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

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why so biting, Dr. P?

Harmony's question sounded sincere to me.

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

First off, harmony was neither the only nor the first person here to suggest that my distrust of Mike Quinn's scholarship rests solely upon what I regard as his uncareful use of the term magic -- despite the fact that I've cited several articles outlining reasons (in the plural) that I find sufficient to ground such mistrust and despite the fact that even the Sunstone article (brief book review though it is) alludes to more than merely his uncareful use of the term magic. I was not responding only to her. (Have you, incidentally, read some of the nastier things that harmony has written about me? The comments of mine that bother you don't come within light years.)

To be candid, I'm weary of the tendency of several here, as I see it, to carelessly and unsympathetically misread what I write and then to hold me accountable for such misreadings. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi do it with palpable (and, I think, rather obsessive) personal malice, as Tal Bachman has also done in his day; one or two others do it simply out of the reflexive suspicion that all "mopologists" are dishonest, vicious, incompetent, and of poor character in general.

It's tiresome to be told, repeatedly, that my Sunstone review "smears" Mike Quinn, that I haven't actually read anything on the question of defining magic, that I've exhorted members of the Church not to read Quinn's writing because he tells the truth, that I've arbitrarily and tendentiously said that his excommunication marks the point at which Quinn's writing suddenly became unreliable, that I've called Quinn a "liar," and etc., when I've written, edited, and published scores and scores of pages regarding Quinn's scholarship that flatly and plainly contradict such assertions.

I'm wondering, frankly, whether any kind of serious substantive conversation is possible on this message board -- actually, I'm quite confident that it isn't -- and whether I can participate at all here without being constantly labeled an unscrupulous, mean-spirited, and grossly incompetent liar. I get along just fine with my neighbors, my ward members, my family, my Church leaders, and my academic colleagues both at BYU and well beyond, and I have good friends among Muslim leaders and diplomatic personnel around the world. I don't really see any compelling need to have to take seriously charges against my character and professional competence by carping anonymous critics who don't know me, haven't read my work, can't be troubled to give what I say a fair hearing, always assume the worst about me, and, in some cases, despise me implacably for reasons entirely unrelated to my own behavior and personality. This isn't (as it will instantly be labeled) a "whine." It's simply a recognition of the facts on the ground, based on considerable experience here.

[_Yoda]

I'm wondering, frankly, whether any kind of serious substantive conversation is possible on this message board -- actually, I'm quite confident that it isn't -- and whether I can participate at all here without being constantly labeled an unscrupulous, mean-spirited, and grossly incompetent liar.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't view you that way.

To be honest, I haven't read much of your work. I hadn't really heard much about you before posting on FAIR.

We have not had a lot of interactions, but the few that we have had, you have been very kind to me.

You obviously have a history with Harmony, Beastie, Kevin, and several other posters who have preconceived notions based on experiences with you on other boards.

I respect your PhD, and the knowledge you bring to the table.

I do think, however, that sometimes you do bring certain reactions on yourself. Your humor sometimes comes across as being condescending as it did in your exchange with Harmony. It's obvious, however, that you were frustrated based on prior encounters with her.

It also seems that, at times, you rather enjoy playing the victim. You continue to bait Scratch and Rollo and then are surprised when they combat you. What do you really expect? It's obvious that for whatever reason, their minds are made up.

I think that there are opportunities for you to engage in polite conversation here. Jason and I have both specifically asked for your opinions on different issues in threads, and have appreciated your responses.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

To be candid, I'm weary of the tendency of several here, as I see it, to carelessly and unsympathetically misread what I write and then to hold me accountable for such misreadings. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi do it with palpable (and, I think, rather obsessive) personal malice ....

Patently false. Your martyr complex is in high gear again, I see.

It's tiresome to be told, repeatedly, that my Sunstone review "smears" Mike Quinn, that I haven't actually read anything on the question of defining magic, that I've exhorted members of the Church not to read Quinn's writing because he tells the truth, that I've arbitrarily and tendentiously said that his excommunication marks the point at which Quinn's writing suddenly became unreliable, that I've called Quinn a "liar," and etc., when I've written, edited, and published scores and scores of pages regarding Quinn's scholarship that flatly and plainly contradict such assertions.

I've never made any such assertion.

