Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Mike Reed]

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.)

We aren't talking merely about language, but prejudicial/insulting language. And yes, there are fallacies that don't necessarily involve prejudicial/insulting language.

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.

I don't agree with your dichotomy. Again... it involves both logic and prejudicial/language. And this is key, since as you know.. Poisoning the well (in this instance) is a form of preemptive ad hominem attack.

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.

This is precisely what I suspect Pahoran is doing. Pahoran's argument is preemptive since he makes a generalization about people who use (and will use) the word. It is preemptive and dismissive because Pahoran insinuates that the word "magic" cannot be used in any meaningful conversation. Pahoran insists that the mere word essentially says nothing about that which is being labeled, and everything about the person using it. If that is not poisoning the well, then I don't know what is.

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.

I disagree, since Pahoran apparently is trying to establish/define a rule.

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?

As an apologist with FAIR years ago (and as a participant with you on ZLMB, before its fallout), I was (like Bushman) quite accepting of the word "magic". I accepted it because I became aware of its proper place in academia early on in my education. One of my first undergraduate classes I took at CSUS (as a believing Mormon), in fact, was the anthropology course titled "Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion" (2001)... and then later (after I left the Church) in grad school I took the Religious Studies course "Magic, Alchemy, and Religion" (2007). In cased you missed it, I previously acknowledged that my own tendency to believe in "karma" qualifies as magical thinking.

I have been on both ends of the discussion, the receiving and the dishing out.

[Pahoran]

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.

And your evidence for that is...?

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

I realise you'd love to turn this thread away from its topic and onto me instead; but it won't work.

Sorry, Mikey-boy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

Does it really seem so to you, Mikey-boy?

Does it also seem to you that Ritner is likewise attempting "to stifle conversation on a topic that [he is] embarrassed about"?

Or perhaps not?

And if not, does that explain why you left him off the list?

And does that mean that you know your argument breaks down as soon as you confront him?

How remarkably revealing!

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

Since those who were using it claimed that it conveyed some kind of objective information about the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

And is that the bit where you supposedly called me on my hypocrisy?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Well, if ever you find me on a website focused on discussing someone else's belief system, and marginalising it and its adherents with meaningless, dismissive pejoratives, then you (of all people) may indeed call me (of all people) a hypocrite.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Does it really seem so to you, Mikey-boy?

Does it also seem to you that Ritner is likewise attempting "to stifle conversation on a topic that [he is] embarrassed about"?

Or perhaps not?

And if not, does that explain why you left him off the list?

And does that mean that you know your argument breaks down as soon as you confront him?

How remarkably revealing!

Not nearly as revealing as the title of Ritner's excellent book, "The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice."

Gasp! That is quite an interesting title, for one who allegedly thinks the word "magic" is essentially nothing more than a swear word, and should therefore (as a rule) be abandoned... don't ya think? Is it possible--just possible--that Ritner is being misrepresented here, as you (and others) seemingly try to stifle the conversation?

Had you read Quinn's updated edition of EM&tMWV, you should have noticed this rebuttal:

John Gee implies that respected Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner agrees with Gee's graduate-student views, yet the opposite is true. Ritner actually rejects arguments for abandoning the term "magic" and emphatically affirms the need "for maintaining the concept of `magic' in Egyptology." Why?â??"because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which theyâ??not othersâ??identified with the Western concept of magic." That term was not one of disapproval: "Both deity [Heka] ('Magic/Magician') and concept (`magic') are attested from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period." Ritner concludes: "The undisputed prominence of Heka/heka within orthodox Egyptian theology necessarily provokes skepticism about the supposed incompatibility of `religion' and `magic.'" Moreover, in contradiction to Gee's insistence that "religion" is the only appropriate way to describe Egyptian ritual, Ritner observes that in ancient Egypt "a recognized category of `religion' did not even exist." Nevertheless, in an astonishing misrepresentation of Ritner's repeated statements in the articles that Gee himself cited, this FARMS polemicist has claimed that Ritner allegedly recommends "that the term

magic

be dropped" (emphasis in original).

