LifeOnaPlate Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 If you are interested in studying Mormonism and Magic, then by all means, get the book. Whether the it has major problems or not, any responsible scholar planning to write on this topic must not ignore this publication. I would also suggest John R. Brooke's "The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844."Wow, an even worse book than Quinn's.Here's a thought: Do some of your own research on it. You can even use sources referenced by Quinn and Brooke.No one mentions Ashurst-McGee?I'd say the same for even Bushman. Anyone attempting to produce publications as large as theirs is gonna make some significant mistakes. It is bound to happen. The question is, do those mistakes outweigh the value of the book? I don't think so.I guarantee Quinn makes more egregious errors, and in each case in a way that makes the Church or Joseph Smith look worse than the sources would show.
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Remember, Mike: We Mormons do nothing without the assistance of the moon.
Tsuzuki Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Remember, Mike: We Mormons do nothing without the assistance of the moon.It's a good thing the moon will be around for the foreseeable future.
Lightbearer Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I'm thinking about picking up Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Can those here who've read it tell me their opinion of the book?Quinn is an apostate, why bother?
Joseph Antley Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 Quinn is an apostate, why bother?Because as far as I know, a faithful Latter-day Saint hasn't provided the same amount of research on the topic. And I don't see what Quinn's affiliation with the Church has to do with the validity of his research.
John Larsen Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Quinn is an apostate, why bother?All great ideas and people have meet with the charge of heresy. Of course, many bad ones have too. But that alone is not enough reason to dismiss a work.
Mike Reed Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I guarantee Quinn makes more egregious errors, and in each case in a way that makes the Church or Joseph Smith look worse than the sources would show.Sure. I'd agree that Quinn's book has more errors than Bushman's. But I don't buy that Quinn is an anti-Mormon. He commits the magnification fallacy on a topic that many Mormons feel uncomfortable about. However, he goes out of his way to provide the context of 19th century folk-magic in American history, and even compares the practices of early Saints to the magic described in the Bible. This apologetic seems quite out of place, if he had a mere anti-Mormon agenda. Have you heard his testimony?
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 It's a good thing the moon will be around for the foreseeable future.Not if the Koreans have anything to say about it: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/kim_...nounces_plan_to
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Sure. I'd agree that Quinn's book has more errors than Bushman's. But I don't buy that Quinn is an anti-Mormon. He commits the magnification fallacy on a topic that many Mormons feel uncomfortable about. However, he goes out of his way to provide the context of 19th century folk-magic in American history, and even compares the practices of early Saints to the magic described in the Bible. This apologetic seems quite out of place, if he had a mere anti-Mormon agenda. Have you heard his testimony?Where did I call Quinn an anti-Mormon?
Mike Reed Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Where did I call Quinn an anti-Mormon?You didn't explicitly. However, you did say "in each case in a way that makes the Church or Joseph Smith look worse than the sources would show." Perhaps I read too much into your words, but you seemed to be claiming that this was a pattern of behavior that betrays malicious intent.
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 People can be wrong without being anti-Mormon, Mike.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 People can be wrong without being anti-Mormon, Mike. But it is very difficult to be anti-Mormon without being wrong.
John Larsen Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 But it is very difficult to be anti-Mormon without being wrong. That is probably true since "anti-Mormonism" is really just a rhetorical construct of over zealous apologists, and not a very good one at that. I have yet to meet anyone who is anti-Mormon as a root world view. I have met many who are critical of Church views or doctrines in as much as they conflict with other beliefs, values and scientific knowledge.
Tsuzuki Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Quinn is an apostate, why bother?He wasn't when he wrote "Magic World View".
kamenraider Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 His fundamentally and profoundly flawed reading of Der Goldne Topf, without understanding anything of the Volkswissenschaftliche milieu that gave rise to it, established for me once and for all that, at the end of the day, he had no idea what the hell he was talking about trying to draw a connection between the fancies of European gentlemen and ladies in the pre-Biedermeier and the earthy democrats of the American frontier, for all their laughable airs.USU "Take that, Papa" 78Ah yes, the Volkswissenschaftliche milieu. How silly of him to miss that.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 That is probably true since "anti-Mormonism" is really just a rhetorical construct of over zealous apologists, and not a very good one at that. I have yet to meet anyone who is anti-Mormon as a root world view. I have met many who are critical of Church views or doctrines in as much as they conflict with other beliefs, values and scientific knowledge.Is there anything such as Anti-Semitism? No? Just a rhetorical construct of over zealous Jews, right? PS I'm not saying anti-Mormonism in any way reaches the depths of anti-Semitism, but there really are people who hate other people or their beliefs because of their religion. It really happens, all the time.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 "anti-Mormonism" is really just a rhetorical construct of over zealous apologists, and not a very good one at that.Flat, utter nonsense on both counts.
