Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's Homosexuality
"john p"
Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's
Homosexuality
compiled by Connell O'Donovan, with the generous assistance of D.
Michael Quinn. (c) Connell O'Donovan.
ca. 1926 to ca. 1929
Joseph Fielding Smith was in a sexual relationship with Norval
Service, a student at the University of Utah. (See Quinn, p. 369)
1927-1933
According to Cynthia Blood's University of Utah transcripts, she took
Speech and Drama classes from Joseph F. Smith. In an August 19, 1989
interview I held with her, Cynthia claimed that "everybody on campus
knew" that Maud May Babcock and Joseph F. Smith, both from the
university's Drama Department, "were queer", but it was pretty much
"unspoken". Blood reported that "Professor Smith flitted amongst the
boys and Maud flitted amongst us girls. We adored it! I guess we were
all a little queer back then." When I asked her what she meant by
that, she replied, "Oh, we all had crushes on each other at one time
or another." I asked if the boys did too. "I suppose, in their own way
- but they didn't call them crushes. I do remember two young men who
mooned over each other for several months - I don't remember their
names. But they were real handsome boys. Very intelligent, very proper
all the time." Drama students? I asked. "Oh yes. Yes they were."
1929
Joseph F. Smith became a member of the general board of the Young
Men's Mutual Improvement Association (YMMIA). This may have prompted
the termination of his sexual relationship with Norval Service.
1932
Eldred Gee Smith should have become Patriarch in 1932, at the death of
his father. However, Pres. Heber J. Grant was "evidently reticent" to
have him be the new Patriarch, so the important ecclesiastical office
was left vacant for a decade.
1942 - October 8
Joseph Fielding Smith was ordained "Patriarch to the Church" by LDS
President Heber J. Grant. When Eldred's distant cousin, Joseph F.
Smith, became the Patriarch, Eldred Gee Smith reportedly "lamented
that he had lost the most priceless thing he had hoped for", becoming
the next Patriarch. Joseph's ordination also dismayed several Mormons
who knew that Smith was having sexual relations with other men. Ralph
G. Smith reported that Joseph F. Smith "was known to be a homosexual.
My brother, John [Gibbs Smith], was very, very upset because he was
Captain of the anti-vice squad at the Salt Lake City Police
Department. Why, he says, the man's got a record. He says, we've had
many women call in and complain about him molesting their little boys
[all over 18] at the school at the University of Utah". (Ralph G.
Smith interview, as reported in Quinn, p. 387 n. 23) Winifred Haymond
(or "Freda Hammond", 1907-1983, never married), a friend of Norval
Service, reported that she was "stunned" at Smith's appointment as
Patriarch.
1942 - November
In a biography of the new Patriarch, the Improvement Era concluded
with the statement that, "We all feel sure that the new Patriarch will
uphold the traditions of the Church, be a credit to his family, and
magnify his calling in the spirit of humility, prayer and faith".
1943 -- March 11
Some time prior to this date, Byram Dow Browning had an intimate
relationship with Patriarch Smith, whether overtly sexual or not is
unknown. On this date, Browning entered into military service in the
Navy.
1946 -- February 26
"Bro Browning called to report visit with Jos F. S." (George Albert
Smith diary, "GASD")
1946 -- April 10
"Excused myself to Joseph F Smith. regreting [sic] that I am too weary
to Dine at his home [--] Bro + Sister Aki were his guests." (GASD)
1946 - April 15
"LeGrand Chandler of St George came [--] called to see me about Joseph
F. Patriarch." (GASD)
[LeGrand Chandler was the uncle of Byram Dow Browning. Since Browning
was still in Shelton, Virginia in the Navy at this time, presumably he
had contacted his family by letter or other means and confessed his
relationship with the Patriarch, which led to this meeting between his
uncle and the LDS church president.]
1946 - May 1
"Jos Patriarch met Presidency + left for home." (GASD)
1946 -- May 3
"Ruth Smith called. Jos ill." (GASD)
1946 - May 4
Seaman First Class Byram Dow Browning was honorably discharged from
the Navy in Shelton, Virginia. He had served aboard the USS Bennington
and received four medals, including one for good conduct.
1946 - May 27
Diary of Frank Evans, financial secretary to the First Presidency,
referred to talking with Ruth Pingree Smith "regarding Joseph's
illness", and insisting that she call on Evans (a friend since
childhood) if there was anything he could do to assist her.
1946 - May 29
Due to Patriarch Smith's inability to come to his office in Salt Lake
City, the First Presidency asked three stake patriarchs to give
blessings to people requesting them through the church patriarch's
office. (J. Reuben Clark office diary, "COD")
1946 - June 16
"Spoke at Orchard Ward Davis Co[unty] Visited with Jos F. He is not
very well". (GASD)
1946 - June 29
Joseph Fielding Smith diary referred to the problems he was having of
late as "a recurrence of his old trouble in his back." Smith's back
problems were likely psychosomatically related to the stress
surrounding his sexuality.
1946 - July 10
"Met in office with Council of Presidency + Twelve [--] Jos Patriarch
case considered. bad situation. Am heartsick." (GASD) JFS's diary
entry for this date did not mention what the Presidency decided,
except that it was a profound "shock" to him.
1946 - July 11
"Met in Church Council room with Presidency and Twelve...Discussed
condition of Patriarch Jos F." (GASD)
1946 - July 12
"First Presidency met with Patriarch Smith at 3:00 pm." (COD)
1946 - July 30
COD says Clark met with Patriarch Joseph F. Smith's brother-in-law,
Harold Bennett, and "gave him facts" about the Patriarch's case.
1946 - September 6
"Harrold (sic) Bennett drove me to see Patriarch Jos F. Smith. a
pitiable case." (GASD)
1946 - September 16
"At office 815. Met with Presidency & Jos F. Patriarch & Ruth[,]
Browning & son present. AE Bowen also listened in. Regret that the
evidence is not satisfactory." (GASD) "Jos. Patriarch[,] First
Presidency[,] Mr. Browning & a boy." (COD) Ruth refers to Ruth Pingree
Smith, Mr. Browning is Lorenzo Dow Browning, and the "boy" is his son
Byram, recently returned from WWII naval service.
1946 - September 18
"Hyrum Smith and Harold Beecher came to consider Joseph Patriarch's
position." (GASD)
1946 - October 3
As reported in both the Improvement Era and the front page of the
Deseret News , Patriarch Joseph F. Smith wrote a letter to Pres.
George Albert Smith, officially requesting to be released from his
position:
Centerville, Utah, 3rd of October, 1946.
President George Albert Smith
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear President Smith:
As you know I have been very ill for many months. While I am
slowly gaining strength and hope soon again to be able to do some
work, I do not know when, if at all, I shall be able to stand the full
drain upon my energy incident to the office of Patriarch to the
Church.
As you know the duties of the Patriarch entail heavy exhaustion.
Since but one man holds that office, if he is measurable
incapacitated, its work must in that degree suffer.
I know, of course, that one neither resigns nor asks to be
released from such a calling out of personal considerations, any more
than one requests appointment or asks for office. My chief desire is
that the work of the Lord shall prosper.
Bearing these things in mind, I am writing to say that if you
desire me to carry on I shall do my best. If, however, in the
circumstances, you should feel that the interests of the Church would
be best served by releasing me at this time, I want you to feel at
liberty to do that. I am therefore writing this letter to let you know
you have my full support for whatever you decide.
I am grateful for the Lord's goodness to me and mine.
Ever praying the Lord's choicest blessings upon you, I am
sincerely your brother,
Joseph F. Smith
After quoting this letter in The Improvement Era, The First Presidency
made the following formal response:
"After careful and prayerful consideration, and with deep regret
and sympathy for his condition, the First Presidency with the
expressed assent and approval of the Council of the Twelve, have
decided, under all the circumstances, that Brother Joseph F. Smith
shall be released from his duties as Patriarch to the Church."
1946 - October 6
"Tabernacle & Assembly hall filled [--] Jos F. Smith released. A sad
happening." (GASD)
1946 - October 25
"Orval Adams called to say that Wallace and George Spencer wanted him
to speak to the father of 'this boy' and if the father said no, the
boy would not need to be spoken to. Pres. Clark agreed with Mr. Adams
that he should not do this but that Pres. Smith was the one. Bro.
Adams said he would tell Geo. that Bro. Smith would do that." (COD)
"Phoned Joseph Patriarch [--] he feels better." (GASD)
1946 - November 29
"Took Jos F Smith to Am Fork to funeral of Irving Llewelyn Pratt [--]
Levi C. Snow drove us." (GASD) [Quinn believes this refers to Apostle
Joseph F. Smith, as do I]
1947 - January 25
"Talked on Phone to Ruth Smith". (GASD)
1947 - January 31
"Ruth P Smith came in to talk about Joseph." (GASD)
1947 - March 19
George Albert Smith instructed that the ex-patriarch's salary continue
to be sent to him monthly until the end of December, when it should
stop. (Frank Evans diary)
1947 - April 3
"Voted to sustain...Eldred Smith" as the new Patriarch to the Church.
(GASD)
1947 - April 6
"(sustained) Eldred Smith as Patriarch to the Church." (GASD)
1947 - April 10
"(set apart)...Eldred G. Smith Patriarch to the Church." (GASD)
1947 - August 6
"After supper walked and called to see Jos. Fielding." (GASD)
1947 - August 20
"Talked to Ruth Smith on phone". (GASD)
1947 -- December 6
While at Honolulu, Apostle George F. Richards noted in his diary that
"Pres. Woolley" (Ralph Woolley, the mission president) showed him a
First Presidency letter instructing that ex-Patriarch Joseph F. Smith
not function in any church capacity. (George F. Richards diary)
1947 -- December 31
"Had long interview at 11:00 am with Jos. F. Smith, who flew here from
Hawaii to attend the Nat'l Speech Ass'n Convention". (GASD)
1948 - January 3
"at 11:00 am First Presidency had long conference with Jos. Fielding
Smith, Mark E Peterson + A.H. Reisler re books + supplies in
basement". (GASD) [Quinn believes this refers to Apostle Joseph F.
Smith, as do I]
1948 - January 5
"At 9:30 am Jos: F. came in to tell me of death of Alvin + Maxine
Smith." (GASD) [Quinn believes this refers to Apostle Joseph F. Smith,
as do I]
1948 - January 7
"Interview with...Jos. Fielding Smith at 10:30 am". (GASD) [Quinn
believes this refers to Apostle Joseph F. Smith, however I do believe
it refers to the former Patriarch]
1948 - March 15
George Albert Smith authorized retroactive payment of ex-Patriarch
Smith's monthly allowance up to March 1. This was in response to
Joseph's request for this financial assistance. (FED)
1950 - August 16
At Honolulu, "In the afternoon, by prearrangement, Joseph F. Smith,
former patriarch of the Church, came to the Woolley home, and he and I
stayed up in my room and had a long talk together concerning many
things, particularly with reference to his problems." (GASD)
Joseph Fielding and Ruth Smith's tombstone in the Salt Lake City
cemetery.
Patriarch Smith's lover Norval M. Service is also buried in the Salt
Lake City cemetery.
1952 - 1954
John Reese, a then-closeted Gay Mormon from Utah, lived in the
Honolulu Stake with Joseph F. and Ruth Smith and befriended them
(especially Ruth). Ruth eventually revealed to John that her husband
had been having homosexual affairs and that is why he had been
released. John understood that they had been "exiled to Hawaii" by
church leaders, to keep Joseph out of the spotlight of scandal. He was
told that one of Joseph's sexual partners was a man named Wallace. (A
man named Wallace A. G-------, born in 1907 and married in 1931, was a
close colleague of Smith's in the Drama Department at the University
of Utah for several years. Wallace was the manager of the Drama Club
while Joseph was the president.)
1957 - April 10
Jay A. Quealy Jr., president of the Honolulu Stake, asked to restore
ex-patriarch Joseph F. Smith to church activity. President David O.