Pause for laughter....

[Droopy]

[W]e propose that magical thinking is wholly or partly at the root of any explanation of behavioral and experiential phenomena that violates some law of nature or suggests, without supporting evidence, the existence of principles, forces, or entities unknown to science.

Quite interesting that this statement itself includes an assumption that itself can easily be conceived to be a form, or symptom, of what could reasonably be termed "magical thinking".

The crux of this is the, what is clearly used here as a epistemological axiom assumed at the outset, implication that there are no phenomena that are, or ultimately could be, unknown to empirical science. Behind this lies the assumption that the observable, empirical universe and the sum of its principles, forces, and entities, are all that exists.

Its an interesting journey when one begins to question and pursue to their respective lairs the various preassumptions that lay behind arguments and/or the premises from which those arguments are constructed.

Its interesting the degree of faith and childlike hopefulness many people place in their own cherished nostrums regarding the all encompassing oracularness of science (Dawkins and the aforementioned Gould might be exhibit 'a' on this wise)

[Mike Reed]

Behind this lies the assumption that the observable, empirical universe and the sum of its principles, forces, and entities, are all that exists.

I don't see this assumption. Could you be more specific? It seems to me, rather, that you may be unintentionally projecting your own thoughts onto the quote. Thanks in advance.

[Droopy]

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?

Quinn is his own worst enemy in this regard. The deeply tendentious nature of much of his body of work thus far (including the transparently personal agenda driven Same Sex Dynamics) and his very real weaknesses as a scholar (including his well documented penchant for the use of innuendo,suggestion, and logical leaps the inferential strength of which can be quite tenuous) have lent him little credibility among faithful LDS.

Quinn has set out to destroy the Church as it is presently constituted as an organization and as representing a specific body of claims and doctrines regarding the human condition, and all of us know it. There is, therefore, little reason to whitewash any picket fences here. This alteration of the Church as presently constituted has no little weight for Quinn in the area of the law of chastity.

[Mike Reed]

Quinn is his own worst enemy in this regard. The deeply tendentious nature of much of his body of work thus far (including the transparently personal agenda driven Same Sex Dynamics) and his very real weaknesses as a scholar (including his well documented penchant for the use of innuendo,suggestion, and logical leaps the inferential strength of which can be quite tenuous) have lent him little credibility among faithful LDS.

I haven't read Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics yet. Have you?

Quinn has set out to destroy the Church as it is presently constituted as an organization and as representing a specific body of claims and doctrines regarding the human condition, and all of us know it.

All of us know it? No. I disagree. Edit to add: Oh.. by "us" you must mean "faithful LDS" (whatever that means). I still disagree. FWIW... I know a few active/believing/practicing LDS who appreciate Quinn's research in EM&tMWV.

There is, therefore, little reason to whitewash any picket fences.

This has no little weight for Quinn in the area of the law of chastity.

What does this have to do with his rebuttal about Gee's apparent misuse of Ritner, or the word "magic"?

[Droopy]

I haven't read Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics yet. Have you?

Parts, and quite a few years ago. I've also read the relevant critiques of the book from Maxwell Institute scholars, and its an attempt to project modern conceptions of the prevalence of homosexual desires and their presence among human populations back into nineteenth century Mormon culture. Its very similar to Afrocentric ideas about ancient Aftica and Egypt, or similar attempts by modern gay scholars to project homosexual tendencies back onto historical figures or exaggerate its prevalence.

I've got Quinn down Mike, I'm sorry your still having trouble figuring him out (does he wear a cross?)

All of us know it? No. I disagree. Edit to add: Oh.. by "us" you must mean "faithful LDS" (whatever that means). I still disagree. FWIW... I know a few active/believing/practicing LDS who appreciate Quinn's research in EM&tMWV.

Good for you. I don't.

What does this have to do with his rebuttal about Gee's apparent misuse of Ritner, or the word "magic"?

Nothing, but I have little doubt that if Quinn had not made peace with his homosexuality, and had not decided that the Church needs to make peace with it as well, he never would have embarked down the intellectual and spiritual path he has taken as LDS gadfly and inveterate critic of the Church's social and moral positions from the pc Left.

[Joseph Antley]

FWIW... I know a few active/believing/practicing LDS who appreciate Quinn's research in EM&tMWV.

Good for you. I don't.

You and I have never run into each other?

[Mike Reed]

You and I have never run into each other?

[Pahoran]

Not nearly as revealing as the title of Ritner's excellent book, "The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice."

Gasp! That is quite an interesting title, for one who allegedly thinks the word "magic" is essentially nothing more than a swear word, and should therefore (as a rule) be abandoned... don't ya think? Is it possible--just possible--that Ritner is being misrepresented here,

Yes, by you and Quinn. See below.

as you (and others) seemingly try to stifle the conversation?

Why do you insist on persisting with this false accusation?

Does it appeal to you because it is false, or is that feature merely incidental to you?

That you may have no further excuse: I am not trying to stifle any conversation. I am attempting to shame the shameless into stopping the use of meaningless pejoratives.

Is it your position that you cannot have a conversation without them?

You may answer "yes" or "no."

Had you read Quinn's updated edition of EM&tMWV, you should have noticed this rebuttal:

John Gee implies that respected Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner agrees with Gee's graduate-student views, yet the opposite is true. Ritner actually rejects arguments for abandoning the term "magic" and emphatically affirms the need "for maintaining the concept of `magic' in Egyptology." Why?â??"because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which theyâ??not othersâ??identified with the Western concept of magic." That term was not one of disapproval: "Both deity [Heka] ('Magic/Magician') and concept (`magic') are attested from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period." Ritner concludes: "The undisputed prominence of Heka/heka within orthodox Egyptian theology necessarily provokes skepticism about the supposed incompatibility of `religion' and `magic.'" Moreover, in contradiction to Gee's insistence that "religion" is the only appropriate way to describe Egyptian ritual, Ritner observes that in ancient Egypt "a recognized category of `religion' did not even exist." Nevertheless, in an astonishing misrepresentation of Ritner's repeated statements in the articles that Gee himself cited, this FARMS polemicist has claimed that Ritner allegedly recommends "that the term

magic

be dropped" (emphasis in original).

Had you read Gee's actual article, you would have noticed that he himself actually quoted the very passage that Quinn relies upon.

Ritner thinks that "if magic is to be retained as a category in the study of Egyptian thought, it is because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which theyâ??not othersâ??identified with the Western concept of magic: hik," and its earlier equivalent HkA. Ritner adopted the working definition: "For the purpose of this study, any activity which seeks to obtain its goal by methods outside the simple laws of cause and effect will be considered 'magical' in the Western sense." Yet, Ritner notes that

The shift from pharaonic

HkA

to Coptic

hik

represented far more than a linguistic development. If the Coptic pairing of

hik

and

magia

opens the way for the legitimate use of the term "magic" in Egyptology, it must not be forgotten that this equation entailed the adaptation of native terminology to accommodate a Roman category further transformed by Christian belief. . . . one may thus speak of indigenous "Egyptian magic" only with explicit restrictions.

However, as Gee demonstrates, Quinn does not recognise any such restrictions. Rather, he virtually invents a category of "magic" which he then retrospectively imposes upon the early Saints.

Furthermore, I draw your attention back to Ritner's dictum, quoted by both Gee and Quinn: "if magic is to be retained as a category in the study of Egyptian thought, it is because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which theyâ??not othersâ??identified with the Western concept of magic." Using this as the basis, it is clear that magic is not to be retained as a category in the study of Mormon thought, because we have not adopted that name, or any such practices.

