FARMS's "Magic" Trick

[_Runtu]

In some of the quotes you gave by DCP as "Freethinker," he spoke of himself in the third person.

Runtu tells me he thought that was kind of weird, too. ;-)

[_harmony]

In some of the quotes you gave by DCP as "Freethinker," he spoke of himself in the third person.

Runtu tells me he thought that was kind of weird, too. ;-)

harmony thinks it's because Daniel thought no one knew Freethinker was his sockpuppet.

[_Yong Xi]

Some in this forum may have been following along with the Celestial Forum thread begun by "Dakotah" which asks, "How are we to take D. Michael Quinn's writings?"
....

Thanks for the excellent analysis. I find two things very creepy about DCP in all this: (I) he departs this board because I simply asked him to back up his "consensus" statement, and (ii) in some of the quotes you gave by DCP as "Freethinker," he spoke of himself in the third person.

What's the issue here? People with multiple personalities often speak in the third person.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Bond doesn't it like it that talking in the third person isn't frowned upon.....Bond will not stop referring to Bond in the third person....in fact it might even become redundant for Bond to talk about Bond in the third person as if Bond is a special time person...although Bond is totally awesome. Did I mention that Bond rules?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Bond doesn't it like it that talking in the third person isn't frowned upon.....Bond will not stop referring to Bond in the third person....in fact it might even become redundant for Bond to talk about Bond in the third person as if Bond is a special time person...although Bond is totally awesome. Did I mention that Bond rules?

This was one of the things I found endearing about Bob Dole.

[_Mister Scratch]

Overall the reviews, from Signature, speak very highly of the book. But in light of those reviews, I don't see how one can conclude that FARMS is trying to "control" the use of the term magic, and "the way it is read and interpreted".

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. 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.

I especially like this quote, which you bolded in your post:

Despite a valiant effort, Quinn fails to clarify the elusive (and usually illusive) distinction between magic and religion. On the one hand he recognizes that in examining the practice of any particular faith it is virtually impossible to disentangle the two (pp. xii-xvi); and yet in his title and most of his text he insists upon a distinct "magic world view" that presumably sets Joseph Smith's generation apart from our own.

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.

[_Coggins7]

Forgive me, I only read the first section of your post - but what strikes me as so transparently dumb about the scare quoted treatment of the word "magic", is that any system of propositions about how the world works which recognizes no possibility of its falsification, and no contraints of evidence, fact, or logic upon it, is by definition totally synonomous with "magic - whether it goes by the name of astrology, Mormonism, spiritualist occultism, whatever. That is, in the very act of demonstrating disdain for any allegation of Joseph Smith's involvement in "magic", apologists inevitably, if inadvertently, demonstrate disdain for the very system they wish to defend, for - as both reject all constraints - there is no underlying difference.

How many more pretenders and wannabe's posing as serious thinkers are we going to have to wade through in this miserable forum. The only thing that keeps Tal's assertion here from being nothing more than unintelligible gibberish is that Tal is capable of constructing grammatical sentences. The substance, however, is devoid of anything resembling critical reasoning. Any system of propositions about how the world works which recognizes no possibility of its falsification, and no constraints of evidence, fact, or logic upon it, is by definition, not a scientific set of propositions, and that is the very best that can be said for them. They may be philosophical, they may be metaphysical, they may be random statements of opinion, and they may be claims for the existence of magic powers and forces, but they are not by definition magic, and how Bachman thinks he can get away with such a preposterous leap of logic with educated, intelligent people is quite beyond me. The claim the Mormons rejects all constraints of evidence, fact, or logic is a purely subjective perception grounded in Tal's own personal metaphysical and psychological template, not an objective or demonstratable claim about Mormonism.

Tal's and Beastie's poor man's positivism has become quite tedious, as has Tarski's and Sethbag's and Dude's more carefully marinated kind.

[_Coggins7]

The Mormon church has so successfully monopolized and renamed magic that twentieth-century believers can live in an overtly rational culture but continue to satisfy the universal human hunger for a medley of magic and religion.

Good heavens! This sniffing little academic beanie baby thinks we are living in a culture that is overtly rational? This is an indication of a very serious disconnection from reality, a disconnection, it has been duly noted by greater minds than mine, that only an intellectual could achieve.

This person clearly, in some manner, missed the sixties...and the seventies, and the eighties, and the nineties, and...

And he obviously has never heard of Liberalism. That would cure him immediately of any such illusions.

[_Coggins7]

The Mormon church has so successfully monopolized and renamed magic that twentieth-century believers can live in an overtly rational culture but continue to satisfy the universal human hunger for a medley of magic and religion.

Actually, pontificating little academic snobs like this disgust me. He doesn't even know what he's talking about.

As I've said before with Dawkins and so many of his ilk, it isn't the God delusion, but the God complex among the elites of society, that is the primary problem faced by many of those in the gilded halls of academe.

[_beastie]

Coggins,

I'm beginning to suspect you actually have an inferiority complex. Ever since reading this essay and seeing that you have yet to attain any higher education and have been a manual laborer throughout your life, your constant derision of academia smacks of resentment to me.

And, of course, the right-wing machines loves to foster such sentiment among its followers.