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
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 »

Avid Disciple wrote:The following two quotes are from Jon Butler’s review of MAGIC AND THE COMPLEXTITIES OF MORMON HISTORY EARLY MORMONISM ANDTHE MAGIC WORLD VIEW
by D. Michael Quinn
“Quinn’s argument brings both Mormonism and American religious history more tightly within the Western intellectual and religious orbit, meaning the expansive West of Europe, not the narrower confines of Utah.”
“It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.”
The following quotes are from Amazon.com’s editorial review of Quinn’s book
“ The trouble I see with Quinn’s book and Jon Butler’s review of it is that Quinn’s arguments seem strongly to support the hypothesis of organic evolution. By suggesting that Joseph Smith was involved in aspects of magic or the occult and that this practice was a major factor in the development of Mormonism is to imply that Mormonism owes is particular character including its theology, doctrine and sacred practices not to divine deliberation, but to human predisposition and cultural background. I do not deny that preexisting culture influenced the evolution of popular Mormon culture, but I feel very concerned by the disturbing suggestion that essential core characteristics of Mormonism as a faith system were produced not by express revelation, but by organic cultural evolution..
I agree w this.
And movements that try and say that The Restoration was a man made concoction will one day realize the error of their ways.
I actually feel bad for them.

njb

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 »

jmullens wrote:Why was Quinn excommunicated? ?
He was and is openly Gay.

njb

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

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

Post by ereves »

Avid Disciple wrote:The following two quotes are from Jon Butler’s review of MAGIC AND THE COMPLEXTITIES OF MORMON HISTORY EARLY MORMONISM ANDTHE MAGIC WORLD VIEW
by D. Michael Quinn
“Quinn’s argument brings both Mormonism and American religious history more tightly within the Western intellectual and religious orbit, meaning the expansive West of Europe, not the narrower confines of Utah.”
“It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.”
The following quotes are from Amazon.com’s editorial review of Quinn’s book
“Quinn, a practicing, believing, Latter-day Saint and former professor of history at Brigham Young University, convincingly demonstrates that magic had a strong influence on the course and development of Mormonism as founded by Joseph Smith.”
“Quinn, moreover, goes one step further in presenting convincing evidence that Smith, in defining and setting out many of Mormonism's important and often distinctive doctrines and practices, utilized elements from his "folk magic world view."
These quotes demonstrate that Mr. Butler and Mr. Quinn see the development of Mormonism at least in part not as a divinely orchestrated advent, but as a cultural development that evolved organically out of existing human traditions. Orthodoxy asserts that Mormonism was not an organic human development, but a divinely inspired and directed dispensation. The trouble I see with Quinn’s book and Jon Butler’s review of it is that Quinn’s arguments seem strongly to support the hypothesis of organic evolution. By suggesting that Joseph Smith was involved in aspects of magic or the occult and that this practice was a major factor in the development of Mormonism is to imply that Mormonism owes is particular character including its theology, doctrine and sacred practices not to divine deliberation, but to human predisposition and cultural background. I do not deny that preexisting culture influenced the evolution of popular Mormon culture, but I feel very concerned by the disturbing suggestion that essential core characteristics of Mormonism as a faith system were produced not by express revelation, but by organic cultural evolution. Not that I believe this hypothesis, I do not. What concerns me is the damage it can do in helping pull or drive people out of the church and/or prevent otherwise good people from even considering Mormonism as a possible truth. They way I see it, either one believes that the core characteristics of the Mormon belief system were revealed and not prefigured by folk magic or any other cultural tradition, or one maintains that Mormonism including all of its core doctrines and practices is not a divinely-revealed dispensation, but rather just one more man-made religion that came about as a natural development from existing cultural roots. To believe the second of these hypotheses is to cease to be a believing latter-day saint. If I believed this about Mormonism, there would be absolutely no point in my remaining a member of the church. In fact I would prefer not to be. If all religions are culturally and humanly defined, then I would prefer not to have any religion at all. I might even prefer to question the validity of spirituality and adopt a scientifically atheistic world view.

In summary, to believe Quinn’s conclusions that Mormonism was significantly influenced by folk magic is to support the idea that Mormonism’s core faith system did not come about totally by revelation, but at least in part by cultural evolution.

There is another even more disturbing implication of this theory. The New Spirituality maintains that divine truth is found in incomplete form in every religion of the world. They maintain that such practices as folk magic and pagan worship are actually quite pure representations of this truth and indeed more pure than its representation in orthodox religions. The danger in Quinn’s writing is that the reader may take away a strong conviction that modern Mormonism has veered away from its founding character and that folk magic is somehow more pure than the spirituality of the modern church. Quinn in later writings applies the same argument to homosexuality being acceptable in early Mormonism and that the modern church has lost its way. These arguments are the core arguments of the New Spirituality and feed right into their plans to redefine all religions as mere flavors of a central universal truth, that has allegedly existed since the beginning of time and which is now being taught in its fullness by the New Spirituality.

Whether Quinn knowingly and intentionally pursued this objective or whether he was at least partially unwitting in his provision of support for the agenda of the New Spirituality is not as important as the damage this does not only to the faith of members, but also to the missionary effort. I disagree with those who claim one can still believe the church is true and also embrace the hypothesis that it evolved out of the occult, unless one also believes that the occult is the “real” truth and Mormonism only a man-made approximation.
Thanks for your well thought out post Avid Disciple. You concerns are understandable but ultimately the question is what the truth is, regardless of where it leads us. Having said that, I don’t think the idea that culture influenced the origins of the church (or has continued to influence it throughout its growth) necessitates any sort of discreditability surrounding the church. For all we know it could have been Joseph Smith’s openness to these kind of things that allowed him to be an effective instrument in establishing the church. In any case we should seek to understand it if it is true, not avoid it merely because it is not convenient. I would quote Butler once again, “It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.”

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

Welcome back Avid Disciple it's been too long.
Apart from its Mormon roots, Covey's products and programs are problematic for the Christian due to Covey's promotion of New Age teachers and practices.
Actually I think you would enjoy Bella's sites. The New Age movement has already easily seeped into mainstream Christian congregations. In fact the books that Bella recommends and has links to red for free, as from mainstram christians.

I recommend
Reinventing Jesus Christ
Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow
A Twist of Faith

The notion that the church is too New Agey and there for they wont listen to us is a little silly once you read what is happening right now and has been happening for the last 20 years from the mainstream christian pint of view. The books are good though you will really like them.

I agree w this.
And movements that try and say that The Restoration was a man made concoction will one day realize the error of their ways.
I actually feel bad for them.

I agree.

Quinn is a man with very questionable character. Agan I dont understand how people defend Quinn when much of his writings are attacking the heirarchy of the church.

gruden
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1763

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

Post by gruden »

ndjili wrote:Do you think the LDS Church has occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets in their Faith?
Could we just as well ask if occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets are variations/approximations/corruptions of true doctrines, practices and rites that are of God? It's not a one-way street.

gruden
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1763

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

Post by gruden »

Avid Disciple wrote:These quotes demonstrate that Mr. Butler and Mr. Quinn see the development of Mormonism at least in part not as a divinely orchestrated advent, but as a cultural development that evolved organically out of existing human traditions. Orthodoxy asserts that Mormonism was not an organic human development, but a divinely inspired and directed dispensation. The trouble I see with Quinn’s book and Jon Butler’s review of it is that Quinn’s arguments seem strongly to support the hypothesis of organic evolution. By suggesting that Joseph Smith was involved in aspects of magic or the occult and that this practice was a major factor in the development of Mormonism is to imply that Mormonism owes is particular character including its theology, doctrine and sacred practices not to divine deliberation, but to human predisposition and cultural background. I do not deny that preexisting culture influenced the evolution of popular Mormon culture, but I feel very concerned by the disturbing suggestion that essential core characteristics of Mormonism as a faith system were produced not by express revelation, but by organic cultural evolution.
As I posted in the other thread that lead to this one, I think Quinn's research is good, but his conclusions are poor, which you stated so well. In these things does Quinn profess the things of God but denies the power thereof. It just goes to show that our weaknesses can inhibit development of true faith, as it clearly did for him.

