D. Michael Quinn

[Cow Poke]

I see that he USED to work for BYU as a professor for about 12 years, and was a Church historian. I also see he was excommunicated and, supposedly, is openly gay. Not wanting to assume anything, I'm asking ... are his books and works accepted by our Tweb Mormons as authoritative, generally? Is he "under the bus"?

It appears that the work I'm looking at is heavily footnoted and researched. Would quotes from him be dissed?

[nrajeff]

Some of his research is pretty professional and has a reputation for thoroughness. Some of his research is considered shoddy because it jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

"are his books and works accepted by our Tweb Mormons as authoritative, generally?"

By TBM's? I say no, not generally, depending on your definition of "authoritative." If you mean "accepted by the general authorities or the general membership as the being the last word on the subject," then I say no. But he is a professional historian, so at least some of his reputation for doing good work is deserved, IMO.

I read "Magic World View" a long time ago.

[Cow Poke]

Some of his research is pretty professional and has a reputation for thoroughness. Some of his research is considered shoddy because it jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

Thanks, Jeff. Is it possible that your opinion that he "jumped to unwarranted conclusions" could be personal bias on your part? That you don't agree with his outcomes? Can you, perhaps, give an example of an "unwarranted conclusion"?

By TBM's? I say no, not generally, depending on your definition of "authoritative."

I think you're getting my meaning.

If you mean "accepted by the general authorities or the general membership as the being the last word on the subject," then I say no. But he is a professional historian, so at least some of his reputation for doing good work is deserved, IMO.

OK, but it sounds like you're saying, "yes, he's a good scholar", while, at the same time, reserving the right to disagree with his findings when they conflict with your own conclusions. (Not an unusual position, of course)

But, I guess where I was going with this... if I quoted him, there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response?

I read "Magic World View" a long time ago.

Not familiar with that. Care to comment?

[nrajeff]

Thanks, Jeff. Is it possible that your opinion that he "jumped to unwarranted conclusions" could be personal bias on your part?

Anything is possible. It's even possible that Acts 2:38 really did intend "for the remission of sins" to actually mean "because your sins have already been remitted."
But in the case of Quinn, I disagreed with many of his CONCLUSIONS, but there were only a handful of them that I thought lacked the professional scholarly rigor that should have been done before arriving at those conclusions.

That you don't agree with his outcomes? Can you, perhaps, give an example of an "unwarranted conclusion"?

Sure, and it's a well-known one in the realm of his books and their critical reviews:

His conclusion that Smith relied, superstitiously or from occult beliefs, on the so-called (by Quinn, not nec. by Smith) "Jupiter talisman" for protection from the mobs of anti-LDS. Quinn based that conclusion, partially, on his poorly-grounded assumption that Smith died with the medallion in his hand or otherwise in his possession.

Had Quinn been more thorough in his research, he probably would have realized that the medallion was not found--by all reliable accounts--on Smith's body.

Some critics have pointed out similar instances where Quinn relied too heavily on unreliable, hearsay-type stories, and then he based some of his conclusions accordingly.

Overall, I'd say that Quinn is held in fairly high regard by his peers; his scholarship seems to be mostly of good quality. The exceptions don't refute the rule.

But, I guess where I was going with this... if I quoted him, there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response?

No, we probably wouldn't react the way some Evangelicals reply when Ehrman's research is cited.

Not familiar with that.

"Mormonism and the Magic World View" was one of Quinn's first books to gain him a lot of notoriety. It's where he concludes that the Smith family was heavily influenced by "occult" or "folk magic" culture of his time and place, as were many or most other Christian families.

[Cow Poke]

Anything is possible. It's even possible that Acts 2:38 really did intend "for the remission of sins" to actually mean "because your sins have already been remitted."

Yeah, gotta throw in the snark, eh? I know "I yam what I yam". (You haven't said that much, lately)

But in the case of Quinn, I disagreed with many of his CONCLUSIONS, but there were only a handful of them that I thought lacked the professional scholarly rigor that should have been done before arriving at those conclusions.

OK

Sure, and it's a well-known one in the realm of his books and their critical reviews:

His conclusion that Smith relied, superstitiously or from occult beliefs, on the so-called (by Quinn, not nec. by Smith) "Jupiter talisman" for protection from the mobs of anti-LDS. Quinn based that conclusion, partially, on his poorly-grounded assumption that Smith died with the medallion in his hand or otherwise in his possession.

Had Quinn been more thorough in his research, he probably would have realized that the medallion was not found--by all reliable accounts--on Smith's body.

Some critics have pointed out similar instances where Quinn relied too heavily on unreliable, hearsay-type stories, and then he based some of his conclusions accordingly.

Overall, I'd say that Quinn is held in fairly high regard by his peers; his scholarship seems to be mostly of good quality. The exceptions don't refute the rule.

