Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Alf O'Mega]

I began by quoting Gee to the effect that "magic" is not a useful term in scholarly discourse. In opposition to that, some people quoted some scholars using the term. What they did not do was cite anyone giving the matter serious thought, engaging Gee's arguments and/or those to whom he defers, and making a case for continued use of the term.

This approach is logically equivalent to a doctor who says people shouldn't smoke, and someone who disagrees showing examples of smoking doctors.

Your logical equivalence generator is on the fritz again. You really should have it serviced more regularly.

The situation is logically equivalent to quoting a doctor who challenges the efficaciousness of, say, measuring serum cholesterol levels, and then being confronted with the fact that many doctors still do, in fact, measure serum cholesterol levels. The doctor with the minority opinion may well be correct, but she still needs to convince most of her peers that she is right before quoting her should carry much weight with non-peers.

I am sympathetic to Gee's position, or more precisely I am cognizant of the abuse of the term magic that motivates his position. But his is apparently still a minority position among his peer scholars. It may well turn out that he will someday convince his peers that he is right, and the term will lose favor in the scholarly community. So far, however, I don't think that's the case.

In the present state of affairs, citing scholarly use of the term magic is still a sufficient rebuttal to the claim that "Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others."

[Droopy]

I perceived, from the first time I encountered Quinn's book, that the title was precisely a snobbish put down by a conceited secularist enamored of his own intellectual brilliance.

Some of these in other areas have taken to calling themselves "brights", to distinguish themselves from non-brights, some of which are surely given to magical thought (thinking, in essence, like children think; believing, wishing, and hoping against hope, Peter Pan-like, that things will be, or are, a certain way and not another).

After all the years of Quinn's work being hoisted up the flag pole as "magisterial" and "impeccable", I'm still no more impressed with the man's intellectual work than I was when I first encountered him.

Quinn, in my humble opinion, is and has always been much more bark than bite.

[Pahoran]

Your logical equivalence generator is on the fritz again. You really should have it serviced more regularly.

Ah. A gratuitous swipe from Alf. How out of character. Or something.

The situation is logically equivalent to quoting a doctor who challenges the efficaciousness of, say, measuring serum cholesterol levels, and then being confronted with the fact that many doctors still do, in fact, measure serum cholesterol levels.

Your analogy is imperfect. A complex procedure requires a conscious decision; word choices are frequently unconscious and proceed from our cultural conditioning.

My own analogy is probably not perfect either, but you have introduced no argument as to why yours might be better.

The doctor with the minority opinion may well be correct, but she still needs to convince most of her peers that she is right before quoting her should carry much weight with non-peers.

Which may also have been the case in the early period when medical research first began to recognise the dangers of tobacco.

Ironically, the resident acolytes of science love to remind us of their dictum that it is unscientific to believe anything before there is sufficient scientific proof. Thus, those who followed this dictum in those early days were somehow more virtuous than those (presumably) "magical thinkers" who stopped smoking before all the evidence was in.

I am sympathetic to Gee's position, or more precisely I am cognizant of the abuse of the term magic that motivates his position. But his is apparently still a minority position among his peer scholars. It may well turn out that he will someday convince his peers that he is right, and the term will lose favor in the scholarly community. So far, however, I don't think that's the case.

In the present state of affairs, citing scholarly use of the term magic is still a sufficient rebuttal to the claim that "Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others."

I don't agree. But just in case you may be right in general, citing the decidedly unscholarly use of the term in this forum is a sufficient rejoinder to your rebuttal.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

Quinn's work, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions, presents an enormously useful amount of research.

And, as others have mentioned, Richard Bushman repeatedly refers to the Smiths believing in "magic". I think the LDS who get their underwear in a knot of the term are just paranoid and/or looking for a way to put down Quinn.

[Mike Reed]

Quinn's work, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions, presents an enormously useful amount of research.

And, as others have mentioned, Richard Bushman repeatedly refers to the Smiths believing in "magic". I think the LDS who get their underwear in a knot of the term are just paranoid and/or looking for a way to put down Quinn.

It seems to me that Pahoran's/Gee's/Hamblin's objection may also have to do with an attempt to stifle conversation on a topic that they are embarrassed about.

Since when is Pahoran (of all people) concerned about prejudicial/insulting language?

[Alf O'Mega]

Your analogy is imperfect. A complex procedure requires a conscious decision; word choices are frequently unconscious and proceed from our cultural conditioning.

An observation that is hardly relevant to the scholarly discourse to which I refer, in which the vocabulary is chosen carefully.

