Guess Who Else is Guilty of Smearing?

[_Mister Scratch]

I was nosing around (once again) in the terrific archives of ZLMB, when I came across an interesting post by Cinepro, in which he inquired into the reputation of D. Michael Quinn among LDS historians. Interestingly, Mr. Pro linked to a rather lengthy (i.e., over 150pp.) article by Prof. William "Butthead" Hamblin. It turns out that this piece, which is entitled "That Old Black Magic," is the usual FARMS Review twaddle, although it has obviously been beefed up by Hamblin's penchant for ad hominem attack, and his propensity from insult-laden logorrhea. Really, the article seems more like a polemical rant than a useful, constructive piece of criticism. You can view the article in its entirety here:

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=364

Basically, it runs the gamut of dirty tricks and attacks engaged in by FARMS "scholars." Take a look at this (I will intersperse my comments in the text):

I remember as a high school student going to an amusement park fun house, standing before the warped mirrors, and laughing at the distorted images of myself they reflected. Reading Quinn's remarkably distorted rendition of history reminds me vividly of that experience. Knowing the original, one must simply laugh at the warped, twisted, and distorted image of the past in his book. Here is a summary of the types of errors and distortions found repeatedly in Early Mormonism, as documented in this review.381

• Failure to understand the significant problems surrounding the definitions of magic.

• Failure to distinguish between magic and religion.

• Failure to ascertain early LDS understandings of magic.

Take note of this. Hamblin will harp on this "magic" issue repeatedly. Also note that DCP fled this messageboard after he was asked to provide evidence of a "scholarly consensus" regarding the "definitions of magic."

• Misunderstanding and misrepresenting other scholars because of idiosyncratic use of language.

• Use of coincidence as evidence.

What, you mean like chiasmus?

• Fallacy of the possible proof.

• Failure to understand his critics and deal with their criticisms.

• Endless ad hominem attacks on his critics as dishonest polemicists.

Earlier, Hamblin provides us with a list of places where Quinn described him (i.e., described Hamblin) as a "polemicist." Boy, did that ever set Hamblin off!

• Failure to distinguish between unproven propositions and evidence.

• Failure to deal with his primary sources in the original languages.

• Claims that Joseph Smith read books in languages he couldn't read.

Such as Reformed Egyption?

• Claims that Joseph Smith read books written centuries before he was born.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. I'm sure many of us have read Shakespeare, and certainly those texts were written long before most of us were born....

• Claims that Joseph Smith was influenced by ideas that originated only after he died.

• Claims that Joseph Smith had access to unpublished manuscripts from Europe.

• Bibliography padding.

What is "bibliography padding," I wonder? Is it anything like the silly footnotes listed at the end of virtually every FARMS Review article?

• Failure to adequately document his primary sources.

• Misreading primary texts to match his theories.

• Misquotation by removing words without ellipses.

• Misquotation by removing key words by ellipses.

<Ahem.> Do I really need to go into this?

• Misquotation by adding words to quotations.

• Misquotation by removing single words or phrases from their context.

• Misquotation by changing phrases.

• Selective quotation.

• Double standard of evaluating evidence.

• Ignoring obvious biblical parallels.

What???

• Failure to contextualize economic data.

• Failure to contextualize geographies of scale.

• Failure to contextualize the grammar of his sources.

• Failure to contextualize sources in the proper historical period.

• Claims that authors describing centuries-old ideas from Europe were discussing Joseph Smith's era in the United States.

• Suppression of evidence that contradicts his thesis.

• Ignoring both anti- and pro-Mormon accounts that do not support his thesis.

• Using unique or unusual examples as if they were normative.

• Obfuscation by semantic equivocation.

• Repeated assertions without evidence.

• Invention of nonexistent historical phenomena (e.g., the occult revival).

On and on it goes....

• Fallacy of the perfect analogy—that because two things are similar in one characteristic they are therefore similar in all characteristics.

• Focusing only on similarities while ignoring vastly more widespread differences between LDS ideas and magical sources.

• Misrepresentation of the contents of scholarly books.

• Misrepresentation of the ideas of his critics.

• Misrepresentation or distortions of his primary sources.

• Overreliance on early anti-Mormon sources.

• Mind reading.

LOL!!!

• Faulty citations of sources.

• Failure to distinguish between various aspects of magic.

• Confusing astrology with talismanic magic.

• Oversimplification of the complexities of magic.

Here is Hamblin's whining about magic yet again.

• Falsely claiming that ideas appear in primary sources.

• Use of numerous logical fallacies.

Well, Hamblin named many of them above. Why could he saved us the effort by just lumping all of them into this bullet point?

• Assertion in place of analysis.

• Assertion in place of evidence.

• Using adjectives as evidence.

Again: What???

• Reliance on second- or thirdhand accounts rather than firsthand accounts.

• Ignoring contradictions in his various primary accounts.

• Attributing ideas to Joseph Smith that really derive from his associates.

• Falsely attributing ideas to people, both historical and contemporary.

• Use of "guilt by association" tactics.

Um, wow... Is an LDS Apologist actually saying this?

• Paranoia and conspiratorial fantasies in response to his critics.

LOL!

• Extensive exaggeration.

• Failure to recognize subtle nuances of texts and ideas.

• Errors in dating people, events, and sources.

• Failure to properly evaluate biblical antecedents.

• Little control over philological or linguistic issues.

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.

Um, wow.... Have you ever seen such an angry litany in your life? (Well, actually, Hamblin's anti-semitic tirade, delivered to RfM, comes to mind....) I wonder how necessary it really was for Hamblin to toss in these many cheap shots, e.g., the bit about the fun house, or the broken clock thing. Man, oh, man---do you think Hamblin fully covered everything that could possible be wrong with Quinn's work?

In case not, he throws in this doozy:

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.

Wow, so Quinn is a liar and a deceiver, eh? He can't be "trusted" (an echo of DCP's frequent refrain).

Finally, the article wraps up with this odd tidbit:

For Quinn, disagreements with his interpretation of Mormon history are caused by a Manichean struggle between history and faith:

Hamblin and I [Quinn] obviously see faith and its defense in very different ways, both as historians and as be lievers. According to his published comments about me, Hamblin thinks that my commitment to historical analysis has subverted my LDS faith. Having read many of his writings, I think Hamblin's commitment as "a defender" has subverted his historical training. (p. 351 n. 98)

It is no wonder that Quinn fails to provide a single reference to my supposed view that his "commitment to historical analysis has subverted [his] LDS faith." I have never said such a thing nor do I believe it. 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.382 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.

(bold emphasis added)

It is worth noting that in a previous footnote, Hamblin delivered this low blow:

I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

It is very strange, I think, that Hamblin would sum up his massive diatribe with this sentence: "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." He would find Quinn's history "unbelievable" because of "evidence and analysis"? Is that really what Hamblin's long list of "points" was getting at?

In the end, I think it is very important to note several things. First, the sheer length of this piece, and the undercurrent of anger which runs through it. This is obviously a very nasty, cheap piece of work which seems derived in no small part from a personal vendetta on the part of Prof. Hamblin. Second, I am well aware that some folks, such as Sethbag, have disapproved of my claim that The Good Professor and others have engaged in a "smear campaign" against Quinn. (Or, at least, Sethbag and his ilk have merely grown tired of discussing it.) There are a lot more pieces to this puzzle, though. At base, it is clear to me, based on the evidence, that there really *was* a campaign aimed at discrediting and smearing Quinn's work, and this article is proof of it. Was the "smear campaign" spearheaded by DCP, as has been supposed in the past? Well, The Good Professor *is* the chief editor of FARMS Review, and we know that he answers to the Brethren, including BKP.

I intend to investigate this matter further, but it is safe to say, in my opinion, that Bill Hamblin has also participated in the "smear campaign." I wonder, in fact, if Hamblin was guilty of passing along any of the sexual orientation gossip, ala DCP.

[_Gadianton]

It makes me dizzy just reading through those bullet points. Is it common for peer-reviewed papers in the academic world to start out like that? Some of it reads as if he were just making it up on the fly, trying to come up with the next charge. "Mind reading", "numerous logical fallacies", "adjectives in the place of evidence?" It's a bit unreal, don't you think?

And as far as "mind reading" goes, how is it that Dr. Hamblin can read the mind of the counter-factual non-believer Dr. Hamblin? How does he know what he'd think of Quinn if his situation were that different? I can't tell you what I'd think of FARMS' "research" if I were still a firm believer with those x number of years of believing history behind me. I think he ought to be taken up on that point. Is there any unfaithful history or commentary on the church that Dr. Hamblin would admit to believing if he were a non-believer?

It's even sillier that he thinks his undergrad return missionary BYU students are able to effectively evaluate "unfaithful" history.

As for the disputes on "magic", see my tagline.

[_Mister Scratch]

It makes me dizzy just reading through those bullet points. Is it common for peer-reviewed papers in the academic world to start out like that?