For those who have read Snuffer's books, he basically says the same thing.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

Could we just as well ask if occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets are variations/approximations/corruptions of true doctrines, practices and rites that are of God? It's not a one-way street.
agreed.

I have much family that is not mormon but mainstream Christian (methodist, non-denominational, pentecostal, baptist)

I know a big this for most Chirstians is they believe that you have to take Jesus Christ on as your own personal savior to be saved. They believe that since we have a different view of just what the Godhead is (i.e. we dont belive in the nicene creed) that we dont believe in the correct Jesus Christ and are going to Hell.


Again mainsteam Christianity especially the youth seem to have no problem with allowing New Ae doctrine itself into their religions and thuly mold heir own views of religion. As long as they are saved and believe in Jesus they are good.

Sad truth is there are many Mormons that are doing the same.

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 »

gruden wrote:
ndjili wrote:Do you think the LDS Church has occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets in their Faith?
Could we just as well ask if occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets are variations/approximations/corruptions of true doctrines, practices and rites that are of God? It's not a one-way street.

Well that's only obvious, and because we live in a world of opposites, I think HF let Joseph learn the difference between the 2.

Once Joseph figured that out, he moved on-and was given much more knowledge, truth, visions, messengers, revelations etc from HF -as we all know.

It was an inadvertent learning curve for Joseph, that's all.

As members we should accept that, and not fall apart like a three dollar watch.

njb

User avatar
Avid Disciple
captain of 10
Posts: 24

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

Post by Avid Disciple »

ereves wrote:
Avid Disciple wrote:The following two quotes are from Jon Butler’s review of MAGIC AND THE COMPLEXTITIES OF MORMON HISTORY EARLY MORMONISM ANDTHE MAGIC WORLD VIEW
by D. Michael Quinn
“Quinn’s argument brings both Mormonism and American religious history more tightly within the Western intellectual and religious orbit, meaning the expansive West of Europe, not the narrower confines of Utah.”
“It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.”
The following quotes are from Amazon.com’s editorial review of Quinn’s book
“Quinn, a practicing, believing, Latter-day Saint and former professor of history at Brigham Young University, convincingly demonstrates that magic had a strong influence on the course and development of Mormonism as founded by Joseph Smith.”
“Quinn, moreover, goes one step further in presenting convincing evidence that Smith, in defining and setting out many of Mormonism's important and often distinctive doctrines and practices, utilized elements from his "folk magic world view."
These quotes demonstrate that Mr. Butler and Mr. Quinn see the development of Mormonism at least in part not as a divinely orchestrated advent, but as a cultural development that evolved organically out of existing human traditions. Orthodoxy asserts that Mormonism was not an organic human development, but a divinely inspired and directed dispensation. The trouble I see with Quinn’s book and Jon Butler’s review of it is that Quinn’s arguments seem strongly to support the hypothesis of organic evolution. By suggesting that Joseph Smith was involved in aspects of magic or the occult and that this practice was a major factor in the development of Mormonism is to imply that Mormonism owes is particular character including its theology, doctrine and sacred practices not to divine deliberation, but to human predisposition and cultural background. I do not deny that preexisting culture influenced the evolution of popular Mormon culture, but I feel very concerned by the disturbing suggestion that essential core characteristics of Mormonism as a faith system were produced not by express revelation, but by organic cultural evolution. Not that I believe this hypothesis, I do not. What concerns me is the damage it can do in helping pull or drive people out of the church and/or prevent otherwise good people from even considering Mormonism as a possible truth. They way I see it, either one believes that the core characteristics of the Mormon belief system were revealed and not prefigured by folk magic or any other cultural tradition, or one maintains that Mormonism including all of its core doctrines and practices is not a divinely-revealed dispensation, but rather just one more man-made religion that came about as a natural development from existing cultural roots. To believe the second of these hypotheses is to cease to be a believing latter-day saint. If I believed this about Mormonism, there would be absolutely no point in my remaining a member of the church. In fact I would prefer not to be. If all religions are culturally and humanly defined, then I would prefer not to have any religion at all. I might even prefer to question the validity of spirituality and adopt a scientifically atheistic world view.

