On Being a Mormon Historian

[SeattleUte]

A few points:

First, I am not fully ignorant of this entire subject. I know enough about it that I don't have to read the L.A. Times article. The Church does not have it within its power to black ball Quinn, except maybe at Utah and at BYU. Are you saying that's what's happening? That would surely cause a scandal at any self-respecting university I ever heard of; a sect known for its fundamentalism and literalist approach to interpretation of the holy canon pressuring such universities not to hire a known expert in an important field. The idea is truly very funny and you have nothing to support such a delusional claim. Moreover, I have relatives who are university professors, and it is inherantly interesting to me and common knowledge what kind of background you need to get the kind of job Quinn apparently seeks (BTW, I don't claim to have it, in case you were wondering).

Second, my usage of repellant was entirely proper. Look it up.

Third, his work is indeed repellant to the rank and file of active Mormons. Just see the reaction on CB every time his name comes up.

Fourth, I said his work was interesting to Mormon apostates. Since Mormonism is imprinted in those of us raised in it, Mormonism will continue to facinate us though not as it would a devout person. But we are a tiny class in the overall scheme of things.

Fifth, yes, my brother has given millions of dollars to a university, but it's the University of Utah. Mormons' share of succesful business people is only somewhat disproportionately large given the religion's and culture's youth and relatively small numbes. Still, for examlpe, while Mormons purport to be roughly similar in numbers to Jews (I don't trust any of the Church's published numbers, by the way) they don't come close in business success and certainly don't have 100th the appreciation for and success in high culture and intellectual pursuits as do Jews. In any event, my brother has no interest in black-balling Quinn.

Sixth, Quinn's books are most emphatically popular histories. They are geared for the general reading public, not fellow specialists, though in some respects they resemble academic stuff in that they purport to break new ground and are heavily footnoted. But they are not technical pieces geared for specialists and their students. If they are turgid and tough reading for the average person, that's a failure of the books, because he isn't writing for an academic audience.

Seventh, his platform is manifestly narrow. They don't even teach subjects like magic in early mormonism. It just isn't that relevant to much of anything except for a small population's narrowly focused obsession. He almost might as well be the world's greatest expert in dungeons and dragons.

Eighth, as I noted, I meant no criticism of Quinn; popular histories are noble pursuits, arguably more so than academic stuff that dosen't get read except by a few specialists.

P.S. I did not add that face above.

[Archaea]

Neither of you have answered the obvious question.

Of course what both of you says make sense. Mormonism is of narrow focus and of little interest to most persons.

However, would Harvard offer an Anti-Semite, no matter how educated its chief position in charge of Jewish studies?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, would Harvard offer an Anti-Semite, no matter how educated its chief position in charge of Jewish studies?

I rest my case.

Is that his reputation? If his reputation is just that he is simply an "anti-Mormon," in the same sense that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, Mike's claim that an otherwise qualified and desired candidate for highly competitive tenure track postions at universities is being black balled by the LDS Church is surely ludicrous.

However, I think that Dan, EQ and others would take issue with your characterization.

In any event, his focus is narrow, arcane, and of not much relevance or interest to almost anyone, which also happens to be why he has not gotten rich from his popular histories. Your analogizing him to an anti-Semite also confirms that he is repellant to rank and file Mormons.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I rest my case.

Is that his reputation? If his reputation is just that he is simply an "anti-Mormon," in the same sense that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, Mike's claim that an otherwise qualified and desired candidate for highly competitive tenure track postions at universities is being black balled by the LDS Church is surely ludicrous.

However, I think that Dan, EQ and others would take issue with your characterization.

In any event, his focus is narrow, arcane, and of not much relevance or interest to almost anyone, which also happens to be why he has not gotten rich from his popular histories. Your analogizing him to an anti-Semite also confirms that he is repellant to rank and file Mormons.

No I started broadly to narrow it.

If an educated Anti-Semite who took a different view of the Holocaust were hired as the Head of Jewish Studies for Harvard, there would be a hue and cry so loud you would believe the Holocaust were recurring.

No matter how educated the Anti-Semite.

If a person seeks to chair any religious studies on any religion, that person must generally hold the "positive" view of that religion of the dominant belief in that religion, or that person will not otherwise be able to obtain employment, period.

[MikeWaters]

I never said the church was blackballing Quinn.

I said that universities who decide to hire a Mormon historian self-select someone who is non-controversial, for financial and political reasons.

