D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
Post Reply
User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by patriotsaint »

Cowell wrote:I think this thread is an indication of how little Church history is understood among members of the Church today. I can tell by some of the posts that some of us almost retract from these topics as if anti-Mormon topics are being discussed. This is unfortunate because the Church's history is fascinating, and extremely rich.

I could list books that the most reputable LDS scholars and Church historians recommend we study in order to understand our Church history better. Incidentally, Magic World View is near the top of the list for recommended reading by the most reputable active LDS Church historians. I know personally a very very well respected professor who works in the Church History Department at the Church office building who thinks it is absolute nonsense when members discount this book based on D. Michael Quinn's subsequent excommunication. One interesting anecdote this particular professor highlights is that the book was sold at Deseret Book. The list of recommended reading includes books by active members, inactive members, non members, and excommunicated members, but each author is reputable, well researched, and seeking to understand Church history.

I would also like to correct something that I think has been inadvertently mis-characterized about Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. This is not a book linking the roots of the early Mormon Church with occult worship of the Devil. The book is about "folk magic" practiced by members of the Church and much of the American frontier. And it isn't just this book, all reputable LDS historians inside and outside of the Church agree that such superstitious religious practice was prevalent at that time in history and common among members of the Church at that time. In fact, most people on the frontier didn't attend a Church congregation, but instead mixed bible study with their superstitious religious practices at home and with their families. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who knows anything about Church History.

I would be interested in a thread that actually discusses the contents of these Church History books, as opposed to demonizing the authors in an effort to discredit what is presented by their studies.
Bella wrote:Not sure what I am missing here. People scream other people are part of the conspiracy and are evil and are untrustworthy liars for far less serious reasons than what Quinn has said and done.
I think what you are missing is he is not part of a conspiracy. This thread hasn't added a lot of credibility to your position that new age spirituality is spreading throughout the Church and world Bella. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but you can't just look for it everywhere and assume it applies everywhere. You might be able to convince people who haven't studied early Church history, but I find this whole thread completely unconvincing. I say this in all kindness as I know this is an important topic for you. But this is neither here nor there. I am personally more interested in discussing the early Church history itself than one particular historian.
+1

Cowell.......the ever grounded, well reasoned and methodical.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by ndjili »

One of my favorite parables.
There is an oft-told story of three men who applied for the job of driving the coaches for a transportation company. The successful applicant would be driving over high, dangerous and precipitous mountain roads. Asked how well he could drive, the first one replied: ‘I am a good, experienced driver. I can drive so close to the edge of the precipice that the wide metal tire of the vehicle will skirt the edge and never go off.’

“ ‘That is good driving,’ said the employer.

“The second man boasted, ‘Oh, I can do better than that. I can drive so accurately that the tire of the vehicle will lap over, half of the tire on the edge of the precipice, and the other half in the air over the edge.’

“The employer wondered what the third man could offer, and was surprised and pleased to hear, ‘Well, sir, I can keep just as far away from the edge as possible.’ It is needless to ask which of the men got the job” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness [1969], 217–18).

Our journey through life in these last days takes place in perilous territory (see 2 Timothy 3:1). We should be like the third driver. Just as he wisely chose to avoid danger, we should choose to avoid the evils of the world

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by patriotsaint »

One of my favorite quotes:
"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

Joseph Smith
We have the Spirit to help us know the bad from the good. We limit ourselves when we refuse to glean truth from unlikely sources.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Original_Intent »

And once again it begins: someone challenges something that someone else said, and instead of responding to the challenge we divide into factions, everyone is holier than anyone else, people take the stance that if you are questioning their position you are questioning the GOSPEL, you are a heretic, you are a member of the lunatic fringe.

I do not want Bella chased off again as I think that she has TONS of valuable insight that I want to partake of. That doesn;t mean I am never going to question anything she says. When I do so, and I assume when others do so they are not saying "YOU ARE WRONG!" they are saying "This is my current understanding, please enlighten me further." Now I am back to being fairly interested in this book...on the one hand I hear one person saying it is high on the list of recommended reading among church historians. On the other hand I get the impression that it is an anti-LDS, meant to undermine the church written by a homosexual excommunicated apostate.

Me, I just want the truth. If Joseph Smith and his family were involved in folk magic, which I have a long understanding that they probably were along with most everyone of their time period, then that is not going to change my testimony of him as a prophet! And the person that wrote this book, it doesn;t matter to me if he is homosexual, excommunicated or apostate. What does matter to me is, is he telling the truth? Bella has given some good information that he is not, or at least twists the truth for his own nefarious purposes. yet within some of that evidence I find what I consider twisting of the truth on the part of the reviewer. Noting that is not an attack on Bella, or anything else...it is a simple observation of "Hey waitaminute, this guy is doing exactly what he is accusing the author of doing!"

Bella indicates that there may be nuggets of truth but overall it is filled with untruths and is not worth taking the time to read. Again we have the assertion that it is highly recommended reading among church historians...These two statements are in conflict, but that doesn't mean there is ill intent on either side. It just means there is a difference of opinion. Can we not deal with a difference of opinion without people taking offense and resorting to name-calling?

keeprunning
captain of 100
Posts: 757

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by keeprunning »

Cowell wrote:I think this thread is an indication of how little Church history is understood among members of the Church today. I can tell by some of the posts that some of us almost retract from these topics as if anti-Mormon topics are being discussed. This is unfortunate because the Church's history is fascinating, and extremely rich.
No, it's just that this thread was not started to be a church history discussion. Don't assume that we haven't already btdt with church history or that we don't understand it.
Some of the crazy history stuff I've read bothered me earlier in life, but I'm not even phased by it anymore.
I actually think this thread has shown that people do understand it. People have shown that they have testimonies that will stand strong even when you read strange accounts from long ago, and realize that we don't have the whole story. And that some historians will slant quotes to support their feelings, so be careful.

User avatar
Cowell
captain of 100
Posts: 545
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Cowell »

Keeprunning,

I'm not making an assumption unfortunately. Members of the Church don't know a lot about Church history. And this thread is an indication because Magic World View is actually one of the most respected works on early Mormon history inside and outside of the Church. So what else should it tell me when the common theme throughout this thread is how he intentionally is trying to spread some outlandish occult theory about the Church? That is just unfortunate, plain and simple. (And I don't mean to suggest Bella's research is outlandish, I'm saying this highly regarded Church historian was not trying to spread an outlandish-idea.)

keeprunning
captain of 100
Posts: 757

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by keeprunning »

Maybe not in that particular book, but when we see evidence of his personal lifestyle and beliefs you've kind of got to stop and think about it!

Black Swan
captain of 10
Posts: 40

Re: Micheal Quinn:Friend of New Spiriuality& Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Black Swan »

ereves wrote:
Bella wrote:Why go to an author that is known to lie and twist things. I would only use his data to find original sources, but in doing that you are exposing yourself to many many false teachings. What worth does his data really hold that we cannot acquire from honest authors really?[...]

He by his own admission does not believe in the policies and doctrines of the Church. What he will present as much as you try to sort through it to try to pick out truth is like trying to find pure water droplets in the bitter fountain. They all have been poisoned for the goal and reason of their use was impure.

[italics added]
Bella, do you have any evidence that Quinn lies and twists things? I know you mentioned that in your opinion a General Authority wouldn't have done what Quinn says his stake president said one did but is that all the proof you have that he's a liar? If you have more evidence I'd be glad to look at it (perhaps I missed it somewhat skimming through the thread) but if you don't then I don't think you should be making such claims.

I've read Early Mormonism and the Magic World View and contrary to your perception of Quinn, found it to be extremely honest. He cites everything he mentions, who said what, when, under what circumstances as far as it can be found out etc. I knew of Quinn's questionable positions previous to reading the book and so I approached it tentatively but soon realized I had no reason to. The book was written while he was at BYU and in good standing in the church, it does nothing in my opinion to discredit the church in any way whatsoever and to the contrary is very effective at shedding light on some of the things that people use to try to discredit it.

I can understand why some people would be surprised to discover that Joseph and the early saints practiced certain things that we would consider strange today but we cannot judge them – or anybody else in history – based on our current worldview. If we do, we will have a completely skewed and mistaken perception of these people. Rather, we should try to understand the worldview of the people we are considering and judge what they did in the context of that worldview. That is one of the major points of Quinn’s book, hence the title.

Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to when you label him as a liar, a dishonest author, and as a teacher of “many many false teachings.” Perhaps you are referring to his disagreement on certain policies in the church. If so I have no problem with you disagreeing with him there. I do however disagree with trying to discredit him as a historian only because you disagree with his position on these things.
Ereves + Cowell + Others...

Thanks for sharing what you did about Quinn. I have not read the Magical World View, but I have read substantial portions of Origins of Power and Extensions of Power. In all that I've read from Quinn, I've never once had the impression that he was trying to twist his words to fit some preconcocted view of how the world, according to him, should work. His writings on many of the topics I've studied go methodically about laying out the information from an historical standpoint, then telling the reader that the interpretation of those events is up to him. One such topic is that of the Presiding Patriarch and how that role/calling has changed over the years, dwindling in authority until it's only an "emeritus" position to be done away with as soon as the last one dies. Quinn discussed the ebbs and flows, followed by a very provoking thought by Brigham Young on what would happen should the church cease to have a Presiding Patriarch, though he was very careful to keep his opinion out of the discussion. I have always found his writings to be fair, judiciously footnoted and as devoid of personal agendas as most books I've found on the shelves. Then again, I suppose I'm an apostate for even opening the book of a non-general authority who I knew was excommunicated. Gasp!!

I find it highly suspect when one lambastes another because of their status in the church (excommunicated or not), one's sexuality, his "apostasy", etc., to be disingenuous and highly judgmental. From reading many of the posts here, I should avoid any and all books that are not, in essence, written by a General Authority who's in good standing with the Church. As Bella stated, in her own words, "We are told to read good books I do not consider a homosexual, excommunicated, author that was excommunicated because of his writings that were considered Apostasy to be on my list of good books." Is that correct? Anyone else, it would seem, would be "highly suspect" and to be avoided because of their many character flaws. Yet, as luck would have it, these "character flaws" only exist with people who are outside of the church, or at least outside of the mainstream of the church, so I should be safe in the hallowed walls of church. I suppose all the books published by Signature books would also be on this black list, right? I'll have to be sure I stick to the "church approved" Deseret Book, because truth can only be found in the walls of that store and rarely anywhere else.

I love these quotes from Come, Let Us Adore Him, because they get to the heart of this discussion:
“Christ’s message is his authority. His words are what distinguish His true ministers from false ones He never sent. Anyone teaching His truth should be recognized as His messenger. He taught this to Moroni. Those who will receive Christ in any generation do so because they hear and recognize His words (see Ether 4:12). Anyone who will not believe in His words, no matter who He sends to speak them, will not believe in Christ or His Father. Those who trust only institutional sources of truth, whether they are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, or Latter-day Saint, believe in an institution, and do not believe in Christ. The ability to individually recognize His words distinguishes those who are saved from those who are lost.” p. 70-71

“…darkness can take hold of any people. When it does they are inevitably led to take offense when the Lord (or any messenger sent by Him) walks in the light. Darkness and light are always two different paths. They are incompatible. The people hearing Christ’s sermon at this time were required to choose between everything they had been taught all their lives and what Christ was teaching. They were God’s chosen people, led by leaders chosen by God. They were taught respect for the priestly authorities of their society by reading the scriptures, which assured them they were God’s “chosen people,” and by observing the traditions of their fathers. They were led by recognized leaders, chosen in an established system of succession, on the one hand, and then this Man from Nazareth, lacking any sort of credentials, on the other, asking them to “come follow” Him. Even though they had shouted “Hosanna!” at His arrival the day before, this sermon (Matt. 23) demanded they reject the established authorities in order to follow Him.” – p. 208-209

“(Matt 23:27-28)…The hypocrisy and iniquity of these religious teachers was so toxic, so wrong, and so dark that it made others unclean. This forced the audience to choose. There could be no middle ground. Either we trust in the traditions of our fathers, or we follow Christ. This choice has always been required of God’s people. Nephi assures us (2 Nephi 28:14) this will also be the case for our day. Only a very few will find the way, and it will require them to overcome bad teachings; “because of pride, an wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are le, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” – p. 210

As a bit of a refresher, the true meaning of the word apostasy implies that we can really only apostatize from one thing/person...and that, to the surprise of many, is not the church. The scriptures indicate that the only real apostasy happens when one apostatizes from Christ. These statements about his "apostasy" and everything Quinn has done indicate that he's apostate, but do we really know if he's apostate from Christ? If we read his PBS interview transcript with an open mind he's quite open with his devotion to Christ and the direction he was led. He describes numerous "metaphysical" impressions and experiences that he can't deny, but we can safely assume our position on the great Rameumptum and say how great we are because we don't have his weaknesses, his character flaws. Good thing I'll make it to heaven with my judgmental, materialistic attitude nonetheless, but Quinn is sure to go to hell because he was excommunicated and because he's a homosexual. Let's not forget to send all those apostate polygamists to hell at the same time. Yep, I'm sure glad I'm on the straight and narrow while all those others stumble through those mists of darkness and walk through the automatic doors of that big building over there. Man it feels good to be special, doesn't it!!

For those who haven't yet read the PBS interview, I've pasted a bit below to get a feel for what Quinn said. Even if you have, I appreciate the candor he seems to be conveying:
You were excommunicated. What happened, why did it happen, and how did you feel?

For a believing Mormon, one who sees Mormonism as the true church and believes in the priesthood and the revelations that have been published, Mormonism is their whole life. All their hope, all of their anticipation is connected with that. Now, to be deprived of membership in the LDS Church is to lose all of that. And for a Mormon who is an ardent believer, that is a kind of death. ... When I began facing that potential, I was on the faculty of Brigham Young University, and what threw me into the jeopardy of losing my membership in the church were my publications on LDS history.

I was fulfilling what I believed was God's mission for me: to understand the leadership of the church and the history of the church as well as I could, and to present it as honestly I could with the perspective that my training gave me so that members of the church wouldn't be disturbed when they learned about these problem areas, because anti-Mormons were using history as a club to beat the faith out of people. I felt this wouldn't be possible if they already knew about these problems. ...

I felt earnestly that this was what God had prepared me to do, to present these problem areas in a context that allowed for faith and still acknowledged what the anti-Mormons or the critics would bring up, but to say: "Yeah? So what? These are human beings." God works with fallible human beings, whether they're your parents or your prophets. This is a way of understanding it and maintaining faith.

Well, the problem was that -- well, actually, it was a double problem. I was getting reports back from people who had read and heard the things that I'd say that that, in fact, was how they were understanding it. They were saying: "Oh, thank you. This makes it understandable for me." ...

On the other hand, I was hearing officially from apostles, whom I regarded as God's chosen prophets and apostles on earth, that this kind of approach to history was not faith-promoting; that it was contrary to what God wanted. ...

What specifically were you writing about that was particularly problematic?

The things that I was learning that were not pleasing to the leaders of the church that I had been publishing about were policy changes in the LDS Church; the existence of certain councils, such as a theocratic Council of Fifty that I published about that the LDS Church leaders didn't know about themselves, and if they did know about, they didn't want rank and file to know that there was a theocracy that was a part of Mormonism; polygamy, and the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto, that had been secretly practiced or practiced by Joseph Smith before it was publicly announced in 1852 as a doctrine of the LDS Church.

These kinds of things, policy changes and doctrinal changes, were things that I had written about and had tried to put into a context of seeing this as a process of change and a process of revelation, but nonetheless to acknowledge that there were these problem areas, but they didn't need to be problem areas. They could be understood as a part of the human experience or as a part of God's changing patterns of dealing with the LDS Church, or as a part of the LDS Church responding to differing circumstances. But it became clear that criticisms from apostles of the LDS Church -- Mark E. Peterson, Boyd K. Packer, [Ezra Taft] Benson -- were being directed directly at the kinds of things I was publishing, and in some cases, by title, at some of these publications of mine.

It became clear to me, when I published a long article, almost 100 pages, about plural marriage after the Manifesto, that this was coming to a breaking point between me and the church, because my local LDS Church president, the stake president, was visited by a General Authority and told that I was to be called in and punished, and that at a minimum I was to lose my temple recommend, which was the basis for church employment, and I was a professor at BYU.

Then the leader of this meeting said, "And if this doesn't keep him from doing this kind of thing, you should take further action as appropriate." And he started to get up and walk out. He thought that was the end of it. And the stake president said, "Now, wait a minute." He said: "Michael Quinn gave me a copy of this article on plural marriage after the Manifesto. I and my counselors have read it, and we don't find anything in it that is contrary to faith. It talks about some difficult experiences the church went through, but we don't see this as a reason to punish him. ... And he hasn't done this secretly, and we don't see -- we've read it." And they asked, "Have you read it?" And he said, "No, I wouldn't read anti-Mormon trash." And they said, "Well, how can you judge that what he's written is destructive of the faith if you haven't read it?" And it went around and around, and finally after two and a half hours, the stake president said, "Well, I'll call Michael Quinn in, and I will explain to him what you have said to us, and then we'll go from there."

And this representative said: "Oh, no. You can't tell him that I told you what I've told you. You can't tell him that this came from church headquarters. This has to be your objection that he is to be informed of, that you have objected to, and that you're going to punish him for." And the stake president said: "I'm not going to lie to him, so you decide: Am I going to tell him the truth and call him in, or am I not going to say anything to him? Because I am not going to lie to him." This stunned this General Authority who had been sent from church headquarters, and he said, "Well, then you do [what] you feel you need to do."

So the stake president called me in and explained this whole process, including the fact that he had been told to lie to me and to say that this was his personal objection to what I'd published. The stake president said: "I feel obligated to do something. I have to do something." And he said: "I'm taking your temple recommend. You will not be able to go back to the temple without it. But," he said, "I'm afraid that they're going to use this as a grounds for firing you from BYU if you do not have temple recommend. So," he says, "if anyone at BYU asks if you have a valid temple recommend, you tell them yes, and don't volunteer that it's in my desk drawer. And when it expires, I'll renew it, but I'll keep it in my desk drawer."

And I knew at that moment that I was dead meat, that as long as that stake president was there to protect me I would be protected, but as soon as he was relieved of his position -- and these are temporary positions; it's a lay ministry -- and another stake president who was more compliant was in the position, or if I happened to move ... out of his stake, then I was dead meat. ...

I was fulfilling my mission as I felt that God had led me to, and yet it had put me on a collision course with the leadership of the church I regarded as his prophets. ... So I prayed a lot to God: "Help me to know. If I'm wrong, I'll confess that I'm wrong. If you want me to stop my research as a Mormon historian, I will." ...

And I received the confirmation that I had received since childhood of God's presence, of this burning within, of this sense of peace which, as Jesus says, passes all understanding. I felt that I was doing nothing wrong in what I published and that they were wrong in condemning me for it. I couldn't sort this out. It didn't make any sense to me, but I felt there was no way I was going to retreat, no matter what it required, and eventually it ended up in my excommunication.
Sure sounds like an anti to me.

User avatar
notjamesbond003.5
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1840
Location: Cary NC
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by notjamesbond003.5 »

Cowell wrote:Keeprunning,

I'm not making an assumption unfortunately. Members of the Church don't know a lot about Church history. And this thread is an indication because Magic World View is actually one of the most respected works on early Mormon history inside and outside of the Church. So what else should it tell me when the common theme throughout this thread is how he intentionally is trying to spread some outlandish occult theory about the Church? That is just unfortunate, plain and simple. (And I don't mean to suggest Bella's research is outlandish, I'm saying this highly regarded Church historian was not trying to spread an outlandish-idea.)
Cowell or any other church historian buff:

May 1829 is when John the Baptist restored the Priesthood.

Would you agree that Joseph had already stopped treasure hunting after or perhaps even before the Restoration of the Priesthood?
That he had a whole paradigm shift once he began translating the Plates?
I don't think there is any record of this activity with Joseph going on in the late 1820s, esp once he had the Plates.
And anybody out there please correct me if I'm wrong from Dan Peterson, to Grant Palmer or even Sonia Johnson- please bring it.

Btw, I love church history, blemished or not.

Thank you,


njb

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Original_Intent »

I honestly have to say, I sometimes wonder if the people of that time with their belief in "folk magic" may not be closer to the truth, and certainly more teachable, than modern man the uber scientist who thinks he knows so much. I'm certainly not saying folk magic is correct, but I certainly feel that having a "magical" view of the world and seeing the supernatural in everyday life - I am not sure that this even should be considered a blemish on church history.

I think C.S. Lewsi said something to the effect that pagans and their heathen religions are probably closer to God than many modern scientific Christians.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Rosabella »

This is another interesting thread that tells more details of Quinn's excommunication.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_discipline/Scholars

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Rosabella »

Apostasy defined by our Church

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD

“Apostasy,” True to the Faith, (2004),13–14

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

Periods of general apostasy have occurred throughout the history of the world. After times of righteousness, people have often turned to wickedness. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread wickedness, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy. You can safeguard yourself against personal apostasy by keeping your covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening your testimony through daily scripture study, prayer, and service.

Additional references: Isaiah 24:5; Amos 8:11–12; Matthew 24:4–14; Acts 20:28–30; 2 Timothy 3:1–5, 14–15; 4:3–4; 1 Nephi 13:24–29; Mormon 1:13–14; D&C 1:15–17; Joseph Smith—History 1:17–19

User avatar
notjamesbond003.5
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1840
Location: Cary NC
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by notjamesbond003.5 »

~Am I being ignored here on purpose?
Or I have I simply stifled the masses?

njb

User avatar
SmallFarm
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4643
Location: Holbrook, Az
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by SmallFarm »

notjamesbond003.5 wrote:~Am I being ignored here on purpose?
Or I have I simply stifled the masses?

njb
:roll:

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by patriotsaint »

If we follow the logic of many on this thread, namely that an individual's previous work and testimony are to be discounted because of later apostasy, what do we do with David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdry and Martin Harris?

Do we toss aside the testimony of the three witnesses because they apostatized at a later time?

User avatar
notjamesbond003.5
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1840
Location: Cary NC
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by notjamesbond003.5 »

SmallFarm wrote:
notjamesbond003.5 wrote:~Am I being ignored here on purpose?
Or I have I simply stifled the masses?

njb
:roll:
Well, of course it must be option 2.

That said, Bella and a few others may want to recognize that the LDS Church as a whole is as a "new-agey, strange form of Christianity" by the Mainline Christianity. What we know as members is actually Mainline Christians and the Evangelical movement are a watered down and reinvented version of Christ's True Gospel-to placate man and which stifles and limits their eternal progression.

The point I'm trying to make here is instead of pointing out the fault of others who far out number us, and who our misguided, perhaps we should choose a more effective way of trying to convert them instead of labeling them as the big bad wolf.

njb

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by ndjili »

First no one is labeling mainstream christianity as the big bad wolf. Ok here's my point of view.
Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is an exhaustive recounting of the role of 19th-century New England folk magic lore in Joseph Smith's early visions and in the development of the Book of Mormon. The book argues that Smith's early religious experiences were inextricably intermingled with ritual, supernaturalism, and white magic. Evidence is drawn from friendly firsthand sources, unfriendly firsthand sources, material artifacts, and parallels in ideas. All four sources agree that Joseph Smith used a collection of different seer stones in searching for buried treasure supposedly left by pirates, Spaniards, and Native Americans. The evidence suggests that these same seer stones were one of the primary tools used by Smith in translating the Book of Mormon. Likewise, evidence from all four categories of sources supports the idea that Smith approved of the use of rods for dowsing activities. Indeed, the first published version of an early revelation told Oliver Cowdery that a dowsing rod (referred to as a "rod of nature") would serve as a means of receiving divine revelation. Other claims, including Smith's purported involvement in astrology and the idea that the Book of Mormon guardian Moroni transformed from the form of a salamander, are less supported by evidence.
Some historians, both within and without the Mormon faith, consider this book an important contribution in understanding early Mormon history, and Quinn's supporters feel his work is groundbreaking. In a 1990 book review in Church History, Klaus J. Hansen calls the book a "magisterial study" and a "tour de force," and describes it as providing a "truly stunning mass of evidence" in favor of its position. John L. Brooke made Quinn's argument the starting point of his study, The Refiner's Fire : The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844.
However, Mormon and non-Mormon scholars have also criticized the book as relying too heavily on environmental parallels without a proven connection to Smith's ideas and behavior, that it accepts at face value the disputed Howe-Hurlbut affidavits about Smith's New York reputation and behavior and a late 19th century newspaper account of a money-digging agreement involving Smith and his father, and that its central thesis is implausible without Mark Hofmann's "Salamander Letter"--which turned out to be a forgery. William J. Hamblin states in his review of the book that "the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity." An additional criticism suggests that the concept of magic is flawed and inherently subjective; it implies that Smith's use of seer stones and dowsing rods was superstitious or fraudulent rather than divine. However, some of Quinn's critics acknowledge that the book is "richly documented" (William A. Wilson in a 1989 book review in The Western Historical Quarterly) and an obligatory starting point for any discussion of Smith's involvement in 19th-century folkloric practices.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Rosabella »

patriotsaint wrote:If we follow the logic of many on this thread, namely that an individual's previous work and testimony are to be discounted because of later apostasy, what do we do with David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdry and Martin Harris?

Do we toss aside the testimony of the three witnesses because they apostatized at a later time?
Actually no, by Quinn's own statements he says while he was writing his works and working at BYU he had these same beliefs: that the Church was wrong in many vital areas of doctrines. One happened to be that homosexuality was fine in the Gospel. He was excommunicated because of his apostate writings. Therefore that taints the writings. It took them a long time to catch him and finally excommunicate him because he was dodging it for many years by avoiding Stake Presidents. This too comes from his own statements. The Church appeared to be trying to give him a chance to repent of the things he was writing but he chose to go against their requests. He knew he was going against the Church and knew the outcome, but tried to drag it out for as long as he could. Again you can find that in his own quotes. He did not have a change of heart and get excommunicated because of that or an event. It was his writings along with finally evidence that he was living a homosexual life style while still writing.

He was not a solid member during the times the vital books were written. It is a case that his beliefs were not inline with the Church all along. It just took awhile for them to show and fruit what got him excommunicated. He said he felt freed when the was excommunicated because he no longer has to hide all of the views he had to please the Church. He could now express openly all the areas he thinks the Church doctrines and Leaders are wrong. After that is where you find his true opinions regarding Joseph Smith having gay lovers and the Church supporting homosexuality in the early years as he feels they should today. He believes the love between man and man and women and woman is the same as man and wife and our Church should recognize that. He has many articles that show that he believes it. This belief existed way way before he was ever excommunicated.

SSA (Same Sex Attraction) and being homosexual are not the same thing. You can have SSA and be in very good standing with the church but you can not be practicing and supporting homosexuality and be in good standing with the Church. Are there wonderful people struggling with this issue. Absolutely and I have had very close people I love dealing with this issue. Some tried to fight SSA but still during their struggles believed the Church doctrines on the matter, others did not believe the churches doctrines and thought they should be changed. Unfortunately it appears from Quinn's own statements that he all along disagreed with the Church. But did not vocalize it because as he said that he worked at BYU and was a Mormon Historian therefore would be excommunicated. That is why I have said he was more of a wolf.

If he would have been open about it and said this is what I believe then I would respect him more. But he hid his personal true beliefs and wrote under the guise of truly looking for truth in history, where there is much evidence he was looking for things to back his stance which was against Church doctrines.

He expresses his testimony, but if you notice their are many buts. It is more like, I believe the Church but it is not always right, it is fallible, it is cruel etc. (he had a long list of these on one of the videos) Just because one says "I believe in the Church" does not mean he believes in the Church the way it is. He admits the Church would have to drastically change for him to come back. He does not then really believe in the Church.
Last edited by Rosabella on February 24th, 2010, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by ndjili »

Sorry I have to do this in 2 posts :)
Likewise, evidence from all four categories of sources supports the idea that Smith approved of the use of rods for dowsing activities. Indeed, the first published version of an early revelation told Oliver Cowdery that a dowsing rod (referred to as a "rod of nature") would serve as a means of receiving divine revelation. Other claims, including Smith's purported involvement in astrology and the idea that the Book of Mormon guardian Moroni transformed from the form of a salamander, are less supported by evidence.
the rod of nature could be something very different than an average dowsing rod. I mean the rod Moses has was different than that of the egyptian magicians. Just a thought.
However, Mormon and non-Mormon scholars have also criticized the book as relying too heavily on environmental parallels without a proven connection to Smith's ideas and behavior, that it accepts at face value the disputed Howe-Hurlbut affidavits about Smith's New York reputation and behavior and a late 19th century newspaper account of a money-digging agreement involving Smith and his father, and that its central thesis is implausible without Mark Hofmann's "Salamander Letter"--which turned out to be a forgery.
It indicates to me that he took an idea as a thesis and wrote a book and made conclusions based on that, which may not have been entirely accurate.

I do know where this church stands on magics and that there is a difference between them and divine ordinances of God. Maybe because I had best friends that were wiccan and did "White magic" and know there is nothing good about magics.

Also the author wrote some pretty bad books regarding the church as well.

"
The Mormon Hierarchy
The two volumes of The Mormon Hierarchy provide a comprehensive secular organizational history of the church from its founding to modern times, and its influence on current LDS culture and doctrine. The work emphasizes conflict, coercion, and violence, especially during the 19th century (see Danites, Mountain Meadows massacre, Blood Atonement and Mormon War). During the 20th century, Quinn's account emphasizes the increasing bureaucratization of the church, its role in right-wing anti-Communism during the 1960s, efforts against the Equal Rights Amendment, political work against same-sex marriage and some forms of anti-discrimination legislation, the church's mid-century financial crisis, conflicts over policies such as the so-called "baseball baptisms" of youth who knew little about the church, personal conflicts among church Apostles (such as "evidence" that in 1969 Hugh B. Brown wanted to rescind the Negro doctrine, but was blocked from doing so by Harold B. Lee [3]), and extensive business and family interrelationships among leaders.

A third volume of The Mormon Hierarchy has been in long discussions for release by Signature Books. Duane Boyce calls the book a "betrayal of trust" and says it is full of scholarly deficiencies.
I think believing the church is true (especially when he can find his own "evidences" that support his views on say homosexuality:
Quinn has publicly argued that homosexual relationships, between both men and women, were quietly accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leadership up until the 1940s. This theme has arisen in Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power and is the central topic of Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. Several LDS scholars have disputed Quinn's work, calling it a distortion of LDS history and saying he completely misrepresented the facts. They deny any acceptance from previous leaders of homosexuality, suggesting that Quinn conflated an absence of early Church proscriptions of homosexuality with tacit acceptance of same, and state the current leadership of the church “is entirely consistent with the teachings of past leaders and with the scriptures.”[5
I'm not saying that the things in the book "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" are not true but in what context and from what point of view. I think this man has some pretty telling well lack of character and I would think it would make his work a little more subject to criticism.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Rosabella »

notjamesbond003.5 wrote:
SmallFarm wrote:
notjamesbond003.5 wrote:~Am I being ignored here on purpose?
Or I have I simply stifled the masses?

njb
:roll:
Well, of course it must be option 2.

That said, Bella and a few others may want to recognize that the LDS Church as a whole is as a "new-agey, strange form of Christianity" by the Mainline Christianity. What we know as members is actually Mainline Christians and the Evangelical movement are a watered down and reinvented version of Christ's True Gospel-to placate man and which stifles and limits their eternal progression.

The point I'm trying to make here is instead of pointing out the fault of others who far out number us, and who our misguided, perhaps we should choose a more effective way of trying to convert them instead of labeling them as the big bad wolf.

njb
The Church is not "new agey" at all. There sadly are "new agey" members but that does not mean the Church is new agey. Just that some members have gone astray. The doctrines are its complete opposite. What is sad is what makes main stream Christian think the Church is "new agey" is writings like Quinn. That is my whole point.

What does this thread have to do with mainstream Christianity anyway?

Ok so all those PTB and those that work for them, whom people on this site list day in and day out, we should not label then by your definition. Rather we should seek a more effective way of trying to convert them? If so then we need to completely stop this horrible behavior on this site of pointing them out. :shock:

To answer the point that people like Quinn are not part of a Conspiracy I say that is not the case. They are part of the spiritual conspiracy that is far more dangerous then the political for it controls the political. Quinn was a useful tool that now the real conspiracy can use to undermined our Church. This is a spiritual war we are in not merely a political one. You can not separate the two for the adversary is both spiritual and political. Quinn's personal fruits and the way his writings are used now make it look very much like he was guided to write what he did, just not by God.

Also to answer another post. No one here said that the "magic" during the early times in the Church was connected to satanism. Those types of practices of folk magic are connected to the new spirituality or the occult of today. Which is different than Satanism.
Last edited by Rosabella on February 24th, 2010, 10:10 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Original_Intent »

Bella,

I am sure it can be frustrating for you to try to convey to people who are "newbies" in an area that you have invested a lot of time and study in.

Hang in there.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by ndjili »

Many people are noticing a trend to move away from scriptural doctrines and into other realms for further knowledge and enlightenment and they're not Mormon. This book is by a "mainstream Christian". Many great things are in it.

On big tactic of anti-mormons, the one where they take one scripture out of context, which the scripture is true and historically documented but read in context of the whole chapter means something very different.

Their favorite is to warn about false prophets, and well to them ALL prphets are false,,but forget the rest of the scripture.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

That sentence is something I try to look at thr world by.

It's applicable to so many things.

By their fruits ye shall know them.
Last edited by ndjili on February 24th, 2010, 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by clarkkent14 »

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition | reviewed by John Gee
"An Obstacle to Deeper Understanding"1

John Gee

Review of D. Michael Quinn. Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998. xxxix + 646 pp., with notes and index. $19.95.

"Are these magic cloaks?" asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.

"I do not know what you mean by that," answered the leader of the Elves. "They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean."

J. R. R. Tolkien2

Some Historical Context

Michael Quinn made a big mistake in publishing the first edition of his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. His publisher (see p. xiii)3 and his friends4 warned him about the mistake he was making. He chose to publish the book anyway. When Quinn's first edition came out in 1987, the reviewers pointed out fundamental flaws—including a tortured thesis,5 twisted and forged evidence, and problematic and idiosyncratic use of loaded language—and it became clear that these flaws irreparably marred the entire framework of the book.

In the decade preceding the first edition of Quinn's book, a small resurgence in studying "magic" as part of the lives of major religious figures, notably Jesus, was occurring. Morton Smith claimed that Jesus was typical of wandering Greek "magicians" who traveled around working miracles.6 Smith thought this because there were dozens of "magician's" handbooks that had been gathered together as the so-called Greek Magical Papyri. As a result of Smith's work, Hans Dieter Betz, a New Testament scholar, headed up a project to publish translations of all the so-called Greek Magical Papyri.7 And if Jesus can be viewed in such a context (see pp. 4-6), why not Joseph Smith?

The decade or so after the original publication of Quinn's book has produced several significant developments in the field of "magic" studies, some of which deserve mention. In 1986, the year before Quinn published his book, Princeton University Press published Garth Fowden's The Egyptian Hermes,8 in which Fowden argued that in Roman Egypt "neither in principle nor, often enough, in practice, is there any difference between this sort of religion and what later, more sophisticated generations call magic."9 Fowden also reassembled the archive from which many of the so-called Greek Magical Papyri derived.10 In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own.11 In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was.12 The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions:

I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain.13

As a result of the conference, Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki decided to jettison the term magic in favor of ritual power, whatever that term may mean.14 In 1993, Robert Ritner's doctoral dissertation was published. It contained an extensive critique and revision of notions about "magic" in ancient Egypt and a warning about and po lemic against imposing universal categories derived from studies of one culture onto studies of another culture.15 In 1994, Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith published a collection of translations of Coptic counterparts to the so-called Greek Magical Papyri.16 This collection included an introductory essay by Edmund Meltzer, which argued that because of "the loaded, evaluative connotation of 'magic' as false, deceptive, discredited, or morally tainted" in contrast with science and religion, "'magic' is relegated to the 'they' side of a 'we/they' dichotomy. This is simultaneously unfair to the materials and practices studied under the heading of 'magic,' and self-serving for the materials (mainly those we identify as 'our own') that are exempted from that label. It perpetuates a complacent double standard."17 In 1995, twin studies by Robert Ritner18 and William Brashear19 showed that the manuscripts Morton Smith had identified as indicative of a ple thora of wandering Greek "magicians" all came from Egyptian temples (most of them from a single find); the so-called Greek Magical Papyri are Egyptian religious papyri from a temple archive and thus should not be considered Greek and need not be considered "magical." A lemma to this conclusion is that no class of wandering Greek "magicians" ever existed; thus the evidence of Jesus (and consequently of Joseph Smith) as a magician needs reassessment. A 1997 reevaluation of "magic" by Michael F. Brown concluded that "the traditional distinctions between magic, science, and religion have outlived their utility and, in fact, represent an obstacle to deeper understanding."20 In fact, "the index to the volumes of the American Ethnologist published between 1985 and 1989 lists more references under 'fisheries' (two) and 'tattoos' (one) than under 'magic' (none). Such a decline of interest . . . reflects irreversible changes that have taken place within anthropology."21 So much has the field changed that Brown stated at the beginning of his survey that he resisted the temptation "to argue that magic doesn't exist" "only with great difficulty."22

These important publications give good reasons to reevaluate Quinn's stance on Joseph Smith with a very skeptical eye. Quinn, however, has chosen to ignore the recent developments and has now published a second edition of his "obstacle to deeper understanding." But to say that Quinn remains unrepentant and has refused to correct his errors would be an understatement. If anything, the problems with the first edition have only compounded in the second. Only a few of the numerous mistakes in the book can be detailed here. The reader can only wonder what has caused a once-talented author to write utter nonsense.

One might construct an analogy of historical books to buildings. The hypothesis is the foundation, the sources are the building materials, and the logic is the design. Quinn has erected an unsightly edifice on Mormon history. The design is faulty, the foundation is shifting, and the building materials are warped and misshapen. Although Quinn's sources range in quality from superior to inferior, he places far too much weight on the inferior materials, and the way in which he mishandles even good materials causes concern. Experience in checking his sources has revealed time and again that Quinn cannot be trusted to quote his sources correctly.23 For Quinn, there is no citation without misrepresentation. Every quotation, every reference, every source, every detail in every statement Quinn makes must be checked for accuracy. To test every brick in Quinn's edifice, only to discover that most of them are sponges, is hardly a proper occupation for mortals. The instances of Quinn's erroneous quotations that will appear in the course of this review will have to be taken as representative of the whole.24 Quinn's distorted logic mars the entire structure of his thesis, but most of this review will concentrate on the lack of a solid foundation to Quinn's thesis, for without an adequate foundation Quinn's structure will not stand and deserves to be condemned despite the protestations of those unfortunate wandering souls who have chosen to seek shelter under it. To that end, I will examine one of Quinn's poorly concealed agendas and his heavy reliance on nonstandard definitions and the fallacy of equivocation. In the process we will also glance at other assorted absurdities that Quinn parades as historical research.

Quinn the Apologist

One could consider this book to be the result of Michael Quinn's skewed view of reality. Quinn has "always seen [him]self as a Mormon apologist" (p. xi) and "a conservative revisionist in the writing of Mormon history" (p. xvii), although few others see him this way.25 The anti-Mormon John L. Smith, for instance, refers to "D. Michael Quinn who evidently believes little of Mormonism."26 On the other side of the spectrum, Stephen E. Robinson noted that Quinn's book manifested "a total lack of any pro-Mormon bias. . . . Quinn is clearly no LDS apologist. There is not a single page of the main text that would appear to be motivated by loyalty to the LDS church or its doctrines or to be apologetic of the Church's interests."27 Unfor tunately, Quinn shows no sign of having understood either this fact or the reasons for the criticism of his book in the first place, and thus he is very defensive in his second edition. If anything, Quinn is now even less loyal to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than in the last edition.

The origins of this book might provide a clue to this lack of loyalty. Stephen Robinson noted of Quinn's first edition that

Quinn must have begun his research when he still had the Hofmann letters and the salamander to serve as the rock of his hypotheses. It was those solid, indisputable historical documents that would give credibility to the rest of his data and make his case come together. Quinn's speculative notes would merely hang like decorations on the solid mass provided by the Hofmann documents, and the greater would justify the lesser. However, as Quinn approached publication, the Hofmann materials were pulled out from under him, leaving a huge salamander-shaped hole in the center of his theory. . . .

With the salamander letter and other Hofmann materials, Quinn had a respectable argument; without them he had a handful of fragmented and highly speculative research notes. It appears to me that when he was faced with the choice of seeing months of research go down the drain for lack of a credible context to put it in or of putting the best face on it and publishing anyway, Quinn simply made the wrong choice. This would explain why his remaining arguments are so strained and the scanty evidence so overworked. This would explain why the book is such a methodological nightmare. Having lost the turkey at the last minute, Quinn has served us the gravy and trimmings, hoping we won't notice the difference.28

Robinson was on target with his criticism.29 The Hofmann forgeries inspired Quinn's interest in researching the subject in the first place (see p. xx). With the discovery of the forged nature of the source documents, one appropriate response would have been to trace the accusations of "magic" in early Latter-day Saint history to their basis in forgery and dismiss those accusations out of hand. Having undeniably invested a good deal of time and effort in research, Quinn believed "the historical issues these forgeries first raised still require a careful re-examination of other evidence" and thus produced his book (p. xx). In doing so, he apparently felt that accepting the modern charges of "magic" at face value and then claiming that Joseph Smith was guilty but excusable because everyone was doing it was an appropriate line of defense. The anti-Mormons predictably loved this type of "apologetics" and promoted it.30 Several individuals both in and out of Mormon apologetics questioned Quinn's line of defense as it did not seem to them to be a defense at all. Indeed, it rather reminds one of that species of argumentative fallacy of the genus ad hominem, known as tu quoque, "in which it is suggested that an opponent has sometimes held the view which he now opposes, or that he has adopted the practice which he now condemns" (Quinn argues that Mormons now reject the "magic" practices they once embraced);31 it does seem rather odd for an "apologist" to employ an ad hominem argument against those he is supposedly defending. Quinn's critics rightly pointed out the tortuous reasoning of the volume and the unquestioned adoption of a problematic definition of the term magic. Both anti-Mormons and apologists viewed Quinn's book as a brief for the prosecution, not the defense, which means that as an apologist Quinn failed. But he seems to have failed to comprehend both that he failed and why.