In summary, to believe Quinn’s conclusions that Mormonism was significantly influenced by folk magic is to support the idea that Mormonism’s core faith system did not come about totally by revelation, but at least in part by cultural evolution.

There is another even more disturbing implication of this theory. The New Spirituality maintains that divine truth is found in incomplete form in every religion of the world. They maintain that such practices as folk magic and pagan worship are actually quite pure representations of this truth and indeed more pure than its representation in orthodox religions. The danger in Quinn’s writing is that the reader may take away a strong conviction that modern Mormonism has veered away from its founding character and that folk magic is somehow more pure than the spirituality of the modern church. Quinn in later writings applies the same argument to homosexuality being acceptable in early Mormonism and that the modern church has lost its way. These arguments are the core arguments of the New Spirituality and feed right into their plans to redefine all religions as mere flavors of a central universal truth, that has allegedly existed since the beginning of time and which is now being taught in its fullness by the New Spirituality.

Whether Quinn knowingly and intentionally pursued this objective or whether he was at least partially unwitting in his provision of support for the agenda of the New Spirituality is not as important as the damage this does not only to the faith of members, but also to the missionary effort. I disagree with those who claim one can still believe the church is true and also embrace the hypothesis that it evolved out of the occult, unless one also believes that the occult is the “real” truth and Mormonism only a man-made approximation.
Thanks for your well thought out post Avid Disciple. You concerns are understandable but ultimately the question is what the truth is, regardless of where it leads us. Having said that, I don’t think the idea that culture influenced the origins of the church (or has continued to influence it throughout its growth) necessitates any sort of discreditability surrounding the church. For all we know it could have been Joseph Smith’s openness to these kind of things that allowed him to be an effective instrument in establishing the church. In any case we should seek to understand it if it is true, not avoid it merely because it is not convenient. I would quote Butler once again, “It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.”
Thank you for your response. I am of the opinion that the only way to really know if the church’s particulars are divine in origin or not is to ask God. Logic and sophistry and an appeal to worldly evidence will never resolve it, as the evidence has, in my opinion, been too-well tampered with. It is Lucifer who tries to persuade people to his camp using logic and sophistry. I am not saying that purported evidence should not be considered, but I am saying that if I have asked God and received an answer that the church and its foundations are divine in origin and not arising from cultural evolution, then I will regard any purported evidence or proof to the contrary as fallacious and not to be trusted. I would believe the revelation of God over even the strongest of logical or evidential proof to the contrary and would die for that testimony, though the whole world and a mountain of documents and “historical” artifacts conspired to prove me wrong.

User avatar
Avid Disciple
captain of 10
Posts: 24

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

Post by Avid Disciple »

I wish to reiterate that I do not only reject Quinn's arguments that would suggest that the Church "evolved" out of cultural roots, rather than was revealed by God, but I also question the validity of much of Quinn's primary sources, since many are quotes taken out of context and others are documents of dubious authenticity. I guess if a piece of purported evidence can be easily interpreted to go against something I have come to know directly from the Lord, then I tend to dismiss not only the author's interpretation, but the validity and value of the evidence itself. I guess what i am suggesting is, please evaluate the primary sources themselves. Do not accept them as authentic or reliable, just because Quinn does. Go back to them and require proof of their being authentic texts from the time of Joseph Smith and reliable witnesses of his actual words and actions. So many false witnesses were born of Joseph Smith during his day as there were numerous apostates who had an ax to grind and were willing to speak and write false witness to discredit him. I encourage study not of Quinn's writings, as full as they are of his own views, which I believe to be wrong, but rather study of his original sources with a really skeptical mind as to their validity. If you believe the church is true, then you believe it was revealed, not evolved out of cultural roots. If you believe that, then you must needs be highly skeptical of the value or validity of any document that would even remotely suggest otherwise.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

