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

[_Mister Scratch]

The question was why I don't trust Quinn. I suggested some publications that explain why.

Ah, okay. Let me see if I've got this straight: You don't trust Quinn because he used the word "magic" in his book? Is that it? Or is it that you are somehow "intuiting" that the word "magic" has all sorts of sinister and anti-Mormon connotations? How does Quinn's use of the word "magic" somehow equal "distrust" on your part, Prof. P.? That doesn't make much sense.

I never agreed to participate in what would certainly prove to be an endless and pointless exchange with you on the current status of the term magic in comparative religion, anthropology, classical philology, the sociology of religion, and/or related fields,

If there is such a huge body of scholarly work proving your point (work which you consulted in-depth, no doubt) then it should be quite easy for you to provide a reference.

The bottom line is that you still have not provided an adequate explanation for why those interested in Mormonism ought to "distrust" Quinn. By the way: do you think that his use of the word "magic" is "dishonest"?

[_Mister Scratch]

And I've never called Mike Quinn a liar, nor do I regard him as a liar. If I wanted to call him a liar, I would say so.

Huh. This is interesting. How many reasons, pray tell, can one come up with for not "trusting" a person? What could that possibly mean, Prof. P.? Does it mean that you consider Quinn's work to be sloppy or unprofessional? You didn't say that you merely disagree with some of his conclusions. Rather, you have been maintaining for quite some time that you "don't trust" him. Hmmm.....

[_Mister Scratch]

The Ricks-Peterson review seems to be arguing without any substantiation for a unique dimension to early Mormon use of seer stones, divining rods, amulets, astrological guides, healing objects, house charms against evil spirits, and parchments inscribed with symbols from previously published handbooks of magic (or would Ricks and Peterson call them handbooks of religion?). The Ricks Peterson review assumes that these early Mormon activities bore no real relationship as phenomena to identical practices throughout early America and even by some of Joseph Smith's neighbors. In other words, since Joseph Smith did it, the activity was by definition not magic, or folk magic.

Such a thought never entered our minds. We don't think the term magic can be defined with sufficient precision to be useful anywhere. Whereas it's a useful pejorative, it conveys little if any exact content.

In your review you concede Joseph Smith's use of seer stones, divining rods, amulets, and parchments, as well as his searching for buried treasure. But instead of using the words "magic" or "occult" to describe these activities, you argue for the use of "religion," "poplular religion," or "folk religion." Don't you think that a bit of a stretch?

(emphasis added)

LOL!!! Wow, and your basis for dismissing "magic" is that it's too "imprecise"??? How (and I can't wait to hear this) is "religion", when discussing the use of seer stones and divining rods, more "precise" than "folk magic"? Please, Prof. P., do tell!

[_harmony]

The question was why I don't trust Quinn. I suggested some publications that explain why.

So the reason you don't trust Quinn is because you don't like the way he uses the word "magic"? That's it?

[_Coggins7]

Daniel has commented on this before. Quinn wrote some essay about how Joseph Smith was gay, and apparently misused some sources. The FARMS writers danced gleefully on his grave that evening, singing a funeral dirge that sounded sort of like the Macarena. Then at daybreak they exhumed his body and dumped it in the well so that it would be poisoned forever.

But, like Elvis, some are convinced that Quinn lives on...

The problem here is that Quinn, like so many other militant homosexuals (and leftists generally) bent on the mainstreaming of their culture and its mores, have a need to project their specific cultural characteristics onto everyone else, especially notable historical figures. Hence, few notable figures in history have, over the last forty or so years, escaped being Black, Gay, Lesbian, or in some form or manner, useful to the fashionable cause of the moment. Jesus himself has not escaped being labeled by ideologues of various kinds as Black, Gay, and a Communist.

In like manner, white supremacists think Jesus was a blond, blue eyed Caucasian.

Quinn is in the right culture at the right time to sell his specific brand of snake oil. Embattled leftwing academic gadflies courageously battling the "Mormon extensions of power" sells, but who's buying? Probably the same people that take the Jesus Seminar seriously and think Richard Dawkins has something substantive to say about the history of religion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So the reason you don't trust Quinn is because you don't like the way he uses the word "magic"? That's it?

Oh yeah. Yeah, that's all there is to it. I mentioned several articles but they all say the same thing and only one thing in fact and they're not really articles at all anyhow see cuz all they do is repeat over and over again "We don't trust Quinn cuz the way he uses the word magic is umm icky ya know?" and I really don't know why I bother anyway.

[_Mister Scratch]

So the reason you don't trust Quinn is because you don't like the way he uses the word "magic"? That's it?

Oh yeah. Yeah, that's all there is to it. I mentioned several articles but they all say the same thing and only one thing in fact and they're not really articles at all anyhow see cuz all they do is repeat over and over again "We don't trust Quinn cuz the way he uses the word magic is umm icky ya know?" and I really don't know why I bother anyway.

Honestly, Prof. P.---what else are we supposed to think? You don't "mention" articles so much as pass the buck along to these other authors. The lone instance where you yourself authored a non-scholarly, citation-free article basically condemns Quinn due to his use of the word "magic." Do you have a *real* reason for "distrusting" Quinn? Or do you just advise questioning LDS to avoid his work because he tells the truth?

[_The Nehor]

Or do you just advise questioning LDS to avoid his work because he tells the truth?

Okay, that was funny.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... and I really don't know why I bother anyway.

Nor do I, given your repeated refusal to provide any citation in support of your blanket "consensus" statement.

[_Yoda]

So the reason you don't trust Quinn is because you don't like the way he uses the word "magic"? That's it?

Oh yeah. Yeah, that's all there is to it. I mentioned several articles but they all say the same thing and only one thing in fact and they're not really articles at all anyhow see cuz all they do is repeat over and over again "We don't trust Quinn cuz the way he uses the word magic is umm icky ya know?" and I really don't know why I bother anyway.

Why so biting, Dr. P?

Harmony's question sounded sincere to me.

Was there a particular reason for your condescending response to her?