I appreciate that. Thanks

No, we probably wouldn't react the way some Evangelicals reply when Ehrman's research is cited.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Ehrman --- I don't really know anything about him except the stuff I've read here -- he's not somebody I ever studied or looked up to or ... But I guess I get your point.

"Mormonism and the Magic World View" was one of Quinn's first books to gain him a lot of notoriety. It's where he concludes that the Smith family was heavily influenced by "occult" or "folk magic" culture of his time and place, as were many or most other Christian families.

OK, so are you saying that Smith's family was NOT influenced by "occult" or "folk magic" culture, or are you conceding that they were, but it was "normal" for the period?

[nrajeff]

Yeah, gotta throw in the snark, eh? I know "I yam what I yam". (You haven't said that much, lately)

I don't recall saying that particular phrase at all.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Ehrman --- I don't really know anything about him except the stuff I've read here -- he's not somebody I ever studied or looked up to or ...

Really? You bring up a famous scholar who used to be LDS and who has negative things to say about LDSism...and then you "don't know" why I would bring up a famous scholar who used to be Evangelical and who has negative things to say about Evangelicalism? The correlation didn't seem that difficult to notice, IMO.

But I guess I get your point.

Let me help with some background for my answer:

1. YOU ask the dramatic rhetorical (?) question "if I quoted him, there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response? "

2. I answer your question: "No, we probably wouldn't react the way some Evangelicals reply when Ehrman's research is cited" ---referring to ACTUAL cases where, when someone cited Ehrman as a Bible scholar who used to work in Evangelical institutions but who has fallen out of favor with them, and whose work appears to be heavily footnoted and researched, some Evangelicals actually did try the knee-jerk "That guy is a moron, his work can't be trusted!" type of response.

Both the Carm and Walter Martin forums had such responses from Evangelicals, IIRC.

OK, so are you saying that Smith's family was NOT influenced by "occult" or "folk magic" culture, or are you conceding that they were, but it was "normal" for the period?

Maybe neither. I was only commenting on one of the possibly relatively few times when Quinn reached conclusions that the evidence he cited wasn't strong enough to justify. That doesn't mean his conclusions were incorrect or correct. A prosecuting attorney may be convinced that the defendant is guilty, and the defendant may indeed be guilty, but the D.A. might still present insufficient evidence to back it up.

IMO, the Smith family was not as heavily influenced by the folk customs of the culture as Quinn claims. I don' think their life decisions were so heavily based on what the astrological charts said.


So, let's cut the preliminary fishing expedition, and get right to what this is all about:

What among Quinn's statements do you think you've found that you want to hit us with?

[Cow Poke]

I don't recall saying that particular phrase at all.

Because your memory is failing? Or because I got you confused with OC AGAIN?

Really? You bring up a famous scholar who used to be LDS and who has negative things to say about LDSism...and then you "don't know" why I would bring up a famous scholar who used to be Evangelical and who has negative things to say about Evangelicalism? The correlation didn't seem that difficult to notice, IMO.

Yes, Jeff ---- you are, apparently familiar with Quinn.. I don't have a clue about Ehrman, and don't really care.

Let me help with some background for my answer:

1. YOU ask the dramatic rhetorical (?) question "if I quoted him, there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response? "

Relax, JEff... it was HARDLY a "dramatic rhetorical" question. I was ASSUMING we were having a calm and civil discussion, and my tone was, apparently, much more relaxed than you were prepared to deal with. It was intended in good humor.

2. I answer your question: "No, we probably wouldn't react the way some Evangelicals reply when Ehrman's research is cited" ---referring to ACTUAL cases where, when someone cited Ehrman as a Bible scholar who used to work in Evangelical institutions but who has fallen out of favor with them, and whose work appears to be heavily footnoted and researched, some Evangelicals actually did try the knee-jerk "That guy is a moron, his work can't be trusted!" type of response.

I have mentioned numerous times when you march Ehrman out that I have no clue what that's about, nor do I care.

Both the Carm and Walter Martin forums had such responses from Evangelicals, IIRC.

I don't post there, and don't know / care what goes on there.

Maybe neither. I was only commenting on one of the possibly relatively few times when Quinn reached conclusions that the evidence he cited wasn't strong enough to justify. That doesn't mean his conclusions were incorrect or correct. A prosecuting attorney may be convinced that the defendant is guilty, and the defendant may indeed be guilty, but the D.A. might still present insufficient evidence to back it up.

IMO, the Smith family was not as heavily influenced by the folk customs of the culture as Quinn claims. I don' think their life decisions were so heavily based on what the astrological charts said.

Since I really don't know what Quinn actually said, I really can't comment.

So, let's cut the preliminary fishing expedition, and get right to what this is all about:

What among Quinn's statements do you think you've found that you want to hit us with?

There is no fishing expedition, Jeff. I've read some of Quinn's stuff, and honestly didn't know how he was regarded by TWeb Mormons, so I ASKED.

There was no need for you to go to JERK mode.

[nrajeff]

Yes, Jeff ---- you are, apparently familiar with Quinn.. I don't have a clue about Ehrman, and don't really care.

Your ignorance regarding Ehrman is irrelevant. The point is still valid, as is my answer to your question. Nothing personal was aimed at YOU, since I was referring to OTHER Evangelicals in OTHER forums who reacted with the knee-jerk-responses you caricatured. YOU, on the other hand, asked whether the pro-LDS posters HERE in THIS forum would react that way if you were to trot out some supposedly damaging quote from Quinn.

I was ASSUMING we were having a calm and civil discussion, and my tone was, apparently, much more relaxed than you were prepared to deal with.

And I, in a calm and civil and relaxed way, told you that the answer to your calm, civil, relaxed question

"...there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response? "

is "probably not."

It was intended in good humor.

Of course it was. You are consistently above suspicion of being disingenuous.

I have mentioned numerous times when you march Ehrman out that I have no clue what that's about, nor do I care.

Again, that confession has no bearing on my answer to your question.

Since I really don't know what Quinn actually said, I really can't comment....I've read some of Quinn's stuff...

So you didn't find his stuff to be noteworthy or memorable, apparently. Then what caused you to initially want to read his stuff? How did you even know he existed? What led to your decision that you wanted to read his stuff?

[Cow Poke]

Your ignorance regarding Ehrman is irrelevant. The point is still valid, as is my answer to your question. Nothing personal was aimed at YOU, since I was referring to OTHER Evangelicals in OTHER forums who reacted with the knee-jerk-responses you caricatured. YOU, on the other hand, asked whether the pro-LDS posters HERE in THIS forum would react that way if you were to trot out some supposedly damaging quote from Quinn.


And I, in a calm and civil and relaxed way, told you that the answer to your calm, civil, relaxed question

"...there wouldn't necessarily be a knee-jerk "WHAT? You're quoting THAT MORON!?!?!?!" type of response? "

is "probably not."


Of course it was. You are consistently above suspicion of being disingenuous.


Again, that confession has no bearing on my answer to your question.


So you didn't find his stuff to be noteworthy or memorable, apparently. Then what caused you to initially want to read his stuff? How did you even know he existed? What led to your decision that you wanted to read his stuff?

I ran across him in looking at "first vision" versions, Jeff, and did some initial checking about him on my own. He seemed to be a respected scholar, albeit at odds with the Mormon Church. I wondered what the LDS posters thought of him, so I asked.

[nrajeff]

I ran across him in looking at "first vision" versions, Jeff, and did some initial checking about him on my own. He seemed to be a respected scholar, albeit at odds with the Mormon Church. I wondered what the LDS posters thought of him, so I asked.

Thanks for the answers. He seems to be a generally respected scholar among his professional peers. Some laymen who are LDS are suspicious of his conclusions solely because he has been excommunicated. One of my best friends is a close friend of Quinn, who has claimed that he still believes in many of the doctrines of LDSism (IIRC), despite having been ex'd from the church.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for the answers. He seems to be a generally respected scholar among his professional peers. Some laymen who are LDS are suspicious of his conclusions solely because he has been excommunicated. One of my best friends is a close friend of Quinn, who has claimed that he still believes in many of the doctrines of LDSism (IIRC), despite having been ex'd from the church.

It just seems to me that a number of your scholars, when digging into your Church's history, become disillusioned by what they find, as opposed to what your Church teaches. Quinn seems to fit in that category.

[nrajeff]

It just seems to me that a number of your scholars, when digging into your Church's history, become disillusioned by what they find, as opposed to what your Church teaches. Quinn seems to fit in that category.

(coughbartehrmancoughpotthinkinghe'sinasuperiorpositiontokettle)

[Cow Poke]

(coughbartehrmancoughpotthinkinghe'sinasuperiorpositiontokettle)

I guess I'll have to read up on Bart a little, since you seem to love to bring him up so much.

[Cerebrum123]

I guess I'll have to read up on Bart a little, since you seem to love to bring him up so much.

IMO, James Patrick Holding of Tektonics, does a good job of refuting Bart Erhman's nonsense. You should be able to find some good stuff at tektonics.org

[Cow Poke]

IMO, James Patrick Holding of Tektonics, does a good job of refuting Bart Erhman's nonsense. You should be able to find some good stuff at tektonics.org

I think what Jeff intends is that, when I bring up a Mormon who has studied Mormonism, and decided it isn't all it's cracked up to be, Bart is the "you guys did it too" poster boy. I'm guessing that, cause I still am ignorant on Erhman.