I'm wondering, frankly, whether any kind of serious substantive conversation is possible on this message board -- actually, I'm quite confident that it isn't -- and whether I can participate at all here without being constantly labeled an unscrupulous, mean-spirited, and grossly incompetent liar.

I simply asked for a citation to back up your blanket "consensus" statement in your review, and you have steadfastly refused to give me any (apparently for no reason other than it was me who asked).

I don't really see any compelling need to have to take seriously charges against my character and professional competence by carping anonymous critics who don't know me, haven't read my work, can't be troubled to give what I say a fair hearing, always assume the worst about me, and, in some cases, despise me implacably for reasons entirely unrelated to my own behavior and personality. This isn't (as it will instantly be labeled) a "whine." It's simply a recognition of the facts on the ground, based on considerable experience here.

Now your martyr complex is in overdrive. I simply asked for a citation. And you refused to provide any. How does any of this turn into the above "whine"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Why so biting, Dr. P?

Harmony's question sounded sincere to me.

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

First off, harmony was neither the only nor the first person here to suggest that my distrust of Mike Quinn's scholarship rests solely upon what I regard as his uncareful use of the term magic -- despite the fact that I've cited several articles outlining reasons

Well, what are those reasons? I have not seen you state what those reasons are. Why won't you just answer the question in a plain and direct manner?

(in the plural) that I find sufficient to ground such mistrust and despite the fact that even the Sunstone article (brief book review though it is) alludes to more than merely his uncareful use of the term magic.

What is weird (in my opinion) is the fact you have carried on for so long about how there is this large corpus of scholarly work which regards the word "magic" and inchoate and innaccurate, or whatever, and yet you seem to have a very, very difficult time citing any actual sources.

What's further strange is that, of all people, Richard Bushman has no problem using the word "magic":

Mormons first applied the word seer to Joseph and combined the words "seer" and "stone." Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt described Joseph using a seerstone to translate and receive revelations. In making the connection, they joined two traditions -- the holy calling of seer and the magical practice of divining with a stone. .... The word seer elevated the stones, symboliizing the redirection of the Smith family's interest in magic toward a more serious religious end. .... Although treasure-seeking was left behind, the magical culture of the stones played an important part in the development of Joseph's identity as seer and translator. .... In fact, as work on the Book of Mormon went on, a seerstone took the place of the Urim and Thummim, blending the culture of magic with with divine culture of translation.

(Source: The Prophet Puzzle, pp. 78-79)

Do you consider Bushman's use of the word "magic" to be "untrustworthy," too?

It's tiresome to be told, repeatedly, that my Sunstone review "smears" Mike Quinn,

Nobody has told you that. I *wondered* about it, but did not tell you that.

that I haven't actually read anything on the question of defining magic,

You've said you have. In fact, you've said that you've read multiple items dealing with this topic. The bizarre thing is your unwillingness to name any of them.

[_Mister Scratch]

Some people I would be inclined to help. You, I'm not. Do your own research. I've mentioned Gager.

You know, I looked into Gager, and it seems that you are seriously misrepresenting his POV. My impression of his work---and indeed, the overwhelming impression of his viewpoint---is that he does not endorse your "'magic' is too imprecise to use!" argument. Perhaps you have a specific article or publication of Gager's in mind? I'd love to read it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You obviously have a history with Harmony, Beastie, Kevin, and several other posters who have preconceived notions based on experiences with you on other boards.

Yes, I do. And, on the whole, I try to avoid interacting with them here. (In Kevin's case, as now in Scratch's, that's an absolute rule.)

I do think, however, that sometimes you do bring certain reactions on yourself. Your humor sometimes comes across as being condescending as it did in your exchange with Harmony. It's obvious, however, that you were frustrated based on prior encounters with her.

Candid self-assessment time: I have plenty of flaws. Some are pretty serious. Looking down on people with less education, intelligence, social status, etc., is, however, not among them. I grew up in a working class family, and most of my relatives are farmers, welders, janitors, truck drivers, laborers, etc. I worked construction myself through graduate school.

However, I'll admit that I have little patience for foolishness or for ill-informed opinions dogmatically expressed, and I think it ridiculous that most threads here in which I'm involved tend to become referenda on my character and personality (which, of course, given the nature of the electorate on this board, I always lose). If anything, it's pretense that draws my attention. Phony expertise, baseless assertions, ungrounded judgments, insupportable generalizations, wild but broadly sweeping condemnations, etc. When I see an overfilled balloon, I reach for the needle.

Scratch and Rollo, for instance, imagine, merely because I won't do their research for them and hand them a bibliography on a tea tray, that I have no idea what I'm talking about. They won't trouble themselves to look at the publications I've mentioned, but they're confident that those publications contain no references or else I would supply them. That's simply lazy nonsense. And Scratch thinks or, anyway, pretends to think that it's somehow a mark of poor and dishonest scholarship if one cites an academic article in a foreign language. But this is simple silliness, and undeserving of reply.

It also seems that, at times, you rather enjoy playing the victim.

QED.

You continue to bait Scratch and Rollo and then are surprised when they combat you. What do you really expect? It's obvious that for whatever reason, their minds are made up.

Actually, it takes very little from me to provoke them. I think that merely posting generally does the trick. (I suspect, sometimes, that simply breathing is enough on my part.)

But I have been curious to see how far they'll go and how persistent they'll be in attempting to cast doubt upon my character. I thought I would find a limit, but, thus far, I haven't. Everything I do and everything I say is (for Scratch, at least) a stunning new revelation of my depravity. I find that extraordinarily weird. But the experiment is losing its appeal to me. It's become boring.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch and Rollo, for instance, imagine, merely because I won't do their research for them and hand them a bibliography on a tea tray, that I have no idea what I'm talking about. They won't trouble themselves to look at the publications I've mentioned, but they're confident that those publications contain no references or else I would supply them. That's simply lazy nonsense.

How is it any more or less lazy than your refusal to mention the names of these articles? Incidentally, I have now searched both the Gager material, and John Gee's hack-job of a review from FARMS. Nowhere in either of these authors' work do I see anything to support your contention that there is "consensus" that the term "magic" is useless and imprecise. Rather, the genuine scholars examining this issue seem overwhelmingly to believe that YOUR assertion that the term "magic" is a "perjorative" gets in the way of serious thinking and scholarship. The real, actual scholars and academics who have studied this stuff all come away saying this "us/them" mentality that you, Ricks, and Gee embrace is pure tendentious foolishness and is doing nothing more than muddying the waters. You guys are warping the scholarship to support your Mopologetic agenda. The real scholars all feel that the distinctions between "magic" and religion are very blurry, and that your and your ilk's PC-fueled desire to jettison the term is little more than a rhetorical ploy.

And Scratch thinks or, anyway, pretends to think that it's somehow a mark of poor and dishonest scholarship if one cites an academic article in a foreign language.

That's not what I said at all. I said that your citation of the article seems reminiscent of the weird citing of the very old and discredited article on the Florida horse.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Even if Scratch could read accurately, and even if he actually knew something about the field, he wouldn't be worth conversing with.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

However, I'll admit that I have little patience for foolishness or for ill-informed opinions dogmatically expressed ....

Me, too.

Phony expertise, baseless assertions, ungrounded judgments, insupportable generalizations, wild but broadly sweeping condemnations, etc. When I see an overfilled balloon, I reach for the needle.

Me, too.

Scratch and Rollo, for instance, imagine, merely because I won't do their research for them and hand them a bibliography on a tea tray, that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You have already done the research (as far back as 1988). What is so wrong about asking anyone to back up a blanket statement (such as your "consensus" statement) in a publication?

They won't trouble themselves to look at the publications I've mentioned, but they're confident that those publications contain no references or else I would supply them. That's simply lazy nonsense.

Lazy? I'm asking about a certain statement you made in a publication (which you cited in this thread) without any citation. It's your statement, not mine, so put up or shut up, my dear professor.

Actually, it takes very little from me to provoke them. I think that merely posting generally does the trick. (I suspect, sometimes, that simply breathing is enough on my part.)

What you see as provocation I see as pursuing the back-up for your more absurd statements.

But I have been curious to see how far they'll go and how persistent they'll be in attempting to cast doubt upon my character.

How does any of this have to do with your character? I simply asked for a citation. Geesh, you have a thin skin (no wonder the FAIR mods felt so compelled to protect you).

But the experiment is losing its appeal to me. It's become boring.

As you've said before. I think you are simply beginning to shy away from the constant drubbing you get here.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Even if Scratch could read accurately, and even if he actually knew something about the field, he wouldn't be worth conversing with.

Because he has called you on yet another of your embellishments in print.