McKay answered that his decision "will have to await the outcome of my
talking with other people involved in this case." (David O. McKay
office diary, "MOD")
[1957? - April]
Typed, undated document, with no explanation except that it's heading
is "Joseph F. Smith of Honolulu", found in the 1959 First Presidency
files, although it's from 1957:
"The parents L. Dow Browning - 13185 W******** Place, Garden Grove,
Calif.
"The boy -- Byram Browning - 1102 East N****** - Fullerton, California.
married and two children."
1957 - May 9
In a telephone conversation, Pres. McKay gave permission to Pres.
Quealy of the Honolulu Stake for Joseph F. Smith to speak at his son's
missionary farewell. (MOD)
1957 - July 10
The First Presidency instructed Bishop Lowell Christensen of the
Waikiki Ward that Joseph F. Smith may have ward responsibilities
because Joseph had already confessed "and has forsaken his sins."
Pres. McKay stated that Joseph F. Smith had never been formally
disfellowshipped or excommunicated. (MOD)
1957 -- December 9
Pres. McKay authorized Pres. Quealy to use his own judgment in
allowing Smith to serve in the church, inasmuch as "Joseph F. Smith
has recently confessed to his wife and wrote a full confession to the
First Presidency." President McKay said that there need not be any
formal announcement or action for this reinstatement, since no formal
action had ever been taken against him. (MOD) According to Quinn's
correspondence with me, Smith soon became a member of the Stake High
Council.
1958 - April 13
Ruth Pingree Smith wrote Pres. McKay, expressing appreciation that her
husband could now serve actively in the Church. She added, "I know,
better than anyone else, the trial our family has been to you and to
the authorities." [Ruth P. Smith to McKay letter, also misfiled under
1959]
1979 - October 4
Eldred Gee Smith was placed on emeritus status by the First Presidency
and no new Patriarch was called to replace him. At his death, the
office of Patriarch to the Church, which once rivaled that of the
President of the Church, will cease to exist.
Sources:
Bergera, Gary J., "Grey Matters", 7th East Press, November 27,
1982, p. 15
Blood, Cynthia, University of Utah transcripts, copy in my
possession
Blood, Cynthia, interview with Connell O'Donovan, August 19, 1989,
notes in possession
Browning, Byram Dow, Naval records and University of Utah
transcripts, copies in my possession
Clark, J. Reuben, Office Diary (COD), transcript from D. Michael
Quinn, copy in my possession
Conference Reports, October 3, 1942, p. 17 (quoted in Bergera,
"Grey Matters")
Deseret News, October 7, 1946, p. 1
Evans, Frank, Diary, transcript from D. Michael Quinn, copy in my
possession
First Presidency papers, transcript from D. Michael Quinn, copy in
my possession
Improvement Era, November 1942, p. 738 and November 1946, pp. 685
and 708
McKay, David O., Office Diary (MOD), transcript from D. Michael
Quinn, copy in my possession
Richards, George F., Diary, transcript from D. Michael Quinn, copy
in my possession
Smith, George Albert Smith, Diary (GASD), Special Collections,
Marriott Library; complete xerox copy in my possession
Smith, Joseph Fielding, Diary, transcript from D. Michael Quinn,
copy in my possession
Quinn, D. Michael to "Rocky" (Connell) O'Donovan, July 19, 1991
Quinn, D. Michael, Same Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth Century
Americans: A Mormon Example (Univ. of Illinois, 1996)
http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.shtml
Red Davis
> http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.shtml
> Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's
> Homosexuality
>
> compiled by Connell O'Donovan, with the generous assistance of D.
> Michael Quinn. (c) Connell O'Donovan.
>
D. Michael Quinn was long ago exposed (by yours truly) as a militant
homosexual with an agenda to push and an axe to grind. In fact, I
often referred to him as "D. Michael Queen" and the "Ginsu Historian"
because he sliced and diced history to fit his agenda - with little
regard for the truth. You know, like the time he cropped off the
picture of two men and a woman posing with each other to only show the
two men together (he removed the woman from the picture), thus
implying that they posed togther as visual proof of his accusation of
their supposed homosexuality.
Problem was the woman he had cropped off was one of the men's
girlfriend. Quinn's publisher had to recall his book and remove this
picture from it. Where was the picture located? On the cover. Thus,
cover-to-cover, you just can't believe much of what Quinn does. :)
One thing I was pursuing long ago, but ran out of time: the
relationship between D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann (the guy who
forged historical documents).
Both D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann were homosexuals of similar
age. They knew each other very well, both bouncing around the same
"intellctual" and historical circles. Both were consumed by the
occult, and manufactured historical synthesis on Joseph Smith's
supposed particpation in the occult. For example, Quinn falsely
asserted that Joseph Smith was buried with a Jupiter Talisman on his
person, Hofmann forged the Salamader letter (and hundreds of other
historical documents).
I thought it was interesting that Quinn kept Hofmann's "Salamander
Letter" at arms length, when it should have been something he would
have had all consuming interest in. Also, I do not understand how
Quinn, knowing Hofmann so well and his historical interests, did not
immediately recognize what Hofmann was up to. I mean, what is the
statistical probability that Hofmann kept finding all of these one-of-
a-kind documents? Duwayne -- What's the probability? ;)
As I read through Mark Hofmann's history and statements, one thing was
very obvious: he wasn't smart enough to forge the contents of the
historical documents that he was credited with forging. Yes, surely
he forged the technical details, but the contents? Why, you would
need a Ph.D., in history to do that.
-Red Davis
"john p"
Interesting. But it doesn't change the fact that JFS was a homosexual--
not that there is anything wrong with that.
John Manning
> On Jan 26, 2:34 pm, "\"john p\"" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.shtml
>> Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's
>> Homosexuality
>>
>> compiled by Connell O'Donovan, with the generous assistance of D.
>> Michael Quinn. (c) Connell O'Donovan.
>>
>
> D. Michael Quinn was long ago exposed (by yours truly) as a militant
> homosexual
"Militant homosexual"? That's a lie. It's no surprise that a person
with such low integrity like Mr. Davis has to lie about those who tell
the truth about his fake religion.
> with an agenda to push and an axe to grind. In fact, I
> often referred to him as "D. Michael Queen" and the "Ginsu Historian"
> because he sliced and diced history to fit his agenda - with little
> regard for the truth.
Well that's no surprise. That's what lying, hateful homophobic bigots
like you do.
> You know, like the time he cropped off the
> picture of two men and a woman posing with each other to only show the
> two men together (he removed the woman from the picture), thus
> implying that they posed togther as visual proof of his accusation of
> their supposed homosexuality.
>
> Problem was the woman he had cropped off was one of the men's
> girlfriend. Quinn's publisher had to recall his book and remove this
> picture from it. Where was the picture located? On the cover. Thus,
> cover-to-cover, you just can't believe much of what Quinn does. :)
Back up your claims with verifiable evidence, little man.
> One thing I was pursuing long ago, but ran out of time: the
> relationship between D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann (the guy who
> forged historical documents).
>
> Both D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann were homosexuals of similar
> age. They knew each other very well, both bouncing around the same
> "intellctual" and historical circles. Both were consumed by the
> occult, and manufactured historical synthesis on Joseph Smith's
> supposed particpation in the occult. For example, Quinn falsely
> asserted that Joseph Smith was buried with a Jupiter Talisman on his
> person, Hofmann forged the Salamader letter (and hundreds of other
> historical documents).
>
> I thought it was interesting that Quinn kept Hofmann's "Salamander
> Letter" at arms length, when it should have been something he would
> have had all consuming interest in. Also, I do not understand how
> Quinn, knowing Hofmann so well and his historical interests, did not
> immediately recognize what Hofmann was up to.
'Prophet' 'seer' and 'revelator', GB Hinckley was apparently too
spiritually stupid to catch on either, Bozo. But Jerald Tanner did.
> I mean, what is the
> statistical probability that Hofmann kept finding all of these one-of-
> a-kind documents? Duwayne -- What's the probability? ;)
>
> As I read through Mark Hofmann's history and statements, one thing was
> very obvious: he wasn't smart enough to forge the contents of the
> historical documents that he was credited with forging. Yes, surely
> he forged the technical details, but the contents? Why, you would
> need a Ph.D., in history to do that.
=======
D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of history at Brigham Young
University. His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis, the George W.
Egleston, and the Frederick W. Beinecke prizes; Best Book and Best
Article awards from the Mormon History Association; "Outstanding
Teacher" by vote of graduating BYU seniors; and invitations to lecture
at the University of Paris's Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de
l'Homme and other similar venues.
He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years; Early Mormonism
and the Magic World View; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; The
Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among
Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.
He is the editor of The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the
Past and a contributing author to American National Biography; Faithful
History: Essays on Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and Society:
Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education; Reader's
Encyclopedia of the American West; Under an Open Sky: Rethinking
America's Western Past; and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon
Feminism.
His research honorariums include grants from the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Henry
E. Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale University, and others.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier1.htm
===
Quinn is a former professor at the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young
University. He was excommunicated in 1993 on the charge of apostasy.
This charge was based on the evidence of his historical writings
exposing the "prophet."
[NOTE: Quinn's sexual orientation was not made public prior to his
excommunication.]
Instead of trying to deny Joseph Smith's repeated involvement with
occultic activities, Quinn presented the evidence, which showed that
Smith used seer stones, divining rods, amulets, incantations, and
participated in rituals to summon spirits--all practices forbidden in
the pages of Scripture.
Quinn believes that Smith could reliably be called a "first class"
magician. In spite of everything, Quinn remains a faithful Mormon and
still believes that Mormonism's founder was a man of God who used his
magical skills and tools to communicate with the Almighty God of this
universe! Quinn says he "remains a DNA Mormon."
~~ Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," Signature Books;
Revised edition, December 1998
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4smithjoseph.htm
John Manning
"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds others in contempt."
~~ Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899)
Gerald Bostock
We've already seen how you are completely clueless when it comes to
Mark Hofmann.
Unknown
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Red Davis wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2:34 pm, "\"john p\"" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.shtml
>>> Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's
>>> Homosexuality
>>>
>>> compiled by Connell O'Donovan, with the generous assistance of D.
>>> Michael Quinn. (c) Connell O'Donovan.
>>>
>>
>> D. Michael Quinn was long ago exposed (by yours truly) as a militant
>> homosexual
>
>
>"Militant homosexual"? That's a lie. It's no surprise that a person
>with such low integrity like Mr. Davis has to lie about those who tell
>the truth about his fake religion.
Well, we all know about Quinn's homosexuality. But it may well have
been Red 1 that put militant as a pergorative. After all, if the
facts can't be countered, attack the author. This is a tried and true
method of a person with no integrity.
>
>
>> with an agenda to push and an axe to grind. In fact, I
>> often referred to him as "D. Michael Queen" and the "Ginsu Historian"
>> because he sliced and diced history to fit his agenda - with little
>> regard for the truth.
>
>
>Well that's no surprise. That's what lying, hateful homophobic bigots
>like you do.
Mr. Red finally arrived at page 11 titled "The homophopia section" It
was only a matter of time and postings.
>
[snip]
Red Davis
> Red Davis wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2:34 pm, "\"john p\"" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.shtml
> >> Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's
> >> Homosexuality
>
> >> compiled by Connell O'Donovan, with the generous assistance of D.
> >> Michael Quinn. (c) Connell O'Donovan.
>
> > D. Michael Quinn was long ago exposed (by yours truly) as a militant
> > homosexual
>
> "Militant homosexual"? That's a lie. It's no surprise that a person
> with such low integrity like Mr. Davis has to lie about those who tell
> the truth about his fake religion.
Yep, militant homosexual with an axe to grind. Before I publicly
outed D. Michael Quinn's homosexuality in 1993 or 1994, he ran around
falsely claiming that he had "no doctrinal difference with the LDS
church", no "motive for distorting LDS history", etc.. Except, of
course, Quinn had left his wife and children behind to secretly
embrace his homosexuality while attacking the LDS Church on gender and
sexaulity issues.