With the publication of the second edition of this work, therefore, the tone of Michael Quinn's writing takes on a distinctly defensive quality. He uses the opportunity to settle any scores with anyone he feels may have slighted,32 misrepresented, or criticized him in the past, particularly anyone who has ever viewed his work negatively. His hubris in this is, at times, breathtaking.33 Oddly, for a self-proclaimed "Mormon apologist," Quinn chose not to take issue with any of the anti-Mormons who have recognized his work as an attack on Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.34 (Does he agree with them?) On the other hand, anyone who has the temerity to question his infallibility is, in Quinn's view, ipso facto a "polemicist."35 To Quinn, accordingly, those who criticize him "don't mince words—they mince the truth" (p. x). They engage in "astonishing misreadings" (p. 334 n. 31; cf. 59), "distortions" (p. 337 n. 52), "dishonest polemics" (p. 341 n. 20), "intentional misrepresentation" (p. 334 n. 31), and a "religiously polemical campaign, not scholarly discourse" (p. 334 n. 31). (Ironically, these terms give a good description of Quinn's own work.) Quinn admits that if one of the reviewers whom he vociferously attacks had agreed with him, "I could regard him with compassion" (p. 403 n. 248). Thus those of us who do not subscribe to the dictum "When Michael Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done" will have to settle for being dismissed as "polemicists." He seems much like a soldier who, dazed in the battle, insists on attacking his comrades and is surprised that they consider him a traitor to the cause and treat him as such.36 Thus, in his second edition, if Quinn comes across as an apologist for anything, it is as an apologist for himself.37

Quinn views himself as misunderstood and persecuted for being a "heretic" (p. xiii). He sets out to defend himself, thus proving once again that

there is nothing more tedious than the spectacle of disgruntled authors complaining that they have been misrepresented or, even worse, whimpering that they have been "misunderstood." Academic authors, above all others, should be immunized from such concerns, after years of seeing the versions of our lectures we get back in blue books at the end of the term.38

Quinn's decade-long absence from academia definitely shows.

But it should not be imagined that he only views himself in this odd way. Quinn insists that Joseph "Smith's first vision occurred within the context of his family's treasure-quest" and interprets the vision as sanctioning if not promoting "a wide range of magical practices" (p. 31).39 But who, including Joseph Smith, ever took his first vision as doing anything of the sort? Readers should be aware that, as with a fun-house mirror, reality is distorted and nothing is quite as it seems in Quinn's book.

A Method for Misunderstanding

Indeed, Mrs. Smith, we must not expect to get real information in such a line. Facts or opinions which are to pass through the hands of so many, to be misconceived by folly in one, and ignorance in another, can hardly have much truth left.

Jane Austen40

It is instructive to compare Quinn's theoretical reflections about how to write history with his actual practice. Several years ago Quinn opined that

writers are certainly "dishonest or bad historians" if they fail to acknowledge the existence of even one piece of evidence they know challenges or contradicts the rest of their evidence. If this omission of relevant evidence is inadvertent, the author is careless. If the omission is an intentional effort to conceal or avoid presenting the reader with evidence that contradicts the preferred view of the writer, that is fraud whether by a scholar or non-scholar, historian or other specialist. If authors write in scholarly style, they are equally dishonest if they fail to acknowledge any significant work whose interpretations differ from their own.41

Quinn's ambitious ideal is utterly unrealistic, in my view. From personal experience, I know that it is all too easy when working with any complex subject that has any amount of secondary literature to forget about information that supports one's case, much less information that disagrees with it. Omission of such sources may or may not be honest. The point is that Quinn does not come close to living up to his own ideal. One example of many will have to suffice. Quinn begins his discussion of "magic" with a superficial and misleading look at "magic" in the Bible. Unfortunately, Quinn knows about important discussions of "magic" in the Bible42 that fundamentally alter the way "magic" is viewed but that he does not utilize in his discussion (see pp. 1-7). This is clearly a case in which Quinn has "conceal[ed] or avoid[ed] presenting the reader with evidence that contradicts the preferred view of the writer."43 In his double standard, one is reminded of another statement of Quinn's: "Dishonest apologists insist on these standards for everyone but themselves and in every subject but their own."44

His method of gathering and analyzing information guarantees a warped perspective. Often Quinn is not consistent, but when he is, his method is to gather all gossip and treat it as substantiated fact, not to sift out the eyewitness reports and rely on them. Any source, regardless of bias or veracity, is taken uncritically at face value (see, e.g., p. 45). For example, Quinn relies greatly on the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits without explaining why; it has been demonstrated from contemporary official records that those who supposedly gave them lied—not just gave inaccurate reminiscences but told blatant falsehoods.45 Why, given the fact that they are demonstrably false, should Quinn insist that "both scholars and casual readers should give greater attention to the reports by Palmyra neighbors" (p. 47)? Appa rently because so much of his case depends on them.

Another suspicious source Quinn refers to repeatedly is a money-digging agreement that Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. are supposed to have entered into in 1825. This source looks suspiciously like a forgery. The original is not known despite diligent searching. Instead, a secondhand copy was supplied by one B. Wade to the Salt Lake Tribune,46 at that time a virulently anti-Mormon newspaper, for their 23 April 1880 edition. Indeed, according to another historian, the source of the publication combined with the lack of an original make "the document's actual existence somewhat suspect."47 The presence of the supposed signature of Isaac Hale, who was always opposed to money-digging, seems unusual. Yet instead of exercising discernment or critical acumen, Quinn assumes that the document is genuine without discussing its dubious nature.

Quinn's sources cannot always be confirmed. For example, he supports one of his speculations with "early Utah folklore of the Dibble-Pierce families" (p. 44); however, a member of the Dibble family has denied to me that any such rumors as Quinn reports exist in his family.

Quinn insists that "both scholars and casual readers should give greater attention to the reports by Palmyra neighbors" because they "tend to carry greater weight than later recollections" (p. 47), but on the next page he bases his chronology and "fixed point" on the reminiscences of "cousins of Joseph Smith's wife," given fifty-five years after the fact (pp. 48, 394 n. 158).

Along with many others,48 Quinn places much emphasis on the comparison of the miracles of Jesus with the techniques from the so-called Greek Magical Papyri as establishing proof of Jesus' involvement in "magic" (see pp. 4-6). But, as already noted, since the publication of Quinn's first edition, the so-called Greek Magical Papyri have been shown to be neither Greek nor necessarily "magical" but rather to be from an Egyptian temple archive.49 Establishing a context for these documents creates major problems for those who wish to use them to establish that Jesus is guilty of "magic," since that comparison assumes that the documents are "magic" and not part of a particular religion in the first place. Now that the documents have been placed in their proper context, to argue that Jesus' practices mirror those of the Theban cache is to argue that Jesus was an Isis worshiper—an utterly absurd claim. If Quinn had been revising his book to reflect the change in current scholarship, he would have had to eliminate this section; instead, he defends the older, less-informed view, and his rearguard action seems absurd.

Equivocation Exercises

Magic, n. An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.

Ambrose Bierce50

Quinn has a definition problem. He is neither careful nor accurate in his use of words. This problem not only extends to his nonstandard definitions of polemics and polemicists51 but especially to his definitions of magic and occult. What he needs to do is select and define a term that includes all the phenomena he wishes to discuss and then discuss those phenomena. However, he has made a most unfortunate choice in the term magic, which he then defines in a deceptive, unhistorical, and fundamentally dishonest way; finally, he does not discuss all the phenomena encompassed by the term.52

A Term of Opprobrium . . .

To understand the unfortunate choice that Quinn has made, we need to understand the history of the English term magic. Magic entered the English language from French during the Hundred Years' War; the adjectival form was borrowed and quickly became a substantive. Gower preserves the French spelling magique but Chaucer anglicized it to magyk and the present spelling is attested at least as early as Dryden in 1679.53 The Old French forms magique (adjective) and magie (noun) are directly descended from the Latin forms magicus and magia, of which the practitioner is called a magus. These, in turn, are Latinized forms of the Greek words magíkos, mageîa, and magos.54 The adjective magíkos describes a magos,55 while the abstract noun mageîa describes the actions of a magos.56 The term magos entered the Greek language during the Persian war from the Persian maguš,57which originally referred to a priestly class of the Medians.58 Since the Persians and the Greeks were enemies, the term magos came into Greek with a bad if not evil connotation, and this connotation has been retained through all the terms subsequently derived from it. "Modern Western terms for 'magic,'" writes Ritner,

function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine). It is important to stress that this pejorative connotation has not been grafted onto the notion of magic as the result of any recent theoretical fancy but is inherent in Western terminology virtually from its beginning. It constitutes the essential core of the Western concept of magic.59

Brown notes that "The Western scientific tradition that spawned anthropology cultivated disdain for all that was 'magical.'"60

The Greeks were certainly not the only culture to describe the religion of another culture with a term of opprobrium that can be translated as "magic." The Old English term for magic was drycraeft, "the craft of the druids," and many of the words for magic or magician in the Hebrew Bible derive from terms for priests in other religions.61 Thus Hebrew hartummim (KJV "magicians," Genesis 41:8, 24; Exodus 7:11; 9:11; Daniel 1:20; 2:2) comes from Egyptian (hry-hb.t) hry-tp "chief lector priest."62 Hebrew aššapîm (KJV "astrologers," Daniel 1:20; 2:2) comes from Akkadian ašipu, a type of priest sometimes translated "exorcist."63 Hebrew kasdîm (KJV "Chaldeans," Daniel 2:2) is apparently related to Akkadian kaldu "Chaldeans" and refers to an ethnic group. To label a group's religion as "magic" is merely to tar it with a pejorative label. It is therefore unsurprising that individuals and groups react negatively when their particular beliefs are labeled "magic."64 "For non-dogmatic religions the very notion of 'heresy' would be either meaningless or irrelevant. The inherent bias of this category has long been recognized. The same recognition must now be extended to that of magic."65

Recognition of the fundamental negative bias of the term that Quinn has chosen to employ is something that he fails to acknowledge in either edition. Instead, he rationalizes the accusation of "magic" and "occult" by saying that "millions of Americans living today have turned to systems of the occult" and other forms that he sees as "magic" (pp. xvi-xvii). But would these individuals identify themselves as being involved in "magic" or "systems of the occult"? Given that Quinn includes "Jews, Christians, and Mormons" among his millions (p. 326), the answer is probably not. Since witch-hunts are not a thing of the past, such accusations are irresponsible. As Quinn's book was being prepared for publication, the press issued reports from several towns in Indonesia, where hundreds of people, including Muslim clerics, were murdered by mobs because someone accused them of practicing "magic."66 This problem also persists in Africa. One might, accordingly, accuse Quinn of reckless endangerment with a loaded term. Quinn should not bandy the terms magic and occult about without regard to their polemical implications.

. . . Used Contrary to Its Historical Context

One of Quinn's problems is that he discloses little about the current discussion of the use of the term magic. The debate among scholars revolves about whether the term can be used as a legitimate scholarly category, and if so, what it means. Among those who decide that the term can be used, absolutely no consensus exists about what it means,67 nor has such a consensus ever existed. Thus "magic" becomes an equivocator's paradise. When John L. Smith says that person X practices "magic," he merely means that person X is not a Baptist. When Edward Tyler says that person X practices "magic," he means person X believes in more than the mere existence of supernatural powers. Both Tyler and Smith would see the other as practicing "magic" while neither would view himself as practicing "magic." The problem this presents for the historian is determining for each individual who uses the term what that individual means by it. To this end, various scholars have developed definitions of magic that differ substantively from each other.

