- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” by D. Micheal Quinn I am starting this as a place holder I guess. The book just arrived from Amazon, and I am starting it.
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Mormonism-Magic-World-View/dp/1560850892 The book is about the history of ritual magic in the lives of early Mormon saints, Joseph Smith in particular is highlighted, and the context of belief in magic in general society during the 18th and 19th century. I am pretty sure this book dives into Joseph’s treasure digging/diving days, use of seer stones, and other ritual magic topics in the lives of the early saints.
Initial impressions:
Nice and juicy thick
It’s my first Michael Quinn book. The titles of his books come across a little adversarial towards the Church. Digging in to the introduction and a little into the first chapter, his direction seems to go towards explaining why “magic” and magical thinking is really to be expected from JS and the early Mormons, being normal for their time, even if it seems offensive to moderns today. I appreciate his attitude of just laying it all out there regardless if something seems uncomfortable. It is what it is.
I am not too far into the book. It was interesting to see how difficult it is to separate magic from religion, and how this question has been debated for hundreds if not thousands of years. The late 1700’s “age of reason” and science just added another facet to this age-old quandary.
Especially when “magic” essentially means “effort to bring to light through action the unknown or otherwise impossible” – and when we realize that the word is used by those who DON’T understand to describe the actions of those who DO understand (or, at least, who can do something that is not understood). When you look at it from a 30,000 foot view, much of the experimentation that occurs in science could be classified as “magic” to those who don’t understand. I have no problems whatsoever with the word “magic” – but I don’t like the meaning that is acquited in practical application.
I haven’t read this one but, having read 2 of Quinn’s books, I think I’ll pass. He certainly presents himself as an objective historian but, after studying his sources, I’ve found him severely lacking.
This is a link to a letter from F. Collier to “Dr.” Quinn. It certainly opened my eyes.
http://www.zianet.com/collier/quinn.htm Admittedly, he may have produced something more scholarly in M&MWV….
I’ll be interested in hearing the views of someone who reads his stuff and actually follows up on his sources. IMHO he depends on people not doing that.
My opinion only….
My wife has been reading the Mormon Hierarchy books and also owns Magical World view, although she hasn’t read it yet. Her perception of the books is that they are the least biased books she has read and that they largely simply lay out the facts without drawing specific conclusions. Perhaps she will have something to add about them . . . The books certainly do have a very large section of references and notes, suggesting they are the product of scholarly research.
Bruce in Montana wrote:
This is a link to a letter from F. Collier to “Dr.” Quinn. It certainly opened my eyes.
This letter seems to mostly try and damage Quinn’s reputation with the focus on his homosexual status and lay out the case that Quinn has a personal vendetta against the church. I’m not sure it is itself the most unbiased letter I’ve ever read. Some of Collier’s “facts” seem to correspond more with the LDS “scrubbed” version of history than “factual” history. It is interesting that many people also label Quinn as an apologist as he made lots of references to salamanders in the magical world view during the Hoffman affair.
Bruce, who is F. Collier? Is this the same Fred Collier that Timpanogas wrote about in his introduction who ended up going polygamist/fundamentalist?
I loved the book and was quite surprised at how objective Quinn was throughout. It really set the stage for me to understand the presentism that we have a hard time understanding today. I read it quite a while ago and am shady on specifics, but I remember discussing it at a book meeting, and two things stand out. A person (a lawyer) told me that for a time, a person’s dreams were considered admissable evidence in a court of law. I think that says much about what people considered acceptable there and then. A few historians recommended we watch the movie “The Crucible” (Daniel Day Lewis, Winona Ryder) which shows a story during the Salem witch hunts. They said it portrayed the mindset of the people quite accurately during Joseph’s time as well. It was very interesting to me.
I’m a real fan of Quinn. I’m quite ashamed that so many in the church have highlighted his homosexuality instead of his scholarship; as if somehow his sexual preference diminishes his ability to research and write well????
😮 😯 
I haven’t read this book, but it is on my “to read” list. I have read Mormon Hierarchy, and I really enjoyed it–I’ll be purchasing it soon because I enjoyed it so much. I will say one of my friends questions some of Quinn’s claims. For example, in Mormon Heirarchy, Quinn shows a photo of the seerstone that Joseph supposedly used. The photo has not been authenticated, and there is some doubt as to if that stone is the correct stone. Quinn never mentions this, so I do think that some of his conclusions shouldn’t necessarily be taken at face value. I’ve also heard that he does seem to have a habit of twisting some of the footnotes to support his point of view, and that not all of his quotes support Quinn’s interpretation of them. I’m kinda with Ray on this…”magic” doesn’t have to mean there is intentional deception. Magic can be deceptive, like when I trick my 6 yr old with telling him my car unlocks upon voice commands of “open sesame” – when really I am just using the remote in my pocket to unlock the car…it is just done in fun and I don’t go around tricking him for important matters in life. I thing a lot of magic used in Joseph Smith’s day was simply a lack of understanding the real world and truths, and calling the unknown magic. And I don’t have a problem with that. “Bruce, who is F. Collier? Is this the same Fred Collier that Timpanogas wrote about in his introduction who ended up going polygamist/fundamentalist?” Yes, that’s the same Fred Collier. He’s an independent fundamentalist that I disagree with on a lot of things, but I find him “dead on” in his letter to Quinn. (obviously, in opposition to everyone else here
Mister Currie, with respect, you mention that Mr. Collier’s letter was not unbiased…well, no….It wasn’t intended to be. It is blatantly accusing him of writing biased fiction and calling it history. Collier is calling him to the mat on his facts.
With respect to everyone, I submit that the only way to find out is to actually investigate some of Quinn’s cited sources and see for ourselves. I’ll go back when I have some time and recheck on some things. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong…but on this guy…I don’t think so.
Edit:
Rix said “I’m a real fan of Quinn. I’m quite ashamed that so many in the church have highlighted his homosexuality instead of his scholarship; as if somehow his sexual preference diminishes his ability to research and write well????
Are you familiar with the document “Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example “?
This is a textbook example, IMHO, of how not to write a “historical” document. His “hint and run” style would get a D- from most any junior college English instuctor.
It’s addressed here quite well:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=10&num=1&id=280 With respect Rix, he brought the highlightening (is that a word?
I guess I’ve gotten off the subject of this book and on the subject of the author. They are kinda hard to separate though.
Oops..I was a little slow to re-edit my edit. Anyway, regarding Quinn…you just don’t throw out some sick “hint and run” innuendo like:
“the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith enjoyed bedtime snuggling with male friends throughout his life” (p. 87).
…and expect people to not challenge you on it. (well, maybe you can but don’t expect me not to challenge you on it) We all know that men have slept together for centuries due to limited sleeping facilities. That does not mean what “sleeping together” means today. Throwing the word “snuggling” in there is just one example of his constant striving to justify his homosexual agenda.
I dunno, I guess we straight folks do a lot to justify our heterosexual agenda too! 
Bruce in Montana wrote:one example of his constant striving to justify his homosexual agenda.
This statement shocks me coming from a fundamentalist, Bruce. At so many levels.
Anyone listen to Quinn’s speech/testimony at the Sunstone symposium? Pretty moving stuff. spacious maze wrote:Anyone listen to Quinn’s speech/testimony at the Sunstone symposium? Pretty moving stuff.
I did, and I was very touched.
I know Michael Quinn is very controversial for several reasons. His books always seemed to have titles that were edgy to me. I am not sure if that was more to draw attention or not, I can’t help but think that a little. History can be a very dry and boring subject to the majority of people. From the little I have read in Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn seems to head in a positive direction on a topic that has been used as a blunt weapon to beat up Mormonism and JS forever.
I have Hierarchies of Power on my to-read list too. I enjoy all these kinds of books these days. I am not looking for the “Truth” in these books. It is all just someone’s perspective. There is no escaping that in history, not even autobiographies escape from this problem. I enjoy at least feeling like I have explored facts and information surrounding the stories so that I can think about them and make my own decisions, which are often not in agreement with the authors.
On the topic of homosexuality. Yeah, I was aware of Quinn’s work on that subject. We have HUGE hangups about physical intimacy in our western culture. People used to sleep together in the past, and it didn’t mean at all what that means today. I will never forget my experience teaching African refugees in Germany when i was a missionary. When many of them would talk to me, they would reach out and hold my hand and stand really close. It was more so when they were sharing something personal or important (something intimate). If you stop and think about it, that makes a lot of sense. You know someone is paying attention to what you are saying … but it was uncomfortable from my cultural perspective. It was a form of intimacy that I was not accustomed to. I got used to it though.
I think Bruce is right that Quinn got carried away in the Same Sex Dynamics work. And that colors my estimation of his work. I better read him before I say more. I did like his Sunstone “10 Years Later” talk. Thanks, Bruce, for the link.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.