Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Pahoran]

One of the favourite anti-Mormon tactics is "poisoning the well." This is a technique whereby an opponent's position is made to seem so odious that no-one would dare to be seen to defend it. It doesn't always work, but only because some people are smart enough to see through it.

The expression was coined by John Henry Cardinal Newman in response to Protestant critic Charles Kingsley, who had argued that, as a Catholic priest, Newman was so committed to his position that he would necessarily equivocate (or worse) to support it. (Please note that this is the exact accusation frequently brought against believing Latter-day Saints by anti-Mormon polemicists.) It is a reference to the old libel that the Black Death (bubonic plague) was caused by Jews poisoning the wells in a city. In a debate, the tactic necessarily "poisons the well of discourse" by predisposing people to regard anything a debater says with unreasonable suspicion.

A recent flare-up of this tactic is seen in the popular canard that believing Latter-day Saints are "magical thinkers," as if there were such a thing as "magical thought," or as if "magic" represented a valid category of discourse.

None of which is true.

In his review of De Mighty Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, John Gee wrote:

I find the term magic to be a Proteus-like pejorative appellation and a worthless, vacuous, meaningless classification for phenomena. There is no agreement on what magic means. The term magic is used as a club to beat one's religious opponents over the head.

In making this argument, Gee is largely (but not solely) following his former teacher, Robert Ritner. (I note in passing that anti-Mormons are frequently quite delighted with Professor Ritner when he taks about the Joseph Smith Papyri, on which he is not an expert; it seems appropriate to at least give him a hearing on a subject on which he is.) Gee continues:

[D]iscussions of "magic" usually become textbook examples of exercises in equivocation and fertile breeding grounds for special pleading and poisoning the well. I have found that dropping the term completely without substituting anything in its place loses nothingâ??and usually gains considerablyâ??both conceptually and practically. The term magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it. (Italics in original.)

So there we have it. Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others.

In a recent thread, one of the resident magic-mongers posted a long reference to Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Secret Garden, in which the main character talked about "magic," and then suggested that I should do likewise.

Well, while reaching the understanding of a spoilt, self-absorbed nine-year-old Edwardian girl might be a worthy goal for some, I'm actually trying to do better than that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

...

A recent flare-up of this tactic is seen in the popular canard that believing Latter-day Saints are "magical thinkers,"

as if there were such a thing as "magical thought," or as if "magic" represented a valid category of discourse.

...

I think you are probably right on this.

My experience with the Saints is that they are a people who generally believe that

with God, all things are possible. That can be twisted to sound like magic, I suppose.

To some atheists the difference between "magic" and "religion" is negligible.

That much having been said, I think that we must admit that our early roots were

rural ones -- in a time and place where superstitions of all sorts prevailed. If our

ancestors in the faith were "magic-oriented," then so were their Methodist, Presbyterian

and Baptist neighbors.

But, beyond all of that, there is a certain "echo chamber" in which words like "magic"

and "occult" resonate with the prejudice that imaginative people, or believing people,

or people with a sense of wonder are somehow ridiculous and demented.

Probably the best way to deal with such irritants is to rise above the cat-calls and

live a decent, God-fearing life. At least, that's the first thought that comes to my mind.

Uncle Dale

[Analytics]

This reminds me of that old song by the Cars:

Summer turns me upside down

Summer summer summer

Its like a merry-go-round

I see you under the midnight

All shackles and bows

High shoes with the cleats a-clickin

A tempermental glow

How far will you take it?

Well no one knows

Chorus

Oh oh its magic

When Im with you

Oh oh its magic

You know its true

Twisted under sideways down

I know youre getting twisted

And you cant calm down

I see you under the midnight

Love darts in your eyes

How far can you take it

Till you realize

Theres magic in your eyes

[Moon Quaker]

Did someone say "magic"?!

*counts down to when Tsuzuki chimes in this thread*

[Mike Reed]

{Richard Bushman quotes Lucy:}

that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & welfare of our souls.

{Bushman comments:} Lucy's point was that Smiths were not lazy--they had not stopped their labor to practice magic--but she showed her knowledge of formulas and rituals and associated them with "the welfare of our souls." Magic and religion melded in Smith family culture. (Rough Stone Rolling, 50-51)

....

{Later Bushman writes:}

When he married Emma Hale in 1827, Joseph was on the eve or realizing himself as a prophet. He may still have been involved in magic, but he was sincere when he told Emma's father that his treasure-seeking days were over. Magic has served its purpose in his life. (Ibid, 54)

...

{and...}

He [Joseph Smith Sr] was a gentle, disappointed man with an inclination to compensate for his failures with magic and drink. (Ibid, 55)

etc.

I consider neither Quinn nor Bushman to be anti-Mormon.

[Dave Ellis]

I haven't read Quinn's work (I'm too poor to get a copy shipped to Australia), but I do want to jump in and say that magic as a term is not entirely useless, and there are plenty of good, reputable scholars who have made it their field (I intend to be one of them!). While I agree that defining 'magic' is a slippery task, it's not an empty pejorative like 'cult'.

A good article on the subject by Michael Bailey appeared in the first volume of Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft (No.1, Summer 2006) and is freely available online here if youâ??re interested.

-David

[DrW]

Pahoran,

Contrary to your assertion here, magical thinking is not pejorative term.

Magical thinking is defined as nonscientific causal reasoning and is a term of art used in anthropology, psychology and cognitive science.

It would be hard to find a better three word definition for the faithful Mormon worldview.

According to the Joseph Smith biographer Richard Bushman, a magic-based worldview was commonplace in the early 19th century, and in the Smith family, and was probably necessary to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel. (Please see the Mike Reed post above.)

Perhaps you should have done a little more reading in your subject matter before presuming to lecture others, especially scientists, on the meaning of terms used regularly in science.

And as a faithful Mormon, you might want to be a little more circumspect in condemning magical thinking since it has been recognized by a prominent LDS historian as having been present, and perhaps even necessary, for the restoration of the gospel

[Uncle Dale]

... magical thinking since it has been recognized by a prominent LDS historian as having

been present, and perhaps even necessary, for the restoration of the gospel

Here is where I irrevocably part company with Dr. Bushman. I realize he is struggling to

reconcile the early 1820s stone-in-the-hat activities with the late 1820s program of restoring

Apostolic Christianity, but I think he has taken a wrong turn in his thinking.

I am a little more impressed by Brooke --

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-...e2.htm#1994-JLB

At least he has a good grasp of the inter-relationship of attempts to "restore"

pristine freemasonry and the early 19th century urge to restore pristine religion.

The problem in all of this being the loaded-gun word "magic," which I think is

a poor choice for defining what was probably at the heart of incipient Mormonism.

It is all too easy to concentrate on some exterior perceptions of Smith family

activities and use that narrow focus to ridicule the first Latter Day Saints (and thus

the contemporary Saints as well).

I think I understand where Pahoran is coming from. He needs to read up on his

subject matter a little, but I feel he's on the proper track here, emotionally.

UD

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pahoran,

Contrary to your assertion here, magical thinking is not pejorative term.

Magical thinking is defined as nonscientific causal reasoning and is a term of art used in anthropology, psychology and cognitive science.

It would be hard to find a better three word definition for the faithful Mormon worldview.

According to the Joseph Smith biographer Richard Bushman, a magic-based worldview was commonplace in the early 19th century, and in the Smith family, and was probably necessary to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel. (Please see the Mike Reed post above.)

Perhaps you should have done a little more reading in your subject matter before presuming to lecture others, especially scientists, on the meaning of terms used regularly in science.

And as a faithful Mormon, you might want to be a little more circumspect in condemning magical thinking since it has been recognized by a prominent LDS historian as having been present, and perhaps even necessary, for the restoration of the gospel

Apparently you talk for all scientists? I can't say that I heard that word all that much until you got here. Why do you suppose I tease you about it.

[DrW]

Here is where I irrevocably part company with Dr. Bushman. I realize he is struggling to

reconcile the early 1820s stone-in-the-hat activities with the late 1820s program of restoring

Apostolic Christianity, but I think he has taken a wrong turn in his thinking.

I am a little more impressed by Brooke --

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-...e2.htm#1994-JLB

At least he has a good grasp of the inter-relationship of attempts to "restore"

pristine freemasonry and the early 19th century urge to restore pristine religion.

The problem in all of this being the loaded-gun word "magic," which I think is

a poor choice for defining what was probably at the heart of incipient Mormonism.

It is all too easy to concentrate on some exterior perceptions of Smith family

activities and use that narrow focus to ridicule the first Latter Day Saints (and thus

the contemporary Saints as well).

I think I understand where Pahoran is coming from. He needs to read up on his

subject matter a little, but I feel he's on the proper track here, emotionally.

UD

UD,

It is always great to find you on the same thread because, while I do not always agree with you, your comments are well-researched and reasoned.

Let me share with you another take on the use of the term magical thinking to describe the faithful Mormon worldview. This one is a little more secular, and may be closer what Pahoran had in mind, emotionally.

It is a usage that is becoming more popular as the works of Sam Harris and others rationalists gain traction. It goes something like this:

- Faith

is defined as "belief without evidence".

- Magical thinking

is defined as "belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary".

As you probably know, Sam Harris also uses the terms magic and superstition when discussing the origins of religion in general.

This links back to another definition of the term magical thinking as used in child psychology, wherein young children will continue to hold a certain (often internally motivated) unfounded beliefs, even when presented with a great deal of evidence that they are invalid. Luckily, in normal childhood development, children grow out of this cognitive phase by the age of about 5 or 6.

Dr. Benjamin Spock describes the end of this phase as the end of the overall pre-operational development phase (inability to use logic) in child development.

According to Dr. Spock,

"Interestingly, even though we adults have passed beyond the preoperational stage, we still have a connection with this earlier mode of thinking. I think this is why magic shows are so appealing to adults. They put us in touch with how we saw the world when we were children, when everything was magic."

[Mike Reed]

Gee: "The term magic is generally about as informative as a swear word, displaying only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it."

Gee: "I find the term magic to be a Proteus-like pejorative appellation and a worthless, vacuous, meaningless classification for phenomena. There is no agreement on what magic means. The term magic is used as a club to beat one's religious opponents over the head."

Lets add this one to the list too--William Hamblin: "the only references to magical activities in early Mormon writings are limited in number and are universally negative." (William J. Hamblin, â??That Old Black Magicâ? FARMS Review of Books 12:2 (2000), 9.)

----------------------------------

Now lets read Brigham Young's comments about the power of music: â??It has been proved that sweet music will actually tame the most malicious and venomous beasts, even when they have been stirred up to violent wrath, and make them docile and harmless as lambs. Who gave the lower animals a love for those sweet sounds, which magic power fill the air with harmony, and cheer and comfort the hearts of men, and so wonderfully affect the brute creation? It was the Lord, our Heavenly Father, who gave the capacity to enjoy these sounds, and which we ought to do in his name.â? Journal of Discourses 1:48.

Hmmmm.....

Universally negative? Meaningless "pejorative" that has no more value than a "swear word," and which displays "only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it"?

Incidentally... I find it interesting that, of all people, Pahoran is lecturing us about prejudicial language.

Gee: There is no agreement on what magic means.

There isn't an agreement on what "religion" means either. Should academia abandon the use of this word too?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

UD,

It is a usage that is becoming more popular as the works of Sam Harris and others rationalists gain traction. It goes something like this:

- Faith

is defined as "belief without evidence".

- Magical thinking

is defined as "belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary".

As you probably know, Sam Harris also uses the terms magic and superstition when discussing the origins of religion in general.