>
> > with an agenda to push and an axe to grind. In fact, I
> > often referred to him as "D. Michael Queen" and the "Ginsu Historian"
> > because he sliced and diced history to fit his agenda - with little
> > regard for the truth.
>
> Well that's no surprise. That's what lying, hateful homophobic bigots
> like you do.
I think it is relevant that if a man says that we should believe his
historical synthesis because, and I quote as close as I possibly can,
"If I [Quinn] were to have a bias, it would be toward the LDS Church
as I am a member of the LDS Church", that it is very telling to find
out that, in reality -- he is in direct conflict with the LDS Church
and has a deep seated difference with the LDS Church - namely his own
homosexuality.
In other words: Quinn attempted to deliberately mislead people into
believing he had no differences with the LDS Church that would bias
his writings against it -- when in fact he had a very deep and
personal difference. That is: Quinn lied. He was dishonest. He
misrepresented the bias of his works.
For example, here is Quinn lying to Benson:
"After I left the LDS cult in 1993, I had more than one occasion to
talk directly, and in person, with Mike about his own perspectives and
beliefs pertaining to Mormonism.
As I mentioned on this board before, Mike shared his testimonial
belief with me 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 coming 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 on earth. "
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_stevebenson_section2.html
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Quinn didn't tell Benson that he was a
flaming homosexual and disagreed with the teachings of the Church
against his behavior. That sir, is a liar.
>
> > You know, like the time he cropped off the
> > picture of two men and a woman posing with each other to only show the
> > two men together (he removed the woman from the picture), thus
> > implying that they posed togther as visual proof of his accusation of
> > their supposed homosexuality.
>
> > Problem was the woman he had cropped off was one of the men's
> > girlfriend. Quinn's publisher had to recall his book and remove this
> > picture from it. Where was the picture located? On the cover. Thus,
> > cover-to-cover, you just can't believe much of what Quinn does. :)
>
> Back up your claims with verifiable evidence, little man.
I always do. This is a matter of historical fact, that not even Quinn
denies:
"Sarah Daniels stands in the photograph as an unmistakable bulwark
against Quinn's gossip and speculation. Faced with this fact, Quinn
apparently decided to leave Sarah Daniels "out of the picture" as much
as possible. Not only did he scarcely mention her in his book, but,
without permission of the owner, he had the Stephens family photograph
copied from Bergman's biography,183 and then had it cropped to exclude
Sarah Daniels, thereby distorting the context and meaning of the
photograph. Quinn then had the Utah State Historical Society forward
the "doctored" photograph to the University of Illinois Press without
informing the Press it had been cropped.184 Press Director Richard
Wentworth claimed that the University of Illinois Press personnel did
not know the Stephens photograph had been altered, although the
Bergman book was available to them.185 The resulting photograph showed
only the two men together and was then prepared to be used as an
illustration in Quinn's book and on the dust jacket--as a bit of
"visual innuendo.""
http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
>
>
>
>
>
> > One thing I was pursuing long ago, but ran out of time: the
> > relationship between D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann (the guy who
> > forged historical documents).
>
> > Both D. Michael Quinn and Mark Hofmann were homosexuals of similar
> > age. They knew each other very well, both bouncing around the same
> > "intellctual" and historical circles. Both were consumed by the
> > occult, and manufactured historical synthesis on Joseph Smith's
> > supposed particpation in the occult. For example, Quinn falsely
> > asserted that Joseph Smith was buried with a Jupiter Talisman on his
> > person, Hofmann forged the Salamader letter (and hundreds of other
> > historical documents).
>
> > I thought it was interesting that Quinn kept Hofmann's "Salamander
> > Letter" at arms length, when it should have been something he would
> > have had all consuming interest in. Also, I do not understand how
> > Quinn, knowing Hofmann so well and his historical interests, did not
> > immediately recognize what Hofmann was up to.
>
> 'Prophet' 'seer' and 'revelator', GB Hinckley was apparently too
> spiritually stupid to catch on either, Bozo. But Jerald Tanner did.
Was Christ "too spiritually stupid to catch" Judas?
>
> > I mean, what is the
> > statistical probability that Hofmann kept finding all of these one-of-
> > a-kind documents? Duwayne -- What's the probability? ;)
>
> > As I read through Mark Hofmann's history and statements, one thing was
> > very obvious: he wasn't smart enough to forge the contents of the
> > historical documents that he was credited with forging. Yes, surely
> > he forged the technical details, but the contents? Why, you would
> > need a Ph.D., in history to do that.
>
> =======
>
> D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of history at Brigham Young
> University. His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis, the George W.
> Egleston, and the Frederick W. Beinecke prizes; Best Book and Best
> Article awards from the Mormon History Association; "Outstanding
> Teacher" by vote of graduating BYU seniors; and invitations to lecture
> at the University of Paris's Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de
> l'Homme and other similar venues.
A lot of bro-ha-ha about nothing. I wrote an article way back in a
day where I, Red Davis, with no Ph.D. in history, no awards from
historical societies -- shread many of his diatribes against the LDS
Church in just a few minutes of sitting each time.
>
> He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years; Early Mormonism
> and the Magic World View; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; The
> Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among
> Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.
>
> He is the editor of The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the
> Past and a contributing author to American National Biography; Faithful
> History: Essays on Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and Society:
> Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education; Reader's
> Encyclopedia of the American West; Under an Open Sky: Rethinking
> America's Western Past; and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon
> Feminism.
>
> His research honorariums include grants from the American Academy of
> Arts and Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Henry
> E. Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
> Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale University, and others.
>
> http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier1.htm
> ===
>
> Quinn is a former professor at the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young
> University. He was excommunicated in 1993 on the charge of apostasy.
> This charge was based on the evidence of his historical writings
> exposing the "prophet."
>
> [NOTE: Quinn's sexual orientation was not made public prior to his
> excommunication.]
>
Ah, but it *was* known prior to his excommunication. Quinn did not
admit he was homosexual publicly until 1996 -- and then only when
faced being outed by a homosexual magazine. Not that any of that
matters. I had tricked Gordon Banks into outing Quinn in 1993-1994
(can't remember the exact year) when we were both on the mormon-l e-
mail list.
For more on on the mormon-l e-mail list, see www.mormon-l.com -- gotta
luv it!
> Instead of trying to deny Joseph Smith's repeated involvement with
> occultic activities, Quinn presented the evidence, which showed that
> Smith used seer stones, divining rods, amulets, incantations, and
> participated in rituals to summon spirits--all practices forbidden in
> the pages of Scripture.
Quinn did not present history, he made it up, picking up where Mark
Hofmann had left off. Only Quinn used modern paper and ink under his
"unbiased" seal to rewrite history -- where Hofmann simply recreated
old documents.
Again - Hofmann didn't have the brains to forge the historical context
and contents of those documents. I believe there were at least two
other very well educated and read historians who helped him.
>
> Quinn believes that Smith could reliably be called a "first class"
> magician. In spite of everything, Quinn remains a faithful Mormon and
> still believes that Mormonism's founder was a man of God who used his
> magical skills and tools to communicate with the Almighty God of this
> universe! Quinn says he "remains a DNA Mormon."
So, which Quinn do we believe? The on who tells Steve Benson that
Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God who translated the Book of
Mormon which Quinn describes as "literally" true, or the Quinn who
says Smith is a magician?
I say we believe niether. Liars are liars.
-Red Davis
>
> ~~ Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," Signature Books;
> Revised edition, December 1998http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4smithjoseph.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Red Davis
>
How was Mark Hofmann capable of forging over 100 documents in terms of
physical materials, appearance, *AND* historical context and content?
Hofmann was not an educated man. He was not a bright man. He did not
know history very well. He was quite a technician though. So, how
can Hofmann know what the manner of speech and individual was, what
day that person was in such-and-such a town or state, and had visited
such-and-such the week before, and what letters the person had written
to such-and-such, in order to fake the historical context and content
of some 100+ forgeries -- all in a few years?
"Investigators have said that Mr. Hofmann was as successful in selling
forged documents in New York as he was in Utah. They say he may have
collected more than $2 million selling rare documents purportedly
written or signed by such literary and historical figures as Charles
Dickens, Mark Twain, Jack London and Jim Bridger, the fur trader and
mountain man who is believed to have been the first white man to see
the Great Salt Lake. Some Sold at Major Auctions"
Mark Hofmann had help. Who helped him?
-Red Davis
Gerald Bostock
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah yes, the Hofmann conspiracy theory. This is needed because he made
such fools out of the LDS. So in order to lie their way around the
issue, you come up with this conspiracy theory. You say Hofmann wasn't
smart enough. He must have had help, there must have been someone else
in on it.
The facts completely unravel your conspiracy theory (as most
conspiracy theories are unravelled by facts). Hofmann did fogeries for
a living, he didn't have a 40 hour a week job to go to. He spent a lot
of time in the U of U library, in the LDS history department and spent
a lot of time talking to LDS historians. He had a lot of help. The
fact that it was unwitting help is the part that you have problems
with. Hofmann even mentioned in his confession that at one point he
called somebody he thought would know and asked them where JSjr was on
a certain date and they looked it up and got back to him with the
date. This was so that he could get the right postmark on a letter
forgery he was working on. Nobody thought anything of questions like
that because Hofmann was a known history buff. So yes Hofmann did know
LDS history (better than you do) and where he needed help it was
perfectly natural for him to ask one of several people who were
historians. So yes Hofmann had help, but it was unwitting help.
The language of the forgeries was not difficult because he had plenty
of examples to emulate. The time involved was not an issue. It took
him a mere few hours to make forgeries such as the Anthon Transcript,
the Salamander Letter and the Oath of a Freeman. There were also a lot
of legitimate documents going through Hofmann because he took trades
for his forgeries. The actual number of forgeries made by Hofmann is
still unknown, but at the rate of one every day (as Hofmann implied he
could do) that's over a thousand in three years and he had more years
than that (the Anthon Transcript came out in 1980 and Hofmann was
active in forgeries until 1985). Of course he probably didn't do one
every day, but the actual production and the time allotted is not the
problem you make it out to be.
You want to make out that Hofmann was stupid and that he needed help
to fool the LDS because it would be so difficult to fool the LDS. The
fact is that the LDS were very easy to fool. They actually took
forgeries from Hofmann without doing anything to authenticate them
(Josiah Stowell letter). They didn't even pray for guidance in dealing
with Hofmann or else they got the wrong answer. You have a serious
psychological and emotional need to fabricate issues around Hofmann
because you can't cope with the facts.
So now back up your conspiracy claims. Name one official investigator
who claims that Hofmann had accomplices and show the evidence that the
investigator has. Your questions are easily answered and don't
constitute facts. Produce some facts and some evidence.
John Manning
Hey, Red. You've provided *ZERO* *NADA* *ZILCH* verifiable objective
evidence that Quinn was a "'militant homosexual' with an agenda to push
and an axe to grind". You're just squawking like an agitated chicken
with just about as much clarity and serious thought.
>
> For example, here is Quinn lying to Benson:
>
> "After I left the LDS cult in 1993, I had more than one occasion to
> talk directly, and in person, with Mike about his own perspectives and
> beliefs pertaining to Mormonism.
>
> As I mentioned on this board before, Mike shared his testimonial
> belief with me 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 coming 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 on earth. "
>
> http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_stevebenson_section2.html
>
> Liar, liar, pants on fire. Quinn didn't tell Benson that he was a
> flaming homosexual and disagreed with the teachings of the Church
> against his behavior. That sir, is a liar.
I see. You're citing Steve Benson as the authority. I'm sure you accept
Steve's having exposed LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks as a liar too - and
Steve's view of the LDS Church that it's a bogus operation, eh Red?
Ha Ha Ha... All you can come up with are justifications from the
propaganda arm of your club, the LDS Church. You can never provide
unbiased outside-of-the-morg documented facts.
Ah. Yes. That's the list you were kicked off of and most recently
rejected from for re-admission because you're a lying extremist, fanatic
nut case.
>> Instead of trying to deny Joseph Smith's repeated involvement with
>> occultic activities, Quinn presented the evidence, which showed that
>> Smith used seer stones, divining rods, amulets, incantations, and
>> participated in rituals to summon spirits--all practices forbidden in
>> the pages of Scripture.
>
> Quinn did not present history, he made it up, picking up where Mark
> Hofmann had left off.
Quinn made exhaustive documentation of everything he wrote. You're just
a clown in the Mormon peanut gallery shouting and pointing fingers like
a bizarre cartoon character.
> Only Quinn used modern paper and ink under his
> "unbiased" seal to rewrite history -- where Hofmann simply recreated
> old documents.
>
> Again - Hofmann didn't have the brains to forge the historical context
> and contents of those documents. I believe there were at least two
> other very well educated and read historians who helped him.
>
>> Quinn believes that Smith could reliably be called a "first class"
>> magician. In spite of everything, Quinn remains a faithful Mormon and
>> still believes that Mormonism's founder was a man of God who used his
>> magical skills and tools to communicate with the Almighty God of this
>> universe! Quinn says he "remains a DNA Mormon."
>
> So, which Quinn do we believe? The on who tells Steve Benson that
> Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God who translated the Book of
> Mormon which Quinn describes as "literally" true, or the Quinn who
> says Smith is a magician?
>
> I say we believe niether. Liars are liars.
Yeah, that's what you say. Screaming frenetic clowns will say just about
anything to get people to believe them. But they never seem to be able
to provide sober, unbiased, verifiable objective evidence for their
self-serving egotistical claims. Rather, they boast that they know
better and have 'exposed' others who stand far above them in meritorious
recognition, scholarship, respect and accomplishment.
Your accomplishments are what, a bachelor's degree in engineering and
getting rejected by even a small religion list? Ha Ha Ha...
Do you really think you impress 'anybody'?
Now look again at Quinn's credentials:
D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of history at Brigham Young
University. His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis, the George W.
Egleston, and the Frederick W. Beinecke prizes;
Best Book and Best Article awards from the Mormon History Association;
"Outstanding Teacher" by vote of graduating BYU seniors;
and invitations to lecture at the University of Paris's Fondation de la
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and other similar venues.
He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years; Early Mormonism
and the Magic World View;
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions
of Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A
Mormon Example.
He is the editor of The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the
Past and a contributing author to American National Biography; Faithful
History: Essays on Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and Society:
Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education; Reader's
Encyclopedia of the American West; Under an Open Sky: Rethinking
America's Western Past; and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon
Feminism.
His research honorariums include grants from the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Henry
E. Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale University, and others.
===
Go back to playing in the toilet, Red.
Red Davis
Well, except for these facts:
Fact 1: D. Michael Quinn is homosexual
Fact 2: D. Michael Quinn fabricated history and sliced and diced
historical references to paint the Church in a false light
Fact 3: D. Michael Quinn told many people at the same time he was
slicing and dicing history that he had "no difference" with the LDS
Church on doctrinal issues, no bias against the LDS Church -- when, in
fact, he had a very personal bias - the Church's teachings against
homosexuality
Fact 4: D. Michael Quinn violated copyrights and ethics rules by
secretly cropping the picture mentioned above in order to portray a
false image. Typical Quinn.
Which of these *facts* do you dispute?
Such activities are those of a militant, given he is homosexual, a
militant homosexual.
Very similar to the activities of anotyher militant homosexual, Mark
Hofmann - save Hofmann was literally forging the primary historical
records, whereas Quinn in his known activities was simply distorting
them, slicing and dicing them, or ignoring evidences to the contrary
in his attempt to fabricate LDS Church history via reference, or lack
of reference.
I am sighting Benson relating what Mike (e.g. Mike Quinn aka D.
Michael Quinn) told him about not having any differences with the LDS
Church. This is the same thing Quinn was telling other "so-called
intellectuals" that were participating on the mormon-l list, or
attended Stunsone Conference, or Dial-a-idealogue Conference.
Steve accused Edler Oaks of lying -- he never proved it. The issues
were
1) whether or not Toscano's behavior merited a Church disciplinary
hearing
2) whether or not Elder Packer directed a verdict of the hearing
Let's see, one of the talks Toscano gave that was the basis for the
hearing was, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True
Church,". Oh my, why absolutely not -- publicly teaching that the
Church is teaching *false* doctrine is *never* reasonable grounds for
a disciplinary hearing. *Never*. [FULL SARCASM MODE ON]
As to Elder Packer directing a verdict in the disciplinary hearing --
no one who participated in the rendering of the decision (President
Heniz, Elder Packer, or any other High Council member) ever implied or
stated that Elder Packer directed the verdict.
Elder Oaks lying? I don't think so. But, the collusion between
Benson and Brinkley-Rogers before and after Benson spoke with Oaks
seems to be clearly against Brinkley-Rogers statement he was not
working in concert with Benson on the matter. I mean - why did
Brinkley-Rogers record the conversation?
Now, to the unlearned and simple minded that might think that a public
figure or person reviewing an interview and correcting/revising the
record is highly unusual or some evidence of mal behavior -- when, in
fact, it is standard business in the media world.
So, that brings us back to you, Mr. Manning: if the LDS Church is
false: why do you have to lie in order to portray it as false?
Why not simply tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may?
Instead of telling the truth, you have a pattern of behavior of
willfully misrepresenting the truth, and ignoring all evidence to the
contrary of your contrived deceptions.
Why do you lie?
Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so much to lie like that?
See, there you go again: you ignore direct evidence that disproves
your false accusation.
You are free to contact Quinn's publisher, or any of the invovled
parties mentioned above to see if this were not so. You see, FARMs is
a very reputable organization. When they put something up -- you can
take it to the bank. Of course, if this were a false accusation
against Quinn - he could sue the daylights out of them for libel.
But, the facts are on FARMS side on this issue. Quinn acted way
beyond the bounds of an objective historian when he cropped that
picture. I describe his behavior as "unethical".
Now, let's see if you have any decency in your person: will you admit
that you were wrong in accusing me and FARMS of misrepresenting
Quinn's action in this matter of cropping the picture?
I bet the farm (pardon the pun) that you will not. You have no
decency - only hatred for all things attendant to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-Red Davis
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Red Davis
Who were these "historians"? Was one of them named D. Michael Quinn?
You know, if a person comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about
the history of Benjamin Franklin, then turns up a rare document about
Ben Franklin - that's an oddity.
If a person then comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about the
history of Mark Twain, then turns up a rare document about Twain --
that's a statistical improbability.
If a person then comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about the
history of Joseph Smith, then turns up a rare document about Smith --
that's a Five Alarm alert!
But, if a person comes up for the 100th time......and the historian
supposedly still doesn't understand what's going on or see the pattern
-- well, that's....that's a real problem.
> The
> fact that it was unwitting help is the part that you have problems
> with. Hofmann even mentioned in his confession that at one point he
> called somebody he thought would know and asked them where JSjr was on
> a certain date and they looked it up and got back to him with the
> date. This was so that he could get the right postmark on a letter
> forgery he was working on. Nobody thought anything of questions like
> that because Hofmann was a known history buff. So yes Hofmann did know
> LDS history (better than you do) and where he needed help it was
> perfectly natural for him to ask one of several people who were
> historians. So yes Hofmann had help, but it was unwitting help.
Nope. Hofmann was a history amateur. He was a man with a medium
intelligence, a man who was a poor student, a man who was about 45
Watts short of a 60 Watt light bulb. In order to fool so many Ph.D.'s
who autenticated his forgeries -- he had to have help. Lot's of help
fomr person or persons who knew history, very, very well. You see,
Hofmann would have to know not only what did happen -- but what didn't
happen -- not just for the one event or day at hand -- but for months,
even years, before and after the event couched into his forgery.
Now, given over 100 such forgeries in a 6 year span -- are you really
going to submit for our belief that Hofmann could church out a
meticulous forgery every 3 weeks for six years, each and everyone
completely fooling all the experts that reviewed them?
That means that Hofmann would have to understand the market need for
the document, research the person that is the subject of the document,
research the historical context, research the person's calendar/diary,
research same information about any and all real persons mentioned in
the forgery, obtain the ink of the area and time period, obtain the
paper of the area and time period, obtain a copy of the person's
handwriting, practice the handwriting to a T. Then, he would have to
forge the document perfectly, without a flaw, as to the context,
content, and setting. Then, the would need to find a buyer, present
the document, and execut the sale of the document. In the mean time
-- buy his expensive sports car, travel on vacations, and fail to show
that the total money he was paid for the forgery was actually received
by him (e.g., Hofmann did not spend all the money he earned, but no
one could find the difference, e.g., the missing monies).
And he did this every 3 weeks for 6 years all by himself without a
single document being discovered as fake until the FBI got involved
after the bombings?
Only an idiot would believe such. Are you an Idiot? I'm not.
Hofmann had help, lot's of it. So, who do you think helped him?
-Red Davis
John Manning
A fact he's openly admitted. But STILL *ZERO* *NADA* *ZILCH* verifiable
objective evidence that Quinn was a "'militant homosexual' with an
agenda to push and an axe to grind".
> Fact 2: D. Michael Quinn fabricated history and sliced and diced
> historical references to paint the Church in a false light
False: Quinn exhaustively documented his material. You haven't shown any
verifiable objective evidence for your assertion. You're just squawking
like an agitated chicken.
> Fact 3: D. Michael Quinn told many people at the same time he was
> slicing and dicing history that he had "no difference" with the LDS
> Church on doctrinal issues, no bias against the LDS Church -- when, in
> fact, he had a very personal bias - the Church's teachings against
> homosexuality
Apparently you're too dumb to make the distinction between the two.
> Fact 4: D. Michael Quinn violated copyrights and ethics rules by
> secretly cropping the picture mentioned above in order to portray a
> false image.
From what you've provided, there is nothing nefarious about Quinn
making a picture like he wanted for his book. He was hiding nothing of
significance at all by allegedly cropping that picture.
> Typical Quinn.
Typical bigoted Red.
> Which of these *facts* do you dispute?
>
> Such activities are those of a militant, given he is homosexual, a
> militant homosexual.
That's the logic of a third grader. It's laughable. You come off as an
ignorant bumpkin homophobe who has to exaggerate and embellish his
story. You and [God hates fags] sociopath Rev Fred Phelps would make
good a good partnership.
> Very similar to the activities of anotyher militant homosexual, Mark
> Hofmann
Lordy! you make it up as you go along.
You mean the mormon-l list that kicked you off and rejected you when you
tried to rejoin?
> Steve accused Edler Oaks of lying -- he never proved it. The issues
> were
> 1) whether or not Toscano's behavior merited a Church disciplinary
> hearing
> 2) whether or not Elder Packer directed a verdict of the hearing
>
> Let's see, one of the talks Toscano gave that was the basis for the
> hearing was, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True
> Church,". Oh my, why absolutely not -- publicly teaching that the
> Church is teaching *false* doctrine is *never* reasonable grounds for
> a disciplinary hearing. *Never*. [FULL SARCASM MODE ON]
You mean Full Nutcase Mode, don't you?
> As to Elder Packer directing a verdict in the disciplinary hearing --
> no one who participated in the rendering of the decision (President
> Heniz, Elder Packer, or any other High Council member) ever implied or
> stated that Elder Packer directed the verdict.
>
> Elder Oaks lying? I don't think so. But, the collusion between
> Benson and Brinkley-Rogers before and after Benson spoke with Oaks
> seems to be clearly against Brinkley-Rogers statement he was not
> working in concert with Benson on the matter. I mean - why did
> Brinkley-Rogers record the conversation?
>
> Now, to the unlearned and simple minded that might think that a public
> figure or person reviewing an interview and correcting/revising the
> record is highly unusual or some evidence of mal behavior -- when, in
> fact, it is standard business in the media world.
>
> So, that brings us back to you, Mr. Manning: if the LDS Church is
> false: why do you have to lie in order to portray it as false?
LOL! I don't lie. I present facts that apparently result in freaks like
you lying all over the place.
> Why not simply tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may?