Ironically, the resident acolytes of science love to remind us of their dictum that it is unscientific to believe anything before there is sufficient scientific proof. Thus, those who followed this dictum in those early days were somehow more virtuous than those (presumably) "magical thinkers" who stopped smoking before all the evidence was in.

Who's always reminding you of that dictum? Certainly not me.

I don't agree. But just in case you may be right in general, citing the decidedly unscholarly use of the term in this forum is a sufficient rejoinder to your rebuttal.

Use by me? If so, cite it. If not, then your rejoinder is of a piece with the rest of your post: not the slightest bit relevant to anything I have said.

[Joseph Antley]

It seems to me that Pahoran's/Gee's/Hamblin's objection may also have to do with an attempt to stifle conversation on a topic that they are embarrassed about.

I think you may be right, which I think is silly.

I wish that Pahoran had engaged the points you brought up earlier, and which I've pointed on this page of the thread (only to be ignored), before having a brief argument with DrW and audaciously declaring a "verdict".

[Mike Reed]

I wish that Pahoran had engaged the points you brought up earlier, and which I've pointed on this page of the thread (only to be ignored), before having a brief argument with DrW and audaciously declaring a "verdict".

Agreed.

[Brant Gardner]

Quinn's work, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions, presents an enormously useful amount of research.

I've recently been through it again after many years (first edition, I never picked up the second). I remember liking the book the first time through. I liked it a lot less this time around. His first chapter does the right thing by suggesting that one has to see these practices in terms of the times and culture. The anthropologist in me likes that. It is, in my opinion, the only right way to address these issues.

What I noticed this time through is that while he began that way, he stopped doing it at the end of the first chapter. What he actually did was use all of the information for its potential shock value rather than place it in any kind of context. Having learned a bit more about the evidence he is presenting, it is clear that his intent really wasn't defined by that opening chapter. Since he was unfaithful to his own beginning premise, I lost my good opinion of the text.

[wenglund]

It seems to me that Pahoran's/Gee's/Hamblin's objection may also have to do with an attempt to stifle conversation on a topic that they are embarrassed about.

This conjecture is not only counter-factual (each of these men have explicitly explained the reasons for their objections and none even hinted at wishing to "stifle the conversation"), but also counter-intuitive (starting a thread on a public discussion board such as this is clearly a proactive invitation to converse about the subject, not stifle it).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Does anyone here dispute Pahoran's main point that the label "magical thinking" is being used in recent times to "poison the well" when discussing things LDS?

Does anyone dispute that as a rule, when the label is applied in modern LDS discussions, it tends not to convey the pseudo-scientific meaning (i.e. confusing causation with correlation), but the pejoritive meaning (sorcery, enchantments, conjured tricks, illusions by sleight of hand, etc.)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

This conjecture is not only counter-factual (each of these men have explicitly explained the reasons for their objections and none even hinted at wishing to "stifle the conversation"), but also counter-intuitive (starting a thread on a public discussion board such as this is clearly a proactive invitation to converse about the subject, not stifle it).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since, in your world, everyone is up front about all of their motives all of the time, I guess the words "hidden agenda" wouldnâ??t mean anything to you.

The opening post is about semantics, not actual â??magicalâ? practices in early Mormonism. As I see itâ?¦ keeping the discussion at the level of semantics is a tactical advantage for conservative Mormon apologetics.

[Mike Reed]

Does anyone here dispute Pahoran's main point that the label "magical thinking" is being used in recent times to "poison the well" when discussing things LDS?

I don't believe this to be the case universally. Now I have a question for you. Does it at all surprise you that, of all people, Pahoran is concerned about prejudicial/insulting language?

Does anyone dispute that as a rule, when the label is applied in modern LDS discussions, it tends not to convey the pseudo-scientific meaning (i.e. confusing causation with correlation), but the pejoritive meaning (sorcery, enchantments, conjured tricks, illusions by sleight of hand, etc.)?

I don't believe such a rule exists. I think it all depends on the person using the label, and the context in which it is used. If Bill Schnoebelen was using it (in his article, "We Thank Thee, O God for a Warlock!"), I would say yes. If Richard Bushman was (in "Rough Stone Rolling"), I would say no.

[MythPig]

Hi Wade

Does anyone here dispute Pahoran's main point that the label "magical thinking" is being used in recent times to "poison the well" when discussing things LDS?

Does anyone dispute that as a rule, when the label is applied in modern LDS discussions, it tends not to convey the pseudo-scientific meaning (i.e. confusing causation with correlation), but the pejoritive meaning (sorcery, enchantments, conjured tricks, illusions by sleight of hand, etc.)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could praying to a cheif diety or perhaps a united Godhead in hopes of obtaining a blessing or other favorable action be compared to Sorcery without being thought of as pejoritive? Outside of stage craft and illusions, is there a hard distinction between the Seer who casts his dice in hopes of divineing the future and the Christian who prays for personal inspiration?

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Wade

Could praying to a cheif diety or perhaps a united Godhead in hopes of obtaining a blessing or other favorable action be compared to Sorcery without being thought of as pejoritive? Outside of stage craft and illusions, is there a hard distinction between the Seer who casts his dice in hopes of divineing the future and the Christian who prays for personal inspiration?

I don't know about Wade, but I think that even from a militant atheist position, there is a hard distinction between the two.

One is leaving something purely to chance (whatever the dice lands on dictates a conclusion). The other; however, is potentially a form of meditation and isnâ??t completely reliant on chance outside of oneself. The personal inspiration may be fully derived from oneâ??s own brain chemicals, but there are things your subconscious and conscious brain know about the situation and potential outcomes (which, to an extent can be analyzed) as well as the potentiality for bringing about self-fulfilled prophecy that Iâ??m pretty sure the dice lackâ?¦

Now, if you were divining with a Klondike Bar on the other hand...

[Brant Gardner]

I don't know about Wade, but I think that even from a militant atheist position, there is a hard distinction between the two.

There is a hard distinction, but only if you accept the definitions of those making the distinction. This particular distinction was made most recently in the Protestant Reformation, where a real attempt was made to separate the more spiritual (and personal) activity from the physical and authority-direct activity (such as Priests reciting prayers, or associations with sacred objects).

However, in Old Testament times (and at least once in the Book of Mormon), they were considered the same.

One is leaving something purely to chance (whatever the dice lands on dictates a conclusion).

Of course, that is not the way that the religious use of such divining practices was understood. The act was understood to be random, and therefore the result had to come from God (or the gods, depending upon your religious flavor). The divine unrandomized the random.

The other; however, is potentially a form of meditation and isnâ??t completely reliant on chance outside of oneself. The personal inspiration may be fully derived from oneâ??s own brain chemicals, but there are things your subconscious and conscious brain know about the situation and potential outcomes (which, to an extent can be analyzed) as well as the potentiality for bringing about self-fulfilled prophecy that Iâ??m pretty sure the dice lackâ?¦

Which is a relatively modern explanation for what is happening. This isn't descriptive of most of the functions of prayer throughout history.

[MythPig]

Hello Dr. Steuss,

I don't know about Wade, but I think that even from a militant atheist position, there is a hard distinction between the two.

One is leaving something purely to chance (whatever the dice lands on dictates a conclusion). The other; however, is potentially a form of meditation and isnâ??t completely reliant on chance outside of oneself. The personal inspiration may be fully derived from oneâ??s own brain chemicals, but there are things your subconscious and conscious brain know about the situation and potential outcomes (which, to an extent can be analyzed) as well as the potentiality for bringing about self-fulfilled prophecy that Iâ??m pretty sure the dice lackâ?¦

Now, if you were divining with a Klondike Bar on the other hand...

Hmmmmm, excellent point. I had gone with lot casting becuase of it's Biblical backround. Perhaps a better comparison would be Artemidorus and oneiromancy (divination by dream interpetation) and the fasting Christian in deep prayer?

As for militant atheists, I say we set that stance aside and try the role of a outside observer.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] try the role of a outside observer.

MythPig (dig your moniker),

I think Brant made a good point in his response (and that I believe you're echoing here) that it seems to depend on who is making (or attempting to make, or not make) a distinction.

Iâ??m going to muse out loud here for a moment (I hope youâ??ll forgive me), but to what extent does the â??outside observerâ? (regardless of their particular religious, or non-religious world-view) owe it to the adherent to approach something with their vocabulary and distinctions when conversing with them? In other words, if I think that bibliomancy lacks any form of efficacy, am I doing a disservice not only to the individual who randomly opens to a Biblical passage in search of guidance, but to the conversation as a whole if I use terms such as â??magical practiceâ? when the practitioner doesnâ??t view it under those terms?

Edited to add:

Or more along the lines of your previous question: If a practitioner sees a distinction, would it be fruitful for the outside observer to temporarily adopt said distinction in order for the dialogue to occur on common ground?

