He had taught at BYU, had books published by Deseret Book, until he declared his sexual position.

Although he claims it was Packer who gave him the ax - not his sexuality.

He almost got the job at U of U after Dean May died in '03, but his candidacy proved pretty divisive. Big LDS donors made threats (don't know specifics) and one prof. called the newspaper. In the end, I think they justified not hiring him because all of his publications were with LDS presses or Signature - not scholarly presses. Fair enough, I guess, but a dumb move IMO.

It's still a damn shame that he's not teaching somewhere. Love him or hate him, the guy is a brilliant scholar.

I find him to be a thorough researcher but haven't seen anything to denote him as a brilliant scholar. He presents interesting evidence, but on some of his pet projects he lets his imagination get the better of him.

I'm not sure which projects you mean, but I understand people have different interests and tastes. I love Quinn, though, but I haven't read everything he's done.

Quinn pioneered the "New Mormon History" which, in my mind, is a very innovative movement, the effects of which have dramatically altered the landscape of LDS teachings and discourse by both member and non-member.

I think Magic World View forever changed scholarship on Joseph Smith and The two-volume Mormon Hierarchy is very erudite, although you have to mine a little for the really good nuggets. I especially like "Extensions of Power."

His essay "On Being a Mormon Historian" is especially dear to me for obvious reasons.

Same Sex Dynamics was a little boring for me, I'll admit.

I thought he jumped the gun on Same Sex Dynamics. Just because people don't go overboard opposing something doesn't mean they authorize it.

I just saw this title yesterday in the wikipedia blurb someone posted. I found the premise interesting. Did you find it convincing in any way? Also, was he "out" at the time he wrote it?

His basic premise is that early leaders didn't renounce homosexuality when they encountered it and therefore countenanced. Weak sauce.

From what I've read on the subject, it wasn't until late 20th century that the statistical prevalence of the activity was even understood. One of the well-researched works I read showed that prior to 20th Century, a typical citizen didn't even create a separate category of "sexuality" per se.

I've been laughing at this double entendre all day.

Soon, I'll declare mine.

Even a blind dog finds a bone, as it were.