You mean like the fact that you're playing with a little bit less than a
full deck?
> Instead of telling the truth, you have a pattern of behavior of
> willfully misrepresenting the truth, and ignoring all evidence to the
> contrary of your contrived deceptions.
>
> Why do you lie?
>
> Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so much to lie like that?
I wonder if you're capable of seeing yourself doing this, as others can.
Self-reflection can be somewhat of an unpleasant experience for fellows
like you, Red.
Justifications from the propaganda arm of your club, the LDS Church
don't measure up to objective verifiable evidence, Red. I'm a bit
surprised you actually got as far as your bachelor degree.
Gerald Bostock
Possibly, (even though he isn't mentioned in any of the books about
Hofmann as being involved with him, his involvement seems to be a
fantasy of yours. What do you do, get off on fantasies about Hofmann
and Quinn making it with each other? Is that the source of your
obsession with Quinn?) but others included Dean Jesse, Leonard
Arrington, Jeff Simmonds (who, by the way, killed himself and it was
thought that his involvement with Hofmann was a contributing factor to
his depression), Brent Ashworth and Brent Metcalfe. Not all of these
people were credentialed, but you don't need to be. Many people make
history a hobby and some of these people made LDS history their hobby.
I dare you to go to a civil war battle reconstructon event and tell
those people they don't know anything about civil war history because
they don't have a degree in it.
You seemed to think that was a difficult question.
>
> You know, if a person comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about
> the history of Benjamin Franklin, then turns up a rare document about
> Ben Franklin - that's an oddity.
Since you don't have any facts you have to make up scenarios. Who came
up with this 52 question number? You did. You have to make things up
to support your position.
>
> If a person then comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about the
> history of Mark Twain, then turns up a rare document about Twain --
> that's a statistical improbability.
Since you don't have any facts you have to make up scenarios. Who came
up with this 52 question number? You did. You have to make things up
to support your position.
>
> If a person then comes up and asks a historian 52 questions about the
> history of Joseph Smith, then turns up a rare document about Smith --
> that's a Five Alarm alert!
Since you don't have any facts you have to make up scenarios. Who came
up with this 52 question number? You did. You have to make things up
to support your position.
>
> But, if a person comes up for the 100th time......and the historian
> supposedly still doesn't understand what's going on or see the pattern
> -- well, that's....that's a real problem.
Yes, it's a problem you invented. Hofmann was known to have spent
hours discussing LDS history with several of the people mentioned
above (excluding Quinn). It's not as if he grilled one person about
specific events surrounding one of his forgeries. You can hardly fault
these people for not thinking that Hofmann's documents business
wouldn't include an intense interest in history.
>
> > The
> > fact that it was unwitting help is the part that you have problems
> > with. Hofmann even mentioned in his confession that at one point he
> > called somebody he thought would know and asked them where JSjr was on
> > a certain date and they looked it up and got back to him with the
> > date. This was so that he could get the right postmark on a letter
> > forgery he was working on. Nobody thought anything of questions like
> > that because Hofmann was a known history buff. So yes Hofmann did know
> > LDS history (better than you do) and where he needed help it was
> > perfectly natural for him to ask one of several people who were
> > historians. So yes Hofmann had help, but it was unwitting help.
>
> Nope. Hofmann was a history amateur.
So what? So are you. So are a lot of people who are considered experts
on certain historical events, like those civil war battle
reconstructors mentioned earlier.
He was a man with a medium
> intelligence, a man who was a poor student, a man who was about 45
> Watts short of a 60 Watt light bulb.
This assessment is just a part of your need to downplay the guy who
fooled your leaders. Part of Hofmann's success was in his ability to
play the innocent (and even witless, possibly unintelligent) to sell
his forgeries. That was a smart ploy on his part. In fact Hofmann was
a lot smarter than people gave him credit for. He was obviously a lot
smarter than you.
In order to fool so many Ph.D.'s
> who autenticated his forgeries
Name one of these Ph.D.s who authenticated his forgeries. Hamilton was
not a Ph.D. Justin Schiller was not a Ph.D. The lab work that was done
on the documents was probably not done by Ph.D.s but by lab grunts.
The laboratories that did examine the documnets didn't authenticate
them. They simply made statements that the paper and ink were
consistent with the type used in the period.
Your statement about Ph.D.s authenticating documents simply reflects
your stupidity surrounding the Hofmann case. A stupidity we've seen
before.
-- he had to have help. Lot's of help
> fomr person or persons who knew history, very, very well. You see,
> Hofmann would have to know not only what did happen -- but what didn't
> happen -- not just for the one event or day at hand -- but for months,
> even years, before and after the event couched into his forgery.
That's not the problem you make it out to be, again reflecting your
stupidity.
>
> Now, given over 100 such forgeries in a 6 year span -- are you really
> going to submit for our belief that Hofmann could church out a
> meticulous forgery every 3 weeks for six years, each and everyone
> completely fooling all the experts that reviewed them?
It's not the problem you make it out to be. Hofmann described in his
confession how he made certain documents and in each case he did it in
a few hours in his basement at night. The investigators were surprised
that he didn't do "practice runs", but he didn't.
>
> That means that Hofmann would have to understand the market need for
> the document, research the person that is the subject of the document,
> research the historical context, research the person's calendar/diary,
> research same information about any and all real persons mentioned in
> the forgery, obtain the ink
He made the ink himself you moron. That's one of the things that they
wound up catching him on.
The issues about the detailed history isn't the problem you make out.
Frequently the documents didn't have an indication as to the place
where they were written. Many times there were no diaries. All he had
to do was produce something that was in the context of the history
that he and the people he talked to knew. He knew that there wasn't
anything out there that would show his document was out of context.
However in some cases he did slip up. He produced a Solomon Spaulding
signature that was dated 30 years after Spaulding had died. Curt Bench
spotted that one as soon as he saw it.
of the area and time period, obtain the
> paper of the area
He easily obtained the paper from end sheets of books in the
university library and on other occasions artificially aged the paper.
It wasn't the problem you make it out to be.
and time period, obtain a copy of the person's
> handwriting, practice the handwriting to a T.
Hofmann was known to be able to rattle off signatures of famous people
on a napkin in a restaurant. Imitating handwriting is not as difficult
as you think.
Then, he would have to
> forge the document perfectly, without a flaw, as to the context,
> content, and setting.
There were flaws but they were not found. The LDS in particular did
little to authenticate their documents. They probably depended on
their prayers about the documents and were getting the wrong answer to
their prayers.
Then, the would need to find a buyer, present
> the document, and execut the sale of the document. In the mean time
> -- buy his expensive sports car, travel on vacations, and fail to show
> that the total money he was paid for the forgery was actually received
> by him (e.g., Hofmann did not spend all the money he earned, but no
> one could find the difference, e.g., the missing monies).
This is not a problem. The problem is with you.
>
> And he did this every 3 weeks for 6 years all by himself without a
> single document being discovered as fake until the FBI got involved
> after the bombings?
Some documents had problems that were discovered and attributed to
19th century forgeries. Tanner suspected the Salamander Letter was a
forgery while the LDS were defending it. His god must have been giving
him the correct answer to his prayers.
>
> Only an idiot would believe such. Are you an Idiot? I'm not.
Yes, you are an idiot. Your fact free post proves it.
>
> Hofmann had help, lot's of it. So, who do you think helped him?
No one was in on it like you want to believe. I notice you left out
that cite of an official investigator who thought that there was some
one in on it with Hofmann. Even Shannon Flynn and Lynn Jacobs were
cleared of any involvement with forgery.
You'd better give up on posting about Hofmann, you're just embarassing
yourself, just as you've done before.
>
> -Red Davis- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> I thought it was interesting that Quinn kept Hofmann's "Salamander
> Letter" at arms length, when it should have been something he would
> have had all consuming interest in. Also, I do not understand how
> Quinn, knowing Hofmann so well and his historical interests, did not
> immediately recognize what Hofmann was up to. I mean, what is the
> statistical probability that Hofmann kept finding all of these one-of-
> a-kind documents? Duwayne-- What's the probability? ;)
Didn't you just answer your own question? Clearly Quinn had his
doubts about Hofmann, as exhibited by actions you describe.
The *real* question you should ask is "why didn't the holy ghost know
what Hofmann was up to?"
After all, Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, was fooled into trading church property for some
of Hofmann's fake documents. What are the odds that a *real* prophet
with the *real* holy ghost as his *constant* companion would do
something like that?
If there was ever any doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley was a fake
prophet, the simple manner in which he was so easily fooled by a con
man peddling fake Mormon documents put them to rest.
All of which helps explain the fanaticism of Mormon apologists like
Guy R. Briggs, Diana, and Red Davis, who refuse to list specific and
verifiable actions by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) that would deprive the prophet of
their sustaining vote.
Mormonism is a leadership cult in which questioning of the leaders is
forbidden. So even when the prophet acted with less insight and
wisdom than a mortal man, they never cease to sustain him as a prophet
who supposedly has the continual gift of the holy ghost.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Just James
Well, Joseph Smith Jr made up the BoM in about 10 years and he had
little formal schooling which might explain his rather strong imagination.
>
> Only an idiot would believe such. Are you an Idiot? I'm not.
>
> Hofmann had help, lot's of it. So, who do you think helped him?
>
> -Red Davis
>
One could argue the same of the BoM. Indeed many have.
--
Just James
"You can call aliens arriving from Arcturus "evil"
for viewing humans as a food source, but this is
just an opinion predicated on your not wanting
to be a food source for them.
If this opinion is not shared by the aliens,
the TRUTH is that you are a food source for them,
and this is demonstrated beyond opinion as they
begin to eat you."
~ RetroProphet ARM 1/9/08
Red Davis
Let's break down your complete denial of reality:
A) Do you deny that Quinn is homosexual?
B) Do you deny that Quinn is vigorously active in his writings to
discredit the Church on issues surrounding gender and homosexuality?
I have already posted enough information to prove both A and B are
true. Given A and B are true -- ipso facto D. Michael Quinn is a
militant homosexual.
>
> > Fact 2: D. Michael Quinn fabricated history and sliced and diced
> > historical references to paint the Church in a false light
>
> False: Quinn exhaustively documented his material. You haven't shown any
> verifiable objective evidence for your assertion. You're just squawking
> like an agitated chicken.
Do you deny that Quinn cropped the photograph to remove the woman,
only leaving the two men, so that he could visually document the two
remaining men in the picture as being homosexual?
If you do: you deny reality.
What about Quinn's statement of "fact" that Joseph Smith died with a
Jupiter Talisman on his person? The fact is -- a detailed inventory
was taken at the time of the Prophet's death and every item on his
person or in his pockets was recorded. The original paper still
exists. Every single thing was inventoried in great detail. No
mention of any Talisman. This is the primary reference that settles
all issues about what was, and was not on the Prophet's body when he
was killed. Yet, Quinn ignored this primary reference material and
used one some 30-40 years after Joseph Smith's death that alledges he
had a Talisman on his person.
Additionally - there is not one single source from the moment Joseph
Smith was born, to the moment that he died, that ever stated he owned
a Talisman, used a Talisman, or even that he knew what one was.
So, in the face of an explicit inventory of the Prophet's items when
he was killed, the complete absence of any mention of Joseph having a
Talisman while he was alive -- Quinn states as a matter of fact that a
Talisman was on the prophets person at the time he was killed.
That is the work of a man with an agenda -- not an objective historian
seeking the truth.
Thus, my name for Quinn: Ginsu Historian. He slices and dices history
to fit his agenda.
>
> > Fact 3: D. Michael Quinn told many people at the same time he was
> > slicing and dicing history that he had "no difference" with the LDS
> > Church on doctrinal issues, no bias against the LDS Church -- when, in
> > fact, he had a very personal bias - the Church's teachings against
> > homosexuality
>
> Apparently you're too dumb to make the distinction between the two.
Apparently you are too consumed with hate in your war against Latter-
day Saints to not see the real D. Michael Queen.
