Snow Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Fair warning MyDogSkip... Lay off the inflammatory and judgmental language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I don't like this defamation of Dr. Quinn or anyone else because of their sexual preference. Why is it occurring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Fair warning MyDogSkip...Lay off the inflammatory and judgmental languageSnow...Please cease harrassing me...I've taken your boorish behavior up with Heather, please discuss it with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 BTW...Snow...Everything with the exception of the part from wikipedia is from LDS websites. If you have a problem with FARMS or The Maxwell Institute, send me a private message, I'll be happy to get you in touch with these fine Latter Day Saints. Moksha...I apologize if posting links to LDS sites offends you, it wasn't my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillowTheWhisp Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Quinn has ceased to be a "factual historian"...Does that mean that at one time he was a factual historian? Was anything which he wrote concerning church history accepted by the church at the time as factually accurate? If so, does that stop being accurate history once he has written something which the church disapproves of. ie putting his own interpretation on the church's tolerance of homosexuality for his own agenda?As regards the church's attitude towards homosexuality as far as I am aware it has always been that as long as the person does not commit sexual acts with a person of the same gender then they are welcome as members of the church. If that is reinterpreted to mean that the church does or ever has condoned homosexuality then I can see the problem. There is a definite distinction but when someone wishes to justify their own actions they are often unable to see distinctions or the lines become rather blurred.If an artist is a magnificent artist and then paints one lousy picture does that mean all the other pictured he ever painted were rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Does that mean that at one time he was a factual historian? ?Hmmm...Where do I start with this. I will confess I'm somewhat chagrined to continue to discuss this topic as I have been threatened and attacked by some folks who's agenda doesn't seem to coincide with the Church.Quinn did write a rather remarkable biography on J. Reuben Clark. Yet like the late Fawn Brodie who wrote a ground breaking biography on Thomas Jefferson, she managed to get it terribly wrong when she published her biography on Joseph Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VisionOfLehi Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Thread closed for the following reasons:3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Truly sad...when someone claiming to be LDS...chooses the Sodomites over the Saints...Maureen is not LDS, if you read her profile you would see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts