The Idiocy of Modern Mormonism.

[_Mister Scratch]

You're right, Ray. If Kerry were genuinely interested in "balance" and "context" and things of that nature, then he'd always be sure to salt his praise of DCP with criticisms of The Good Professor's gossipmongering, and his smear tactics, his l-skinny behavior, his collection of payment for Mopologetics, and so on. But, Kerry doesn't do this.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

But how can you praise someone when you think his work is the equivalent of the Mark Hofmann forgeries?

Where have I *ever* equated Quinn's research with the Hoffman Forgeries? You are misinterpreting what I said, obviously. I never made this point at all. I said Quinn based some of his materials on the Hoffman forgeries, I did not equate them. There is a vast....utterly VAST difference. Scartch himself obviously is oblivious of it as I see in his worthless rant.

[_rcrocket]

You're right, Ray. If Kerry were genuinely interested in "balance" and "context" and things of that nature, then he'd always be sure to salt his praise of DCP with criticisms of The Good Professor's gossipmongering, and his smear tactics, his l-skinny behavior, his collection of payment for Mopologetics, and so on. But, Kerry doesn't do this.

Oh, this is so precious. And disturbing and troublesome.

[_Ray A]

Ray A

But how can you praise someone when you think his work is the equivalent of the Mark Hofmann forgeries?

Where have I *ever* equated Quinn's research with the Hoffman Forgeries?

Bill Hamblin certainly did:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries.

Do you agree with Bill?

[_JustMe]

Ray A

Here's the real problem in the case of Quinn, and I hadn't realised he was actually "under surveillance"

The ultimate red herring having absolutely nothing to do with Quinn's errors. weaknesses, and writings. This is no real problem to the issue I have with Quinn in any manner.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

Do you agree with Bill?

Please provide the actual context of his remark first. I know Bill rather quite well, and his conclusions are always in a context which critics refuse to acknowledge. Thanks.

[_Ray A]

Please provide the actual context of his remark first. I know Bill rather quite well, and his conclusions are always in a context which critics refuse to acknowledge. Thanks.

The references can be found at the end of his review, That Old Black Magic.

You referred to Quinn's "errors, weaknesses, and writings", so let's look in some more detail at what others have said.


Klaus J. Hansen, Church History:

A 1985 memorandum circulated within the Mormon educational system acknowledged: "Even if the letters were to be unauthentic, such issues as Joseph Smith's involvement in treasure-seeking and folk magic remain. Ample evidence exists for both of these, even without the letter."

It was these events that provided the impetus for Michael Quinn's magisterial study of early Mormonism and the magic world view. As he himself writes, "This study attempts to address and examine, among other issues, the kind of evidence the church's education bulletin described as 'ample.'" The truly stunning mass of evidence Quinn has assembled in this tour de force no doubt had not been envisioned by the authors of the bulletin. Quoting sociologist Daniel L. O'Keefe to the effect that "a thousand sources are not enough to cover the universe of magic," Quinn has produced a bibliography of over sixty pages. Discriminating and sophisticated in his use of this evidence, Quinn has divided it into four categories: direct evidence from friendly and unfriendly sources, magic artifacts used by the Smith family, and parallel evidence: environmental, literary, and historical. Quinn demonstrates convincingly that the first generation of Mormons shared a magic world view predating Mormonism, much of which, inevitably, was incorporated into the new religion. This world view changed rather dramatically and suddenly in the 1880s and was replaced by a modern, rationalistic outlook: a perspective shared by modern Mormons and historians of Mormonism, both religious and secular.

Thus his work, among other things, is an important contribution to a continuing debate about the relationship between Mormonism and American culture.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Carma Wadley, Deseret News:

His book attempts to set the founding of the LDS Church into this magical world view context—when such things as astrology, treasure hunting or use of seer stones was common practice. Don't look in this book for a lurid, sensationalized account of how Joseph Smith practiced magic. The book is scholarly all the way (in fact the constant citing of sources wears a bit thin and is distracting—I would have preferred notes at the end of each chapter).