Noah Webster. Although Quinn trumpets his use of the definition of magic from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, this is actually anachronistic. The 1828 dictionary by Noah Webster at least comes from Joseph Smith's time. Noah Webster gave two definitions of magic, the first of which is "The art or science of putting into action the power of spirits; or the science of producing wonderful effects by the aid of superhuman beings, or of departed spirits; sorcery;68 enchantment. [This art or science is now discarded.]" (italics and brackets in original).69 This piece of information undercuts Quinn's entire thesis, for either Webster was incorrect in assessing the situation in his own day—which seems unlikely, as Webster's use is supported by the use in Palmyra—or the widespread practices that Quinn discusses from Webster's day were not considered "magic" by Webster and his contemporaries. The second definition Webster gave for magic is "the secret operations of natural causes."70 It should be noted that the definitions given by Noah Webster are completely different from the Webster's definition that Quinn claims to use (see p. xxiii).

Tylor. E. B. Tylor, the father of anthropology, viewed "'magic' as misapplied logic."71 Quinn rejects this approach and similar approaches "marred by [a] judgment-filled use of 'rational' as the alternative to 'magical'" (p. xvii).

Frazer. James Frazer saw religion and magic as opposites. "By religion," he understood

a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life. . . . in so far as religion assumes the world to be directed by conscious agents who may be turned from their purpose by persuasion, it stands in fundamental antagonism to magic . . . which take for granted that the course of nature is determined, not by the passions or caprice of personal beings, but by the operation of immutable laws acting mechanically. . . . It is true that magic often deals with spirits, which are personal agents of the kind assumed by religion; but whenever it does so in its proper form, it treats them exactly in the same fashion as it treats inanimate agents—that is, it constrains or coerces instead of conciliating or propitiating them as religion would do.72

Quinn considers, but ultimately rejects, this definition (see pp. xxv—xxvi).

Durkheim. For Emile Durkheim, the only thing that kept him from saying that "magic is hardly distinguishable from religion; . . . and consequently that it is impossible to separate them and to define the one without the other" was "the marked repugnance of religion for magic."73 The difference between "magic" and religion centered on the question of a church: "There is no Church of magic. Between the magician and the individuals who consult him, as between these individuals themselves, there are no lasting bonds which make them members of the same moral community. . . . The magician has a clientele and not a Church."74 At times Quinn follows Durkheim, claiming that "They [i.e., the magic worldview and the practice of magic rituals] do manifest a personal religious focus, rather than institutional (Church) emphasis" (pp. xxi—xxii) and that Durkheim's distinction was "more useful" than other approaches to "magic" (pp. xxvi, 344 n. 47), while on the same page decrying the "difficulty" that arises when individuals "tend to equate 'religion' with 'church'" since "this excludes from religion any beliefs and practices that may be inherently religious but which occur outside the church or outside a religious 'mainstream'" (p. xxvi). Durkheim dealt with this issue,75 but Quinn ignores his treatment and thus misses precisely Durk heim's point: "by showing that the idea of religion is inseparable from that of the Church, it makes it clear that religion should be an eminently collective thing."76 One is left to wonder if Quinn understood Durkheim.

Malinowski. Bronislaw Malinowski was an influential figure in anthropology. He gave what he considered to be "a prima facie distinction between magic and religion. While in the magical act the underlying idea and aim is always clear, straightforward, and definite, in the religious ceremony there is no purpose directed towards a subsequent event."77 Malinowski's is therefore a goal-oriented definition; practices with specific goals are magic, those without are religious.

Goode. William J. Goode noticed the various definitions of magic and tried to synthesize them into a continuum. In doing so, he proposed eleven different definitions, but refrained from establishing a mechanism for the continuum. His definitions follow:

1. Concrete specificity of goal relates most closely to the magical complex. . . . Religious goals do lean more heavily in the direction of "general welfare", "health", "good weather", and eschatological occurrences.

2. The manipulative attitude is to be found most strongly at the magical pole, as against the supplicative, propitiatory, or cajoling, at the religious pole.

3. The professional-client relationship is ideally-theoretically to be found in the magical complex. The shepherd-flock, or prophet-follower, is more likely in the religious.

4. Individual ends are more frequently to be found toward the magical end of this continuum, as against the groupal ends toward the other.

5. The magical practitioner or his "customer" goes through his activities as a private individual, or individuals, functioning much less as groups. At the religious extreme pole, groups carry them out, or representatives of groups.

6. With regard to the process of achieving the goal, in case of magical failure, there is more likely to be a substitution or introduction of other techniques. Stronger magic will be used, or magic to offset the countermagic of enemies, or even a different magician. . . .

7. Although the practitioner may feel cautious in handling such powerful forces, a lesser degree of emotion is expected at the magical end of this continuum. This may be described as impersonality. At the religious end, one expects a greater degree of emotion, possibly awe or worship.

8. The practitioner decides whether the process is to start at all, toward the magical pole. Toward the religious, the ritual must be carried out. . . .

9. Similarly, the practitioner decides when the process is to start, in the case of magic, more often than in the case of religion. . . .

10. Defined as instrumental by the society, magic is thought of as at least potentially directed against the society, or a major accepted group within it, or a respected individual in good repute with the gods. Religious rituals are not thought of as even potentially directed against the society or such respected people.

11. As a final, ideally distinguishing characteristic, magic is used only instrumentally, i.e., for goals. The religious complex at its ideal pole, may be used for goals, but beyond that the practices are ends in themselves.78

Some of Goode's criteria make no sense in certain contexts. Is prayer a professional-client or a shepherd-flock situation? Quinn is aware of Goode's work (see p. 344 n. 47) but mischaracterizes it as "centered on ethics and personal conduct" (p. xxvi).

Ritner. Ritner rejects the definition that Quinn employs as "the imprecision of modern parlance" and demonstrates that the definition is completely inadequate.79 He also rejects Frazer's theory because "by virtue of its reductionistic nature, it is incapable of distinguishing the difference in magical practices of one culture or era from another."80 Furthermore, it "fails to account for the remarkable persistence of the 'pathetic or ludicrous' activities which he finds so devoid of truth or value."81 Ritner also points out the deficiencies of the definitions of E. E. Evans-Pritchard as inappropriate for anything other than the Zande of the Sudan and laments that Evans-Pritchard's students and colleagues failed to follow his "'emic' approach 'whereby definitions, distinctions, and values are derived from the actors themselves rather than imposed on them by the observer.'"82 Ritner also rejects the theories of Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Jonathan Z. Smith, and David Aune, which "stigmatize magic as anti-social and illegal behavior" since "neither is correct" as far as Egypt is concerned.83 But then, neither are they satisfactory as far as Joseph Smith is concerned. Ritner notes that several anthropologists "would dispose of the category of 'magic' altogether."84 Ritner thinks that "if magic is to be retained as a category in the study of Egyptian thought, it is because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which they—not others—identified with the Western concept of magic: hik," and its earlier equivalent HkA.85 Ritner adopted the working definition: "For the purpose of this study, any activity which seeks to obtain its goal by methods outside the simple laws of cause and effect will be considered 'magical' in the Western sense."86 Yet, Ritner notes that

The shift from pharaonic HkA to Coptic hik represented far more than a linguistic development. If the Coptic pairing of hik and magia opens the way for the legitimate use of the term "magic" in Egyptology, it must not be forgotten that this equation entailed the adaptation of native terminology to accommodate a Roman category further transformed by Christian belief. . . . one may thus speak of indigenous "Egyp tian magic" only with explicit restrictions.87

Thus even under Ritner's working definition, "the use of HkA could hardly be construed in Egyptian terms as 'activity outside the law of natural causality' since HkA is itself the ultimate source of causality, the generative force of nature. It is the notion of HkA which unites the tenets of Egyptian religion to the techniques of Egyptian religion."88

Quinn. Responsible scholars who insist that "magic" can remain a viable category in discussions of any given culture assert that careful attention must be paid to the meaning of the term in both the specific culture studied and the specific culture for whom the scholar is writing. Brown cautions, "The historical circumstances that shaped the concept of magic in the West are by no means universal, suggesting that the term should be applied to practices in other social settings only with the greatest care."89 Stephen Ricks concludes that

"magic," "magician" and related terms describing prac tices mentioned in the Bible remain useful designations in discussions of the life of ancient Israel as long as one takes into consideration the internal categories of the writers of the Bible itself, retains a sensitivity to the subjective nature and potentially pejorative connotations of these terms, and remains aware of his or her own presuppositions in applying them.90

Ritner, too, notes that

one may thus speak of indigenous "Egyptian magic" only with explicit restrictions. Unqualified use of the term necessarily indicates only the Roman, Christian, or modern concept superimposed on ancient practice. But while for both Romans and Christians it was meaningful to speak of "Egyp tian magic," the significance and range of such "magic" will have been interpreted differently even by these groups who shared the same terminology but not the same ideology. For either group, even the "orthodox" practices of the other were dismissed as magia. The modern discomfort with the category "magic" is the direct legacy of the inherent subjectivity of this Roman concept.91

Thus, according to Ritner, "Egyptian 'magical' acts are best understood as the technique of religion."92 While I may not follow the guidelines of Brown, Ricks, and Ritner, these authors are at least careful, respectable, and responsible in their approach, unlike Quinn. Quinn's book lacks a careful analysis of what individual nineteenth-century writers meant by the use of the term magic and fails to compare and contrast what they meant.

Instead of a careful analysis of what the term magic meant in Joseph Smith's day, Quinn has made the unfortunate choice of Webster's Third New International Dictionary as the source of his definition of magic (see pp. xxiii, 341—42 n. 20).93 One can see why Quinn would prefer this definition since, while the academic definitions used in scholarly monographs usually try to be as specific and precise as possible in defining a term, a dictionary normally tries to derive a definition that will encompass all the ways in which a term might have been used. Since Quinn appears to want as broad and vague a definition as possible, he uses the dictionary. Still, the dictionary is a bit too broad in some respects and too narrow in others, and so Quinn eliminates any notion of trickery from this definition and quotes Professor Ritner to support this elimination (see p. xxiii). This is ironic not only because Ritner has published extensive critiques of the application of magic as a universal category,94 but also because on the very page Quinn cites, Ritner discusses how inappropriate the definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary for magic is in toto, not just in the part Quinn wants to eliminate.95 Quinn's elimination of any notion of trickery is unfortunate in another way since that was an important part of the definition in Joseph Smith's day.

Quinn's exclusion of trickery from his definition of the term magic puts his definition and analysis directly at odds with what Joseph Smith's neighbors meant by the term magic. (I cite these neighbors not for the veracity of their accusations but for their historical use of terminology.) For example, one early anti-Mormon whom Quinn cites,96 Pomeroy Tucker, used the term magician to refer to a "young imposter" who led "his dupes," "a selected audience of ignorant and superstitious persons," through "mystic ceremonies" with "some sort of a wand in his hand,"97 and who played "tricks" that were "sufficiently artful" that they "were not too absurd for the credence of his fanatical followers"98 as part of a "long-continued and astonishingly successful career of vice and deception."99 Tucker viewed Smith's actions as mere "performance," his followers as "victims of the imposture,"100 and concluded that "it certainly evidences extraordinary talent or subtlety, that for so long a period he could maintain the potency of his art over numbers of beings in the form of manhood, acknowledging their faith in his supernatural powers."101 The one concrete example of a "magical" practice that Tucker deigns to give is a "scheme" to obtain "fresh meat."102 In other words, when Pomeroy Tucker accused Joseph Smith of "magic," he did so in precisely the sense that Quinn has deliberately excluded.