IOW, Quinn's "rebuttal" relies upon a criterion that does not apply to the polemical use of "magic" by Quinn, you or any other anti-Mormon.

Pause for laughter....

Indeed.

And as usual, you don't even realise that the joke's on you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

Yes, by you and Quinn. See below.

Why do you insist on persisting with this false accusation?

Does it appeal to you because it is false, or is that feature merely incidental to you?

That you may have no further excuse: I am not trying to stifle any conversation. I am attempting to shame the shameless into stopping the use of meaningless pejoratives.

Is it your position that you cannot have a conversation without them?

You may answer "yes" or "no."

Had you read Gee's actual article, you would have noticed that he himself actually quoted the very passage that Quinn relies upon.

However, as Gee demonstrates, Quinn does not recognise any such restrictions. Rather, he virtually invents a category of "magic" which he then retrospectively imposes upon the early Saints.

Furthermore, I draw your attention back to Ritner's dictum, quoted by both Gee and Quinn: "if magic is to be retained as a category in the study of Egyptian thought, it is because the Egyptians themselves gave a name to a practice which they—not others—identified with the Western concept of magic." Using this as the basis, it is clear that magic is not to be retained as a category in the study of Mormon thought, because we have not adopted that name, or any such practices.

IOW, Quinn's "rebuttal" relies upon a criterion that does not apply to the polemical use of "magic" by Quinn, you or any other anti-Mormon.

Indeed.

And as usual, you don't even realise that the joke's on you.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, did you ever respond to Mike's point that Richard Bushman (an actual expert on the early Latter-day Saint movement and early America, which, AFAIK, Gee is not) and other LDS historians use the term "magic" to describe some of the practices of the Smith family and other early Latter-day Saints? Do you think Bushman is out of line?

[ttribe]

Pahoran, did you ever respond to Mike's point that Richard Bushman (an actual expert on the early Latter-day Saint movement and early America, which, AFAIK, Gee is not) and other LDS historians use the term "magic" to describe some of the practices of the Smith family and other early Latter-day Saints? Do you think Bushman is out of line?

Having read Bushman's use of the word, it is quite different than the pattern Pahoran is objecting to.

[Brant Gardner]

Pahoran, did you ever respond to Mike's point that Richard Bushman (an actual expert on the early Latter-day Saint movement and early America, which, AFAIK, Gee is not) and other LDS historians use the term "magic" to describe some of the practices of the Smith family and other early Latter-day Saints? Do you think Bushman is out of line?

It really isn't as simple as whether or not the term is used. The problem is that it really is used, but used with great caution. The caution is due to the unnecessary connotations that are attached to magic that the scholarly discussions are trying to remove. Nevertheless, we are left without a term that is understood if we don't use "magic."

So, there really isn't a good dividing line between religion and magic, and therefore there is a scholarly movement to try to remove the facile distinctions that are assumed when the term is used. On the other hand, it hasn't been replaced with anything that is universally accepted. So, Gee is correct in what the scholarly world is trying to do, and Bushman is correct in that there isn't much else he can use that is understood.

If you can find a term instead of magic that describes folk religious practices that are considered outside the realm of mainstream religion, the scholarly world is in bad need of it.

[sethpayne]

If you can find a term instead of magic that describes folk religious practices that are considered outside the realm of mainstream religion, the scholarly world is in bad need of it.

I think the term "Folk Magic" is fairly useful. It conveys the sense that 1) It is culturally acceptable in context and 2) that it IS NOT referring to the more nefarious conceptions of "magic"

[Brant Gardner]

I think the term "Folk Magic" is fairly useful. It conveys the sense that 1) It is culturally acceptable in context and 2) that it IS NOT referring to the more nefarious conceptions of "magic"

It is one of the solutions that has been used, but it is still short of a good solution. Because it contains the word "magic" it still designates something that is considered out of the mainstream--which is true only for those who aren't part of that culture.