Mike Reed Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Flat, utter nonsense on both counts.Perhaps, if John were using your definition of "anti-Mormon," which I doubt he is.
John Larsen Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Is there anything such as Anti-Semitism? No? Just a rhetorical construct of over zealous Jews, right? PS I'm not saying anti-Mormonism in any way reaches the depths of anti-Semitism, but there really are people who hate other people or their beliefs because of their religion. It really happens, all the time.Anti-Semitism is marked by centuries of overt violence, radical discrimination and torture. Anti-Semitism has a bloody and violence filled history that has resulted in wars, torture chambers and death camps. If Mormons limited the labeling of anti-Mormon behavior to the mobbing of the 19th century, they might have a case. But no, instead they banter that term around as some kind of apologetic inside joke labeling anyone with any disagreement as an anti-Mormon--creating an internal mythos of a satanic siege in which everyone with a divergent opinion is part of some kind of demonic conspiracy. Mormons have diluted the term anti-Mormon to such a degree that your comparison is unthinkable. For those of Jewish heritage to act similarly, they would be forced to label everyone who criticizes the Torah, even on legitimate academic grounds, as an anti-Semite. Luckily, they are smart enough to not exploit their status this way. You're vague suggestion that I think Anti-Semitism is a rhetorical cheep trick, a punch below the belt, and wholly undeserved. Your comparison is frankly insulting to those who suffer from real discrimination based on their Jewish heritage today and I think it deserves an apology.
John Larsen Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Let me add one thought. I am a Mormon by birth and by heritage. I have never tried to slough off my Mormon identity. No Jew would ever label another Jew an anti-Semite simple because of heretical or radical thinking. Unlike the Jews, Mormons will eat their own.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Let me add one thought. I am a Mormon by birth and by heritage. I have never tried to slough off my Mormon identity. No Jew would ever label another Jew an anti-Semite simple because of heretical or radical thinking. Unlike the Jews, Mormons will eat their own.Oh brother. You obviously know nothing about contemporary Judaism. One need only ask, who assassinated Rabin, and why?
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Let me add one thought. I am a Mormon by birth and by heritage. I have never tried to slough off my Mormon identity. No Jew would ever label another Jew an anti-Semite simple because of heretical or radical thinking. Unlike the Jews, Mormons will eat their own.Pretty darn over the top, there, John.
Joseph Antley Posted February 22, 2009 Author Posted February 22, 2009 I think John made several good points about the anti-Mormon label that I hoped don't go unaddressed by Dr. Peterson or Dr. Hamblin.
e=mc2 Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Yes, no discussion of Quinn's scholarship would be complete with Dr. Hamblin's 157 page review. It's almost as lengthy as Pardee's 404 page review of Tropper's Ugaritic grammar.Yes, but Hamblin's review is far more valuable than that Ugaritic idiot stuff....
Bill Hamblin Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Anti-Semitism is marked by centuries of overt violence, radical discrimination and torture. Anti-Semitism has a bloody and violence filled history that has resulted in wars, torture chambers and death camps. If Mormons limited the labeling of anti-Mormon behavior to the mobbing of the 19th century, they might have a case. But no, instead they banter that term around as some kind of apologetic inside joke labeling anyone with any disagreement as an anti-Mormon--creating an internal mythos of a satanic siege in which everyone with a divergent opinion is part of some kind of demonic conspiracy. Mormons have diluted the term anti-Mormon to such a degree that your comparison is unthinkable. For those of Jewish heritage to act similarly, they would be forced to label everyone who criticizes the Torah, even on legitimate academic grounds, as an anti-Semite. Luckily, they are smart enough to not exploit their status this way. You're vague suggestion that I think Anti-Semitism is a rhetorical cheep trick, a punch below the belt, and wholly undeserved. Your comparison is frankly insulting to those who suffer from real discrimination based on their Jewish heritage today and I think it deserves an apology.This has been done to death over and over. John knows exactly what we mean by "anti-Mormon." It's not a hard concept. Mere disbelief in Mormonism is not anti-Mormon. PS I merely raised the Jewish issue to point out there really is religious bigotry in the world. (Most anti-Semites, by the way, never murdered or tortured anyone.) To deny that there is religious bigotry against Mormons is silly. It obviously exists in many forms and many levels. Likewise it exists against Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.