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

Post by ereves »

Some things need to be clarified.
Avid Disciple wrote:I wish to reiterate that I do not only reject Quinn's arguments that would suggest that the Church "evolved" out of cultural roots, rather than was revealed by God
This is not Quinn's argument at all, nor is it was the review was saying. Quinn states in the introduction that he believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be true and Joseph Smith to be called of God etc. All he's doing is showing how the world was different back then and how this could have/did affect the early saints. We, having a different worldview, should not seek to superimpose our perspective on their lives but rather seek to understand their perspective, and therefore their actions, more accurately.
Another thing is I think there is a general sense being portrayed in the thread that there is a lot of skepticism regarding the subject matter that Quinn is investigating, and while I have stated that while somethings may be uncertain, much of it is, and it is the negative reviewers for the most part and not Quinn who focus on these things.
For example, it is undisputed that Joseph Smith used his seerstone(s) often and carried one of them in particular almost always with him. His mother talks about it, literally a dozen eye-witnesses describe his use of it to translate the plates etc. D&C sections 6,8-9 have everything to do with the use of a divining rod. Joseph Smith blessed cloaks and a cane that were used among the saints to heal etc. These things are known. Quinn's book gives compelling evidence as to why we should not be shocked by them.

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 »

ereves wrote:Some things need to be clarified.
Avid Disciple wrote:I wish to reiterate that I do not only reject Quinn's arguments that would suggest that the Church "evolved" out of cultural roots, rather than was revealed by God
This is not Quinn's argument at all, nor is it was the review was saying. Quinn states in the introduction that he believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be true and Joseph Smith to be called of God etc. All he's doing is showing how the world was different back then and how this could have/did affect the early saints. We, having a different worldview, should not seek to superimpose our perspective on their lives but rather seek to understand their perspective, and therefore their actions, more accurately.
Another thing is I think there is a general sense being portrayed in the thread that there is a lot of skepticism regarding the subject matter that Quinn is investigating, and while I have stated that while somethings may be uncertain, much of it is, and it is the negative reviewers for the most part and not Quinn who focus on these things.
For example, it is undisputed that Joseph Smith used his seerstone(s) often and carried one of them in particular almost always with him. His mother talks about it, literally a dozen eye-witnesses describe his use of it to translate the plates etc. D&C sections 6,8-9 have everything to do with the use of a divining rod. Joseph Smith blessed cloaks and a cane that were used among the saints to heal etc. These things are known. Quinn's book gives compelling evidence as to why we should not be shocked by them.

yes, but joseph wasn't treasure hunting with this seer stone, or divining rods paticularly once he had the plates and had been chastised by moroni.

the world magic white magic stuff ceased to be in his life once he had the plates and realized his calling.

joseph used the seer stone occassionally for revelations and translation of the b of m-that's all.


njb

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

But also Joseph was a prophet of God and allowed to use things such as rods, like Moses was. In other words Joseph was allowed by God, through righteousness, to wield God's power and use it for God's purposes and not his own. Just like ANY prophet who was allowed to use God's power to help build the faith of a people. No one here is shying away from the gritty reality of the history of our chuch, we're disagreeing with the manner in which it is presented with conclusions that in effect say that Joseph practiced superstious folk magic instead of using the power of God with the authority to do so from God to build a people.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

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

Post by ereves »

notjamesbond003.5 wrote:the world magic white magic stuff ceased to be in his life once he had the plates and realized his calling.
But see it's your opinion the magic stopped and the religion started. If this is the case we need to figure out how, why etc. The tools stayed the same, the user stayed the same, but all the sudden we've got religion on our hand instead of magic. These are the types of issues that we should attempt to understand and that Quinn did attempt to understand.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

