Does anybody in here talk about the controversial books Dr. Quinn wrote as an LDS scholar who confronted the LDS paradigms before being excommunicated for crossing the line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn

Were you to use the search function, in the "Go to:" row, above, and then enter Mike's last name, you'd be presented with a couple of hours of reading.

So, your answer is yes.

I'm fascinated with Michael Quinn. We're the same age, and while I'm twice the Lamanite he is, I give him his due in that regard.

His scholarship is practically pathological in its intensity, but the manner in which he appears to manage his life seems to be 180 degrees in the other direction, meaning he comes across as practically willy-nilly.

Anyone know what Mr. Quin is doing these days?
Why was he exed.....?

"Conduct unbecoming a member and apostasy", along with "highly sensitive confidential matters" which cognoscenti believe refer to his sexual orientation, which at that time was not quite public knowledge.

He didn't attend his Court of Lovey-Dovey.

He did a recent interview with Mormon Stories back in the summer of 2017. It was long but well worth listening to. In it he said he was invited to live in Mexico with his friend (maybe partner?). They are roommates trying to save money because he doesn't really have much money. His doctorate at Yale cost a butt load of money and he's well into his 60's still with student debt from that. He made some money working in some University (in Arizona) on faculty, and got chased out of town by some over-righteous Mormons with connections to the Dean, when they heard he had the coveted position.

I see no goto button, so I went to the search, but only found three of my posts that use the name.

Change the search parameter, at the bottom, to "All Dates"...

And don't put your name in the author box. Leave that empty.

Drama queen...

YES!!!

ok. Ill change the dates.

Ok. I read some past history of threads about Quinn and will read more. I look at the forest of assumptions and not the trees. I see some patterns of thought in the total threads and how they move in a thread from reason to emotion to reason to emotion that makes sense to me. It has enlightened and changed the ideas in my brain about the Recovery from Mormonism Board that I didn't see before.

I was making no value judgments, but trying to figure it out. By reading these posts, and I reached the top of Mt. Everest. I've been climbing all of my life. So I am at the top of this intellectual mountain of reason, and I can yell what I believe: "The atheists are right again!" They are the ones that got finally to the peak. Reason is beautiful. The religious people did to not get me to this place. The atheists did. I finally understand the board from the top of the mountain. No emotion is the place of pure intellect. I think I reached the end of my journey. Thank you. Now where is my next mountain to climb?

We are pleased.

None of my original assumptions have changed about evolution that science proves it is true. However, while reading these posts about Quinn I had an unusual experience that I had never had with reason before. Is this why atheists cognate with reason and believers don't? It is breath taking.

If I didn't have my assumptions in place that reconcile evolution as true with the Bible, I would want to be an atheist and scrap the Bible. Think how many people on the earth don't have a Bible. Glorious! They don't have to deal with the dumb ideas it creates.

This is the coolest experience I have ever had in my life. I would want to make reason my life forever. And the silly beliefs created from the Bible are all wrong, because they are. I am having intellectual orgasms one after another without any feelings. Whatever is happening is automatically reorganizing my past assumptions into better beliefs, better knowledge. Thanks again.

De nada!

Just remember, believe nothing, hope for everything.

See you in the next life, ET.

Hope is the key. I had a strange dream two days ago. I like where I am today looking for another mountain to climb, but in my dream I was back in my past at age 25 with the knowledge of today. The question came to my brain (I am not saying it was God), if you knew what you know today, would you go through it again. I woke up, and I reasoned though the question and answered it, "No, I would not go through the horrible pain again!" I would live with the knowledge and assumptions I have today, but I would never go through my life again.

Everything in my life happened because of a loss over religion. My whole existence became obsessed to resolve the pain. It would not go away. I worked through both the feelings and ideas over many years, not because of belief, but because I hoped I would get the knowledge I needed to resolve the religious ideas that were mixed with my emotions. When I came here, I had already worked through these issues by using hope and reason, not belief, if that is what you mean.

Happy people that have no conflict do not have this issue to resolve. They have a little bit of pain inside to deal with, but not a lot of pain. I would never do it again if I could avoid it. Life was to damn painful.

I traveled on road of reason and not religious or emotional pain. But my modified beliefs make the pain worthwhile today because the pain is gone. I enjoy wisdom and knowledge, which are good results of the pain. The hope got me through the pain with reason. Simple! Hope + reason = intellectual orgasms. :-)

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reason is beautiful. The religious people did to
> not get me to this place. The atheists did. I
> finally understand the board from the top of the
> mountain. No emotion is the place of pure
> intellect.

I'd suggest you try climbing up again.
Emotion and intellect aren't mutually exclusive.
Either can help you understand the other; both are valuable parts of the human experience. And atheism doesn't insist that one requires ditching the other.

Maybe if you attempt the journey again, you'll learn more. And maybe, just maybe, realize that there is no mountaintop...the human intellectual journey has no end, but it's the journey itself that has value -- not reaching some non-existent peak.

Hie, you would understand so much more if you would just take a moment and think outside of the boxes.

I can't even see the boxes...

You stole them, didn't you? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2018 12:34PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Perhaps if you climbed onto the astral plane and had an intellectual orgasm. . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2018 12:34PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps if you climbed onto the astral plane and
> had an intellectual orgasm. . .

Maybe I went to the astral plane in a past life. :-) It is just more mixing of sexual feelings with the mind. But it is far more difficult to sort out rationally than Mormonism. It is power at much deeper level. It has its purpose, so I am not condemning it. All power is from God. People have to make up their own minds who experience it.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anon the Great Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reason is beautiful. The religious people did
> to
> > not get me to this place. The atheists did. I
> > finally understand the board from the top of
> the
> > mountain. No emotion is the place of pure
> > intellect.
>
> I'd suggest you try climbing up again.
> Emotion and intellect aren't mutually exclusive.
> Either can help you understand the other; both are
> valuable parts of the human experience. And
> atheism doesn't insist that one requires ditching
> the other.
>
> Maybe if you attempt the journey again, you'll
> learn more. And maybe, just maybe, realize that
> there is no mountaintop...the human intellectual
> journey has no end, but it's the journey itself
> that has value -- not reaching some non-existent
> peak.


I agree with you, emotions are mutually exclusive because we are living mortals with emotions. We are not dead brains sitting on a table in a jar. I said "no emotions"; meaning, the mind is independent of emotions and creates pure reason. If the mind mixes the emotion with reason then it produces illogical ideas from irrational and emotional assumptions, such as the LDS Church is true because I got a revelation from God the Book of Mormon is true by a "feeling". That is why Mormons get deceived. They mix emotions with reason and do not separate the two. I have other mountains to climb on my journey in life, but I made it to the top of Mt. Everest to see this idea.

I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but where can I send my bill?

Send your bill to your favorite charity. :-) But you got it backwards. I was sent where I needed to go to change my paradigms about the board. Thank you. Where do I send my bill?

I found the following YouTube videos easily enough, honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DbcKMa63VI

There are others linked on the right, including Part II. Here's a bit of "Cabdriver Wisdom," however: One of those includes a discussion with no less than Denial C. Peterson...

Pour yourself a strong one before watching that one, seriously.

What does his comment about the $100 million dollar donation reveal to us about Quinn?

anonthegreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does his comment about the $100 million
> dollar donation reveal to us about Quinn?

I wasn't able to find this, and (as a nevermo--even though I have been around here for a long time now) I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please explain.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anonthegreat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What does his comment about the $100 million
> > dollar donation reveal to us about Quinn?
>
> I wasn't able to find this, and (as a
> nevermo--even though I have been around here for a
> long time now) I have no idea what you are talking
> about.
>
> Please explain.


On the video, go to 1:47:10 and listen for 2 minutes. This reveals he was hired at BYU because of a $100 million dollar donation to BYU. He had access to people with money power to bribe BYU.

Then read between the lines. Those at the top worked with Michael Quinn to create a scam that he believes in Jesus Christ, but he was born into the occult (from Hollywood), and lies about his personal life throughout the video.

His lying though his teeth about his personal life remains hidden from everyone and cannot be proven true or false. For example, I believe he didn't read the entire Encyclopedia set. Also, the First Presidency did not ordain him to gather the facts in LDS the archives if they didn't know exactly what they are doing. He is working with them to create a victim mentality to gain traction to promote the agenda they want, but not be held responsible for it.

This video changed my assumptions about Quinn. Reading his books, he comes off sincere, but he is an occult scammer, just like Joseph Smith, working secretly with those at the top. The historical facts are correct, but his personal life is a scam.

This is a bad post.

If you listen to the tape again, and really pay attention, you might note that 1) the $100 million was donated to Arizona State, not BYU as you falsely state; and 2) the condition for the grant was that Quinn NOT be hired. You got this totally wrong.

As for the notion that the First President did not "ordain" Quinn to go through the church archives. Your statement to the contrary discredits you, not him.

Where you assert facts, your facts are wrong. It follows that the opinions you base on those facts are also incorrect. Quinn is nothing like you claim.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a bad post.
>
> If you listen to the tape again, and really pay
> attention, you might note that 1) the $100 million
> was donated to Arizona State, not BYU as you
> falsely state; and 2) the condition for the grant
> was that Quinn NOT be hired. You got this totally
> wrong.
>
> As for the notion that the First President did not
> "ordain" Quinn to go through the church archives.
> Your statement to the contrary discredits you, not
> him.

If you listen to the video before the 1:47:10, it explains it. He was denied positions at Arizona and University of Utah. I believe he is lying, and the First Presidency was involved in it with Quinn, but no one can prove it. It is called money laundering back into the BYU University, keeping the money in family, so to speak, while hiring Quinn. The $100 million blows the scam out of the water, in my opinion. If anything happens to Quinn, the First Presidency can't be blamed. It happened just the way they planned it. My assumptions are changed forever about Quinn's personal life. President Kimball is dead and cannot speak for himself about blessing him to be an apostle. But the story is great to give him credibility with the Mormons. It is extremely well planned out and staged. The bribery comment stands rational based on his verbal comments.

Indeed, this one video changed all of my views about Bruce R McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine. No one writes a book about Mormonism and then ignore the First Presidency. It is intellectual hypocrisy. It was staged to fool the Mormons about the Catholic Church, among other ideas, that are deliberately confrontational. He was happy and calm at the top because he had a lot of money and power to play with the "big guys" at the top to use half-truths to control everyone as slaves at the bottom. He loved the power, not the people.

anonthegreat Wrote:


> If you listen to the video before the 1:47:10, it
> explains it. [Quinn] was denied positions at Arizona
> and University of Utah.

Why would I listen to the video before 1:47:10? You claimed that a donor offered BYU $100 million and you told me where to find that statement. I did just that. The statement, however, was completely clear--and indicated that the money was to ASU. Either that you don't understand what you see and hear or you are intentionally fabricating things. In either case your description and the resulting conclusions are not credible.



> I believe he is lying, and
> the First Presidency was involved in it with
> Quinn, but no one can prove it.

Empirically, it is difficult to prove things that are false. Your lack of evidence does not comprise evidence.



> It is called
> money laundering back into the BYU University,
> keeping the money in family, so to speak, while
> hiring Quinn. The $100 million blows the scam out
> of the water, in my opinion.

The $100 million was given to ASU, not to BYU. How can a gift to ASU be "money laundering. . . into BYU?"



If anything happens
> to Quinn, the First Presidency can't be blamed. It
> happened just the way they planned it.

What did? The donation of money to ASU? Quinn's inability to find work? What exactly was the conspiracy?



>President Kimball is dead and
> cannot speak for himself about blessing him to be
> an apostle.

First you said that Quinn was ordained. That was false. Now you allege that Kimball "blessed" him to be an apostle. That is also false. What happened was Kimball TOLD him he would be an apostle, which is different.




> The bribery comment
> stands rational based on his verbal comments.

Again, a bribe to ASU is not the same thing as a bribe to BYU. And bribing a university NOT to hire Quinn is not the same thing as bribing a university TO hire him.

You are way, way off the mark.

Oh, I see now what you are saying, you assume that Arizona was paid $100 million to not hire Quinn. However, Quinn brings up the donation AFTER he was rejected from Arizona. So your claims are irrational. Anyone can spend 4 minutes watching the video and make their own conclusions.

No, he did not say the donation came after the failed job application. He was explaining that he was denied employment at the U of U and ASU. Dehlin then asked the details, and Quinn explained how the donor checked his advance at ASU. It's all there; you can hear it if you really, really focus.

On a different point, you don't know what "money laundering" is, do you.

Do you believe Pres Kimball gave Quinn a blessing that he would be an apostle someday? Do you believe Kimball was a prophet? Let us get to our fundamental assumptions. We can start there. I don't believe Kimball was a prophet. I believe Quinn lied about the experience to create credibility among the LDS to play the victim role.

By the way, the First Presidency created the scam. Ordain was the wrong word to use to jump on and twist my thoughts. They gave him verbal permission to search the vaults to create the factual books. They know what is in there and pointed him the right direction. They pretend they don't know.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 08:34PM by anonthegreat.

Yes. I stand corrected. I had to go back five minutes. But my assumption were formulated by listening to BS stories for an hour and 40 minutes. Then he was talking about life after BYU, then his tenure at BYU, just after his graduation from Yale. So I got confused by his approach and the fact his discussion about his personal life was unbelievable in the beginning.

It doesn't change my assumptions much, but I am glad you were persistent to correct me. I still believe the $100 million was a bribe, created by the First Presidency to launder the money to create the story. It was worth creating the victim story to connect the victim attitude to emotions. Poor Quinn.

What? Watch the video; the stories are is incredible. The money still blows the scam out of the water. The storyline is he can't get a job; what a victim of the Mormons! Who would spend $100 million dollars to stop Quinn? The First Presidency with laundered money to stop Quinn as a victim? Show me this assumption is false, and I will change it. I create the assumptions, but change them, based on more facts. I appreciate your patience and persistence to change my mind. I need your help.

See? Science can only prove something is false, then we modify the assumptions. This process we went through together unintentionally shows you how the scientific method works on the inside to cleanse us of bad thoughts. Thanks. My expert study is not in Quinn's life, which I could research further, but I am satisfied with the assumptions I have at this time based on the $100 million comment. I could not have done it without the board.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 09:38PM by anonthegreat.

Did you listen? He was denied positions because large donations were made to those universities. He didn't get jobs via bribery, he was denied jobs because of bribery.

I think you're an intentionally obtuse troll that you can misconstrue things that way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 03:40PM by dogblogger.

Wind back the video to a couple of minutes before 1:47:10. In context, do you still have the same assumptions with all the facts provided?

You're as disconnected and looney as they come.

Your conclusions are not based on what is in that video.

They have been deleting comments that are negative to this poster. Dont be surprised if your response goes down the memory hole.

I base my conclusions based on the facts of the source material in the link below are accurate and he was his a member of the BYU faculty as a professor until 1988. Did the University of Arizona hire him? If they did, and I haven't done the research, the $100 million is still a bribe, based on his comments. My assumptions are based on his being hired by BYU and not Arizona. He was not even excommunicated until 1993. There are other facts in this video that contradict reason. But I have not mentioned them. Do you believe he is telling the truth about his personal life? Or is he telling half-true stories like Paul Dunn and Pres Monson? Where are your assumptions originating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn

If you listened, you can fill in some of the details about your mistaken assumptions on the timeline.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you listened, you can fill in some of the
> details about your mistaken assumptions on the
> timeline.

Yeah, that's going to happen....:)

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you listened, you can fill in some of the
> details about your mistaken assumptions on the
> timeline.

Are you claiming that Quinn was hired by Arizona State? Yes? No?

I'm not claiming anything. LISTEN. Draw out the timeline physically if you have to. The information is in front of you. Put it together.

This is a pretty good explanation of my assumptions.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9x_oa--KAc

Quinn doesn't say the money or his position went to BYU or Arizona. If you query the link for the word "Arizona", we see this very strange article in 2006 that says something about donation and Arizona from the Wall Street Journal, but he graduated from Yale and applied for work in 1976, and Quinn worked at BYU from 1976 to 1988 as he wrote his controversial books as planned. So, apparently, someone paid the Wall Street journal to spread the fake news so no one figures out the Quinn scam. I see the irrational thinking and conclude, "Someone is lying". Quinn doesn't say whether it is Arizona or BYU to leave us to make the assumption, so he is even more skilled in his words to deceive us, leaving it to assumptions so that we go around in circles arguing about it. Very tricky magicians.

The truth is out there. You're not looking very hard yet.

Dehlin supplies the answer a bit obliquely about where he went to work. Learn to listen.

Yes, I stand corrected. I explained what happened and how I made the mistake, but it was deleted.

I also explained my new assumptions, which did not change much, but the post was deleted so I can't tell you what changed in my mind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 09:59PM by anonthegreat.

This thread should tell you something about your process.

1. Humans are terrible observers.
2. Humans have a narrative psychology. It needs to tell a story, thus your many unwarranted assumptions.

Given 1 and 2 its likely that Quinn is being honest with his narrative but still making mistakes on details here and there without intending distortion.

3. humans dislike uncertainty. It makes them uncomfortable. This also leads to many of your assumptions.

So we simply don't know the source of the donation. It's dishonest of us to say more than that or to even assume more than that. You're welcome to have a pet theory but it's no more than that.

Do you see how your pre conceptions kept guiding you down mistaken paths? Assumptions are very dangerous. They usually create a hypothetical. They can be worthwhile to explore to generate new ideas to hunt for evidence but are dangerous for making statements of fact.

Embrace uncertainty. It's ok to say I/we don't know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 10:11PM by dogblogger.

I disagree with you. The fastest way to get to the truth is to make an assumption and for others to prove the assumptions are false. I am using science on the inside, and that way, if nobody can prove my assumptions are incorrect, then I assume they are true.

Working over the many years, this has created beliefs that cannot be proven false. It is science applied to thought. In a couple of days and one video I was able to create valid assumptions, and then tweak them base on facts, as learned I wrong about Arizona rejected Quinn. See? I haven't studied anything about Quinn's life, but do not need to do it anymore. I don't have to discuss it. I am happy with my beliefs. If anyone wants to know my final assumptions, you can ask me, and maybe the moderators will not delete it. But three hours of videos was enough for me. Yes, the mind loves to make stories, so why not create our theories and assumptions based on the facts we know? Otherwise, we are dependent on others to interpret the facts for us, controlling the beliefs.

So I am supposed to believe Quinn is telling the truth of Kimball blessing him to be an apostle? If this is true, then he would not have been excommunicated, but he would have been disciplined and kept his private life secret between the apostles and the First Presidency, telling them that Kimball blessed him to be an apostle, and ask them what to do to receive that calling in the future to make it happen.

I don't believe that logic, so I believe he lied, just like Joseph Smith. Could I be wrong? Of course, and if I am wrong, I will change my view based on valid facts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2018 11:49PM by anonthegreat.

Read How to Become A Really Good Pain in the Ass. It will save you a lot of assuming.