D.Michael Quinn is still a target by DCP

[huckelberry]

Well, I will agree with Mike, this title, "still a target by DCP"is weird. At sic and non, Somebody other than Peterson brings up the book and he references a review he wrote nearly forty years ago.

I imagine two possible reasons for this odd mistitle. One, subject matter gets slow sometimes so people figure, complain about Peterson, the subject is always there. The other possibility is that a genuine desire to discuss "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" is looking for a starting point to open discussion.

Kiskumen, In which world do you see "Golden Ass" ? Is it in a magic world view that is more extreme that early Mormonism? Apologists look at overlap between Christian or formal religion and magic world view. What about a magic world view that is seen as more fundamentally real? Is it possible that Joseph Smith thought of himself as Magus?

It has been a long time since I read Golden Ass. I found it spooky in its approach to magic transformations. It could just be mainly tall tale telling. Sort of like Castenada's books which may have been influenced by the older story.

[Bought Yahoo]

It was literally peer reviewed by Peterson and Ricks. I really wish you weren’t what you are sometimes.

- Doc

This is straight up twilight zone stuff.

That is not peer review.

[malkie]

I liked the book and read it. But, not being peer reviewed I see the book for what it is, mainly.

It was literally peer reviewed by Peterson and Ricks. I really wish you weren’t what you are sometimes.

- Doc

So perhaps the review went like this: they took off their glasses, and got up real close to the book, and they looked at it real hard - they peered at it! Done!

[Bought Yahoo]

It was literally peer reviewed by Peterson and Ricks. I really wish you weren’t what you are sometimes.

- Doc

So perhaps the review went like this: they took off their glasses, and got up real close to the book, and they looked at it real hard - they peered at it! Done!

I've had worked peer-reviewed. I am a peer reviewer. But I heard Quinn say his magic works weren't peer-reviewed.

[Moksha]

That is not peer review.

Are books published by non-academic publishers usually peer-reviewed? I get what you are saying about a FARMS hit piece not being a peer-review. You are talking about competent historians rather than disgruntled apologists slinging words as part of their mission from Dr. Cotton Mather of the BYU signs and signals corp.

[Res Ipsa]

I liked the book and read it. But, not being peer reviewed I see the book for what it is, mainly.

It was literally peer reviewed by Peterson and Ricks. I really wish you weren’t what you are sometimes.

- Doc

This made me curious, so I read the Preface to the Second Edition. It doesn't look like the book was "peer reviewed" pre-publication, which is generally what the term means. However, papers often receive an informal post-publication peer review. Quinn notes that he made many revisions to the first edition in response to published feedback it received. So, it was reviewed by peers after publication, with Quinn making changes in response. So, maybe peer review adjacent?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It was literally peer reviewed by Peterson and Ricks. I really wish you weren’t what you are sometimes.

- Doc

This made me curious, so I read the Preface to the Second Edition. It doesn't look like the book was "peer reviewed" pre-publication, which is generally what the term means. However, papers often receive an informal post-publication peer review. Quinn notes that he made many revisions to the first edition in response to published feedback it received. So, it was reviewed by peers after publication, with Quinn making changes in response. So, maybe peer review adjacent?

As Peterson has explained many, many times he and his buddies are Mormon academics who review Mormon-related academic material. Quinn was a Mormon academic who wrote Mormon-related academic material, and since everyone concerned is a Mormon, and everyone concerned is an academic, when Peterson and Company “review” something within the aforementioned realm of work it’s ‘peer-reviewed’. Easy peasy, nice and queasy.

- Doc

[Bought Yahoo]

It was not peer reviewed. Quinn has said so. Critical comments after publication don't count.

Quinn has only one peer reviewed book.

When Quinn commented on the WSJ article he mentioned that the lack of peer reviewed books counted against him in job searches. I'm pretty sure he said it there but it has need decades since I watched.

[sock puppet]

If the list was one of "faith promoting" works, then I don't think Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, despite being a very important book, fits on it. People generally do not look to have their preconceptions about their religion challenged, and when they are, they rarely look at the experience as faith promoting, except perhaps in the long run and in retrospect. I found EMMWV intellectually illuminating and liberating. For me it did nothing less than change my entire conception of early Mormonism.

If, however, you are LDS, and you just want to truck on comfortably as an LDS person who enjoys their LDS life, then I don't think EMMWV will be high on the list of recommended works to keep you comfortable on your journey.

I was no longer a believer when I read EMMWV. I don't see how it would help one's Mormon faith. EMMWV, along with E.D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed, Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling and Brody's No Man Knows My History, give insights that are at odds with the sanitized narrative about the Joseph Smith era that the LDS church has been offering up since the late 1800s.