How are we to take D. Michael Quinn's writings?

[_Daniel Peterson]

With Stephen D. Ricks. “The Mormon as Magus.” Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987). Sunstone 12 (January 1988): 38-39.

It's a short review. But, for me, it was the beginning of my disaffection.

[_gramps]

With Stephen D. Ricks. “The Mormon as Magus.” Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987). Sunstone 12 (January 1988): 38-39.

It's a short review. But, for me, it was the beginning of my disaffection.

Thanks. I actually never liked the book. Not enough footnotes. :)

[_Mercury]

Why are you suggesting we take his writings differently post-excommunication? I find such questions useless and indicative of bias.

[_Mercury]

You might find helpful the various reviews of works by Michael Quinn that have been published in the FARMS Review. They're all up, on line, at the Maxwell Institute web site.

Personally, although I think he's intelligent and interesting, I no longer trust Mike Quinn's work.

Why do you not trust it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I said nothing about his excommunication.

The reasons for my distrusting his work are largely represented in the Maxwell Institute or FARMS reviews mentioned here, which are all on line, as well as (to a limited extent) in my own Sunstone review, already mentioned above.

[_Mister Scratch]

I said nothing about his excommunication.

The reasons for my distrusting his work are largely represented in the Maxwell Institute or FARMS reviews mentioned here, which are all on line, as well as (to a limited extent) in my own Sunstone review, already mentioned above.

It's worth pointing out that you never state your *own* reasons for "distrusting" Quinn's work. Instead, you always, unfailingly, direct those with inquiries to the FARMS website. Why is that, I wonder? Are you too embarrassed to lay your opinion on the table? Afraid it will demonstrate once and for all that you really are interested in smearing him?

For those who don't want to waste their time rummaging through the obviously biased, ad hominem-heavy, silly excuses for scholarship known as the FARMS Review articles, let me offer a brief summary of their anti-Quinn techniques:
---Attack his sources. Some of the Quinn critics have actually accused him (i.e., Quinn) of doing too much research. Quinn knows, as does anyone who deals with the ugly aspects of Mormonism, that one's claims are likely to be very heavily questioned, if not outright dismissed, by believing, rank-and-file LDS. So, he knows that he has to put up beaucoup notes. Strangely, Hamblin and other Quinn detractors attack Quinn for putting in the effort!
---Accuse him of having a "pro-gay" agenda, whatever that means. This is classic argumentum ad hominem: transform the argument into the person. Get readers to overlook the actual text, and to question the author's character.
---Use silly and discredited techniques derived from deconstruction. I.e., nitpick Quinn's words and language in order to try and make it seem as if he is dishonest. (This occurs especially in the article entitled, "Quinnspeak," although most of the FARMS authors apply this technique.)

[_Mister Scratch]

D. Michael Quinn used to teach at BYU and was considered an excellent teacher by many. He won some awards there. He served with the Church Historians office and had access to documents and writings most of us will never see. He published information and articles(still publishing) that Boyd K. Packer, among others, did not approve of. Now he is excommunicated and no longer a member though still a historian to be admired and still publishing articles and books about the LDS Church.

How are we to take his writings?

Here's my opinion on the matter. Quinn's work is absolutely unprecedented and without parallel in the entire field of Mormon studies. Much of the stuff we know regarding Church history would still be moldering away amongst the other skeletons in the closet had it not been for Quinn. He is, in my opinion anyway, the sine qua non of Mormon historians.

The ones before as more 'correct' in the Church context than the stuff now?

I'm not sure what you mean by this... Surely, what was true then, is true now, right?

It is based on the same research and though years may have brought maturity, the actions of some leaders in excommunicating him and others in trying to discredit some of his research now bring into question what to think of some of the writings?

No, I don't think so. The book that pro-LDS scholars have always had the biggest beef with is Same-sex Dynamics Among 19th Century Americans: A Mormon Example. The main reason they take issue with it is because it shows evidence of homosexual and homosocial behavior among early Mormons. Mopologist's don't object to it because it is somehow incorrect or poorly researched. They object to it merely because it dares to make the audacious claim that homosexuality occurred amongst early Mormons. That's it.