This links back to another definition of the term magical thinking as used in child psychology, wherein young children will continue to hold a certain (often internally motivated) unfounded beliefs, even when presented with a great deal of evidence that they are invalid. Luckily, in normal childhood development, children grow out of this cognitive phase by the age of about 5 or 6.

This is were we we might part ways. See I think you have tried to construct things that appear to be correct but then as what had been pointed out on the other thread you take the most strict non bending approach to things. Then you set it up and say that you have all of this evidence to the contrary and that we are magical for not seeing your point of view. In any way it doesn't help your cause to tell me or others that are view is magical. You might as well just say, "Your view is stupid"/ It holds just about as much water.

[DrW]

Apparently you talk for all scientists? I can't say that I heard that word all that much until you got here. Why do you suppose I tease you about it.

Perhaps not all scientists would agree with me about the presence of magical thinking in monotheistic religion, but the majority certainly would. Of the top scientists in the country, it would probably be safe to assume that the vast majority (more than 90%) would agree.

Magical thinking and science are diametrically opposed, just as science and religion are diametrically opposed.

Stephen J. Gould proposed that a truce with the concept of non-overlapping magisteria. That lasted for a decade or so (until the Bush administration), then the gloves apparently came off again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps not all scientists would agree with me about the presence of magical thinking in monotheistic religion, but the majority certainly would. Of the top scientists in the country, it would probably be safe to assume that the vast majority (more than 90%) would agree.

Magical thinking and science are diametrically opposed, just as science and religion are diametrically opposed.

Stephen J. Gould proposed that a truce with the concept of non-overlapping magisteria. That lasted for a decade or so (until the Bush administration), then the gloves apparently came off again.

So what constitutes a "top scientist". Tarski on this board maynot be a "scientist" but he has a PHD in mathematics and I don't recall him using the term "magical". He seems to follow your same athiest dogmatic assertions.

I would disagree that science and relgion are diametrically opposed as well. I think there is a great deal that science can explain that relgion does not. On the other hand there is a great deal that science cannot expalin that religion can. I am sure you would disagree. However in doing so I would never stoop so low as to call you "magical" in your thinking. From my perspective there are a great deal of many things to still be learned but certain things in the scientific community are taught as if you had all of the puzzle pieces and could see all anlges. You know and I know that there is a great deal of many holes out there. I do not wish to get into a debate on that. I also will not be surprised if you deny that. But like I said I would never call you magical, being serious. As you may tell I like to get a little sarcastic in my posts from time to time.

It may do you well not to approach us in this "magical" way. You may get a little further in your discussion. But by all means don't take my word for it.

[DrW]

This is were we we might part ways. See I think you have tried to construct things that appear to be correct but then as what had been pointed out on the other thread you take the most strict non bending approach to things. Then you set it up and say that you have all of this evidence to the contrary and that we are magical for not seeing your point of view. In any way it doesn't help your cause to tell me or others that are view is magical. You might as well just say, "Your view is stupid"/ It holds just about as much water.

'Mola Ram Suda Ram'

This is a discussion. When UD agreed with me that Pahoran might want to do a little more reading on the various definitions and uses of the term magical thinking, I thought I might help him out by offering some of the views of Sam Harris, Dr. Benjamin Spock, and others.

My position, as far as the subject of this thread is concerned, is pretty well spelled out in my initial post.

BTW: Please don't confuse the failure to properly apply logic with lack of intelligence. One does not necessarily follow from the other

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BTW: Please don't confuse the failure to properly apply logic with lack of intelligence. One does not necessarily follow from the other

That is a good point. However it would seem that sometimes there is no distinction being made.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It is a usage that is becoming more popular as the works of Sam Harris and others rationalists gain traction. It goes something like this:

- Faith is defined as "belief without evidence".

- Magical thinking is defined as "belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary".

As you probably know, Sam Harris also uses the terms magic and superstition when discussing the origins of religion in general.