From Wikipedia:

In an April 2006 article, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden wrote that Quinn has become unhireable because almost all the funding for professorships in Mormon studies comes from Mormon donors. In 2003, Brigham Young University threatened to withdraw funding for a conference it was co-sponsoring at Yale if Quinn were allowed to speak. More recently Arizona State University administrators vetoed the department of religious studies in its recommendation to hire Quinn. ASU faculty believe officials fear alienating ASU’s 3,700 students and offending Ira Fulton, a powerful Mormon donor who, according to Golden, has called Quinn a “nothing person.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey SU! No more speculation required. Here is a copy of the article:

http://www.supportmikequinn.net/wsj/

And it was published in the Wall Street Journal. Not the LA Times.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Hey SU! No more speculation required. Here is a copy of the article:

http://www.supportmikequinn.net/wsj/

And it was published in the Wall Street Journal. Not the LA Times.

Okay, I get it. A few rich Mormons create an academic interest largely out of whole cloth because they are willing to donate large sums to support the activity. But they attach strings. That's believable. But you're talking about a micro-market for jobs. The article itself says that he's been rejected at two jobs and and is unlikely to get either of two others he'd like to have. Four jobs? That's nothing. Anyone who's tried to break into a glamorous and rewarding field knows that even if you're super talented you have to endure scores of rejections before you find the right fit. His platform is narrow.

Mike, sorry if I overstated your point.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Okay, I get it. A few rich Mormons create an academic interest largely out of whole cloth because they are willing to donate large sums to support the activity. But they attach strings. That's believable. But you're talking about a micro-market for jobs. The article itself says that he's been rejected at two jobs and and is unlikely to get either of two others he'd like to have. Four jobs? That's nothing. Anyone who's tried to break into a glamorous and rewarding field knows that even if you're super talented you have to endure scores of rejections before you find the right fit. His platform is narrow.

Mike, sorry if I overstated your point.

Of course his plateform is narrow. He's a Mormon History scholar. That's not the point however.

It is also possible that he is not the best candidate, based on the merits. In other words, some of his past work is among the best, and highly influential, but some would argue that more recent work was highly influenced by his own dogma.

But in the end, it does seem strange that someone of his talents is languishing writing the biography of some no-name rich guy for $40,000, so that he can pay some bills.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Okay, I get it. A few rich Mormons create an academic interest largely out of whole cloth because they are willing to donate large sums to support the activity. But they attach strings. That's believable. But you're talking about a micro-market for jobs. The article itself says that he's been rejected at two jobs and and is unlikely to get either of two others he'd like to have. Four jobs? That's nothing. Anyone who's tried to break into a glamorous and rewarding field knows that even if you're super talented you have to endure scores of rejections before you find the right fit. His platform is narrow.

Mike, sorry if I overstated your point.

I am sure his age (62) doesn't help either. Although it is illegal to openly use age as a factor in hiring, it happens all the time (implicitly) at universities. Why invest in a guy so late in his career? That may or may not be a factor here, but it certainly doesn't help him.

[Robin]

Sorry Mike, this isn't the last post I promised, but it will come soon...

Ken West, the guy who organized the Yale/BYU Mormon conference, is a personal friend of mine. We were neighbors at Yale, and I talked to him quite a bit about the conference. Interestingly enough, his experience with Quinn and BYU illustrate a few points that are relevant to this conversation.

1. Getting Quinn to accept a role in the conference was considered a great coup by Ken and by all of the people on the Yale side of the conference. Quinn's work was highly regarded by the people at the Div school, and he was expected to play a prominent role in the event.

2. BYU blackballed Quinn, threatening to withdraw sponsorship of the event all together. This was primarily conveyed via correspondence with Millet.

3. Ken was really depressed about all of this for a long time, and nearly considered dumping the conference all together, knowing that strong-arm tactics were being used by BYU to shape the outcome of the event.

4. Ken finally decided the event was worth pursuing.

5. Today, Ken is teaching philosophy at a small arts college in CT. The conference is listed in his faculty bio, but conspicuously drops any reference to the fact that it was a Mormon studies conference. I haven't talked to Ken in over a year, so I don't know if that gap represents his college's interests or his own, but I personally see it as illustrative of his own conflicting views over the whole Quinn affair.

Anyhow, perhaps this anecdote fleshes out a bit of Quinn's unique situation.