His Origins Of Power and Extensions Of Power books are well done, footnoted and apparently researched thoroughly. How do we tell research from conclusions when reading some of them? When he does draw conclusions, are they to be taken as probably valid or is a lot more personal research needed to find out? We don't have access to the records he did when he was working with Leonard J. Arrington in the Church Historians office, so how do we confirm what is written in many instances?

I think it is worth asking why access to the records has now been limited. Before proceeding further, I highly recommend you read Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

I enjoy the writing, just looking for information on how one might look at it from the perspective of others who have done some reading/research on the subject.

And there's the rub: literally no one has done the amount, nor the kind of research Quinn has done, which is what makes him so important. Mopologists resent him for having put in so much work (see my previous post), but the fact remains that he has outdone all of them, and even their combined efforts do not come close in undoing all of his research, a lot of which, let's face it, is embarrassing for the Church. Good research is meant to expand our knowledge, and to shed light on dimly lit subjects. Quinn's work does this. The work of the FARMS Review authors, which is aimed at nitpicking shallow and stupid little details, does not.

[_The Nehor]

I personally stopped taking Quinn seriously when I read some of his arguments for Joseph Smith being a homosexual. I'd read the book from which he was quoting and it was so horribly out of context that it was obvious he was pushing an agenda. It required no apologetic response at all besides posting the whole sermon. I had read the book years before and could still see how badly he'd maligned the text. It was not a subtle thing.

[_Mister Scratch]

I personally stopped taking Quinn seriously when I read some of his arguments for Joseph Smith being a homosexual. I'd read the book from which he was quoting and it was so horribly out of context that it was obvious he was pushing an agenda. It required no apologetic response at all besides posting the whole sermon. I had read the book years before and could still see how badly he'd maligned the text. It was not a subtle thing.

I disagree. For one thing, Quinn never treats sexuality---or homosexuality---in the kind of reductive manner that his critics wished he did. He (apparently) subscribes to the VERY un-LDS notion that sexuality occurs on a kind of sliding scale, and that everyone is "gay" or "straight" based on this "sliding scale." To elucidate a bit: in sociology, researchers have a somewhat difficult time measuring gay populations, since it is difficult just what, exactly, defines homosexuality. E.g., are you a homosexual only if you self-identify as gay? What if you are in a heterosexual marriage, but you enjoy gay sex? Are you therefore a homosexual? What if you experimented with same-sex behavior during your younger years? Are you a homosexual? Etc.

My feeling is that Quinn is far more attuned to these kind of nuanced differences---differences which seem by and large to have sailed right over the heads of these mostly conservative critics. What I mean is, I don't recall Quinn ever writing, "Joseph Smith was homosexual"; rather, he qualified it by saying "Joseph Smith tolerated some kinds of homosocial/homosexual behavior." Of course, if you think that sharing a bed with a man, or clasping another man in a passionate embrace automatically makes you "gay," then you no doubt would assume that's what Quinn was arguing.

[_Runtu]

The reviews, all published in the FARMS Review, are all up on the Maxwell Institute website.

They are written by a range of people, including William Hamblin, John Gee, Rhett Stephens James and George Mitton, Duane Boyce, and the unbelieving Mormon historian Klaus Hansen, and they extend far beyond merely Quinn's unfortunate book on Same Sex Dynamics: A Mormon Example, or whatever it was called.

I once thought that Quinn was the best and brightest of the Mormon historians. My loss of faith commenced with the first edition of his book on Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, when I wrote a review of it for Sunstone. The more I looked at his book, the more it melted away. I began to have doubts, and those doubts grew with time.

I understand that this may seem threatening to some of you. Faith is a very personal thing. But there are serious arguments that cast doubt upon Quinn's claims, and . . . well, reality doesn't always match our hopes and desires.

I wish you all the best as you struggle with this challenge.

I like Quinn for the most part. I thought his work on same-sex dynamics was a bit strained and it made me less confident in his use of sources. It's kind of the way I feel about FARMS/Maxwell Institute. On your recommendation I read a piece by John Clark that made Quinn look spotless by comparison. So, I guess I take everything, apologetic and critical, on its own merits.