Edit #2:

Why is my writing so pedantic today? Re-reading the above almost gave me a brain tumor.

[MythPig]

MythPig (dig your moniker),

I think Brant made a good point in his response (and that I believe you're echoing here) that it seems to depend on who is making (or attempting to make, or not make) a distinction.

Iâ??m going to muse out loud here for a moment (I hope youâ??ll forgive me), but to what extent does the â??outside observerâ? (regardless of their particular religious, or non-religious world-view) owe it to the adherent to approach something with their vocabulary and distinctions when conversing with them? In other words, if I think that bibliomancy lacks any form of efficacy, am I doing a disservice not only to the individual who randomly opens to a Biblical passage in search of guidance, but to the conversation as a whole if I use terms such as â??magical practiceâ? when the practitioner doesnâ??t view it under those terms?

Edited to add:

Or more along the lines of your previous question: If a practitioner sees a distinction, would it be fruitful for the outside observer to temporarily adopt said distinction in order for the dialogue to occur on common ground?

Edit #2:

Why is my writing so pedantic today? Re-reading the above almost gave me a brain tumor.

lol, it made sense to me.

I guess I discard the use of pleasent euphemisms when engaging in open and honest disscusion. I do think it is important for the observer to make clear that Magical Thinking does not equate to "Wrong Thinking" nor does a admission to Magical Thinking an admission to defeat.

But really it just seems to be the intent of the speaker. I would think that any Evangelical who accuses Mormons of "Magical Thinking" is doing for the purposes that Mr. Englund describes.

[wenglund]

I don't believe this to be the case universally. Now I have a question for you. Does it at all surprise you that, of all people, Pahoran is concerned about prejudicial/insulting language?

From what I gather from the OP, I would think his concern is with "poisoning the well", which has to with fallacious argumentation rather than language. Given Pahorans above-average ccritical thinking acuity, it doesn't surprise me a bit that he would mention it.

I don't believe such a rule exists. I think it all depends on the person using the label, and the context in which it is used. If Bill Schnoebelen was using it (in his article, "We Thank Thee, O God for a Warlock!"), I would say yes. If Richard Bushman was (in "Rough Stone Rolling"), I would say no.

So, from your observations, you haven't detected generally in the material critical to the LDS faith, and in particular the criticism of the Church on this board, any difference in frequency in occurance between the Schnoebelen type usage and the Bushman usage?

Can you grant that it is reasonable for Pahoran and I to concluded that there is far greater frequency of the Schoebelen type usage, particularly on this board, such that it may be consider the rule, whereas the Bushman usage is the rare exception? Because, if you can grant this, then perhaps you may just get Pahoran's point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi Wade

Could praying to a cheif diety or perhaps a united Godhead in hopes of obtaining a blessing or other favorable action be compared to Sorcery without being thought of as pejoritive? Outside of stage craft and illusions, is there a hard distinction between the Seer who casts his dice in hopes of divineing the future and the Christian who prays for personal inspiration?

I can only speak for this Christian, and perhaps for most other LDS as well, were there no hard distinction, we would have no reason to prefer prayer over casting dice. But, we do prefer pray, to the compete exclusion of casting dice (at least in the modern era--as Brant pointed out). So, at least in our minds, there is a hard distinction. Obviously.

So, when interacting with us generally, there is good chance that comparing our religion to Sorcery and magic will be interpreted pejoratively. And, I think not a few of our critics understand this, and also think in the same way, and intentionally use those comparisons for pejoritive and well-poisoning purposes.

Since, in non-scientific discussions of our religion today, rarely is it necessary to use these potentially pejorative terms (there are other less potentially offense ways of making the same point), then if one is wishes to engage in effective and respectful dialogue, it would make sense to avoid the pejoratives. Agreed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

From what I gather from the OP, I would think his concern is with "poisoning the well",

Poisoning the well, through the means of using what Pahoran believes to be prejudicial language--ie. "The term magic is used as a club to beat one's religious opponents over the head" and "is about as informative as a swear word."

which has to with fallacious argumentation rather than language.

False dichotomy? It seems pretty clear to me that the OP has to do with both.

Given Pahorans above-average ccritical thinking acuity, it doesn't surprise me a bit that he would mention it.

And yet the irony is that Pahoran himself seems to be guilty of "poisoning the well" (towards those who use the label "magic"), as he promotes Gee's claim that word reveals "only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it"--and then Pahoran follows Geeâ??s statement with his own blanket assertion "Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others."

So, from your observations, you haven't detected generally in the material critical to the LDS faith, and in particular the criticism of the Church on this board, any difference in frequency in occurance between the Schnoebelen type usage and the Bushman usage?

What Pahoran/Gee/and Hamblin view as "critical" is a wide range of material. And as I am sure you noticed, the quotes that Pahoran pulled from Gee come directly from a review written about Quinn's book, EM&tMWV. I wouldn't equate Quinn's usage with Schnoebelen's in the slightest.

Can you grant that it is reasonable for Pahoran and I to concluded that there is far greater frequency of the Schoebelen type usage, particularly on this board, such that it may be consider the rule, whereas the Bushman usage is the rare exception? Because, if you can grant this, then perhaps you may just get Pahoran's point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Certainly, there are trolls who pop their heads in now and again, and throw out such drivel. But I think most long time posters know better to put the term in its proper context. Of course, there are exceptions... but (at least from my observation) those exceptions aren't the norm. Admittedly, I don't read all threads on this forum, and I tend to pay more attention to posts that come from the more informed participants... so I suppose that it is possible that my perception is skewed. But again... as far as I have noticed... no. I don't think greater frequency leans toward Schnoebelen type usage.

[wenglund]

Poisoning the well, through the means of using what Pahoran believes to be prejudicial language--ie. "The term magic is used as a club to beat one's religious opponents over the head" and "is about as informative as a swear word."

False dichotomy? It seems pretty clear to me that the OP has to do with both.

Not wishing to speak for Pahoran (he is quite capable of speaking for himself) or put too fine of a point on things, I can't conceive of how any sort of fallacy can possibly be committed absent the use of language. Can you?

However, while language is invariably used in committing any fallacy, the fallacies are a matter of logic, not language. Right? (--just as vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc. are matters of language, and not logic.)

So, while it makes perfect sense for Pahoran to point out the language used when committing the fallacy of poisoning the well, the well poisoning, itself, is a matter of logic, not language.

And yet the irony is that Pahoran himself seems to be guilty of "poisoning the well" (towards those who use the label "magic"), as he promotes Gee's claim that word reveals "only the ignorance and displeasure of the person who uses it"--and then Pahoran follows Geeâ??s statement with his own blanket assertion "Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others."

For Pahoran to be guilty of poisoning the well in this case, two conditions would need to be met. First, his comments would need to be preemptive in nature, and second, his comments would need to be intended to discredit or ridicule or dismiss all of what his interlocutors will have to say on a given topic.

Since this thread comes after, and in reaction to an observed trend, the first condition is not met, and so he is not guilty of poisoning the well. And, since Pahoran's comments were specific to the pejorative use of the word "magic" by critics, and wasn't intended to discredit or ridicule or dismiss everything the critics have to say on a given topic, the second condition is not met, and so he is not guilty of poisoning the well. Rather, he legitimately gave a specific critique of what has been said, and didn't dismiss all that will be said.

What Pahoran/Gee/and Hamblin view as "critical" is a wide range of material. And as I am sure you noticed, the quotes that Pahoran pulled from Gee come directly from a review written about Quinn's book, EM&tMWV. I wouldn't equate Quinn's usage with Schnoebelen's in the slightest.

Certainly, there are trolls who pop their heads in now and again, and throw out such drivel. But I think most long time posters know better to put the term in its proper context. Of course, there are exceptions... but (at least from my observation) those exceptions aren't the norm. Admittedly, I don't read all threads on this forum, and I tend to pay more attention to posts that come from the more informed participants... so I suppose that it is possible that my perception is skewed. But again... as far as I have noticed... no. I don't think greater frequency leans toward Schnoebelen type usage.

Clearly, your perceptions are vastly different from Pahoran, Gee, Hamblin, and me. Perhaps that may be because you tend not to be on the receiving end of the perpetual flood of criticisms direct at the LDS (including those that use the term "magic" is used in reference to our faith), but on the dishing-out end, and maybe you haven't been at this for as long and as extensively as us. Who knows?

Whatever the case, if you would like examples of what Pahoran was speaking to, I trust he could point you to the several recent instances he had in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

One instance is "DrW," who employed the magical thinking stuff.

[Tsuzuki]

Did someone say "magic"?!

*counts down to when Tsuzuki chimes in this thread*

So far, I don't see anything in this thread that would help me to improve my l33t skillz. Where is the magical theory and technique? Surely there are elements from Mormonism (or in this case, anti-Mormonism) that can be used for magical effect.