For example, there is an LDS vocabulary that might speak of a "stake house" which is obviously very different from a "steak house." Inside the community, there is no misunderstanding, but when there is cross-cultural communication, there can be a problem. So it is with magic. When the scholars are talking to each other, there is a tacit understanding that it is a term of last resort. Still, it carries baggage and therefore requires a lot of discussion to get around the idea that it is necessarily something that isn't "correct."

There are rankings of the terms, occult is the worst, then magic, and then superstition. Things that would be considered "magic" or even "occult" if someone else's culture does them, and just superstition if we do them. Anyone who has crossed their fingers or knocked on wood, or repeated the rhyme "step on a crack, break you mother's back" has participated in practices that can be defined as "magic" when seen in someone else's culture. Nevertheless, we would never apply that term to them. At worst they are superstitions. Typically, they are just amusing things that have no real meaning to us--even the superstitious meaning has vanished and we are left with just that tradition without any actual meaning.

[Thinking]

In a debate, the tactic necessarily "poisons the well of discourse" by predisposing people to regard anything a debater says with unreasonable suspicion.

Of course you would never do anything like this.

Well, when it comes to anecdotal evidence, we have to first consider the source.

[Somebodyz]

Who knows. But, had you won a pork-eating contest, it may be easier to guess.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe not. My great Aunt is a Jew. She loved eating pork. Perhaps she was one of those magical thinking Jews.

[Pahoran]

Of course you would never do anything like this.

You're right. And the fact that you have to go back over two years to find something that might look like I would rather bears that out, doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

And the fact that you have to go back over two years to find something that might look like I would rather bears that out, doesn't it?

I was going to be sarcastic but Iâ??m going to follow Dan Petersonâ??s example: â??One could also say other things. But I won't.â?

Iâ??ll just let your own words do the talking.

Produce your references, please, from accepted and non-repudiated LDS sources, or withdraw the accusation.

If Mr. Robertson can document this claim from an LDS source, then he needs to do so. Otherwise, if he is telling this tale on his own authority, then it is rather inextricably intertwined with his personal credibility.

I repeat my CFR, above. What LDS source asserts this?

But even LDS sources can be unreliable.

There is no other source independent of Clayton that says that Joseph had translated a portion of the KP's. If you think there is, please produce it. Such a source, if it is indeed independent, and gives its provenance, would provide Clayton's account with the corroboration you have brazenly and repeatedly claimed; nothing less will do.

But of all the silly Mormon superstitions there are in existence, the single most addle-pated is the notion that absolutely everything published over the Church's name is official doctrine, and absolutely everything that is found between the covers of the quad is canonised scripture. This is not the Church's position.

The Lectures on Faith are non canonical material that was at one time bound between the covers of The Doctrine and Covenants.

[Pahoran]

I was going to be sarcastic but Iâ??m going to follow Dan Petersonâ??s example: â??One could also say other things. But I won't.â?

Iâ??ll just let your own words do the talking.

But even LDS sources can be unreliable.

And this slew of cut-and-pastes, carefully stripped of context, is relevant to -- what, precisely?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

And this slew of cut-and-pastes, carefully stripped of context, is relevant to -- what, precisely?

You've already forgotten? Here is a reminder.

In other words if you can discredit the person who delivered the information, you can discredit the information by association. But you know this already, you do the very same thing that you accuse critics of doing.

[Pahoran]

You've already forgotten? Here is a reminder.

In other words if you can discredit the person who delivered the information, you can discredit the information by association. But you know this already, you do the very same thing that you accuse critics of doing.

No. I do not.

And your context-free snippets do not show me doing any such thing.

They show me calling for references. Asking for corroboration that someone claimed existed. Etc.

I grow increasingly weary with attempts to make threads about me. I really hope you've got it out of your system.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

They show me calling for references.

No. They show you calling for LDS references, thus rejecting any non-LDS reference and casting a shadow of doubt over anybody who provided the non-LDS reference. I thought you were smart enough to make the connection.