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

Post by ereves »

ndjili wrote:But also Joseph was a prophet of God and allowed to use things such as rods, like Moses was. In other words Joseph was allowed by God, through righteousness, to wield God's power and use it for God's purposes and not his own. Just like ANY prophet who was allowed to use God's power to help build the faith of a people.
See now we're getting somewhere.
ndjili wrote:No one here is shying away from the gritty reality of the history of our chuch, we're disagreeing with the manner in which it is presented with conclusions that in effect say that Joseph practiced superstious folk magic instead of using the power of God with the authority to do so from God to build a people.
This is the misconception that I was trying to clear up previously. This is not Quinn's conclusion.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

this quote though
But see it's your opinion the magic stopped and the religion started. If this is the case we need to figure out how, why etc. The tools stayed the same, the user stayed the same, but all the sudden we've got religion on our hand instead of magic. These are the types of issues that we should attempt to understand and that Quinn did attempt to understand
asks for such responses
ndjili wrote:
No one here is shying away from the gritty reality of the history of our chuch, we're disagreeing with the manner in which it is presented with conclusions that in effect say that Joseph practiced superstious folk magic instead of using the power of God with the authority to do so from God to build a people.

quote]

So please enlighten us all.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

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

Post by ereves »

ndjili wrote:this quote though
But see it's your opinion the magic stopped and the religion started. If this is the case we need to figure out how, why etc. The tools stayed the same, the user stayed the same, but all the sudden we've got religion on our hand instead of magic. These are the types of issues that we should attempt to understand and that Quinn did attempt to understand
asks for such responses
That was posted subsequent to yours, but in any case my post was not intended to be antagonistic.
ndjili wrote:So please enlighten us all.
Niether was that my intention. I agree that Joseph's use of seerstones valididates his role as seer rather than detracts from it, but I am far from having everything figured out. My opinion, as stated, is simply that we should discuss and seek to understand these issues.

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 »

ndjili wrote:But also Joseph was a prophet of God and allowed to use things such as rods, like Moses was. In other words Joseph was allowed by God, through righteousness, to wield God's power and use it for God's purposes and not his own. Just like ANY prophet who was allowed to use God's power to help build the faith of a people. No one here is shying away from the gritty reality of the history of our chuch, we're disagreeing with the manner in which it is presented with conclusions that in effect say that Joseph practiced superstious folk magic instead of using the power of God with the authority to do so from God to build a people.


ndjili,

I agree with most of your statement.
It's not difficult to follow the chronology of Joseph's personal life and spiritual development.

After the First Vision, Joseph confessed to silly follies in his youth, it's in his personal history, and that probably was treasure hunting around Palmyra.

And then he stopped, realizing that it was not a Godly practice, and he was to divorce himself from this type of behavior. Why? It displeased HF, Moroni and future messengers that were about to be dispatched to him-to restore the Priesthood and established the Church.

As I pointed out several times, you don't hear accusations of treasure seeking, stone peeping for buried treasures, once Joseph had the Plates-he had stopped his levity and other youthful follies.

What he did do at this point in his life, is use the Seer stone for Godly purposes, revelations and such to guide the church-not treasure hunt.

njb
Last edited by notjamesbond003.5 on February 25th, 2010, 1:37 pm, edited 2 times 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 »

ereves wrote:we should discuss and seek to understand these issues.
Agreed. I think the intention of the thread was/is to do this. I think that's why Bella put a question mark on the title: "Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?", nonetheless it's interesting stuff. I don't think I will read the book, only because I'm not interested in the content. At the moment.

gruden
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1763

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

Post by gruden »

ereves wrote:
notjamesbond003.5 wrote:the world magic white magic stuff ceased to be in his life once he had the plates and realized his calling.
But see it's your opinion the magic stopped and the religion started. If this is the case we need to figure out how, why etc. The tools stayed the same, the user stayed the same, but all the sudden we've got religion on our hand instead of magic. These are the types of issues that we should attempt to understand and that Quinn did attempt to understand.
Yes, some things did, some didn't. For instance, Joseph was very hesitant about gold hunting even prior to getting the plates, and only did so at the end at the behest of his father.

Then there are seer stones. Joseph possessed those for many years after until he became so proficient at the workings of the Spirit he no longer needed them. Nevertheless, there are historical accounts of members being guided to them by the Spirit. Many members get squeamish about the thought of him putting one in a hat to view more clearly as he translated the plates, but according to his wife Emma, that's exactly how he did it. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest, although mainstream Christians view this as more than weird.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

I think that the fact God can use imperfect man to acomlish his perfect plan is just amazing. Though I dont agree with this statement for one reason
After the First Vision, Joseph confessed to silly follies in his youth, it's in his personal history, and that probably was treasure hunting around Palmyra.
We really dont know exactly what follies he was speaking of so I myself would rather not put any opinion to that statement. ALL man have follies. I just know of some people who use information from shady sources like Quinn to excuse the use of wicked practices.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

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

Post by Rosabella »

clarkkent14 wrote:
ereves wrote:we should discuss and seek to understand these issues.
Agreed. I think the intention of the thread was/is to do this. I think that's why Bella put a question mark on the title: "Re: D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?", nonetheless it's interesting stuff. I don't think I will read the book, only because I'm not interested in the content. At the moment.

Exactly thank you. That is why I put a ? at the end. My intent was to investigate this author to see if his data is trustworthy. This thread was my discovery process. I posted what I found as I found it. Each of us have what we consider to be "reliable" sources. As a researcher I have learned to check the sources of another researcher and not take them at face value. I never want to be in the position that I relied on someone else's interpretation that lead me to a false conclusion and therefore tainting my research as possibly invalid.

There are so many question marks when it comes to Quinn. Too many variables to consider in finding him as a reliable researcher. My concern is his research is tainted by a very false belief system he had in-place during his research. There are NO objective researchers. All history is subjective. The reason is that there is so much data that is unreliable that you have to sort through to try to decide what to use.

I dare say if any of you on this thread had someone writing a biography about you, that you would be very concerned who and where they got their data from and the intent of the writer. Even if you were willing for full disclosure and did not care if all sins were revealed you would still want it to be accurate. Let's say the writer of your biography thought it was prudent to pull up all possible data on you even if it is not verifiable in any way, or took just sentences out of your journal or someone else's out of context. They could pour all kinds of data in that may be correct, yet add in some that are not even the slightest bit trustworthy. Let's say over the years there are persons that you know that are complete liars and frauds. This writer talks to them or finds materials from them that are outlandish about you but it is added. All this is put into one big pot, then certain things emphasized in the writing. Would there not be many different possible conclusions to the truth having used many different hostile sources or just pieces of data and not the whole? Would it really lead to the truth of who you really are? The writer can paint whatever picture of you they want. It is all based on their agenda.

Just because one has tons of data does not mean their work is unbiased or even accurate. Truly the use of such poor sources is a strike against the researcher. As a researcher you are to not just document everything that exists in the world on a topic, but all that exists that has merit. This seems to be the complaint of other researchers that went to Quinn's sources. They say his data did not match what he asserted, or were taken out of context or of such poor quality that the point being made would therefore be so misleading it should not have been used.




Case in point.

Quinn's interpretation and false representation:

" two who were vary friends indeed should lie down upon the same bed at night locked in each other['s] embrace talking of their love & should awake in the morning together. They could immediately renew their conversation of love even while rising from their bed.28

Quinn then quotes a parallel passage from the History of the Church, based on the notes or recollection of LDS apostle Willard Richards (pp. 87, 99 n. 19, 232, 379, 381, 410):

it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace and renew their conversation. (p. 379)29

Quinn uses these citations throughout his book, claiming that in both "same-sex bedmates" are "described by the prophet" (p. 99 n. 19). Then, without evidence to support his assertion, Quinn concludes that "the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith enjoyed bedtime snuggling with male friends throughout his life" (p. 87).
The actual full account of Joseph Smith's words:

The following from the History of the Church, based on Willard Richards's account, shows Quinn's excerpt from Joseph's sermon in italicized type in the context in which it should appear:

I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection, let me strike hands with my father, and cry, "My father," and he will say "My son, my son," as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of our graves.

