DiscussMormonism.com

Have Quinn, Brooke, and the others who have written on the influence of the occult on early Mormonism covered the topic sufficiently well for those who find a naturalistic explanation compelling? Is further research superfluous ?

Particularly in areas such as the common elements found in treasure seeking accounts and in the Moroni/Book of Mormon narrative and the influence that competing occult groups near Palymra may have had on Joseph's creations.

Comments appreciated.

T

Thexriddle wrote:Have Quinn, Brooke, and the others who have written on the influence of the occult on early Mormonism covered the topic sufficiently well for those who find a naturalistic explanation compelling? Is further research superfluous ?

Particularly in areas such as the common elements found in treasure seeking accounts and in the Moroni/Book of Mormon narrative and the influence that competing occult groups near Palymra may have had on Joseph's creations.

Comments appreciated.

T

This gets into the Celestial Folder? I though this forum was all about kittens and puppies. Have you ever read “Rough Stone Rolling”? Bushman makes it clear on what was and was not an influence. The “occult” only exists within the mind…it is not real. Superstition was the order of the day in the early 1800’s…no the occult.

What does the Occult have to do with people seeking the means to make a living? If early Mormon's, Nephites or Lamanites used unusual methods which are not well known in this day and age, what right does someone have to say that it must be of the Occult?

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post replies to my original question Pa Pa and Called2Serve but I believe you have misunderstood the purpose and intended audience for my question.

The question is aimed at people who accept a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the LDS church. It is not an invitation to engage in a debate about the validity of a naturalistic explanation- just an attempt to understand whether people who have read Quinn, Brooke, etc. think that the topic has been adequately explored and argued.

I believe that this is the kind of discussion that the website owners/administrators intend for posts in the Celestial Forum. If not, I would welcome clarification.

Best Regards,
T

Answers to your original questions.

1. Apparantly not (You answered your own question, by asking it)
2. Yes

Good luck!

Quinn and Brooke's works were both outstanding contributions to Mormon studies. But their research is more “ground breaking” than it is “definitive.” Much can still be done to build upon and refine their scholarship. So... to answer your question, no, their works are not "sufficient.” Nevertheless, anyone who attempts to publish on this topic must do so in response to their contributions.

Frankly... I am not sure that I know of a book on any topic that I would call "sufficient."

Biggest problem that I see in Quinn and Brooke’s publications: they don't do justice to freemasonry. Aside from that, their books are great!

"Quinn and Brooke's works were both outstanding contributions to Mormon studies. But their research is more “ground breaking” than it is “definitive.” Much can still be done to build upon and refine their scholarship. So... to answer your question, no, their works are not "sufficient.” Nevertheless, anyone who attempts to publish on this topic must do so in response to their contributions.

Frankly... I am not sure that I know of a book on any topic that I would call "sufficient."

Biggest problem that I see in Quinn and Brooke’s publications: they don't do justice to freemasonry. Aside from that, their books are great!"

Thanks for your response, Mike.

I posed the question because I've been uninvolved in Mormon history since the mid-nineties and wasn't sure what current thinking is among non-polemical researchers about the ideas that Quinn, Booke, etc. presented.

I agree with your assessment about the opportunity to extend or reinterpret aspects of both works. I'm particularly interested in the the influence of competing Rochester-based treasure seekers, as well as fleshing out the involvement of Justus Winchell and Luman Walter.

I also agree that Freemasonry deserves more study. In the late 1980's I spoke with Chet Peters, the Sodus, NY Town Historian, and he said he was quite sure that he had seen Luman Walters name in Lodge records from Pultneyville(as I recall). I was never able to follow up on that bit so there may be a piece of the puzzle there.

In the late 1980's I also had a number of phone chats with Steve Marshall, the Grand Historian of the Grand Lodge of Vermont. He told me that there were unpublished Lodge records in the Randolph(as I remember- may have been Royalton),Vt. Lodge from the very early years that had been encased in a wood and glass box that couldn't be easily opened. Another lead that I couldn't pursue.

T

Do a search for George Miller's posts. He is working on the Masonic connection, and has a LOT of information.

.

.