There are places where Quinn may make too much of the magical view. But he is breaking ground here, and it may be left to others to put the questions into proper perspective. Quinn raises a lot of questions, and doesn't satisfactorily deal with a couple of the big whys: for example, why was the magical world view so important to early Americans, and why did it decline? But he does deal with one intriguing issue: if these practices were important in the early church, should they be important today?

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Alan Taylor, Dialogue:

In a challenging and thorough reinvestigation of Christian magic's role in early Mormonism D. Michael Quinn, a devout Mormon as well as a skilled historian, boldly steals a march on his faith's critics and reveals an escape from the defensive trap. After an exhaustive exploration of an often dense and difficult evidentiary thicket, Quinn emerges with his faith not merely unscathed but reinvigorated. Building upon the pioneering work of Richard L. Bushman, Donna Hill, Marvin S. Hill, Jan Shipps, and Ronald W. Walker, Quinn concludes that both anti-Mormons and defensive Mormons have shared a mistaken premise: that folk magic in the early American republic was an irrational and irreligious challenge to Christianity. He shatters that premise by carefully documenting—principally from Mormon sources—how inextricably interwoven magic and faith were in both the folk Christianity of Joseph Smith's youth and in the Mormon church of his maturity.

Quinn draws upon a broad array of evidence to make his case. He accepts the evidence in the affidavits of contemporary but hostile witnesses when they describe the actions of the Smiths (rather than their presumed motives) and when the hostile accounts are compatible with the testimony of friendly observers—especially Martin Harris, Lucy Mack Smith, and Brigham Young. Indeed, Quinn points out that the Smiths' folk magic can be thoroughly documented exclusively from the observations of early Mormons convinced that magic enabled their prophet to contact the divine (pp. 146, 194-95).

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Mark S. Joy, Journal of the West:

In this substantial study, D. Michael Quinn, professor of American History at Brigham Young University and award-winning scholar of the history of Mormonism, attemps to put the involvement of Smith and other eraly Mormons in folk magic into the proper historical perspective.

Beyond the obvious points of interest here for those specialists in the study of Mormonism, the book has definite broader values. Scholars of religion in America, and of American culture generally, have not fully appreciated the extent to which the magic world view persisted into the eraly nineteenth century. Quinn, with an impressive attention to bibliography could serve as a general introduction to the scholarly literature on Mormon history as a whole as well as illustrations of artifacts, literature, and individuals associated with folk magic are a valuable resource for those new to this subject.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Newell G. Bringhurst, Pacific Historical Review:

D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is an extremely important 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.

The book also illuminates an important and heretofore unexplored side of Joseph Smith's complex, often elusive personality, thus enabling students of early Mormon history to understand Mormonism's founder in greater depth.

a seminal study, one of the most significant books yet written on Joseph Smith and early Mormon origins. It commands the attention of all students of Mormon history in particular and American religious history in general.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Jan C. Dawson, Pacific Northwest Quarterly:

Also of considerable general interest is Quinn's thesis that the institutionalization of Mormonism in 1830 gradually increased the number of Protestant evangelical converts who rejected magic, thus decreasing the influence of the original converts from the ranks of folk magic practitioners and other churchless "religious seekers" (p. 224).

The weight of Quinn's evidence and the erudition he displays in interpreting it make plausible his argument that the early Mormons' magic world view represented continuity in rather than conflict with America's prevailing religious ethos.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

R. Laurence Moore, Religious Studies Review:

A lot more is questioned in this fine book by Michael Quinn than whether high-level Puritan ideas and attitudes, sweeping out of New England, much affected the development of American culture. It reflects an interest to explore the persistence of occult and magical beliefs in a world overtaken by science.

Scholars who have worked on antebellum religion know how difficult it is to find the right tone. One of the impressive things about D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is that Quinn has done that. Quinn knows more about magic and occult lore, as it circulated in antebellum America, than any of the authors under review.

Quinn is a Mormon, although a somewhat embattled one. He set out to explain something vital about Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism, and incurred, like Fawn Brodie had almost a half century before, the wrath of his church. The result was lamentable but predictable. After all, Quinn proves that the contents of the now infamous "salamander letter," fabricated though they were, were perfectly consistent with magical and occult views entertained by Smith and his family.

His argument, however, is an extremely good one and has implications for cultural interpretation that go well beyond the origins of Mormonism.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

Paul M. Edwards, Saints Herald:

This book contains a beautifully researched and articulated account of an age of magic, folk tales, and the occult. What the author discovered in his fully documented journey is that the world of Joseph Smith and his family was a world of supernatural creatures and events, signs and symbols, rituals and procedures, and magic (both black and white).

Somehow I was expecting more from this book—perhaps because I have heard D. Michael Quinn speak on several occasions, and each time he referred to the soon-to-be-completed work as containing the "full story." Yet, I do not feel he has given us the whole story. No doubt, he has presented the facts (he is an exceptionally fIne scholar and is, above all else, a careful researcher).

Having made this complaint, I would point out that this book is the most significant work done to date on the important questions of magic and Mormons. It is well worth reading, and Signature Books is to be complimented both for its publication and for making it available at a reasonable price.

Hamblin:

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history.

I've only covered about half the reviews, but all of the others are similar in establishing:

1) That Quinn is a reputable historian/scholar.

2) That Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview was a groundbreaking and important book.

3) That it laid the foundation for all future work on this subject.

Yet Hamblin writes:

Although I do think Quinn is a bad historian, it is not because he has gone to graduate school, nor because he is a revisionist, nor because he has been excommunicated from the LDS Church. I think Quinn is a bad historian solely because he writes bad history. For me the struggle is not between history and faith, but between authentic history and false history. Even if I were an unbeliever, I would find Quinn's history unbelievable, not because of faith—or lack thereof—but because of evidence and analysis. Quinn's revisionist history offers no alternative to traditional Mormon history, New Mormon history, nor even anti-Mormon history. All scholars of the Mormon past—whether faithful Latter-day Saints or agnostic, secular, skeptical, or evangelical individuals—should be able to agree on at least one thing. Quinn has monumentally failed to make his case for the influence of magical thought on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism.

I don't believe that. And every other reviewer disagrees with Hamblin that Quinn is a "bad historian".

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray A

Do you agree with Bill?

Please provide the actual context of his remark first. I know Bill rather quite well, and his conclusions are always in a context which critics refuse to acknowledge. Thanks.

It's from Hamblin's novella-length smear article entitled "That Old Black Magic":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=364

I recognize, of course, that all historians make mistakes. There are undoubtedly errors in this article and other things I have written. Futhermore, I am not saying that Quinn is completely wrong on everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, errors and misrepresentations of this magnitude simply transcend the usual limits of the mortal condition. Something is seriously amiss. Without careful checking, it is impossible to be sure than Quinn has accurately read and represented any of his sources.

In a very real sense Quinn's book is an academic version of the Hofmann forgeries. It is an attempt to foist a fabrication upon the scholarly community as authentic history. It is a travesty whose labyrinth of misrepresentation will require years of work for scholars to unravel. I can only advise, in the strongest terms, that scholars use Quinn's work with the greatest caution, if at all. All of his references and citations need to be examined for accuracy. None of his conclusions should be taken at face value.

I think you will agree that this goes far, far beyond difference of opinion or scholarly disagreement. This is borderline slander. I hope that Bill Hamblin has repented for this article. Certainly, I know that I get a very dark feeling whenever I peruse it.

[_Mercury]

If you want happiness in life - avoid religion like the plague. Because it will emotionally, mentally, and spiritually devour you, until there's nothing left to own in your soul.

Otherwise known as Intellectual Materialism. Clinging onto crap.

Interesting that you refer to the LDS church as a "cult," but I would counter that with all religions being cults. Especially with our modern understandings, all religions fit that much better.

Humans need a global awakening, a realisation of their place in the universe -- their true power, not all this sin and guilt rubbish. We need to connect, rather than be divided. We can do this if we approach spirituality scientifically.

Approaching spirituality scientifically? What?

that's like trying to study leprechauns or fairies through photography. Tell ya what. You stop hitting the Alex Jones crackpipe and then come and have a talk with your old uncle Mercury. At that point once you have detoxed the stupid out of you I cna clue you in on what Scientific means.

Until then you are still a wandering soul, an imperfect Ashlar waiting to be trued up.

[_Ray A]

The ultimate red herring having absolutely nothing to do with Quinn's errors. weaknesses, and writings. This is no real problem to the issue I have with Quinn in any manner.

Another view of Quinn as historian, from Dean Jessee (who made two contributions to the MI, listed under "Transcripts and Featured Publications", and "Book Chapters"), writing in the Journal of Mormon History, Fall 1996, commenting on the 1st volume of the Hierarchy books:

"Few historians have been in a better position to study the Mormon past than D. Michael Quinn. With degrees in English and history, including a doctorate at Yale, employment in the LDS Church Historical Department and wide-ranging access to its holdings, a dozen years of teaching history at BYU, and painstaking research in seventy-five repositories (he lists them), Quinn has spent a substantial part of his life studying Mormon history. This book and a second volume to follow are the outgrowth of research that led to a master's thesis, continued through a doctoral program, and is the crowning accomplishment of thirty years work....

"The Mormon Hierarchy is a valuable contribution in terms of identifying sources and understanding the groundwork of the organizational structure.... While Hierarchy has laid important groundwork, the definitive study remains to be written."

Why wasn't someone like Jessee asked to write a review of Quinn's book for the Review? Or was he asked?

Commenting on Quinn's second volume, Duane Boyce calls it A Betrayal of Trust. No praise is offered, only criticism. I couldn't find any review of Quinn's first volume.

I think Boyce does make some valid criticisms, and I think you may be thinking I'm ignoring all of the criticisms. I'm not. But it's the language of the reviewers I'm focussing on, like "a betrayal of trust"? The fact that's there's never any acknowledgement of the good points of Quinn's works is what makes many of these reviews seem "defensive", rather than objective.

Changing course slightly, Australian historian Manning Clark has been as controversial here as Quinn has been in Mormon academia. He was considered by some to be a "left wing" historian, and at the other end of the scale was Geoffrey Blainey, considered to be an "orthodox historian".

In regard to Clark:

This meant that left-wing intellectuals and commentators generally praised his work, while right-wingers increasingly condemned it, in both cases often without much regard to the merit of the work.

Perhaps that's what's happened in Quinn's case. I haven't always praised everything Quinn has written, and regardless of faults, I think most still consider him among the most prolific and knowledgeable of Mormon historians in the 20th century.

As a postscript, Clark's later * work was eventually judged to be inferior, and this was recorded in his Wiki entry:

The attacks on Clark were not entirely politically motivated. Clark's professional reputation as a historian declined during the later period of his life, and the final two volumes of the History were given scant attention by other serious historians, regardless of their political views. This was not because they were seen as too "left-wing," but because they were seen as verbose, repetitive and with few new insights to offer. Clark's publisher at MUP, Peter Ryan, maintains that leading historians acknowledged to him in private that the later volumes of the History were inferior work, but would not say so publicly out of respect for Clark, or out of a reluctance to give ammunition to the political attacks on him. "By the time Volume V was published in 1981, this approached the proportions of a professional scandal. Quadrant, for example, asked five of Australia's leading historians to review it, and received five more of less identical replies: 'It's a terrible book, but you can't expect me to say that in print."

Contrary to popular belief, although Quadrant published two of my articles, I've never totally aligned with their political ideas. They launched a "campaign" to discredit "left wing" historians who wrote what came to be described as "the black armband view of Australian history". I think both sides made valid points, and I'm not really inclined to say one is right and the other wrong. I leave that to the idelogues, of both the Right and Left. And I think this is what may have happened in Quinn's case, thus "apologetic writers" sought to discredit him.

* I edited this mistake, and I think it's an important point to note that Clark declined as he aged, but his works overall have never been discredited.