To take another example, when E. D. Howe talks about "the arts of necromancy, jugling [sic],"103 it is apparent that Howe means "necromancy" not in the sense of "the art of revealing future events by means of a pretended communication with the dead" but of "enchantment; conjuration."104 He uses "jugling" in the sense of "to practice artifice or imposture,"105 for he refers to the individual as "the young impostor" and his followers as "sturdy dupes"106 and their way of life as "humbug."107 So Howe too—although he does not use the term magic—is interested only in the sense of the word magic that Quinn disallows.

Use of the term magic and associated terms in Palmyra in Joseph Smith's early days clearly shows that Tucker and Howe are not alone in their use of the term. "Magic" was not believed to exist as a genu ine power. An 1812 quotation by Aaron Willey cited by Quinn also shows not—as Quinn would have it—that "magic" was widespread in northeast America at the beginning of the nineteenth century but that it was believed to be mere illusion or pretence:

There are men, now and then to be met with in New England, who profess a familiarity with magic. By the aid of this, they pretend to perform wonders; as raising and laying infernal spirits; disclosing the future events of a person's life; discovering of thieves, robbers, runaways, and lost property, with many others of a like nature.108

In general, "magic" and associated terminology were synonymous with imposture, as the following quotations from the local newspaper show:

The good and bad signs foretold by conjurors & fortune tellers, and so alarming to old women, the prognostications of good & bad weather, by Almanac-makers, &c. are hardly worth the notice of our good common sense people.109

The use of the term conjuror in this report is completely in harmony with Noah Webster's 1828 definition—found under the alternate spelling of conjurer—as "one who pretends to the secret art of performing things supernatural or extraordinary, by the aid of superior powers; an impostor who pretends, by unknown means, to discover stolen goods, &c. Hence ironically, a man of shrewd conjecture; a man of sagacity."110

To see strange lights, is a sign that there is something to cause them, or that your head is disordered; and that somebody will surely die after it.

To see an apparition, or to be bewitched is an incontestible evidence that you are lacking in common sense.111

The general sense of apparition in Joseph Smith's day was "a ghost; a specter; a visible spirit."112 The term bewitch, however, had two meanings: "to gain an ascendancy over by charms or incantation," a sense ascribed to "ignorant people"; and "to deceive and mislead by juggling tricks or imposture."113

I must still endeavor to support, that fortune-telling is a useful art, and an art that may be very easily acquired. . . . By paying due attention many will be enabled to tell their own fortunes, by which means they will save the expense of buying it of knaves and conjurors.114

Such statements indicate that Palmyra residents, following widespread belief, did not normally condone "magic" and equated it with trickery, the very thing that Quinn excludes by definition. Quinn posits that "anti-occult rhetoric by early American opinion-makers (clergy, legislators, jurists, newspaper editors, book authors) may have been the embattled effort of an elite minority to convert a vastly larger populace that was sympathetic to the occult" and then explicitly assumes this view to have been the case (p. xiv). But his assumption and a demonstration of the soundness of that assumption are two different things. The interlocking use of the terms by both the townsfolk and the learned does not bear him out. Significantly, although the supposed writers of the Hurlbut and Howe affidavits—such as Joseph Capron, Willard Chase, Isaac Hale, Henry Harris, Peter Ingersoll, Roswell Nichols, David Stafford, Joshua Stafford, William Stafford, and a host of others115—accuse Joseph Smith of "digging for money,"116 they do not accuse him of "magic," just as earlier newspaper accounts do not describe money-digging as "magic" but as "an honorable and profitable employment" in Vermont.117 Joseph Smith admitted that he was involved in digging for money (see, for example, Joseph Smith—History 1:56), but he does not admit to being guilty of "magic." The accusation of "magic" against Joseph Smith—in the sense that Quinn proposes—would seem to be an entirely modern contrivance, anachronistically imposed by Quinn and others upon Joseph Smith, since in Joseph Smith's day the accusation of "magic" merely meant that they believed Joseph Smith was a fraud and not a prophet.

Quinn's misunderstanding of the meaning of several related terms leads him to erroneous conclusions. For example, he notes that New York law included among "Disorderly Persons" "all jugglers [conjurors], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover lost goods" (pp. 26—27, brackets in Quinn). Although Quinn misquotes the law, two other sleights of hand are more damning. The first is that the "Act for apprehending and punishing disorderly Per sons" is much broader; I quote larger extracts of it here, putting Quinn's quotation in italics and the corrected version of the portion he misquotes in bold:

all persons who threaten to run away and leave their wives or children to the city or town, . . . and also all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; and all persons who run away and leave their wives or children . . . ; and all persons wandering abroad . . . and not giving a good account of themselves, and all persons wandering abroad and begging, and all idle persons not having visible means of livelihood, and all common prostitutes shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons.118

The meaning of the term jugglers in this act (passed in 1788) is probably identical to the meaning of the term in the 1819 "Act to suppress Common Showmen, Mountebanks, and Jugglers," which act made it illegal in New York "for any person or persons, to exhibit or perform, for gain or profit, any puppet show, wire dance, or any other idle shows, acts or feats, which common showmen, mountebanks or jugglers, usually practise or perform."119

The second sleight of hand is that Quinn glosses the term jugglers as conjurors when it is clear from nineteenth-century usage cited above that a "juggler" is one who "practice artifice or imposture";120 thus the current equivalent of "juggler" would be "con artist." John S. Fullmer, in writing to Josiah Stowell Jr. in 1843, noted that "It is here stated and verily believed, that he, Smith, was a gambler, a Black leg, a notorious horse jockey, an adept at the slight [sic] of hand or juggling,"121 to which Josiah Stowell Jr. responded that Joseph Smith "never gambled to my knowledge; I do not believe he ever did. I well know he was no Hoars Jocky for he was no Judge of Hoarses; I sold him one. that is all I ever knowd he dealt in the kind. I never new him to git drunk; I believe he would now and then take a glass. he never Pretended to Play the Slight of hand nor Black leg."122 Thus, John Fullmer and Josiah Stowell Jr. both understood juggling as a form of deception. Significantly, Stowell, whose principal association with Joseph Smith was as an employee in his father's money-digging venture, denies Joseph's involvement in deception and thus in what was "magic" for the residents in Palmyra. Quinn has juggled the meaning of the term.

That some of his Palmyra neighbors might have thought Joseph was involved in deception should not be surprising since Quinn makes a good case that, in Joseph Smith's day, visions were considered to be of the devil or delusional (see pp. 8—9). This is confirmed in Webster's1828 dictionary, in which a vision is "something imagined to be seen, though not real" or "something imaginary; the production of fancy."123 A vision was allowed to be "a revelation from God" only "in Scripture."124 But this is nothing new. Joseph Smith reports that a Methodist minister treated the report of his vision of God "not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles" (Joseph Smith—History 1:21).

The evidence shows that Joseph Smith's neighbors included in their understanding of the term magic only those senses of the word that Quinn has deliberately chosen to exclude. Quinn does not bring forth evidence to show that Palmyra residents would have expanded the meaning of the term to include what Quinn includes in his dictionary definition, much less expanded it further, as Quinn does, to include "the related disciplines of alchemy, astrology, and medicine based on alchemical/astrological principles" (p. xiii), except to the extent that they likewise considered these to be impostures. "Certain scholars," complains Ritner, "have tended to lump together all manner of 'superstitious' activities within the realm of 'magic.'"125 Quinn fits into this mold of scholarship, perhaps because he admits that he finds it "difficult to distinguish between manifestations of magic and of religion" (pp. xxii; see xxiv—xxv). Thus Quinn also fails to distinguish between the "many variations" in his "magical world view" (p. xxi). But if manifestations of "magic" and religion are so difficult to distinguish and the former term conveys such a negative connotation, why bother distinguishing them at all? Why not simply drop the term and category of magic?

Most of the phenomena that fall under Quinn's definition of magic he fails to discuss, and most of the phenomena that Quinn discusses do not fall under his definition of magic. For example, Quinn omits any discussion of prayer in early Mormonism, although prayer was certainly thought to have "supernatural power to cause a supernatural being to produce or prevent a particular result" (p. xxiii) and thus falls under Quinn's definition of magic. And yet he has not shown that seer stones or astrology or divining rods were thought to fit this definition. Since these activities do fit under the category of divination, why not just call them divination? Why use the more polemical term?

Quinn is also fascinated by astrology and wishes to include it in his definition.126 Quinn relies heavily on astrology to demonstrate a nineteenth-century fascination with "magic" (see pp. 21—24). Unfor tunately for Quinn, however, astrology is not "magic" under anyone else's definition—certainly not under the nineteenth-century definition, in which astrology was "a science which teaches to judge of the effects and influences of the stars, and to foretell future events."127 His long excursuses on the subject are therefore both irrelevant and misleading: irrelevant because they do not deal with the topic Quinn's book is ostensibly about and misleading because they try to show that "magic" was widespread by showing that astrology was widespread.128

Quinn still argues that, "consistent with his [Joseph Smith's] astrologically recommended time to father children, most (and possibly all) of Emma's children were conceived in either February or September when their father's ruling planet of Jupiter governed sexual generation"—but this is true only if he assumes that certain children were born prematurely the exact number of months necessary to fit them into his Procrustean bed (p. 79). However, Quinn ignores other activities that Joseph was involved in and how they might influence the birth of his children. It does turn out that about nine months before his children were born, Joseph Smith was actually at home rather than on a mission or visiting Saints in Missouri or the East or Canada. In September 1835, Joseph Smith had just returned from visiting the Saints in Michigan, and about nine months later, on 20 June 1836, Frederick Granger Williams Smith was born. In Sep tember 1837, Joseph Smith returned from his mission to Canada, and about nine months later, on 2 June 1838, Alexander Hale Smith was born. As a father himself, Quinn surely should realize that Emma's menstrual cycles have more to do with the birth of Joseph Smith's children than any zodiacal cycles. Given Joseph's travel schedule and the fact that only a 15 percent chance of conception exists for any given menstrual cycle, does anyone seriously want to argue that the predominant factor in the birth of his children is astrology? If this were the case, we would expect Joseph and Emma to have had far fewer children than they did.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by clarkkent14 »

Is Magic a Useful Term?

Quinn's definition and use of the term magic demonstrate that his book is a large-scale exercise in the fallacy of equivocation. Of course, without the use of his equivocating term of opprobrium, Quinn has no subject to write about, and thus no book. For this reason, Quinn devotes some of his most hostile writing to those individuals who have pointed out that this emperor's "magic" clothes are not really there.

