I wanted to continue the discussion about Quinn.

First, he was born into Hollywood and his family knew famous people. Quinn is not his original name, but he changed it to Quinn because of Anthony Quinn, the famous actor, was an idol of sorts to him. Hollywood is known for its connection to the occult. The valid facts fit my theory that Quinn was born into the occult, just like Joseph Smith. The family connection to high-powered people exalted Quinn's influence in Mormonism and not his superior knowledge.

Second, he speaks of his childhood and spiritual experience before serving a mission, which were extraordinary, gaining the attention of men who eventually became Generals Authorities or prominent leaders known for their accomplishments outside the Church. He was on a path of high influence from childhood, suggesting he was picked not for his accomplishments, but rather, he was part of club of influence by the people he knew. For example, he claims he read the encyclopedia set (25 Volumes) for so many years, but does it conflict with his mission and spiritual interests? It appears he is lying about it to establish credibility of knowledge rather than having people connections with influence. The more he speaks of influential people he knew as friends or acquaintances, and the more names he uses of high-powered people, the less I believe he read the encyclopedia set.

Third, Quinn had access to the historical archives of the LDS Church by the permission of the First Presidency to find what he did and writes books. My assumption is the First Presidency manipulated the storyline to not hold them accountable. There are ideas they want the LDS Church and the outcasts to believe without saying it, just like wanting Bruce R. McConkie to write Mormon Doctrine, but pretending they didn't want it published, with all kinds of emails floating around to "prove it". The play-acting was perfectly staged. The Church needed to officially debunk the idea that the Catholic Church is not the great and abominable church that most people believed when they read the book of Mormon, among other ideas. Bruce R. McConkie was presented as a wild-duck to republish the book without approval of the First Presidency. Behind the scenes, the Mormon Church is shaking hands with the Catholic Church, and they needed to discredit the idea without publicly sayingg it. They did it discretely and indirectly with the revised publications of Mormon Doctrine, removing the parts about the Catholic Church and many other ideas they don't want the LDS Church to believe officially for political reasons. I assume they are doing the same thing with Quinn. No true believer in Mormonism rebels against the First Presidency because the Doctrine and Covenants says to receive the prophet's words in faith as though he were Moses.

Third, he speaks of the feelings he had of being an LDS apostle in the future, but he says the idea came from others that encouraged him to believe it. He went to Kimball, he claims, to have him blessed by Kimball to remove the feelings. Kimball did not remove the feeling. He did the opposite and blessed him to be an apostle in the future. It is likely that this did not happen. If it is true, Kimball would have told the First President what the Lord revealed, and they would not have excommunicated Quinn, but would have listened to him and counseled him privately to wait for the "right time" to reveal the truth to the Church when he was an apostle, according the phony image they present as truth. Therefore, I believe he never had that private meeting with Kimball, but he most likely fabricated the story to add credibility to his books.

Fourth, a donor gave a $100 million (corrected by editing) bribe to Arizona State so they would not hire him, solidifying the victim attitude that everyone is against him but the few seekers of truth.

These comments from Quinn suggest he is not being honest about his personal life. If that conclusion is true, and he lies like Joseph Smith lied, then what is he really doing?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 01:57PM by anonthegreat.

He is living a human life. Many of us have tried it, with differing, even wildly different(!) results.

How's it working out for you?

anonthegreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wanted to continue the discussion about Quinn.
>
>
> First, he was born into Hollywood and his family
> knew famous people. Quinn is not his original
> name, but he changed it to Quinn because of
> Anthony Quinn, the famous actor, was an idol of
> sorts to him. Hollywood is known for its
> connection to the occult. The valid facts fit my
> theory that Quinn was born into the occult, just
> like Joseph Smith.

Minus the first two+ years, I have spent my entire life "in Hollywood" (in the sense you are using this word here), and although there was a period of time (1940s for sure, and probably a bit earlier as well) when a number of people "in" Hollywood were dabbling in seances, and crystal balls, and trumpets, and table tipping, and psychics, this was ALWAYS principally fodder for films (usually B films like "Charlie Chan"), and never rose to anything beyond scattered interest among a small number of individuals. To intimate that "Hollywood is known for its connection to the occult" is significantly misleading. When television came in during the late 1940s, the greater percentage of people in Hollywood who were interested shrunk significantly (television introduced new broadcast standards which reflected decidedly conservative cultural standards)--with some exceptions (Shirley MacLaine is probably the most well-known exception).


> Hollywood is known for its connection to the occult.

This may be your perception, but it is misleading at best. The things people who live and work in the industry are interested and involved in encompass credits, "numbers" (budgets/first weekend grosses/profits and shares of profit/subsidiary rights/credits/"will this assignment or job qualify for [my guild's] pension plan?"), [personal] connections, and whatever is necessary to get the next job (because virtually everyone, and no matter "who" they are, is out of work most of the time during those twenty or so years that it takes to qualify for a guild pension plan). Since TV came in, there is very little interest in "the occult" in the industry, unless it involves a potential new project which, potentially but realistically, offers credits, actual payment for employment, and [personal] connections.


> "...was born into the occult."

How is someone "born into the occult"? [Shirley MacLaine's offspring aside.]


> Fourth, a donor gave a $100 bribe to Arizona State
> so they would not hire him, solidifying the victim
> attitude that everyone is against him but the few
> seekers of truth.

Someone on this level at Arizona State did something for a bribe of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS? When it comes to the donor class, this is VERY hard to believe. One hundred dollars is akin to what people on this economic level leave for a restaurant dinner tip.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 10:21PM by Tevai.

Yes, we can believe whatever we want to believe, but we should dismiss the evidence because we choose to dismiss it and not because someone else tell us to dismiss it. The evidence that Quinn creates by his comments for two hours is difficult to dismiss.

But your assumptions about his comments are

Those at the bottom of the Hollywood studio production crew will not see the hiding occults at the top. But the occult activities are leaking here and their in the mainstream media as they get caught for their crimes. Quinn's constant name dropping is troublesome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 01:55PM by anonthegreat.

anonthegreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those at the bottom of the Hollywood studio
> production crew will not see the hiding occults at
> the top.

Hey, I have spent several decades of my adult life going to production meetings, and NO ONE is "hiding occults." I understand that you are turned on by tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories, but what you are describing happens NOWHERE in the mainstream entertainment industry. [Partial correction: Disney is now well-known for hiding subliminal "messages" in some of their entertainment products (overwhelmingly cartoon films and cartoon subsidiary products), but to my knowledge, these all have to do with sex--getting people to respond "warmly" to what appear to be non-sexual stimuli. But this is Disney specifically, and not the entertainment industry as a whole.]


> But the occult activities are leaking
> here and their in the mainstream media as they get
> caught for their crimes.

WHAT "crimes"?

WHO is being "caught"?

WHAT [specifically] are "they" being "caught" FOR?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 02:08PM by Tevai.

The ability to see beyond (as in over and around and between its legs) facts is almost a lost art.

But RfM seems to draw adherents of this waning art!!

Go Meerkats!!!

What are you saying? Do we trust the First Presidency to tell the whole truth and not hide anything? Do they have a track-record to tell the whole truth? Or are they more experienced in telling half-truths?

Since Quinn worked with the permission of the First Presidency for more than a decade, rummaging through the Church archives, are we to assume the First Presidency didn't know what was there? Or do we assume they did? Which of the two ideas do we base our conclusions on? If we make no assumptions, then we cannot use our brain to make any conclusions. Do you want to persuade us not to think? Do you want us to be naïve little children that make no assumptions about anything and have no idea how to use our minds using valid evidence?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 02:40PM by anonthegreat.

Sir, I'm saying that you are scamming yourself. When you extend the attempt to us, we resist.

I don't care who is right and who is wrong; I just care that a pinch of regularity be used. What do I mean by regularity? I don't know and I don't care. (Well, I do, but I refuse to admit it, outside of paratheses marks.)

So what you are saying I can't assume the First Presidency or Quinn are half-truth managers based on the evidence of his comments, which is what Joseph Smith did, because that doesn't happen today? The world is so righteous in Mormonism that no one at the top lies today? Is that way you are saying?

I don't think he is saying that.

I believe he is suggesting that there is a lot of evidence out there that indicates what happened. You seem unaware of that evidence, or determined to pick and choose between the evidence, in order to support positions that are extremely unlikely.

You mentioned that you keep Occam's razor in your pocket. It may be good to employ it from time to time.

Never, NEVER, trust a bearded man who says he lives by Occam's Razor. (Of course, I jest.)

Also, or but, the fact that you can follow me in my mental perambulations ought to alarm you...

You have no idea. . .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think he is saying that.
>
> I believe he is suggesting that there is a lot of
> evidence out there that indicates what happened.
> You seem unaware of that evidence, or determined
> to pick and choose between the evidence, in order
> to support positions that are extremely unlikely.
>
> You mentioned that you keep Occam's razor in your
> pocket. It may be good to employ it from time to
> time.

The assumptions are: money is power. The more power in a pyramid structure, the more you have to lie to maintain the power. At the top, they manipulate the public to go where the leaders want us to go based on the money power.

I would not have made the same assumptions without the $100 million donation staring me in the face. Delete that couple of minutes on the video, and this post would never have been created. The money is what creates the assumptions that someone is creating a narrative to promote Quinn into something political. What is it?

> The assumptions are: money is power. The more
> power in a pyramid structure, the more you have to
> lie to maintain the power. At the top, they
> manipulate the public to go where the leaders want
> us to go based on the money power.

That's not generally how one discovers the truth. Usually one starts not with overall assumptions but with data. As the data mounts, patterns emerge and then one starts to make assumptions that explain them. But the further the assumptions are from the data, the greater the probability of error.




> I would not have made the same assumptions without
> the $100 million donation staring me in the face.
> Delete that couple of minutes on the video, and
> this post would never have been created. The money
> is what creates the assumptions that someone is
> creating a narrative to promote Quinn into
> something political. What is it?

This is problematic in two ways. First, you misinterpret the $100 million donation. What happened was that a donor had already decided to proffer the money. When Quinn's appointment arose, the donor suggested that he was having second thoughts. So the university decided not to offer the job. The donation was not originally related to Quinn.

Second, how exactly was anyone promoting "Quinn into something political?" Kimball thought the church's history would vindicate its doctrine. He unleashed first Arrington (you know that?) and then Quinn. As Kimball declined, people like Packer who disagreed with him about history, shut the research down. From that point onward, the church worked to destroy Quinn's career, not to promote it.

That's what happened. Occam's razor would take you to that conclusion.

Whether the donor offered the money before or after Quinn, it doesn't matter. The money was still a bribe to take it away if the University hired Quinn. They created victim attitude still stands as the primary objective. We really don't know the truth, and no one is going to tell us the whole truth at the top, because that is the way it works at the top. Hiding the truth gives one more power. Ever watch NCIS?

So I assume the First Presidency was aware of everything rather than believing they were clueless about the matter.

NCIS is how we know trurh now?

So then, the government is perfectly unselfish, and all the agencies don't hide the truth to build their own empires, fighting to justify their funding; and therefore, NCIS is a scam, and the American public is being fed a Santa Claus fantasy story. Is that what you believe?

I try not to believe. I've given you my base assumptions. The rest is evidence and opinion.

No magic. No ETs, minimal conspiracy.

Fine. You want not to believe (whatever that means). I want to believe in the power of reason. Those are the two fundamental assumptions we are making to cause our disagreements. If you want, you can start another thread to discuss the two main conflicting assumptions further.

Oh, dogblogger believes in reason--and he applies it very well.

You could learn something from him.

Then why doesn't he use more powerful factual evidence to change my mind? There is plenty of evidence from Quinn's two hours of comments to create what I believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 05:51PM by anonthegreat.

You haven't done your homework. No one is going to reproduce the books and articles that have already been written about Quinn and the church for the simple reason that you could look them up and read them yourself.

Most people reason by finding lots of points and then fitting a line to them. You appear to be one of those who prefers to find a single point and then draw a line.

That approach will lead to mistaken conclusions 359 times out of 360.

I gave up on you. Your paradigm is too dense for the time it takes to penetrate. I don't have that time.

OK. That is fine. If you don't want (or don't have the time) to discuss belief vs non-belief, then we can leave the discussion alone, unless someone can give me an assumption that is better and stronger than the assumptions documented to form the conclusions.

That beard is getting really bushy.

I believe your second argument makes my beliefs more persuasive about releasing Arrington based on the two witness principle Mormons believe in. The entire thing is a act, based on the Bruce R. McConkie fiasco with Mormon Doctrine. Most members have not read the Doctrine and Covenants to know that the Prophet is like Moses and his words are to be received in faith.

No one who is a true Mormon and has read the Doctrine and Covenants, especially Bruce R. McConkie, would rebel against the Prophet, and therefore, the rational conclusion is he was doing exactly what they told him to do, and he was in on the staged play acting. It is really hard for honest people at the bottom to believe how the top leaders pretend to be honest, when they are not. They don't have the power at the top, so it is difficult to believe.

Maybe your mind has not considered that fact buried in the D&C, because even if you may have read it, it might not be used in your final conclusions. It is one of the biggest identified assumptions in my list to formulate the conclusions stated.

Ooh a no true scotman fallacy adds to the piquant strangeness.

On second thought, anonthegreat, you should take the razor out of your pocket and slowly hand it to the gentleman in the white coat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 04:44PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That's what happened. Occam's razor would take
> you to that conclusion.

Anonthegreat doesn't shave.

The truth is out there.

I also worked for Hollywood studios and I saw nothing. I just did my job. I do not want to mention any names, but anyone can do a search for "Hollywood crimes" and do their own investigation, for this post is about Quinn, not other people. One can reason that Quinn, based on his comments, got his exalted status by knowing people and not his intellectual skills, except to fool everyone.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Cigars don't have money and power to control the public. Cigars are not human.

It was a metaphor.

A metaphor and an allusion.

$100,000,000.00

Anon is a great magical thinker just like JS. Why should we give anon any more credit than JS?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 10:25PM by dogblogger.

Joseph Smith was a good scammer, but not a good thinker. He ended up dead.

anonthegreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Smith was a good scammer, but
> not a good thinker. He ended up dead.


So good thinkers don't die? I don't think so!!

As a great, great thinker once said:

"I think, therefore I die."
--Judic West, in response to the toasts made on the occasion of his second birthday.

Was Joseph Smith was a good thinker? The definition of a good thinker is self-evident. A good thinker is a rational thinker who examines valid evidence and valid assumptions. Joseph Smith was not a good thinker based on valid evidence and valid assumptions.

And yet I say, Raka, Joseph Smith was a better thinker than you are. He had a mediocre goal and the means to achieve.

I have no idea what your goal is, not that it matters because you, at least in this forum, are failing miserably.

Oh yeah, it's not you, it's us. ...no, it's you.

Success with reasoning is removing bad ideas and bad assumptions. That is a very worthy goal.

By the way, Joseph Smith's death includes all the twisted BS he taught, including the destruction of a printing press that exposed the truth about what was going on. That is not good thinking.

But it is magical thinking, just like yours. Magical, not great.

Miracles and magic arts are not a part of reason. They are irrelevant. Joseph Smith built his religion on the occult power of the fallen sons of God, parents of he Nephilim.

By the way, the occult was not a sin in Egypt or Babylon or anywhere outside the land of Abraham. Abraham was taught a different way to manage power by reason. That is the bottom-line issue. Outside of Abraham's land, the occult powers of God were permitted and practiced.

Isn't it pretty to think so.

What isn't pretty about reason?

You've never demonstrated reason.

Any reason based on valid facts and stated assumptions is self-evident.

Again, isn't it pretty to think so.

You will need to explain. People today can be lying scammers at the top just like Joseph Smith. If there is sufficient evidence, which there is, then I will believe it.

A Magic Eight Ball that can type.

I stand all amazed.

I know, right?

It's like a prankster landed here at RfM to personally demonstrate how conspiracy theories work. Bizarre.

In the internet, no one knows if you're just a magic 8 ball.

That's some of the best literary license and fiction I've read in a long time!