No. Absolutely not. The whole "attack dog" mentality which pervades FARMS Review may very well be what DCP was referring to when he characterized the journal as "sui generis".

Some of it reads as if he were just making it up on the fly, trying to come up with the next charge. "Mind reading", "numerous logical fallacies", "adjectives in the place of evidence?" It's a bit unreal, don't you think?

Indeed I do. Among other things.

And as far as "mind reading" goes, how is it that Dr. Hamblin can read the mind of the counter-factual non-believer Dr. Hamblin? How does he know what he'd think of Quinn if his situation were that different? I can't tell you what I'd think of FARMS' "research" if I were still a firm believer with those x number of years of believing history behind me. I think he ought to be taken up on that point. Is there any unfaithful history or commentary on the church that Dr. Hamblin would admit to believing if he were a non-believer?

It's even sillier that he thinks his undergrad return missionary BYU students are able to effectively evaluate "unfaithful" history.

As for the disputes on "magic", see my tagline.

Yes. The puzzle pieces will continue to fall into place. There really can be no question that a sustained smear campaign was mounted via FARMS Review, and perhaps in other arenas as well.

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way, in case you want more evidence that FARMS/FAIR don't make much of an effort to push their theories and "scholarship" in a larger way, take a gander at this:

William Hamblin (former FARMS board member, famous for his "butthead" "joke", who now claims that FARMS is not his organization and he is powerless to make any type of administrative decisions at FARMS) writes in response to this page:

Given position supporting "freedom of information" on the web, and your professed willingness to link to "faith-promoting Mormon sites," I was surprised by the universally glowing reviewing of Quinn's Early Mormonism on your website.

Has no one ever criticized Quinn's book? If you are sincere in your claims that you want both sides of the story told, perhaps you should provide a reference to the reviews of Quinn in the FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000), also available on the FARMS Member page: http://farms.BYU.edu/web/review/12_2/index.asp

I responded by stating that I did have a link to said page when it was freely accessible and that I would happily link to any and all related FARMS pages (or any other critiques of the book; he didn't note that I already had a brief review from a faithful Mormon with reference to BYU Studies on the page) if and when they are made available. After all, I already have more than half a dozen links to the few free FARMS pages on the net. This comment of mine didn't sit well with Mr. Hamblin so he went into a dialogue on FARMS being a "publishing house" and not an organization happy to give away its information for free on the web. He said I was "whining" (even though it appeared, especially since he started the whole discussion, to be just the opposite to me) and it was obvious that we were talking past each other so I didn't respond to his last message.

While the link to "That Old Black Magic" is now "freely available," it seems that Prof. Hamblin was being rather two-faced in this instance, on the one hand demanding that the lds-mormon webmaster put up a link while simultaneously insisting that FARMS shouldn't have to give out its "scholarship" for free.

It's worth pointing out that both Richard Bushman and Will Bagley have both praised Quinn's work in this area, and yet Hamblin, in classically immature fashion, continues to insist that DMQ is a "bad historian". This is both sickening and unbelievable.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is yet another fascinating piece, penned by Eric Johnson of the Mormon Research Ministry. Once again, I'll intersperse my comments within the text:

There is no doubt that Quinn has a vendetta in re-releasing his book. His LDS critics were merciless in attempting to destroy Quinn's credibility and hence his career. His honesty was not appreciated by either the leadership or those who are paid in Provo to defend the church from scholarly critics. Now that Quinn is no longer on the membership roles, he took off the proverbial gloves. He abandoned the use of the "could haves" and "might have beens" and instead became quite definitive in his writing. In addition, it is obvious that Quinn wrote as he pleased because LDS leaders no longer hold any authority over him. After all, what can the Mormon prophet do to a man who is already excommunicated?

(emphasis mine)

Clearly, I am not the only one who sees through the ruse and fog. Hamblin, DCP, and others were out to ruin Quinn's life.

With pit bull tenacity, Quinn continually went after the writers from FARMS, an organization that was unofficially connected to LDS-owned BYU and officially connected to the university in 1997. Even FARMS apologist Daniel Peterson wondered if this move would allow him and other writers to keep their nasty edge. Perhaps it is for this reason that Peterson, who has boasted that some of his fellow writers were born "with the nastiness gene," is Quinn's biggest target.

(emphasis added)

Wow... I only wish that Mr. Johnson have given us a citation. Did DCP really say this? I.e., that he worried that "official affiliation" with BYU would force him to curtail the "attack dog" mentality? Well, in any case, he needn't have worried, since the journal is as polemical and "nasty" as ever.