In his hostility, Quinn fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the arguments made against his muddled position. Quinn makes the following claim: "Ricks and Peterson . . . suddenly decided that the amorphous term 'ritual' was the ideal substitution for 'magic' and 'occult.' Since then, they have been joined by fellow FARMS writer John Gee (an Egyptologist-in-training [sic]), who has made this proposal more emphatically. The three FARMS writers advocate that 'religion' and 'religious rituals' should substitute as terms for 'magic' and 'magic practices'" (p. xxvii). But Quinn is emphatically wrong. And since he seems not to have understood my argument and my point of view, let me lay it out here: I do not think nor have I proposed that "'ritual' [is or] was the ideal substitution for 'magic' and 'occult'" (contra Quinn's assertions; pp. xxvii—xxviii). Nor do I think that the meaningless euphemism "ritual power" proposed by Meyer and Mirecki is an acceptable substitute (as Quinn implies on p. xxvii). I find the term magic to be a Proteus-like pejorative appellation and a worthless, vacuous, meaningless classification for phenomena. There is no agreement on what magic means. The term magic is used as a club to beat one's religious opponents over the head. In practice, defining magic becomes a shell game; whenever the definition is shown to be defective, it is abruptly changed. Furthermore, the "magic" game is always rigged so that, no matter which definition is chosen, it is never allowed to apply across the board to any religion and belief. And, since the definition is allowed to shift freely, discussions of "magic" usually become textbook examples of exercises in equivocation and fertile breeding grounds for special pleading and poisoning the well. I have found that dropping the term completely without substituting anything in its place loses nothing—and usually gains considerably—both conceptually and practically.129 The term magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it.

The first thing that Quinn should have done to improve his book would have been to drop the term magic from the title, the introduction, and the text. This action would have gone some way toward lessening the fallacious equivocation that runs through the entire marrow of this tome. Since "magic" in Joseph Smith's day was synonymous with "deception" and "imposture" and was not thought really to exist—and this is true both of the educated and uneducated in Palmyra and elsewhere—there is no "magic world view" (Quinn admits that he cannot distinguish it from religion anyway, pp. xxi—xxii, xxiv—xxv), and Quinn has no topic about which to write a book. His entire approach to the subject is irreparably flawed.

Furthermore, since "magic" and "imposture" are synonymous in the view of Palmyra residents, Quinn, by pushing the connection between Joseph Smith and "magic," informs his readers, starting with the title of his book, where he stands on the question of whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or a fraud. This is an odd position for a self-described "Mormon apologist" (p. xi) to take.

Quinn on the "Occult"

The term occult is another word on which Quinn equivocates. While in Joseph Smith's day occult meant "hidden from the eye or understanding; invisible; secret; unknown; undiscovered; undetected,"130 its meaning has changed to be "of the nature of or pertaining to those ancient and mediëval reputed sciences (or their modern representatives) held to involve the knowledge or use of agencies of a secret and mysterious nature (as magic, alchemy, astrology, theosophy, and the like)."131 In current usage, the term occult has a distinct quality of ill repute, and among large segments of English speakers it is used as a synonym for satanic. Current usage would dictate caution in employing the term since nineteenth-century usage may not resemble current usage and will thus possibly be misunderstood. Quinn ignores such considerations.

Whatever its definition, Quinn sees the "occult" everywhere. Even Moby Dick, which to most people is simply a long boring book that is supposedly great literature, contains "a hidden sub-text of complex occult meaning," according to Quinn (p. 10), although what that might be is a topic Quinn does not elaborate on.

Quinn redefines the term occult to include "using ceremonies or objects to summon or repel otherworldly beings, the belief in witches (humans capable of summoning evil forces) and in remedies against them, the wearing of medallions or other objects for their inherent powers to bring about protection or good luck, the performance of ceremonies to find treasures, and the use of objects such as special stones and sticks to obtain information from an otherworldly source" (p. xiii). How then does he justify classifying the Rosicrucians as "occult" according to his own definition (see pp. 10—12)? What in Isaac Newton's writings leads Quinn to believe "Isaac Newton was the most involved in the occult" (p. 12)? Nothing that Quinn quotes supports the view that Newton was involved in the "occult" either as Quinn has defined it or as current usage would construe the term. Only in the archaic sense of the term, and the one that Quinn by his definition rejects, can Newton be considered to be involved in the "occult." This bait-and-switch tactic is classic equivocation and is repeated over and over again.

Environmental Explanations

How she could have been so deceived! . . . She looked back as well as she could; but it was all confusion. She had taken up the idea, she supposed, and made everything bend to it.

Jane Austen132

Quinn employs environmental explanations throughout his book. In fact, he uses environmental explanations much the way that ancient historians use them. But while ancient historians are forced to employ loose environmental explanations because of lack of evidence, Quinn does not have that excuse. Some of his explanations are quite funny—and would be even more so if he were more candid.

Quinn implies that Joseph Smith received his first vision from his environment. After all, "in 1808 Swedenborg's testimony of his theophany was on the front page of the newspaper at Canandaigua, thirteen miles from Palmyra and nine miles from Joseph Smith's home in Manchester" (p. 15)—and eight years before the Smiths moved in. So fifteen-year-old Joseph obviously read twelve-year-old newspapers whenever he visited Canandaigua. And how often was that? (By comparison, as a missionary in 1835, Wilford Woodruff traveled 3,248 miles or 8.9 miles a day.133 The year before, as a farmer, he traveled only 1,238 miles or 3.4 miles per day, almost all of which was as part of Zion's Camp.134 It seems unlikely that Joseph often made the nine-mile journey to read those twelve-year-old newspapers.) Richard Brothers's "publications reached such hinterland towns as Hanover, New Hampshire, where early Mormon leader Hyrum Smith attended school" (p. 14) for, according to Quinn, one of them was advertised for sale in a bookstore there (see p. 371 n. 130). It was advertised for sale before Hyrum was born and we have no way of knowing if anyone even purchased the book, but Quinn implies that eleven-year-old Hyrum must have learned about it in school and told the family about it. Quinn mentions visions by Billy Hibbard just 120 miles east of Palmyra, published in 1825 (see p. 15), but this is actually after Joseph Smith's first vision (1820), as are the preaching of Benjamin Putnam in Palmyra (1825) and reports of Asa Wild's visions (1825), which Quinn relates (see p. 14). What is the point of bringing these into the narrative? Quinn asserts that "in the early nineteenth century, New Yorkers obviously liked reading about youthful visions of the Father and Son" (p. 15). If this were so, how does Quinn explain the persecution that Joseph Smith received for reporting his vision? He doesn't.

Actually, in some cases Quinn simply fails to provide the environmental explanation that some think he does. For example, despite a lengthy discussion of the use of seer stones (see pp. 30—65), he fails to provide any evidence that anyone in nineteenth-century New York (or even New England) besides Joseph Smith claimed to use a seer stone to translate a document from a foreign language. Yet Joseph Smith's use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon is generally the only use of a seer stone, under whatever name, that Latter-day Saints care about.

An Alternative Environmental Explanation

Based on the best of circumstantial evidence, Quinn concludes that since there were books on "magic" for sale in Joseph Smith's vicinity, Joseph Smith must have been involved in "magic." This is not good enough. He must demonstrate that Joseph Smith actually read specific books and that they influenced him. On the other hand, several works do connect Joseph Smith to "magic," whatever that may be, on the basis of Hofmann forgeries. Quinn read these books. Quinn studied the Hofmann documents. Quinn even unwittingly helped in the production of the Hofmann forgeries.135 Given that some of the Hofmann forgeries were tailor-made for Quinn's theories, it is not surprising that although the Hofmann documents were forgeries Quinn concludes that they ought to have been authentic.

Quinn insists that his work, while prompted by the Salamander Letter (see pp. xi, xx), is not influenced by Hofmann forgeries (see pp. 330—31 n. 15). However, his claim rings false if for no other reason than that he still spends seven pages on salamanders (see pp. 151—57), even though Mark Hofmann claimed, "That was all from my head. White Salamander was from my head. I saw the reference to a toad and thought that a salamander was more appropriate insofar as its relationship to magic in the time period from my readings of magic."136 Thus statements like "Joseph Sr. and Jr. undoubtedly used the word 'salamander' or one of its equivalent descriptions from the occult traditions" (pp. 152—53) have no legitimate basis in any authentic historical documents.

Quinn's argument developed at a time when the Hofmann documents had not yet been exposed as forgeries and needed explanation. He repeated his argument in several interviews before the publication of his book as well as in his book, and he has only added his grudges to the second edition. But the argument that Quinn advances is identical to the arguments that Jerald and Sandra Tanner put forth before the publication of the so-called Salamander Letter, arguments that were also based on Hofmann forgeries. The environmental explanation for Quinn's book being based on Hofmann forgeries is stronger than the environmental explanation Quinn puts forth for Joseph Smith being involved in "magic." I may be wrong about Quinn, but he is much more likely to be wrong about Joseph Smith.

Caveat Lector

Brigham Young told the Saints, "I would advise you to read books that are worth reading; read reliable history, and search wisdom out of the best books you can procure."137 Brother Brigham is echoing the words of scripture, to "seek . . . out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118). Quinn's book is not one of these. And it is the obligation of a book reviewer to point out whether a book is good or bad and to provide some reasons why. If the reader wants "an outlandish distortion of the historical facts"138 and "an obstacle to deeper understanding,"139 then the reader is welcome to this book.

Quinn and his supporters will probably dismiss any of the criticisms raised in this review with the wave of a hand, saying that the reviewer is "polemical" (read "disagrees with Quinn") or associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies or Brig ham Young University. This will not do. I have the same degree (Ph.D.) from the same institution as Quinn (Yale), but, unlike Quinn, I actually took coursework on "magic" and have given papers at international conferences on "magic." Quinn and any supporters must deal with the fact that his understanding of "magic," whatever that may be, is completely opposed to the understanding of "magic" held by the residents of Palmyra in Joseph Smith's day. Quinn's examination of the phenomena, rather than placing the phenomena in historical context, disregards the relevant historical context.

A far more prominent and more widely read writer of books on "magic" closed one of her novels with an appropriate thought. "It is our choices," wrote J. K. Rowling, "that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."140 Quinn has made several choices: He chose his arcane subject. He chose to pursue the connection of Joseph Smith with "magic" even after the major evidence for such, the Hofmann documents, was shown to be forged. He chose to give preference to idle gossip rather than solid, firsthand sources. He chose to distort his sources on the Procrustean bed of his thesis. He chose to use an anachronistic and misleading definition of the term magic that would allow him to equivocate in his use of the term. He chose to equivocate in his use of that term and other terms. He chose to construct a "magical world view" that would have been unintelli gible to the nineteenth-century farmers of Palmyra. He chose to ignore the advice of his friends and his publisher and produce the first edition. He chose to resign his professorship. He chose to publish a second edition. He chose to castigate those who pointed out the flaws in his work rather than correcting those flaws. Quinn is where he is because of his choices. I only hope the reader chooses more wisely.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

Post by Rosabella »

ndjili & clarkkent14

Thanks for the added research posts. They are very excellent and detailed. I hope people will read them all the way though. They hold lots of important data. They reflect what I am trying to say very well :)

Post Reply