I am somewhat familiar with the terminology. It reminds me of made-up words (or shades of meaning)

one finds in popular psychology, sociology and social anthropology. No doubt there are applications and

supporters of such terminology.

But -- allow me to come at it from a somewhat different perspective, and we

can see whether or not I can converge with Harris et al.

I define Faith as existential optimism -- the trust that things will eventually work out for the best.

There is a biblical foundation for that sort of faith terminology, and I think it is more substantial

than the "faith is belief in things unseen" notion.

I define magic as the human attempt at manipulating the Divine. Such manipulation may be as

simple as "holding God to His covenant promises" or as complex as spells, rituals, sacrifices,

and ordinances attempting to "bind in heaven" that which is supposedly "bound on earth."

All of this attempted Divine manipulation I reject out of hand. I know we can point to numerous

biblical examples, but I still reject it as low-level, problematic pseudo-religion.

So -- using my definitions, what would "magical thinking" entail? I say it would be an "unfounded belief"

(as you suggest) that actions cause outcomes, in such a way that the actions themselves become

paramount, and little or no thought is given to the origin of the energy/power/intelligence/causation

which enables the action. Generally this involves the logical fallacy of believing action A will cause

outcome B, despite the common consensus understanding that the cause-effect notion is "invalid,"

to use another of your suggestions.

But, in occult explanation, there is another, less often expressed possibility: That we can manipulate

the Divine, because we ourselves ARE the Divine. This is a philosophical cousin to Neoplatonist

pantheism. It is not my profession of how the Universe operates, but the vocabulary does allow me

to try and express an alternative view of what magic is.

I still reject magic -- but for theological reasons, and not for experiential reasons. I am using a

computer at the moment, which to my perception appears "magic," -- my unfettered experience

might convince me that it IS magic. A magic religionist might convince me that I should buy into

his metaphysics in order to understand and deal with my "magic" computer.

But, on a higher level of comprehension, I "know" that magical explanations are incomplete,

and ultimately unsatisfactory answers. Reason helps me along in arriving at that conclusion,

but there is more than reason involved here.

That "more" is our inherent Divinity. I believe that some early Mormon thinking bordered

upon this discovery, and I'm willing to give those first Mormon magicians a great deal more

latitude than I might otherwise do, were I operating upon reason alone.

More anon.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Magic in the technical sense, imo, is much to mechanistic for anything Mormonism has advanced. Brooke's Refiners Fire is a ppor piece of scholarship in my view. I am just making my way through the conclusion of Christoper Hill's interesting book The World Turned Upside Down which has some fascinating discussion on magic and religion.

When I've seen "magical thinking" brought up by critics of Mormonism I have sensed it has been used as a well-poisoning device that doesn't seem to reflect general scholarly thought on what magic is. It's usually brought up, in my experience, to poison the well.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is a usage that is becoming more popular as the works of Sam Harris and others rationalists gain traction. It goes something like this:

- Faith

is defined as "belief without evidence".

- Magical thinking

is defined as "belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary".

As you probably know, Sam Harris also uses the terms magic and superstition when discussing the origins of religion in general.

This links back to another definition of the term magical thinking as used in child psychology, wherein young children will continue to hold a certain (often internally motivated) unfounded beliefs, even when presented with a great deal of evidence that they are invalid. Luckily, in normal childhood development, children grow out of this cognitive phase by the age of about 5 or 6.

Dr. Benjamin Spock describes the end of this phase as the end of the overall pre-operational development phase (inability to use logic) in child development.

According to Dr. Spock,

"Interestingly, even though we adults have passed beyond the preoperational stage, we still have a connection with this earlier mode of thinking. I think this is why magic shows are so appealing to adults. They put us in touch with how we saw the world when we were children, when everything was magic."

This is a good example of what I was referring to. Here Mormons are compared to children.

This is not a good reflection of scholarly thought on magic as it has been understood in various academic works. Instead we get the pop-atheist invented definitions and appeals to a child psychologist who is not using "magic" in the traditional scholarly sense, but in the Disney sense. Such arguments are ill-informed.