Why are the writers for FARMS so abusive in their writings? According to Peterson in the eighth volume of FARMS Review of Books, "We did not pick this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not withdraw from it." Peterson has also said," If we have occasionally been guilty of levity at the expense of some of our critics, this has been because they tempted us with irresistible targets. It isn't our fault.... A few of us, indeed, may have been born that way, with the nastiness gene—which is triggered by arrant humbuggery" (p. 329).

What a great quote. Sig line, anybody?

Quinn does not take kindly to the meanness of FARMS. He writes, "I have allowed my polemical critics to have their decade, not just their day....I believe this eleventh-anniversary edition responds to these LDS polemicists with greater honesty and civility than they have given me" (p. xi).

Quinn defines the difference in his mind between polemics and apologetics. According to him, a person who practices polemics engages in "an extreme version of apologetics. Defending a point of view becomes less important than attacking one's opponents. Aside from their verbal viciousness, polemicists often resort to any method to promote their argument.... Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words—they mince truth" (p. x). We should note that, traditionally, polemics does not have as negative a connotation as Quinn makes it out to be. Rather, the noun just means the "art or practice of disputation or controversy, especially in theology."

Apologists, on the other hand, "take special efforts to defend their cherished point of view...It is not an insult to call someone an 'apologist' (which I often do)..." (p. x). This statement was obviously meant for FARMS writers who, for whatever reason, have taken offense to being called "apologists." I'll never forget Daniel Peterson's attack on Bill McKeever in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, 1993. In a review on John Ankerberg and John Weldon's book entitled About Mormonism, Peterson took several pages to divert and tackle an unpublished paper that my colleague and I had written on the "land of Jerusalem." Listen to the shot Peterson fired at us in footnote number 170, page 77: "McKeever also has the irritating habit, prevalent among many anti-Mormons, of describing those authors with whom he agrees by their academic titles and positions, while referring to those authors with whom he disagrees as 'LDS apologists.'"

(emphasis added)

LOL! Yeah, I wonder what he thinks of my "irritating habit" of calling him "The Good Professor"? DCP has also said that he "hates" the term "TBM."

Why was Peterson so insulted at being called an apologist, which really is a simple word meaning a person who practices apologetics (which is the defense of one's faith)? While many falsely assume it refers to a person who has to apologize, it has no such meaning. Truly this is not a derogatory word, and we at Mormonism Research Ministry have never used it to belittle someone's credentials. Like Quinn, we who write for MRM welcome the title of apologist.

To show his disdain for those who dislike being called "apologists," Quinn writes: "'Polemicist' is a dishonorable vocation, and I use the term only where I believe it applies." When referring to FARMS, the word apologist takes a great big back seat in Quinn's vocabulary, for the most part. Instead, polemicist is the word of choice about 60-70 percent of the time. His disagreement comes because, for FARMS' writers, "defending Joseph Smith from any association with magic is the primary motivation for their definitional nihilism.... However, the fundamental problem with this tactic of LDS apologists is that denying the legitimacy of the word 'magic' or 'occult sciences' also denies the self-definition of people before and during Joseph Smith's time" (p. xxviii).

"Definitional nihilism"? I couldn't have said it better myself.

After this, Johnson goes on to show Quinn skewering many of his critics, including Hamblin, DCP, and Lou Midgley. It is worth a look for anyone interested:

http://www.mrm.org/topics/reviews/early ... world-view

[_Sethbag]

As a point of clarification, what I disavowed was calling DCP really nasty names, which has happened, and which I think ought not to happen. I don't recall you personally did that, because I never kept a list of the names, or who was saying them, although I think some of the donut jokes probably would fall into that category (in other words, getting on his case because of his weight).

I think most of the worst DCP namecalling probably was on RfM, a board I haven't frequented in months, and which I never really got into all that much at all, to be honest.

I also lost interest in the really long argument you had with DCP over whether or not he gossiped about Quinn. I think he kind of did, to an extent, but I couldn't deal with 15 or 20 pages or whatever of posts on the subject. I do think you kind of "have it in" for DCP, and I'm not really interested in that. You might even be 100% correct in the things you bring up about him, but still, the subject just can't hold my attention. I personally can't accept making the whole "problems with the church" thing personal. I'm on no vendetta with DCP, even if I think some of the kind of apologetics he stands for are lame. In these cases, it's the ideas that are lame, not the person.

I didn't know I had an ilk. That's pretty cool I guess. Before I had an ilk, I was just me, and could be ignored or forgotten about with impunity. I guess this means I'm moving up in the world. :-)

[_Mister Scratch]

As a point of clarification, what I disavowed was calling DCP really nasty names, which has happened, and which I think ought not to happen. I don't recall you personally did that, because I never kept a list of the names, or who was saying them, although I think some of the donut jokes probably would fall into that category (in other words, getting on his case because of his weight).

Ah, okay. Well, thanks for clarifying.

I think most of the worst DCP namecalling probably was on RfM, a board I haven't frequented in months, and which I never really got into all that much at all, to be honest.

I also lost interest in the really long argument you had with DCP over whether or not he gossiped about Quinn. I think he kind of did, to an extent, but I couldn't deal with 15 or 20 pages or whatever of posts on the subject. I do think you kind of "have it in" for DCP, and I'm not really interested in that.

I don't "have it in" for him beyond the fact that I "have it in" for Mopologetics, and the fact that DCP happens to be Mopologist Numero Uno. I disapprove strongly of they Mopologists' many smearings, and I suppose that I do rather enjoy leveling the scales of justice a bit.

You might even be 100% correct in the things you bring up about him, but still, the subject just can't hold my attention. I personally can't accept making the whole "problems with the church" thing personal. I'm on no vendetta with DCP, even if I think some of the kind of apologetics he stands for are lame. In these cases, it's the ideas that are lame, not the person.

I agree with this. Then again, I *do* kind of take issue with stuff such as his Quinn gossipmongering, or the (apparent) fact that he spearheaded this smear campaign in the pages of FARMS Review. I mean, take a look at Hamblin's article! Then try to square that with DCP's many claims that this is supposed to be a "scholarly" journal.

I didn't know I had an ilk. That's pretty cool I guess. Before I had an ilk, I was just me, and could be ignored or forgotten about with impunity. I guess this means I'm moving up in the world. :-)

Yes, it is cool. However, pretty much every one of us has an "ilk" whether we like it or not. ; )

[_Gadianton]

I have to bring up the utter naivity of the self-plugs for objectivity in this article again. Dr. H can read the mind of his non-believing self and we are to just accept it at face value that he would indeed be just as furiously opposed to Quinn's history as he is as a believer and member of an organization dedicated to countering church critics. How stupid does he think his readers are? Then there's his BYU undergrads who, surprisingly, can easily spot flaws in Quinn's work when 1) their teacher is using the work as an object lesson of bad history - just in general if teacher tells you to find the flaws or the merits of a piece, you do that because well, it's your assignment. And 2) The very foundation of these students' lives depends on Quinn's history being false. Would anyone have expected otherwise? But to up the ante, check this out,

Re viewers of his books have increasingly recognized the fundamentally tendentious nature of his work3 and the fact that Quinn simply cannot be trusted to represent his sources accurately.

So you click on the little footnote to see where the contempt and criticism is coming from, and his citation is none other than two articles which also appeared in FROB. LOL! you've got to be kidding!

You can believe me, because even if I wasn't entirely invested in this position from my church life to my occupation I'd be saying the exact same thing! I promise. Heck, even my students who have their lives also invested in this same position can see the truth of it, not to mention that their grades depend on accepting what I say. And if you still don't believe me, here are some examples of others whose lives are equally invested in this same position who have published their criticisms in the journal I am which assumes this position is true.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to bring up the utter naivity of the self-plugs for objectivity in this article again. Dr. H can read the mind of his non-believing self and we are to just accept it at face value that he would indeed be just as furiously opposed to Quinn's history as he is as a believer and member of an organization dedicated to countering church critics. How stupid does he think his readers are? Then there's his BYU undergrads who, surprisingly, can easily spot flaws in Quinn's work when 1) their teacher is using the work as an object lesson of bad history - just in general if teacher tells you to find the flaws or the merits of a piece, you do that because well, it's your assignment. And 2) The very foundation of these students' lives depends on Quinn's history being false. Would anyone have expected otherwise? But to up the ante, check this out,

Re viewers of his books have increasingly recognized the fundamentally tendentious nature of his work3 and the fact that Quinn simply cannot be trusted to represent his sources accurately.

So you click on the little footnote to see where the contempt and criticism is coming from, and his citation is none other than two articles which also appeared in FROB. LOL! you've got to be kidding!

Yes, excellent point. I believe that in John Gee's smear article on this very same Quinn book, he FNs to a rumor he heard. These guys will stoop to the most incredible depths, and for some reason, DCP, as Editor-in-Chief, sees fit to publish all of it. I wish we knew more about who is responsible for peer-reviewing such trash as "That Old Black Magic," but, then again, I think we already pretty much know that conventional peer review does not happen at FARMS Review.