The Idiocy of Modern Mormonism.

[_Ray A]

Kerry, I've read all those reviews, and in fact have the book right in front of me. If you include the index it's 646 pages, and in my opinion contains lots and lots of very interesting information.

I would agree with most of the reviews, but to compare Quinn's book to "Hofmann's forgeries" is just way too over the top. The apologists are picking at it because they want to discredit Quinn. I never said Quinn was a perfect historian, but he has received accolades from many who don't only focus on his faults, but also his strengths.

[_Mister Scratch]

Furthermore, how much of this criticism attacks Quinn's character or professionalism (ala Hamblin)? It's fine and dandy that these reviews have a beef with the distinction between magic and religion, but that (in my opinion) is hardly the kind of attack that characterized Mopologists treatment of Quinn, both in print and on the messageboards (and in gossip situations).

[_Ray A]

You also quoted Paul Edwards. Here is the excerpt from Edwards on the back cover of Quinn's book:

A beautifully researched and articulated account of Mormonism in an age of magic, the most significant work to date on this important question.

Missing something Kerry? Like context?
>
>
>
>

[_Mister Scratch]

You also quoted Paul Edwards. Here is the excerpt from Edwards on the back cover of Quinn's book:

A beautifully researched and articulated account of Mormonism in an age of magic, the most significant work to date on this important question.

Missing something Kerry? Like context?
>
>
>
>

Ouch!

[_moksha]

What about Ray's views on Mopologetics? It seems to me that his commentary vis-a-vis religion is very closely bound up with his views on FARMS and LDS apologetic practices.

If so, this seems like inadequate criteria for judging Mormons. I personally know a lot of Mormons who do good in the world.

[_Ray A]

What about Ray's views on Mopologetics? It seems to me that his commentary vis-a-vis religion is very closely bound up with his views on FARMS and LDS apologetic practices.

If so, this seems like inadequate criteria for judging Mormons. I personally know a lot of Mormons who do good in the world.

Killing two birds with one post here. Religion is a two-edged sword. I have mixed views/feelings about it. It's a quagmire. I think it does contribute to many becoming "more civil", even if they believe that Adam talked to a snake in some fictional weed patch. The problem is, most Mormons aren't like you, Mok! Some of them talk about things like bringing back life in jail for adultery (see, for example, Bsix on MADB), and then we have the immortal BC, whose views are so skewed and right-wing that the Taliban would be seriously interested.

And then we have Church surveillance, the silencing of and excommunication of adademics (I have a friend who left the Church because of the September Six), like David Wright, a credible biblical scholar whose greatest sin was to propose that the Book of Mormon isn't historical.

Hell, do I really have to go over all this again, and post all the links again?

You get to a point where you seriously ask if it's worth trading off freedom and openness for a society of "better people".

[_Ray A]

And on my above point, I draw attention to a statement made by James E. Talmage in Jesus The Christ. Consider the phenomenon of the Pharisees, men who observed 613 laws and would not walk more than 100 yards on the Sabbath - thirsting after innocent blood! (Jesus Christ)

This is "religion"???

The point is metaphorical, but it's so true of religion today.

[_JustMe]

Kerry, I've read all those reviews, and in fact have the book right in front of me. If you include the index it's 646 pages, and in my opinion contains lots and lots of very interesting information.

I would agree with most of the reviews, but to compare Quinn's book to "Hofmann's forgeries" is just way too over the top. The apologists are picking at it because they want to discredit Quinn. I never said Quinn was a perfect historian, but he has received accolades from many who don't only focus on his faults, but also his strengths.

Yes, I understand that. I am just noting that Quinn has faults that FARMS gets accused of, while the likes of QUinn is presented more or less as objective, factual, and very strong. He is strog, in some cases, but he isn't strong in others.

[_JustMe]

You also quoted Paul Edwards. Here is the excerpt from Edwards on the back cover of Quinn's book:

A beautifully researched and articulated account of Mormonism in an age of magic, the most significant work to date on this important question.

Missing something Kerry? Like context?

Justme:
Not at all. I quoted him properly. It was realistic yet negative. All accolades for Quinn are fine, but I also see the weaknesses. Why ignore them? Perhaps *you* are missing the context.

[_Ray A]

Here's the real problem in the case of Quinn, and I hadn't realised he was actually "under surveillance" until I read Collier's comments, later confirmed by Mister Scratch's quoting Lavinia Fielding Anderson's biography of Quinn (which I haven't read).

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC) is a committee of general authorities who monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church. If criticism is found, the committee may forward information to local church authorities, who may bring charges of apostasy, which can result in excommunication.

The committee was formed sometime during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson (Time 1994), soon after Benson became president in 1985 (Quinn). The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry. The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). In response, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee (St. Petersburg 1992). LeFevre said that the committee "receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that 'conceivably could do harm to the church'", then the committee will "pass the information along to the person's ecclesiastical leader." According to LeFevre, however, "the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties." Discipline is "entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders." (St. Petersburg 1992)

SCMC

Here are Quinn's remarks from his PBS interview:

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. (My emphasis)

PBS.

The unbalanced and over the top attempt by apologists to discredit Quinn seems to me to be just be an extension of trying to shut him up. And I don't buy the excuse that all the apologetic reviews were negative, "because Quinn was negative". All of the other reviews I've read praised him where praise was due. But how can you praise someone when you think his work is the equivalent of the Mark Hofmann forgeries?