And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace and renew their conversation.

Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in relation to this interesting theme? Those who have died in Jesus Christ may expect to enter into all that fruition of joy when they come forth, which they possessed or anticipated here.

So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, "My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister." And when the voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me.36

Joseph Smith describes a scene of intense joy—a family scene. The use of the expression the arms of love is significant, for it is a scriptural allusion referring to the love with which the Lord surrounds the faithful, at the resurrection or otherwise (2 Nephi 1:14-15; D&C 6:20).


What appears here is exactly what I have stated before: the uses of sources wrongly to appear to be something they are not, taking something out of context to create a "New concept". This is my grave concern with Quinn. If he does this at all anywhere in his writings he has now tainted all of his work, because if he is willing to mislead on one point he is willing to mislead on many. Can a researcher make errors? Yes, that happens all the time. But when they do a revision they revise it to fit the correction or admit their mistake. From what has been documented about Quinn is he does not fix errors or apologize for them; he stands by them as truth. He even perpetuates them, including the idea that homosexuality was accepted by the early church when it was not. He still insists that the Church has gone astray on this matter with our current leadership. In this example there is no way that it is just a mistake, it is too clear of an interpretation to argue he was not biasing the reader by holding back data. He does this multiple times asserting his thesis that homosexuality was an accepted practice of early Mormonism, completely disregarding all scriptures including the Book of Mormon, Leviticus and Romans etc. insisting that it be presented now as acceptable.

If I was to publish about Quinn I would go to the original sources that the reviewers point out to verify the reliability of the reviewers points about Quinn's writings. At this time there is no need for that as I am merely investigating the overall picture of Quinn to see if I would even consider (him) a source at all. For me he has gravely failed as any kind of viable source due not just to his writings but also to many quotes in his own words of things he has said. That does not mean that pieces of his sources are not accurate, but it does mean that Quinn as a source is not a valid opinion. His motives and agenda seem to be clearly stated even by himself.

One only needs to listen to his split tongue to know where his heart truly lies. In one breath he says the Church is true and he has a testimony and in the other breath he says that he does not agree with the Church in many core doctrinal areas. These two beliefs cannot exist in one that has a true testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

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

Post by Original_Intent »

Thanks very much Bella, that example is indeed eye-opening, and I am with you, it definitely casts a negative light on all of his work.

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 »

ndjili wrote:I think that the fact God can use imperfect man to acomlish his perfect plan is just amazing. Though I dont agree with this statement for one reason
After the First Vision, Joseph confessed to silly follies in his youth, it's in his personal history, and that probably was treasure hunting around Palmyra.
. ALL man have follies. I just know of some people who use information from shady sources like Quinn to excuse the use of wicked practices.
I have never read Quinn's work, and I have no intention of ever reading it. I read several other books on the Prophet Joseph and this how I've reached my conclusion, and guess what: it's small potatoes.

I also don't think Joseph realized that treasure seeking was wrong at that point in his life, he wouldn't learn it until later -and that's when he stopped.

njb

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

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

Post by ndjili »

Thank you, Bella and Avid disciple for presenting a good case for bias on the part of Quinn. His work is probably interesting and enlightening in many ways, yet it comes across as tainted. One poster askedy why we were afraid. Well, I'm not afraid; Quinn's work is pretty much irrelevant to me and my life. I don't care if people in the 1800's were superstitious or interested in magic. It has nothing to do with the Gospel in its fulness, does it! And I know the LDS Church did NOT evolve from magic traditions.

Post Reply