[DrW]

So what constitutes a "top scientist". Tarski on this board maynot be a "scientist" but he has a PHD in mathematics and I don't recall him using the term "magical". He seems to follow your same athiest dogmatic assertions.

I would disagree that science and relgion are diametrically opposed as well. I think there is a great deal that science can explain that relgion does not. On the other hand there is a great deal that science cannot expalin that religion can. I am sure you would disagree. However in doing so I would never stoop so low as to call you "magical" in your thinking. From my perspective there are a great deal of many things to still be learned but certain things in the scientific community are taught as if you had all of the puzzle pieces and could see all anlges. You know and I know that there is a great deal of many holes out there. I do not wish to get into a debate on that. I also will not be surprised if you deny that. But like I said I would never call you magical, being serious. As you may tell I like to get a little sarcastic in my posts from time to time.

It may do you well not to approach us in this "magical" way. You may get a little further in your discussion. But by all means don't take my word for it.

We are discussing magical thinking because that is the subject of the thread. Pahoran selected the subject, not me.

It has been correctly stated that magical thinking is a term of art, and further that Joseph Smith and his family practiced magic.

In terms of labels, on Mormon sponsored boards, I have been called everything from a Korihor, to a rationalist (is that a Mormon insult? I don't know.), to godless atheist to (believe it or not) a magical thinker. Now I will admit the last one was from an individual who didn't understand the term, and like Pahoran, felt that it was a great insult (apparently he felt that it was worse than being a Korihor).

Anyway, once everyone has had their say one the subject, the thread will die out and we can move on. I do not intend to use the term to describe others unless they (personally) exhibit several identifiable and commonly recognized symptoms.

[Tchild2]

This links back to another definition of the term magical thinking as used in child psychology, wherein young children will continue to hold a certain (often internally motivated) unfounded beliefs, even when presented with a great deal of evidence that they are invalid. Luckily, in normal childhood development, children grow out of this cognitive phase by the age of about 5 or 6.

As regarding religion, didn't it take you until about 40+ to "grow out of it" DrW? At least you finally made it out.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Anyway, once everyone has had their say one the subject, the thread will die out and we can move on. I do not intend to use the term to describe others unless they (personally) exhibit several identifiable and commonly recognized symptoms.

Right, symptoms you have pieced together from various folks in order to craft an idiosyncratic way to criticize Mormons.

As regarding religion, didn't it take you until about 40+ to "grow out of it". At least you finally made it out.

A good observation. DrW was only about 35 years behind the rest of enlightened humanity.

[DrW]

This is a good example of what I was referring to. Here Mormons are compared to children.

This is not a good reflection of scholarly thought on magic as it has been understood in various academic works. Instead we get the pop-atheist invented definitions and appeals to a child psychologist who is not using "magic" in the traditional scholarly sense, but in the Disney sense. Such arguments are ill-informed.

Again, Please. Pahoran opened a discussion of the term. He had obviously not done his homework ahead of time. I stated my position in my first post #7, and have said so.

The information you refer to was in a discussion with UD and was submitted to get the most common and recognized definitions and uses of the term into the discussion. Read the post.

Again, please read my posts before attacking me.

Thanks.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Again, Please. Pahoran opened a discussion of the term. He had obviously not done his homework ahead of time. I stated my position in my first post #7, and have said so.

The information you refer to was in a discussion with UD and was submitted to get the most common and recognized definitions and uses of the term into the discussion. Read the post.

Again, please read my posts before attacking me.

Thanks.

I didn't attack you there I attacked your position which I find unfounded and unconvincing. I gave specific reasons why. I suggest responding to my points rather than deflecting.

[DrW]

Right, symptoms you have pieced together from various folks in order to craft an idiosyncratic way to criticize Mormons.A good observation. DrW was only about 35 years behind the rest of enlightened humanity.

Please see Post #23.

Thanks.