>
> > Fact 4: D. Michael Quinn violated copyrights and ethics rules by
> > secretly cropping the picture mentioned above in order to portray a
> > false image.
>
> From what you've provided, there is nothing nefarious about Quinn
> making a picture like he wanted for his book. He was hiding nothing of
> significance at all by allegedly cropping that picture.
You have to be kidding, aren't you? Look how blinded you are by your
hatred of Latter-day Saints. Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so
much?
Quinn took an innocent picture that showed three people posing
together: a man, his girlfriend, and their mutal friend -- and cuts
the girlfriend out of the picture. Thus, the remains of the
photograph shows only the two men together. Quinn then takes this
alterered photograph and puts it on a cover of a book that alleges the
two men are homosexuals. He doesn't tell the copyright owner of the
picture he alterered it (a violation of the copyright), he doesn't
tell the publisher he altered it (a violation of ethics), and he
doesn't inform his readers he changed it (a violation of trust). Why?
The reason Quinn doesn't inform anyone that he edited the picture is
because he was to dupe them into believing something that isn't true.
And just like Quinn sliced that photograph to dupe his readers -- he
slices his references and his synthesis.
D. Michael Quinn is a militant homosexual with an agenda: an agenda to
attack the LDS Church on gender issues on some apparently misguided
belief that somehow his attacks will mute the Church's opposition to
homosexual behavior.
How sad. How deluded. How unethical. How Quinn.
>
> > Typical Quinn.
>
> Typical bigoted Red.
Why do you hate Red so much?
>
> > Which of these *facts* do you dispute?
>
> > Such activities are those of a militant, given he is homosexual, a
> > militant homosexual.
>
> That's the logic of a third grader. It's laughable. You come off as an
> ignorant bumpkin homophobe who has to exaggerate and embellish his
> story. You and [God hates fags] sociopath Rev Fred Phelps would make
> good a good partnership.
Ah, the old "guilt by association" tactic, ehh? That dog won't hunt.
Ad hominem from the great "John Manning"? Say it ain't so, John!
But, you attack others all the time. When you can't win a debate
issue -- you resort to name calling and dismissing the other side out
of hand. Well, that dog won't hunt on this one either.
You have stepped into it with both feet, made an absurd statement that
you can't defend (though you do stomp your feet, pout, and shout
pretending that you are), and how I am burying you in your ignorance
and hatred.
You don't think that it is important that people know that a man who
keeps accusing innocent people of being homosexual is himself a
homosexual? That he has sliced and diced history repeatedly to dupe
his readers? Ya don't say? Wow.
Got something for you: Wake-Up, McFly!
>
> > Very similar to the activities of another militant homosexual, Mark
> > Hofmann
>
> Lordy! you make it up as you go along.
Nope. Just the facts. The facts are a group of homosexuals and
lesbians, who like to describe themselves as "intellectuals", set
about in a coordinated attack to discredit the history of the Church
by leveling false charges of magic and occultism, while launching a
second attack against the Church on issues of gender (e.g., homosexual
rights).
Did Quinn and Hofmann know each other? Yes. Did they hang out with
each other? Yes. Did they attend the same conferences and
symposiums? Yes. Were they both homosexuals? Yes. Both consumed by
supposed "magic" and "occultism" in LDS Church history?
Yep, so much so -- Hofmann forged a Salamander letter and Quinn
conjured up a Talisman. The former by breaking the law, the latter by
the wave of his wand and the clicking of his heels.
Yes, the mormon-l that kicked me off and still refuses to let me
join. Why? Because it was on that very list that I outed D. Michael
Quinn's homosexuality by tricking Gordon Banks into privately e-mail
me that he knew D. Michael Quinn was gay. I took Banks' private e-
mail and posted it to the list after Banks denied he knew Quinn was
gay.
That's why I make fun of them by owning the mormon-l.com website: they
demand open and unbounded debate and discussion, while reserving
secrecy and limits for themselves.
I call it "hypocrisy".
>
> > Steve accused Edler Oaks of lying -- he never proved it. The issues
> > were
> > 1) whether or not Toscano's behavior merited a Church disciplinary
> > hearing
> > 2) whether or not Elder Packer directed a verdict of the hearing
>
> > Let's see, one of the talks Toscano gave that was the basis for the
> > hearing was, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True
> > Church,". Oh my, why absolutely not -- publicly teaching that the
> > Church is teaching *false* doctrine is *never* reasonable grounds for
> > a disciplinary hearing. *Never*. [FULL SARCASM MODE ON]
>
> You mean Full Nutcase Mode, don't you?
You know, if I were to falsely accuse the President of my company of
financial mismanagement in public -- he would fire me. He would be
well within his right to do so. That is his responsibility.
Now, Toscano falsely accused the LDS leadership of lying and of being
false prophets. They "fired" him. They separated the tare from the
wheat. That is their responsibility.
>
>
>
>
>
> > As to Elder Packer directing a verdict in the disciplinary hearing --
> > no one who participated in the rendering of the decision (President
> > Heniz, Elder Packer, or any other High Council member) ever implied or
> > stated that Elder Packer directed the verdict.
>
> > Elder Oaks lying? I don't think so. But, the collusion between
> > Benson and Brinkley-Rogers before and after Benson spoke with Oaks
> > seems to be clearly against Brinkley-Rogers statement he was not
> > working in concert with Benson on the matter. I mean - why did
> > Brinkley-Rogers record the conversation?
>
> > Now, to the unlearned and simple minded that might think that a public
> > figure or person reviewing an interview and correcting/revising the
> > record is highly unusual or some evidence of mal behavior -- when, in
> > fact, it is standard business in the media world.
>
> > So, that brings us back to you, Mr. Manning: if the LDS Church is
> > false: why do you have to lie in order to portray it as false?
>
> LOL! I don't lie. I present facts that apparently result in freaks like
> you lying all over the place.
Nope, you lie. You have lied serveral times in this post. You lie
all the time.
Why do you hate the Latter-day Saints so much as to lie all the time?
>
> > Why not simply tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may?
>
> You mean like the fact that you're playing with a little bit less than a
> full deck?
Nice ad hominem response. Sure beats responding to the points I've
made. If I may -- I am not the one that seems to spend every moment
of every day posting to this list.
What's the matter? Don't you have a life? No wife? No family? No
friends? Just miserable old John Manning attacking the Latter-day
Saints post after post, post after post, after post, after post, day
after day, after week, after month, after year, after decade.
Why are you so full of hate? You are obsessed with hating the
Mormons.
>
> > Instead of telling the truth, you have a pattern of behavior of
> > willfully misrepresenting the truth, and ignoring all evidence to the
> > contrary of your contrived deceptions.
>
> > Why do you lie?
>
> > Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so much to lie like that?
>
> I wonder if you're capable of seeing yourself doing this, as others can.
> Self-reflection can be somewhat of an unpleasant experience for fellows
> like you, Red.
Again, I am not the one that posts hundreds if not thousands of posts
a week on this list. You are.
But again, I'm the Mormon, you are the Mormon hater. Why do you hate
so much?
-Red Davis
>
>
>
> >>>>> You know, like the time he cropped off the
> >>>>> picture of two men and a woman posing with each other to only show the
> >>>>> two men together (he removed the woman from the picture), thus
> >>>>> implying that they posed togther as visual proof of his accusation of
> >>>>> their supposed homosexuality.
> >>>>> Problem was the woman he had cropped off was one of the men's
> >>>>> girlfriend. Quinn's publisher had to recall his book and remove this
> >>>>> picture from it. Where was the picture located? On the cover. Thus,
> >>>>> cover-to-cover, you just can't believe much of what Quinn does. :)
> >>>> Back up your claims with verifiable evidence, little man.
> >>> I always do. This is a matter of historical fact, that not
>
Gerald Bostock
wrote:
GBH prayed about Hofmann documents and got the wrong answer.
I think it was Russ McGregor that once argued that the LDS leadership
didn't pray about Hofmann documents and didn't consider that a
dereliction of their duty.
John Manning
Have a gander at Red Davis in action. < Guffaw! >
Ramona
"gender." By his logic, I am a militant black gay male.
Unfortunately for Red, I am actually white, heterosexual, and female.
Where did Red go wrong? Simple, he assumed, ever so incorrectly, that
simply because one believes in equality, one is militant. Brigham
Young was clearly a militant female, since he pushed for Women's Right
to Vote to double power.
R
Why is it that I can just see Red picketing a funeral with a "god
hates fags sign?" The only hate I see is from Red who seems all
consumed with hatred towards opinion (it's always anti for him) and
clearly homosexuals (he protesteth too much, one could only surmise he
is insecure in his own sexuality.)
>
>
>
> > > Fact 4: D. Michael Quinn violated copyrights and ethics rules by
> > > secretly cropping the picture mentioned above in order to portray a
> > > false image.
>
> > From what you've provided, there is nothing nefarious about Quinn
> > making a picture like he wanted for his book. He was hiding nothing of
> > significance at all by allegedly cropping that picture.
>
> You have to be kidding, aren't you? Look how blinded you are by your
> hatred of Latter-day Saints. Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so
> much?
The only hatred directed at INDIVIDUALS seem to be from Red.
>
> Quinn took an innocent picture that showed three people posing
> together: a man, his girlfriend, and their mutal friend -- and cuts
> the girlfriend out of the picture. Thus, the remains of the
> photograph shows only the two men together. Quinn then takes this
> alterered photograph and puts it on a cover of a book that alleges the
> two men are homosexuals. He doesn't tell the copyright owner of the
> picture he alterered it (a violation of the copyright), he doesn't
> tell the publisher he altered it (a violation of ethics), and he
> doesn't inform his readers he changed it (a violation of trust). Why?
> The reason Quinn doesn't inform anyone that he edited the picture is
> because he was to dupe them into believing something that isn't true.
>
> And just like Quinn sliced that photograph to dupe his readers -- he
> slices his references and his synthesis.
>
> D. Michael Quinn is a militant homosexual with an agenda: an agenda to
> attack the LDS Church on gender issues on some apparently misguided
> belief that somehow his attacks will mute the Church's opposition to
> homosexual behavior.
>
> How sad. How deluded. How unethical. How Quinn.
>
>
>
> > > Typical Quinn.
>
> > Typical bigoted Red.
>
> Why do you hate Red so much?
Red, why do you hate so much? I honestly pity Red for living a life
so full of venom and hatred. Perhaps Red needs to talk to his bishop
so that he might offer Red a recommendation to a good psychologist to
work through your anger issues.
Elder Oaks said this: "We encourage Church leaders and members to
reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these
issues." http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
Where is your love and understanding Red? Do you not heed the counsel
of church authorities?
> ...
>
> read more >>
John Manning
Mr. Davis' hatred is characterized by his notorious homophobia, his
fabrications, exaggerations, distortions, suggestive half-truths and
apparent out of control rage. If only he had the courage to really look
at himself...
Red Davis
You should leave philosophy and reasoning to others.
The facts stand as they are: D. Michael Queen is a militant homosexual
hell-bent on smearing the LDS Church with false accusations on gender
issues and occultism. The proof is in his willful deception of his
readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
with his hands in the cookie jar.
They say God can't change history -- but D. Michael Quinn sure gave it
a try.
> Unfortunately for Red, I am actually white, heterosexual, and female.
> Where did Red go wrong? Simple, he assumed, ever so incorrectly, that
> simply because one believes in equality, one is militant. Brigham
> Young was clearly a militant female, since he pushed for Women's Right
> to Vote to double power.
What in the world are you blathering about? You can't take an apple,
mix it with an orange, and get an orple. Such is a fruitless
exercise. Speaking of fruits....
What next, are you going to call me a "Nazi"? This is typical
reactionary ad hominem from apostates. For some reason -- apostates
are very overzealous in their attempts to hide the truth about Quinn.
Again, I think you should leave reasoning to others.
Just to prove my manliness -- I think I will wear a pink shirt
tomorow. ;) LOL.
