FARMS's "Magic" Trick

[_Ray A]

I think that the Church would prefer that its contemporary doctrines be somehow more distinct that "magic," but, as the quote suggests, it is very hard, from a definitional standpoint, to differentiate between the two things. I think, further, that it is revealing when one steps back and examines the Mopologists' complaints: Do they object to Joseph Smith's actual practices? Do they object to the fact that Joseph Smith was engaged in this stuff, despite the fact that it doesn't play any role whatsoever in the contemporary Church? I think the bottom line is that they want all of this moneydigging and peep stone looking and whatnot to go back into the darkest corner of the historical closet and stay there.

Magic and religion are closely associated, because of the supernatural overtones. The magic practiced by the Pharaoh's magicians was duplicated by Moses. So was Moses a magician, or a prophet of God? Would you say that "magician" more aptly describes Moses? Okay, a magician who led Israel, not a prophet.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi, Ray. Thank you for posting the snippets from the reviews. That said, I think you're missing my point. I am not claiming that the term "magic" is totally stable, or that it hasn't been contested---on the contrary, I was attempting to disprove DCP's rather bold assertion that a "consensus" has been reached regarding the efficacy of the term.

How do you judge whether a consensus has been reached? You read the scholars who've written on magic, and make a judgement.

Yes, and it's transparently obvious that no consensus had been reached, hence DCP's flight from the thread.

If you compare, for example, the magic of Aleister Crowley with Aladdin, as one example, it's obviously the same subject, but a thousand miles apart. Crowley, incidentally, is one of the more interesting figures in the history of magic. Colin's Wilson's The Occult is a good start to understanding Crowley. Wilson's sequel, Beyond The Occult also demonstrates the varieties of "magic". There is no set definition of magic. It is anything but harmonious and definable in one category. F.F Bruce wrote in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, that Jesus was considered a magician "who led the people astray". Would Jesus fit into Crowley's practice of magic? Only if you think a pumpkin is the same as a banana.

Ray---what are you talking about? This only reinforces what Rollo and I have been saying all along: there is no consensus. Using the term "magic" to describe certain supernatural activities is totally fitting in some instances, and thus the Mopologists' smearing Quinn on this issue is wrong.

Further, as I hope I made clear, the harping about "magic" seems pretty obviously to be an attempt on the Mopologist's part to discredit, or "smear", Mike Quinn.

You made it clear, no doubt, but perhaps the "Mopologists" were attempting to portray a more accurate view of the non-monolithic views of magic, rather than the narrow one Quinn solicited.

That's not what Quinn did at all. Cite text if you want to try and make this claim.

An "attempt to discredit someone" is not an attempt if the facts back them up.

But they don't. The Mopologists have relied on rumor, gossip, and innuendo.

Quinn was warned by those friendly to him not to publish this book, but he went ahead.

And how do we know this? Gee's article does not provide a real source. His support for this claim is some anonymous informant who is mentioned in a footnote. Hardly a rock-solid case.

You're judging the motivations of the "Mopologists", but have you examined Quinn's motives?

Yes. His motives are less questionable than the Mopologists'.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think that the Church would prefer that its contemporary doctrines be somehow more distinct that "magic," but, as the quote suggests, it is very hard, from a definitional standpoint, to differentiate between the two things. I think, further, that it is revealing when one steps back and examines the Mopologists' complaints: Do they object to Joseph Smith's actual practices? Do they object to the fact that Joseph Smith was engaged in this stuff, despite the fact that it doesn't play any role whatsoever in the contemporary Church? I think the bottom line is that they want all of this moneydigging and peep stone looking and whatnot to go back into the darkest corner of the historical closet and stay there.

Magic and religion are closely associated, because of the supernatural overtones. The magic practiced by the Pharaoh's magicians was duplicated by Moses. So was Moses a magician, or a prophet of God? Would you say that "magician" more aptly describes Moses? Okay, a magician who led Israel, not a prophet.

That's not the issue, Ray. The issue is whether or not it is okay to use the term "magic" at all, and, given your post, it pretty obviously is.

[_Trevor]

My problem with the FARMS critique of EMMWV by Quinn is not that they find fault with his use of the term magic, which is problematic, but their use of this methodological critique with a vehemence and passion designed to sink what in the end is a groundbreaking work. Who before Quinn discussed the use of Christian folk ritual practices by Joseph Smith and his associates or offered so much evidence of it?

The apologetic response to EMMWV is, in my opinion, first shaped by the apologists' realization that many faithful LDS people would be very uneasy with Quinn's association of magic, which most of them probably saw as Satanic, and Joseph Smith, whom they view as a prophet of God. The way to discredit Quinn, without also discrediting themselves, is to appeal to the methodological problems inherent in the historical use of the word magic.

EMMWV poses the apologist a problem. If one does read it, it is difficult to deny that Smith engaged in these ritual activities. All one can do is redefine them in such a way that they no longer carry such problematic connotations. Hence the FARMS take on EMMWV. I also notice that in criticizing Quinn, the FARMS crowd did not much discuss the activities that Quinn described, nor did they propose a useful way of dealing with the evidence he provided.

It cannot be denied that magic is a loaded and problematic term. Ideally, it would be best to abandon it--not in the service of protecting religionists' beliefs about the world, but in order to free ritual practices from theologically molded discourse. I note that in my field, Classics, magic is still regularly used to describe activities similar to those that Quinn mentions in EMMWV. Why? Because it is useful inasmuch as people know almost right away what one is generally discussing. It may not be the best shorthand, but it still finds use as such.

I can't escape the feeling that there is something slightly disingenuous in all of the ire expressed about Quinn's use of the term magic. Is is born strictly from concern about Quinn's methodology or is it motivated by a desire to forestall the possibility that Mormons read the book for themselves? I tend to think that as much as apologists point to the former, the latter is the elephant in the room. In the hands of FARMS apologists, flawed works that do not line up with current Mormon views often become irredeemable works that are unworthy of perusal by the average reader. It is as though one should wait for the Correlated version of analysis of the Mormon past to catch up with the evidence, when such a wait could prove to be interminable.

The last word on Joseph Smith's ritual activities has yet to be written. Quinn's work is simply the first serious treatment of the subject. I await better works with more analysis of the data. I am simply grateful I am not still waiting for such a book, which would be the case if it were left up to the LDS Church.