quinn’s Phone Tapped--

Mike told me that his apartment phone was tapped (most likely, he thought, by Mormon Church security), and that, moreover, he was able to verify the power drain on his telephone line (indicating a deliberate intrusion) through the use of special phone equipment. He said that the likelihood of the drain actually being a tap was supported by employees at the local SLC phone company.
_____


--Quinn Targeted with Death Threats--

Mike has also received death threats from both Mormons and “anti-Mormons,” alike.

On the first, the Tanners explain:

”Around the time of his excommunication he was informed of a threat against his life. While Quinn did not link this threat with the Mormon Church itself, he believed that the rhetoric regarding his work had encouraged someone to threaten his life.”

As to receiving death threats from opponents of Mormonism, Mike himself noted, in his “On Being a Mormon Historian” lecture, the irony of being perceived as an enemy of the Mormon Church by the very Mormon Church leaders he continues to support and sustain as his religious leaders:

”The central argument of the enemies of the LDS Church is historical, and if we seek to build the Kingdom of God by ignoring or denying the problem areas of our past, we are leaving the Saints unprotected. As one who has received death threats from anti-Mormons because they perceive me as an enemy historian, it is discouraging to be regarded as subversive by men I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.”
_____


--The Break-up of Quinn’s Marriage and the Shocking Death of His Son--

Mike’s heterosexual marriage of many years eventually ended in divorce.

Piling pain upon pain, his teenage son committed suicide by hanging himself in one of Salt Lake City's surrounding canyons.

I remember when I first heard the shocking news that Mike’s son had died.

The report had been broadcast on local Salt Lake news, with details that were especially tragic: Mike's boy had been found hanging from a tree in one of the canyons surrounding Salt Lake City.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I first heard about the news and mistakenly believing that the media was reporting the young man's death as having just occurred, I immediately phoned Mike, expressing my shock and condolences and asking him if he was aware of what was being reported.

Mike was very measured and soft spoken in his response.

He informed me that his son had, in fact, taken his own life a few days earlier. Mike did not go into any of the details surrounding his child's demise and I did not ask.

Mike reacted as I have always known Mike to respond during times of personal adversity, hardship, trial and disappointment: He manifested a strong sense of inner strength and outer resoluteness, combined with a quiet acceptance of the disappointments and challenges that life had dealt him.

Although it would have been perfectly understandable had he broken down and cried during our conversation, Mike remained steady in his demeanor and spoke in a clear (albeit subdued) voice.

Whatever one may think of his personal religious beliefs, Mike is an individual of deep conviction, with a strong sense of self, and a person of unquestionable honesty, integrity and courage.

During those horribly sad moments in the wake of his son's untimely and tragic death, Mike was a personal portrait of dignity, calmness, steadiness and peace.

Once again, under the weight of enormous personal pain and grief, Mike showed himself to be a very good man.
_____


--Quinn’s Professional Career Spirals Down--

Following his excommunication, Mike's professional career took a nose dive.

Mike told me that he had been attempting to make some money as a portrait photographer. In fact, Mike does beautiful black-and-white photography work. He advertised in the local Salt Lake papers and, as I witnessed myself, the walls of his apartment were adorned with some of his more impressive work.

Still, as the years passed, Mike found himself unemployed and, in most cases, without the necessary grants funding to continue his historical research. He was fortunate, however, to eventually land a temporary job working in his alma mater’s library at Yale and subsequently was told he had received some continuing financial support to do research on gay issues at Huntington Library in California.

At one point, Mike moved to Mexico to live with a friend. He also lived under trying conditions in San Francisco’s Chinatown In some of his most dire circumstances, he was living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth. Eventually, destitute, he moved in with his mother.
_____


--Quinn Is Not a Quitter—and Refuses to Quit His Church--

Through all the pain, tragedies, misfortunes and injustices in his life, Mike has remained steadfast and even-keeled in his personal faith. He has fervently maintained his testimony in what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm.

Despite his agonizing personal and professional expeiences, Mike has maintained his committment to what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church. This bespeaks a personal devotion greater than any hoped-for call to Mormon apostleship. At this point in his life, Kimball's promise to Mike in that regard seems, shall we say, a tad out of reach.

Nevertheless, Mike's sincere belief in the LDS Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm.

I genuinely do not understand that personal arrival point for Mike Quinn, but I say more power to him. Despite our differences, I know him to be a decent, honorable guy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Pathway ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 03:12PM

I't always bothered me when people insisted I believed something that I did not, or felt something that I did not.

I'm not quite ready to call Quinn a liar just for the sake of selling books. Right now, his belief or unbelief in the BOM and JS is irrelevant to the success of his books. Since he was ex'ed, all devout members view his work with great suspicion.

Most progressive or ex-Mormons I've seen describe with glowing praise his scholarship. The question about his belief is usually one of curiosity, not one that colors ones view of the research he presents.

If he was really willing to lie about what he believes just for the sake of book sales, well, his book sales would only be impacted positively if he returned to the Church..and he refuses to do that.

I guess we need to define what is meant by belief. He certainly does not believe in the idealized polished BS of Church history that we were all fed when we were younger...but he certainly believes in it within the context of the scholarship he has provided. Or at least, that is the impression that I was left with after having the chance to talk with him. Granted, I did not push this particular topic deeply. I was more interested in his research on the history of LDS Church finances..

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Trails end ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 03:39PM

Id definitely agree with Suzie...seldom are questions even asked till perhaps late twenties or thirties...the imprinting of mother dad and church seems like a tatoo to many tbms...no amount of data or info can sway that imprinting...i also believe integrity can be inconsistant in people...whats important enough for one to say to hell with this...wont even ripple the pond for another...just the way humans are structured...my buddy is this way...he knew nothing of the seer stones...polyandry...or 14 year olds and was stunned by the essays...his feelings?...give joe a break...i said...FOR WHAT?...he had no answer...his mom did a splendid job of that tattoo

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Shummy ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:16PM

One thing I was recently reminded of upon re-reading the Salamander novel was the chummy relationship that D Michael had with Mark Hofmann before the bombs started going off.

I for one can't wait to see what bombs he tosses with his forthcoming opus about the LDS corporate financials.

He's taken so long putting it to paper so we know it will damn well worth the wait.

Godspeed D Michael Quinn.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: b0yd ( )
Date: February 16, 2016 09:46PM

I guess the sunk cost and all would make it pretty embarrassing to acknowledge to everyone you know that it was all a lie.

Same goes for rock waterman

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 17, 2016 11:40AM

I'm with Kathleen: ignore what he says, watch what he does. His actions are not those of a believer.

He's lying. He may well be lying to himself. People do that all the time. Much of what therapists do is call BS on the lies we've been telling ourselves. But some part of his brain has to know. Notice he is not writing any books about why the BoM is an account of actual events.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2016 11:40AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hedning ( )
Date: February 17, 2016 01:44PM

He is a very intelligent and complex guy, playing with mental midgets. When i spoke to him in a group context, he was weighing people out and playing verbal chess, seeing what others were made of. Don't assume he is honest. He has been wronged by the Church and he can find a way to extract mass destruction (fine by me.) He is playing the NOM card to keep his audience.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: February 17, 2016 08:48PM

The OP is quoting me from here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1769784,1769801#msg-1769801

One point that keeps being repeated here is that the "prophets,
seers, and revelators," must know that they are not talking to
God face to face, as many of the membership believe.

The point in question is the "face to face" thingy. I know of
no president of the LDS Church who has CLAIMED to have spoken
to God or Jesus Christ "face to face," since Joseph Smith. In
fact, it is emphasized in Mormonism over and over that God
communicates with us through a "still small voice."

LDS leaders have been conditioned to see these little "still
small voice" thoughts as revelation from God. The father gets
it for his family, the bishop for his ward, the SP for the
stake, on up to the Church President for the whole Church.

In one of his interviews Gordon B. Hinckley was asked how
revelation came. He described a problem that he had been
praying about and thinking about as to where a temple could be
put where no plot of land was available. He finally got the
"answer" that it could be put on a floor of a down-town
building. Now that happens to anyone who works on problems.
You think about it, mull it over and then an idea comes to
you. It has happened to me many times, but I don't claim it to
be divine revelation.

On one occasion President Heber J. Grant said that, to his
knowledge, no church leader had seen God or Jesus since Joseph
Smith. On another occasion President George Albert Smith wrote
that he had neither seen the Father nor the Son nor heard their
audible voice.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1625250,1625298#msg-1625298

Notice that no such clarifying statements have been coming
forth during the last 65 years. That's where it gets dirty in
the way the leadership allow the members to believe they are on
such intimate terms with Deity. It was reported that at one
question-and-answer session with Bednar that the "have you seen
Jesus" question was not to be asked.

So the leaders believe, and they believe they get revelation
from God for the whole church though that "still small voice,"
through "promptings," etc. Since they decided long ago to
"believe no matter what," the progression from not seeing God
and Jesus face-to-face as a Bishop to not seeing Jesus
face-to-face as an apostle has been a gradual one and an
expected one.

It's only the plebs at the bottom who believe in the "see Jesus
face-to-face" idea, and the Brethren, realizing the usefulness
of this, are careful not to debunk the useful myth.

But they, themselves never claim the visitations. I guess it's
like with apologies, they neither claim nor deny. This fits in
with a Church that's big on secrecy. Secrecy of the temple
ceremonies, secrecy of the history, secrecy that you've even
had a 2nd anointing (Tom Phillips broke an instruction on that
one) and secrecy on what goes on with the leaders.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2016 08:55PM by baura.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: February 17, 2016 10:30PM

How much attention would be paid to someone who knew all the foundational details of Harry Potter's world and could explain exactly why things happened as they did? People who enjoyed 'fan fiction' might be interested, but since it's all fictional, what would be the point?

I see this as part of Dr. Quinn's biggest issue: if JS is just a bold faced, literal fuckin* liar, then him proving it completely takes away any relevance his life might have. We would all thank him for his service and then never bother with him again.

He would have a huge question to ask himself: "What now?"

Declaring JS a prophet, even a fallen prophet, has a shot at keeping him relevant and engaged, something many people will do anything to attain.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   **         **     **  **    **  **    ** 
 **     **  **    **   ***   ***  **   **   **   **  
 **     **  **    **   **** ****  **  **    **  **   
 **     **  **    **   ** *** **  *****     *****    
 **     **  *********  **     **  **  **    **  **   
 **     **        **   **     **  **   **   **   **  
 ********         **   **     **  **    **  **    **