Quinn's homosexuality is directly related to his credibility due to
Quinn's own actions, his own false statements. It is his own attempts
to deceive people into believing he had no differences with the LDS
Church on doctrinal matters and his hiding his homosexuality from
public while falsely accusing the LDS Church for excommunicating him
simply for his writings that have brought the issue to point.
If I may show another example: Dick Baer used to run around showing
the movie, God Makers, to other churches. Before the film, he would
say and do the following:
"Mormons will try to discredit me by falsely stating that I was
excommunited twice for adultery. I have never been excommunicated
once for adultery, let alone twice. I live my life by the light of
Jesus. The reason I am no longer a member of the Mormon Church is
because I had my name taken off at my own request." Then he would
hold up a letter and state, "Here is my letter to my Bishop stating
that I want my name to be taken off the rolls of the Church because it
is false." He then holds up another letter, "Here is a letter from
the Mormon Church, stating that at *my* request, I am no longer a
member of the Mormon Church." So, if a Mormon ever tells you I was
excommunicated for adultery -- they are lying, or repeating a lie."
Now, Ramona, what did Dick Baer just do? He used equivocation and
slight of hand into deceiving his audience about ever being
excoummunicted from the Church for immorality.
You see, the fact is this: Dick Baer had been excommunicated for
"fornication" -- not "adultery" - as he was forced to admit to me one
day when I cornered him on the question over the phone.
After he was excommunicated, he met up with the Tanners, and in his
state of apostacy, he fell for their con-job hook, line, and sinker.
Ah, but he couldn't be an effective anti-Mormon if his last status
with the Church was being execommunicated for being an immoral person.
So, Dick Baer and the Tanners cook up a plan: he will rejoin the
Mormon Church just long enough to make it look good (about 4-5
months), but more importantly -- so he can get those two pieces of
paper that he would hold up trying to deceive his audiences about his
past.
Now, Dick Baer would also make a number of other claims that were just
plain false: He would falsely claim to having served a mission, having
been a Church leader, an ordinance worker in the temple, etc.
Now, is Dick Baer's excommunication for immorality fair game? Yes, he
made it fair game by deceiving his audience about his past.
Let's come to our present discussion: Is D. Michael Quinn's
excommunication fair game? Yes, he made it fair game by deceiving his
audiences about his past and his homosexuality.
Look, if an apostate doesn't want me to bring up the checkered past --
they should not attempt to misrepresent that past as Baer and Quinn
did.
>
> > > > Fact 4: D. Michael Quinn violated copyrights and ethics rules by
> > > > secretly cropping the picture mentioned above in order to portray a
> > > > false image.
>
> > > From what you've provided, there is nothing nefarious about Quinn
> > > making a picture like he wanted for his book. He was hiding nothing of
> > > significance at all by allegedly cropping that picture.
>
> > You have to be kidding, aren't you? Look how blinded you are by your
> > hatred of Latter-day Saints. Why do you hate Latter-day Saints so
> > much?
>
> The only hatred directed at INDIVIDUALS seem to be from Red.
LOL.
LOL. Just keep clicking your heels together and continue deluding
yourself into the false belief that you made the right decision by
going apostate. I mean -- you are the one here attacking Mormons and
their faith, no?
I think the reason you (whomever you are, wherever you came from) and
others of your ilk perch here and attack the faith of good Latter-day
Saints is that you have to convince yourself that your bad lifestyle
choices and unfaithfulness were actually good, and it is the Gospel
and the LDS Church that are actually evil.
But, funny thing on the walk to reality: You chose to do evil, you
chose to take the low road, you chose to turn around and hate, you
chose not to repent, you chose to spiral down.
Now, you are left in your fallen state to kick against the pricks.
How is that kicking going? Not to well me thinks.
-Red Davis
>
> Elder Oaks said this: "We encourage Church leaders and members to
> reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these
> issues."http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-att...
>
> Where is your love and understanding Red? Do you not heed the counsel
> of church authorities?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Which of these *facts* do you dispute?
>
> > > > Such activities are those of a militant, given he is homosexual, a
> > > > militant homosexual.
>
> > > That's the logic of a third grader. It's laughable. You come off as an
> > > ignorant bumpkin homophobe who has to exaggerate and embellish his
> > > story. You and [God hates fags] sociopath Rev Fred Phelps would make
> > > good a good partnership.
>
> > Ah, the old "guilt by association" tactic, ehh? That dog won't hunt.
>
> > Ad hominem from the great "John Manning"? Say it ain't so, John!
> > But, you attack others all the time. When you can't win a debate
> > issue -- you resort to name calling and dismissing the other side out
> > of hand. Well, that dog won't hunt on this one either.
>
> > You have stepped into it with both
>
Red Davis
>
> > Where is your love and understanding Red? Do you not heed the counsel
> > of church authorities?
>
> Mr. Davis' hatred is characterized by his notorious homophobia, his
> fabrications, exaggerations, distortions, suggestive half-truths and
> apparent out of control rage. If only he had the courage to really look
>
> - Show quoted text -
John, John, John. What are we going to do with you? You sit there
and post about 600 messages a month unto this board. That's about 20 a
day.
So, let's talk about "out of control rage". Is it rational for you, a
non-Mormon, to apparently spend your every waking moment attacking the
faith of Mormons on alt.religion.mormon?
To spend the morning, the afternoon, the evening, the night -- typing
away in some sort of personal hate campaign?
Can you look at yourself, John? Who is the hater here?
Why do you hate Mormons?
Now, why don't you tell Red about why you are such a miserable, Mormon
hating, person. Why is it you don't apparently have any family or
friends. Why you have no other hobbies except to attack Mormons.
What you are doing is not mentally healthy, it is not Christian, it is
not in tune with natural law, it is not ethical or moral. The only
excuse that can be made for your behavior is: hate.
Why do you hate Mormons so?
-Red Davis
John Manning
"Gender issues?"
"When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it
is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of
love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace..."
~~ Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 361
> The proof is in his willful deception of his
> readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
> how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
> with his hands in the cookie jar.
FARMS is unreliable. It's a *totally biased* propaganda arm of the LDS
Church.
Dean C. Jessee a widely respected scholar and student of the writings of
Joseph Smith, is a senior research fellow in the Joseph Fielding Smith
Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University. He
previously served for many years in the Historical Department of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A past president of the Mormon History Association, he has published
many articles on Church history in such periodicals as the Journal of
Mormon History and BYU Studies. He served as editor of Letters of
Brigham Young to His Sons, which was published by Deseret Book Company.
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 (he lists them), Quinn has spent a substantial part of his
life studying Mormon history. This book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins
of Power and a second volume... 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..."
~~ Journal of Mormon History, Fall 1996, pages 162, 168
[snip]
John Manning
> On Jan 31, 11:10 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
[snip]
>> Mr. Davis' hatred is characterized by his notorious homophobia, his
>> fabrications, exaggerations, distortions, suggestive half-truths and
>> apparent out of control rage. If only he had the courage to really look
>> at himself...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> John, John, John. What are we going to do with you? You sit there
> and post about 600 messages a month unto this board. That's about 20 a
> day.
>
> So, let's talk about "out of control rage". Is it rational for you, a
> non-Mormon, to apparently spend your every waking moment attacking the
> faith of Mormons on alt.religion.mormon?
> To spend the morning, the afternoon, the evening, the night -- typing
> away in some sort of personal hate campaign?
>
> Can you look at yourself, John? Who is the hater here?
>
> Why do you hate Mormons?
>
> Now, why don't you tell Red about why you are such a miserable, Mormon
> hating, person. Why is it you don't apparently have any family or
> friends. Why you have no other hobbies except to attack Mormons.
>
> What you are doing is not mentally healthy, it is not Christian, it is
> not in tune with natural law, it is not ethical or moral. The only
> excuse that can be made for your behavior is: hate.
>
> Why do you hate Mormons so?
<chuckle> More of the same irrational, distorted outbursts from Red.
Why do 'you' hate the truth so, Red?
Here's why. When faced with the awful truths about their religion,
Mormon apologists, who are immature and unstable like Red, will resort
to fabrications, exaggerations, distortions, suggestive half-truths and
Ramona
You would like one less person showing the failings of your argument.
>
> The facts stand as they are: D. Michael Queen is a militant
Repeating a statement does not give it additional weight. Ex. I am a
black,gay male.
homosexual
> hell-bent on smearing the LDS Church with false accusations on gender
> issues and occultism.
I see no proof of falsity. History has shown us the the church,
through J.S. was very much involved in occultism. You may want to use
something called a dictionary to begin your understanding. You seem
to never have had exposure to such.
> The proof is in his willful deception
You are talking about J.S. now.
of his
> readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
> how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
> with his hands in the cookie jar.
You may want to look up "conflict of interest." I have already
explained to you the danger in such with the pharmaceutical example.
>
> They say God can't change history
-- but D. Michael Quinn sure gave it
> a try.
The LDS church practices revisionism as a sacrament.
>
> > Unfortunately for Red, I am actually white, heterosexual, and female.
> > Where did Red go wrong? Simple, he assumed, ever so incorrectly, that
> > simply because one believes in equality, one is militant. Brigham
> > Young was clearly a militant female, since he pushed for Women's Right
> > to Vote to double power.
>
> What in the world are you blathering about? You can't take an apple,
> mix it with an orange, and get an orple.
Exactly, so why do you insist on doing so?
Such is a fruitless
> exercise. Speaking of fruits....
Yes, I already know you are one....banana 5 weeks old and rotten to
the core.
No, but the church certainly has baptized a number of them including
Adolf Hitler without any outrage from church members.
This is typical
> reactionary ad hominem from apostates.
I am only following your example to make a point. You seem dull
enough to not follow.
For some reason -- apostates
> are very overzealous in their attempts to hide the truth about Quinn.
Yet, the church adored Quinn and his work until he decided to publish
something that didn't correspond to the revision program in place.
>
> Again, I think you should leave reasoning to others.
Of course you would love to not have another person proving the
failure of your argument.
>
> Just to prove my manliness
-- I think I will wear a pink shirt
> tomorow. ;) LOL.
A real man apologizes when wrong. When was the last time you
apologized on this ng?
>
> Quinn's homosexuality is directly related to his credibility
It is irrelevant to his credibility. The church found his work highly
credible UNTIL he disagreed with the party line.
Homosexuality does not remove degrees or the coursework taken in the
past any more than adultery makes a Master Garden less skilled at
gardening.
snip due to fallacy issues. Please look up the word "fallacy," Red.
Red Davis
Thanks for showing us how desparate and comical Quinn's attempts are
to paint Joseph Smith a homosexual. This has nothing to do with
Joseph Smith, Jr. being a homosexual -- and everyting we Quinn trying
to justify his own identity where no justification can be made.
I embrace and hug my brothers all the time. Even some close male
friends.
So, so far Quinn has cropped a picture to remove a woman from the
three people posing in it, and submitted a hug for proof of homsexuals
everywhere. That's why I call him the Ginsu Historian.
>
> ~~ Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 361
>
> > The proof is in his willful deception of his
> > readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
> > how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
> > with his hands in the cookie jar.
>
> FARMS is unreliable. It's a *totally biased* propaganda arm of the LDS
> Church.
Show where it is wrong and unreliable. Everything you submit is
material written by apostates. I don't simply say, "he's an apostate,
he's unreliable" -- I point out *where* he is wrong, and *where* his
bias shows.
John -- why do you hate Mormons so much? The good people who research
for FARMS are honest men and women full of integrity and honor. Yet,
you attack every single one of them with your dismissal born out of
your own inner hatred of Mormons.
Why do you hate Mormons so much?
>
> Dean C. Jessee a widely respected scholar and student of the writings of
> Joseph Smith, is a senior research fellow in the Joseph Fielding Smith
> Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University. He
> previously served for many years in the Historical Department of The
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>
> A past president of the Mormon History Association, he has published
> many articles on Church history in such periodicals as the Journal of
> Mormon History and BYU Studies. He served as editor of Letters of
> Brigham Young to His Sons, which was published by Deseret Book Company.
>
> 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:
I think we all can agree on one thing: Quinn is a very hard worker.
The problem with Quinn is that he forces into history events and
things that *never* occurred by working hard to slice and dice
references out of context or crop pictures from their meaning.
Because one has access to reference material -- does not mean that the
synthesis one creates from the reference material accurately reflects
the material -- nor history for that matter.
Take for example the response I just did on the ARM post about "Mormon
Women". The reporter worked very hard to leave parts of Sister Beck's
and President Monson's talks on the editor's floor. Why? He sliced
and diced the reference material because the reporter has an anti-
religion agenda. I have seen articles written by that reporter that
are anti-Catholic, anti-Baptist, and anti-Mormon. He has never
written a positive article about religion that I have every reviewed.
The reporter has an agenda - and the slicing and dicing of information
contrary to his agenda in his final story is proof of his bias and
dishonesty.
Likewise with Quinn: he slices and dices reference material that is
contrary to his agenda, leaving it on his editorial floor.
Now, go to the FARMS website, take a research article critical of
Quinn's writings, and show us specific errors in the criticism like I
have done with Quinn's writings and criticisms.
>
> "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 (he lists them), Quinn has spent a substantial part of his
> life studying Mormon history. This book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins
> of Power and a second volume... 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..."
So, you post all this because you think that it greatly lauds Quinn's
work as accurate or honest -- when it does just the opposite: it
insults Quinn's work. The conclusion of all that Quinn has written,
because he has let his own personal emotion and homosexuality get the
best of him, can be summed up as only having this importance,
"valuable contribution in terms of identifying sources and
understanding groundwork of the organizational structure". Please not
the total absence commending Quinn for the synthesis derived from his
research. In other words -- it summarizes the final contribution of
all that Quinn has done as nothing more than a card catalogue for
others to find reference materials.
So, again, John -- why do you hate Mormons so much?
-Red Davis
>
> ~~ Journal of Mormon History, Fall 1996, pages 162, 168
>
> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
Red Davis
> On Jan 31, 5:49 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
So, Ramona, who are you today?
-Red Davis
RetroProphet
Red Davis says...
>
>On Jan 31, 6:21=A0pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>> FARMS is unreliable. It's a *totally biased* propaganda arm of the LDS
>> Church.
>
>Show where it is wrong and unreliable. Everything you submit is
>material written by apostates. I don't simply say, "he's an apostate,
>he's unreliable" -- I point out *where* he is wrong, and *where* his
>bias shows.
>
>John -- why do you hate Mormons so much? The good people who research
>for FARMS are honest men and women full of integrity and honor. Yet,
>you attack every single one of them with your dismissal born out of
>your own inner hatred of Mormons.
>
>Why do you hate Mormons so much?
I don't know to what degree Jeff Lindsay is affiliated
with FARMS, but I can definitely demonstrate that his
defense of "The Stephen A. Douglas Prophecy" defends
the "prophecy" by lying about history, mostly through
uncritically repeating the same lies made by previous
Mormon "historian" B.H. Roberts:
The Stephen A. Douglas Prophecy
by Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml#douglas
Care to defend what Lindsay has written
against what I have written?
If you consider Lindsay of lesser quality than
FARMS, try to defend B.H. Roberts alone, as Lindsay
is just repeating his lies.
Good luck...
====
What I initially dislike about Lindsay's account is that
one might easily come away from it thinking that Smith
had placed a curse on an established enemy.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Douglas was a strong supporter and a good friend of Smith
and the Mormons. As Illinois secretary of state, he was
instrumental in the passage of the Nauvoo Charter.
He exempted all Mormon elders from military duty unless
approved by the Church and so bestowed unprecedented
independence to the Nauvoo Legion from the regular
Illinois state militia. And in 1841, it was Douglas who
single-handedly saved Smith when he was arrested as a
fugitive from justice by Missouri agents, by arranging
to have him brought before his court, and freeing him
on a technicality.
Douglas was so pro-Mormon that his enemies were spreading
rumours that he was secretly a Mormon! You will note that
the exchange in question takes place as he is sharing a
cordial meal with Smith, and Douglas responds in agreement
to everything Smith says, even though Smith has chewed
his ear off for three hours. They are friends! Douglas was
a dinner guest at Smith's mansion on a number of occasions.
The truth is that Smith is merely reinforcing their
friendship. Why?
Well, Lindsay characterizes Douglas as an unimportant
political figure at the time of the prophecy. He's just
a relatively unknown judge, right?
Wrong. Smith is actually addressing the man who he knew
and everyone in Illinois knew was certain to be elected
to Congress in the fall of 1843 election. The reason was
that Illinois' population had increased so much in the
census of 1840 that it was now entitled to 7 representatives
instead of four. Douglas and his political allies controlled
the re-districting gerrymandering process and tailor-made
it for him, this being accomplished months before his meeting
with Smith. He was an absolute shoo-in, everyone knew it,
and his actual nomination came only 18 days after the
prophecy meeting with Smith.
So, Smith knew that Douglas was about to head to the nation's
capitol. Why do you think he chewed his ear off? Smith's
been in the process of trying to make a lot of noise in
Washington regarding the unfair treatment of Mormons, and now
he's hoping Douglas will be a more powerful ally -- Smith is
merely telling Douglas in his own way that he is counting
on him for his continued support. It was Smith's brand of
political bluster -- it always had a large dollop of religion.
Lindsay also suggests that nobody in 1843 could have predicted
Douglas would someday be presidential timber, implying that
Smith was a seer -- but the reality is that Douglas was already
a hot-shot political force who was being seen as a potential
future candidate for the White House. Smith was politically
saavy enough to have known this for sure.
But, worst of all, Lindsay uncritically repeats
B.H. Roberts' highly-misleading propaganda that
the "prophecy was published in 1856 long in advance of
its fulfillment" and that "after the publication of
this prediction, Douglas did aspire to the presidency
of the United States."
The reality is that Douglas was in fact a candidate for the
Democratic nomination for President in 1856 AND IN 1852,
well before Clayton's journal account was ever published.
The initial publication of Smith's 1843 "prophecy" was during
the closing weeks of the 1856 campaign, and after Douglas
had failed to secure the nomination at the Democratic National
Convention just a few months before.
Douglas had been less than useful in championing Utah's
statehood attempt earlier that year -- the purpose of
publishing the "Smith Prophecy" was to gloat over Douglas'
political failure by suggesting that its true source was
"the hand of the Almighty."
In other words, it wasn't published "well in advance of its
fulfillment" -- it was published in 1856 for the sole purpose
of CELEBRATING its recent "fulfillment."
And, it would have been published after Douglas failed to secure
the nomination in 1852, except at that point Mormons still
held out hope that he would help their cause for statehood.
Can there be any doubt that Smith's prophecy would never
had seen the light of day if it hadn't been "fulfilled"?
Giving it false credibilty by insisting it was publicized
before it was fulfilled is a lie that masks that back-pocketing
a prediction until it is vindicated is essentially no more
than a parlor trick.
The point is that Roberts lied about the history, and Lindsay
continues the tradition.
I think that this example serves as an excellent and
air-tight example of history warped beyond reason
in order to serve as religious propaganda.
Mormon apologists should be interested in weeding
such things out of their currently-presented material,
and should be actively engaging each other to do so.
John Manning
Hey, dimwit, that quote didn't come from Quinn.
>
> I embrace and hug my brothers all the time. Even some close male
> friends.
>
> So, so far Quinn has cropped a picture to remove a woman from the
> three people posing in it, and submitted a hug for proof of homsexuals
> everywhere. That's why I call him the Ginsu Historian.
You should get a job with the National Enquirer, Red, instead of being a
Mormon apologist. You just make your church look bad and you make
yourself look like a hillbilly clown.
>
>> ~~ Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 361
>>
>>> The proof is in his willful deception of his
>>> readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
>>> how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
>>> with his hands in the cookie jar.
>> FARMS is unreliable. It's a *totally biased* propaganda arm of the LDS
>> Church.
>
> Show where it is wrong and unreliable. Everything you submit is
> material written by apostates. I don't simply say, "he's an apostate,
> he's unreliable" -- I point out *where* he is wrong, and *where* his
> bias shows.
>
> John -- why do you hate Mormons so much? The good people who research
> for FARMS are honest men and women full of integrity and honor. Yet,
> you attack every single one of them with your dismissal born out of
> your own inner hatred of Mormons.
They do NOT have the aim of finding unbiased truth. They only use
material that supports their point of view. That's not reliability.
Apparently you're too stupid to comprehend that.
>
> Why do you hate Mormons so much?
People accuse me of hatred toward Mormons. I don't hate Mormons. If
there's anything I hate at all it's lies and deceptions, particularly
when there's an attempt to collectively control others or hurt others
who don't follow the party line. Many TBMs [True Believing Mormons] fit
in that category.
I lived in Utah for over 35 years and came to know countless Mormons.
They are no different than any other human beings in the good and bad
dept. Every religion has its by-the-book zealots. Sometimes, [most
times?] the LDS leadership is that way. It reflects it in its rules and
cultural protocol.
Without a doubt, I see the LDS Church as based on an an initial scam and
a fiction. But who can condemn all of the LDS people who are born into
that culture and inculcated from childhood? I certainly can't.
Are they victims? I say no. They are participants in the culture they
know and have known and within which they have found security in this
world. They have the ability however to reach beyond where they are. But
like within any ethnocentric culture they, for the most part, don't.
I'm not here to condemn Mormons. I'm here pointing out the limitations
of what they've accepted. That's what I'm doing here, whether they like
it or not - or whether I'm hated or not.
"The truth will make you free."
John 8:32
Red makes it up as he goes along.
> The conclusion of all that Quinn has written,
> because he has let his own personal emotion and homosexuality get the
> best of him, can be summed up as only having this importance,
> "valuable contribution in terms of identifying sources and
> understanding groundwork of the organizational structure". Please not
> the total absence commending Quinn for the synthesis derived from his
> research. In other words -- it summarizes the final contribution of
> all that Quinn has done as nothing more than a card catalogue for
> others to find reference materials.
"This book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and a second
volume... 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...."
>
> So, again, John -- why do you hate Mormons so much?
John Manning
Gerald Bostock
That's more and better proof than you've ever given for claims about
Hofmann being homosexual and involved with Quinn.
>
>
>
> > ~~ Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 361
>
> > > The proof is in his willful deception of his
> > > readers. You are more than free to visit the FARMS website and see
> > > how many times this supposedly "impeccable historian" has been caught
> > > with his hands in the cookie jar.
>
> > FARMS is unreliable. It's a *totally biased* propaganda arm of the LDS
> > Church.
>
> Show where it is wrong and unreliable. Everything you submit is
> material written by apostates. I don't simply say, "he's an apostate,
> he's unreliable" -- I point out *where* he is wrong, and *where* his
> bias shows.
>
> John -- why do you hate Mormons so much? The good people who research
> for FARMS are honest men and women full of integrity and honor. Yet,
> you attack every single one of them with your dismissal born out of
> your own inner hatred of Mormons.
>
> Why do you hate Mormons so much?
Why do you hate non-mormons so much?
You're one of the most hateful people going.
>
>
>
> > Dean C. Jessee a widely respected scholar and student of the writings of
> > Joseph Smith, is a senior research fellow in the Joseph Fielding Smith
> > Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University. He
> > previously served for many years in the Historical Department of The
> > Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>
> > A past president of the Mormon History Association, he has published
> > many articles on Church history in such periodicals as the Journal of
> > Mormon History and BYU Studies. He served as editor of Letters of
> > Brigham Young to His Sons, which was published by Deseret Book Company.
>
> > 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:
>
> I think we all can agree on one thing: Quinn is a very hard worker.
> The problem with Quinn is that he forces into history events and
> things that *never* occurred
Just like you do. Just like JSjr. did.
by working hard to slice and dice
> references out of context or crop pictures from their meaning.
> Because one has access to reference material -- does not mean that the
> synthesis one creates from the reference material accurately reflects
> the material -- nor history for that matter.
Unlike you at least he consults reference material.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -