- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power by D. Michael Quinn. I’m going to follow Valoel’s lead and put this as a place holder. I just finished JS:RSR and hope I am a little better prepared for some of the hard history of the church. Similar to Valoel’s impressions of Mormonism and the Magic World View, more than half this book is references and appendices which suggest some dedicated research into the subject.
Hi MisterCurie: I am through the first three or so chapters of the book and yes there is a lot of scholarship and research and footnotes. There seems to be a few underlying assumptions: 1) that if God was actually organizing a church He should have done it all at once, in perfect form, instead of the halting, messy, and confusing way it did get developed, “line up line and precept upon precpt” is not something Quinn wants to take account of. 2) that Joseph fairly consistently altered his own history and information to match new situations and understandings in a very conscious way, hoping to fool all of us (this might be a bit unfair to Quinn but I don’t think too far off the mark). Quinn doesn’t seem to accept the fact that we tell a story different every time we do it depending on the audience and that new understanding does affect how our memories of the past in fact operates.
So, read it by all means, I am quite enjoying it and marvelling at how much detail does go into it but unlike Rough Stone Rolling which is objective but sympathetic Quinn relentlessly negative.
So I guess what I am saying is that it is an interesting but tough read. It IS a way to find out about a lot of sources that one could look at and perhaps find information on their own (though some are in Church Archive which Quinn had free run of for quite some time) . I do not have the scholarly equipment to look at Quinn’s accuracy or if he properly uses his sources but I am willing to grant him a significant degree of professionalism in that regard.
Good luck, let’s have more discussion as you work into it.
We had Stake Conference today, so I had the whole afternoon to read. I got through the first three chapters. My impressions have differed somewhat from yours Bill.
Bill Atkinson wrote:There seems to be a few underlying assumptions: 1) that if God was actually organizing a church He should have done it all at once, in perfect form, instead of the halting, messy, and confusing way it did get developed, “line up line and precept upon precpt” is not something Quinn wants to take account of.
I do not think that Quinn makes the assumption that the church should have been revealed from God in its perfection in one stroke. On the contrary, I feel that the church presents its history as if God revealed His church in its perfection, but Quinn forcefully disabused the reader of that notion. I did not sense any particular sense of disbelief in the truth of the Church from Quinn. In fact, in the Introduction, he states:
Quinn wrote:For most Mormons this book should be informative without being disturbing . . . I that the devout will maintain faith in a dynamic religion whose leaders may be more human than previously understood.
Bill Atkinson wrote:2) that Joseph fairly consistently altered his own history and information to match new situations and understandings in a very conscious way, hoping to fool all of us
Again, I did not detect a sense from Quinn that he thought JS was trying to fool us all. The facts are essentially the same as those reported by Bushman in RSR, however Bushman provides the possible explanation to the changes that JS was simply constantly receiving further inspiration on the subject and so went back to the old revelations to clarify points that he himself had never understood. In fact, Bushman clearly suggests that JS chose his own words for the revelations to describe the visions/ideas God was giving him (even though JS had them written as if God himself had given him the exact phrasing), but that as JS better understood the revelations the appropriate wording changed.
The differences I find between Bushman and Quinn seem to be largly a matter of style, rather than content. Bushman’s book is a narrative, which allows him to present a story with background information and context. Bushman also frequently provides the reader with a possible explanation that is faith promoting. Quinn, on the other hand, is presenting an analysis of the origins of hierarchy in the church and so he presents a series of facts without a great deal of narrative. Quinn clearly selects and presents his facts in a way that supports his thesis/conclusions, but without directly stating what conclusion the reader should draw from the facts. I also feel that Quinn is careful to present the facts that are somewhat at odds with his thesis as well. I think that having read RSR is a huge plus when reading Quinn because it allows the reader to place much of Quinn’s evidence into the context of the historical narrative. I like the Quinn does not seem to hide or downplay the facts, as Bushman does at times. On the other hand, some of Quinn’s facts are actually less positively presented in RSR than in OoP. For example, Quinn states on page 82:
Quinn wrote:Up to this time the Mormons had not so much as lifted a finger, even in their own defence . . .They were following the non-violent example of their prophet . . . One night in March 1832 a mob in Hiram, Ohio, broke into the home of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, dragged them from their beds, attempted to poison Smith, beat both unconscious, then tarred-and-feathered them. . . Smith preached the next day to a congregation which included several of his attackers, and he sought no retribution.
However, Bushman suggests that this attack may not have been as unprovoked as Quinn makes it sound, the mob appeared to be responding to rumors of unwanted sexual advances of JS. In fact, the mob brought along a doctor to castrate JS.
Here are my impressions from the first three chapters. I am going to do lots of comparisons to RSR, probably because I just finished, but also because I think that having read RSR is a huge plus when reading Quinn because it allows the reader to place much of Quinn’s evidence into the context of the historical narrative. Quinn covers each topic roughly in chronological order, but it is useful to understand everything else that is also happening at the same time, which is where Bushman’s book comes in handy. Chapter 1: The Evolution of Authority
As I stated above, the facts presented in this chapter are largely consistent with those presented by Bushman in RSR. I think Quinn does an excellent job presenting the evolving views of the church hierarchy/authority from the viewpoint of the average member, which allows Quinn to present the actual changes JS made to revelations and the evolving history of priesthood restoration without making a judgement on whether JS was doing it due to an evolving understanding of God’s revelation as Bushman suggests or due to impure plans to consolidate power. The chapter forcefully disabuses the reader of any notion that God restored his church in its perfection from the beginning, as largely taught by the church currently.
Chapter 2: The First Five Presiding Priesthood Quorums
This chapter is somewhat more in depth regarding the structure and history of the church hierarchy than Bushman’s narrative in RSR, which largely focuses on JS, rather than the church. I think that Quinn again artfully disabuses the reader of the notion that the organization of the church was given by God in its entirety and perfection from the beginning. I did not sense that Quinn feels the history of the church hierarchy negates its inspiration. The chapter also helps to explain the confusion in the church after the martyrdom of JS as to how succession should occur.
Chapter 3: Theocratic Beginnings
Bushman’s RSR was particularly useful for this chapter to put the events presented into a larger narrative. However, I also noticed that this chapter really highlghts Bushman’s light treatment of some of the difficult aspects of church history, particularly the Danites. Many of the facts Quinn presents are quite disturbing, but he does given even treatment to both the atrocities of the Mormons and the mobs. I felt that Quinn’s presentation of the facts was a little heavy-handed here in supporting his thesis of the church’s early embrace of theocracy. It almost feels like he is trying to say that the concept of theocracy is ingrained in the church and that modern Mormons maintain a military mindset and are still interested in governmental overthrow (at least that was my impression). Several times while reading the chapter I got a better understanding of the fear JS and the church had of the return of the mobs once they settled in Nauvoo as presented by Bushman.
I read this a while ago and found it extremely enlightening. I did not come away from the read with sense of negativity towards the church. I appreciated the scholarly research. One of the most fascinating things for me was the events surrounding the transition of power to Brigham Young, and the ambiguous and contradictory things that Joseph Smith told various followers at various times about succession. Interesting when Brigham mass ordained the Nauvoo elders to offices of Seventy, as a means of removing confusion and bringing them under his jurisdiction, rather than leaving them with the Stake. I also really enjoyed the pathway to our current succession that occurred as they hashed things out after arriving in the Salt Lake Valley.
I read the book some time ago but my impression was similar to MisterC’s. Quinn always comes across as reasonable in his analysis to me (knowing that every perspective is biased). I agree with what Bushman says in the podcast though – especially with Magic World View – when you pile everything together in one book it gives (what is probably a false) impression that everyone at the time was up to their neck in it. Chapter 4: The Kingdom of God in Nauvoo, Illinois Another disturbing chapter by Quinn, the content of which was given very light treatment in RSR. This chapter covers many of the church developments that would later serve to help splinter the church into various factions. I found the theocratic ethics very disturbing, where “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.” The most disturbing aspect being that we must accept that one person says it is the will of God. As I thought about theocratic ethics, I realized it is thoroughly integrated into our church, from Nephi killing Laban (why could God just have Laban choke on an olive in his martini so that Nephi didn’t have to kill him and wouldn’t have gotten blood all over his nice clothes?) and lying to steal the plates, to JS and 19th century (and early 20th century) prophets on polygamy, to “lying for the Lord” while whitewashing church history today all the way up to Pres. Hinckley lying in his media interviews regarding doctrines of the church. Even more disturbing than JS using this doctrine to coerce women to marry him is that our current leaders still exemplify this principle. Could they honestly get a TR? Freemasonry and Mormonism was also discussed. This topic was mostly disturbing to me due to a Dialogue article I read on Masonry and Mormonism (
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=17325&REC=5 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=17325&REC=5 Chapter 5: The 1844 Succession Crisis and the Twelve
A fascinating treatment of the succession crisis and all of the separate succession claims with the evidence supporting each. Quinn does a remarkable job illustrating the confusion reigning in the church after the martyrdom. JS definately did not make it obvious as to who was to take over, despite current claims by the church to the contrary (history obviously written by the victors). I particularly found it fascinating as Quinn described the competing factions for and against the secret developments in Nauvoo. lthough it was interesting that many of those initially against the “secret” developments eventually introduced polygamy into their respective factions of the church. Brigham Young is definately portrayed as a ruthless, power-grabbing leader. Of course, given his documented racist and sexist statements, this portrayal isn’t too shocking. My impression is that Quinn does not like BY very much.
Chapter 6: Other Succession Options
More succession options are discussed by Quinn. I was particularly interested to hear the claims by the RLDS church and was not disappointed. The claims for David Hyrum to become prophet were compelling, particularly given JS prophesies for David. However, it appears that these prophesies belonged with many of JS other prophesies that ultimately were never fulfilled.
Chapter 7: The Nature of Apostolic Succession
A fascinating discussion of how the LDS church came to have the senior apostle become president of the church, as well as an interesting treatment of rare situations when the Quorum almost didn’t follow this precedent. This chapter was particularly interesting as it moved toward more recent developments and prophets that I am more personally familiar with. This chapter serves as an effective “hook” into the 2nd volume of the work, which will deal with more modern aspects of the church. I can’t wait to get started . . .
Well, I guess this is the proper thread for posting an opposing view… I’d love to debate Quinn’s motives but a blog format (nor the spirit of this site) doesn’t really lend itself to such.
http://www.zianet.com/collier/quinn.htm I know it’s a bit lengthy but I think it gets to the point fairly quickly. It’s certainly not for the “Quinn can speak no evil” crowd but it may be of interest to those keeping an open mind.
My favorite quote:
“I mean after all, who is going to take the time to look up and study 1000s of endnotes and cross references, especially when so many of them are not available for research to the general public. Not only that, but who would dare to challenge Quinn — the Doctor of History from Yale University! To be sure it won’t be anyone who works for the church! They have too much to lose — there are too many skeletons in the closet — and besides, confrontation and bad publicity is not the way the church solves its problems. So after palming this master deception upon an unsuspecting public, you march out into the sunset, triumphantly labeled under the phony banner of “martyr” for the cause of so-called honest and objective history..”
Just sayin….
Bruce, I appreciate your dissenting opinions and you raise a good point that we need to be aware of the agenda and biases of the historian/author. I think Quinn clearly overreaches at points and his precise selection of evidence and its arrangement is clearly designed to lead the reader toward his own conclusions. However, I do not find the Collier refutations convincing and think that Collier exposes his own biases more than he exposes Quinn’s.
Bruce, I read Collier’s review, kind-of a jerk, if you ask me. I wonder what problems youhad with the book? Collier’s rant is less a review and more an attack, much like the FARMS so-called reviews. To most TMB and fundamentalists, the way it happened was the way it was supposed to happen ’cause God made it happen and that’s that. So here comes Quinn and he says it may have happened in a different manner, and then he presents his case. Bruce, I think I remember in your introduction that you once had some serious doubts with your Mormon faith, so I assume you once believed some facts about the church that were not flattering. Working past that, do you now reject those facts? Are Quinn’s points laughable? What problems do you have with the book other than the fact that it doesn’t support your beliefs? Sorry if this seems like an attack, but I’ve yet to see you post anything remotely positive on any book that isn’t faith-affirming. SM, The problem I have with Quinn’s book is that he presents it as an unbiased bit of historical research when, IMHO, it is an outlet for him to discredit the Church. He comes up with some pretty far out accusations that I think Collier calls him on very well.
I don’t mind a book not being “faith affirming”. I prefer honesty over warm-and-fuzzy wishful thinking anyday, but I think Quinn uses his position to promote some assumptions that are just not true….and he does it with the appearance of an honest document.
I agree that Collier attacks Quinn’s motives, sources, and conclusions but I think of it as a fair equalizer given how far Quinn reaches with some of his ideas.
My opinion only of course….
MisterCurie wrote:However, I do not find the Collier refutations convincing and think that Collier exposes his own biases more than he exposes Quinn’s.
Ditto.
Everyone has bias, I think all reasonable people will agree to that. The more you study the more you see the individual biases as you read – even when they happen to agree with your own. Collier to me comes across as somewhat absolutist and self-righteous – to a degree WAY beyond most other “scholarly” authors (even the ones I don’t agree with). Even beyond some other “Christian” religious authors that preach their own unique flavor of theology.
Anything that passes through a human being must have bias, including revelations. Heber13 wrote:Anything that passes through a human being must have bias, including revelations.
Very true. I think of JW’s or whoever thinks of the Bible as infallible – I just can’t grasp that, it was written down by humans after all!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.