Thursday, February 4, 2010

Mormons, is this a false prophecy?

DAVID SMITH WILL BE PRESIDENT AND KING: April 1844. Joseph Smith prophesies that his unborn child will be called David, and will be ';president and king of Israel.'; (cited in Quinn p 644)





FULFILLED?: The child was called David. However, he was never ';president and king of Israel.'; He died in 1904, at the age of 60, having spent the last 27 years of his life in an insane asylum. He was a member of the Reorganized Church. His highest nominal position in that church was counsellor to the president, but he never actually performed any duties as such, because of his mental condition.Mormons, is this a false prophecy?
well obviously it isMormons, is this a false prophecy?
Sources sources sources! ';Cited in Quinn??'; What is ';Quinn'; and why are any of us to believe it isn't just someone's fabrications?





Don't you understand that incorrect things are recorded about any event? Have you never seen examples of misinformation in your life? It happens now and it happened then. Just because someone said it doesn't make it true!
I'm sorry, where did you get this from?
christ had an answer on that. how can the blind lead the blind leave them alone. bible fact,,ref,,bible . yes many false prophecies was made by well read the links below/ www.falseprophices made byjoshep smith.com wwwnomanknowsmyhistory.com www.packmanteleport.com www.exmormonnomore.com. teacking of the church as well doctorines as well ? based on fact???
Brandon, your losing your credibility with this one.
in April 1844, Joseph Smith had reportedly prophesied his unborn child would be a son who was to be named ';David'; and would eventually become ';president and king of Israel'; (See Valery Tippetts Avery, From Mission to Madness: The Last Son of the Mormon Prophet). In the 1980s, Mark Hofmann, forged a copy of a Patriarchal Blessing given to Joseph Smith III, naming the young Joseph as Smith's successor.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_鈥?/a>








I don't know enough about Quinn to comment on him but chances are if he is endorsing forged documents that's an issue... I don't know I will do some research them modify my answer





Im back! :) with my edited info











Quinn's research, both before and after his excommunication, were in-depth ';revisions'; of traditional accounts of Mormon history Surprised to learn that Quinn can鈥檛 afford health insurance and sleeps on a futon in his mother鈥檚 condo, a group of friends and supporters started a fund to help Quinn: www.SupportMikeQuinn.net.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_鈥?/a>














The Legitimacy of D. Michael Quinn





Research by Kerry A. Shirts





I have been asked to review the legitimacy of D. Michael Quinn as an LDS historian. Since my sources are limited, I can only use what I have, forewarning readers that this is hardly an exhaustive nor necessarily balanced approach. In other words, in true scholarly fashion, I say this is tentive and liable,for updating, of course!. I do, however, believe there is enough here to get some perspective on D. Michael Quinn as an historian. Let me say at the outset that while I enjoy his writings, I do not subscribe to the silly notion that his research is impeccible. Neither do a lot of other historians and researchers.





Quinn has been a quite prolific writer to say the least. Ehat %26amp; Cook in their book ';The Words of Joseph Smith'; utilize him:





1. Ehat %26amp; Cook, Words, 7 April 1842 Note, p.138





Concerning the use of the baptismal font for rebaptisms and the healing of the body, see D. Michael Quinn, ';The Practice of Rebaptism at Nauvoo,'; Brigham Young University Studies 18 (Winter 1978): 226-32.





2. Ehat %26amp; Cook, Words, 16 July 1843 (2) Note, p.294





Moreover, it was still not until a month after the 11 March 1844 organization of the Kingdom of God before Joseph was chosen prophet, priest and king over the Council of Fifty. (See D. Michael Quinn, ';The Council of Fifty and Its Members, 1844-1945.'; Brigham Young University Studies 20 [Winter 1980]: 164-66, 185-86;





3. Ehat %26amp; Cook, Words, 12 May 1844 Note, p.403





This he was doing specifically by organizing the ';Kingdom of God'; or ';Council of Fifty.'; See D. Michael Quinn, ';The Council of Fifty and Its Members, 1844-1945.'; Brigham Young University Studies 20 (Winter 1980)





Ehat also briefly summarized Quinn's interesting work on the Council of the Fifty in another article that Ehat wrote:





';It Seems Like Heaven Began on Earth';:





Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God





by Andrew F. Ehat





Andrew F. Ehat, BYU Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, p.253





In the last issue of BYU Studies, D. Michael Quinn presented for the first time a chronology of the Council of Fifty that annihilates the previously held theory that this Council was one of the most important institutions in nineteenth-century Mormon history.1 Formally organized by Joseph Smith on 11 March 1844, just three months before he was murdered at Carthage, Illinois, the Council of Fifty was his concrete description of the millennial government of God. In his article, Quinn gave an overview of the organization, officers, activity, and meaning of the Prophet's Council of Fifty and presented insight into some of the internal political doctrine that guided Council meetings. However, he did not present or analyze the governing directive of the Council: The Constitution of the Kingdom of God. Nor did he discuss all the parliamentary procedures of the Kingdom that illustrate the theoretical rights, powers, and limitations of its officers and members. The purpose of this article then is to show that internal nature, role, and organization of Joseph Smith's ';Kingdom of God.';





The Encyclopedia of Mormonism references to Quinn in many different areas attesting to his prestige:





1. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BIOGRAPHY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY





Quinn, D. Michael. J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo





2. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, CHURCH EDUCATIONAL





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Utah's Educational Innovation: LDS Religion Classes, 1890-1929.'; Utah Historical Quarterly 43 (Fall 1975):379-89.





3. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, COMMON CONSENT





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Evolution of the Presiding Quorums of the LDS Church.'; Journal of Mormon History 1 (1974):21-38.





4. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, LDS BUSINESS COLLEGE





Bibliography





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Brief Career of Young University at Salt Lake City.'; Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (1973):69-89.





5. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3, ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES references Quinn:





D. Michael Quinn, ';From Sacred Grove to Sacral Power Structure,'; Dialogue 17.2 (1984):9-34.





6. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3, PRAYER CIRCLE - references Quinn:





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles.'; BYU Studies 19 (Fall 1978):79-105.





Quinn is listed several times in the ';Collected Discourses Bibliography:





1. Collected Discourses, Vol.2, Bibliography





Quinn, D. Michael, ';L.D.S. Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.'; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985):9-105.





2. Collected Discourses, Vol.5, Bibliography





Quinn, D. Michael, ';LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.'; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985):9-105.





3. Regional Studies, Illinois, Sperry鈥擝ibliography, p.305





[p.305] Quincy, Josiah. Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old Journals. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1926.





鈥斺€斺€? ';Nauvoo and the Mormons.'; In Prairie State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, 226-32.





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Practice of Rebaptism at Nauvoo.'; BYU Studies 18 (Win 1978): 226-32.





Chad J. Flake in the back of BYU Studies - ';Mormon Bibliography'; lists many of Quinn's titles and works.





1. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, p.530





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Brief career of Young University at Salt Lake City,'; Utah Historical Quarterly 4 (Winter 1973):69-89.





2. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4, p.530





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Evolution of the Presiding Quorumns of the LDS Church.'; Journal of Mormon History 1(1974):21-38.





3. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, p.421





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Utah's Educational Innovation: LDS Religion Classes, 1890-1929.'; Utah Historical Quarterly 43 (Fall 1975):379-89.





4. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, p.575





Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-1932: An American Elite. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1976. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Order #76-30,277





5. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, p.583





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Brigham Young: Man of the Spirit.'; Ensign 7 (August 1977):34-37.





6. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.115





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles.'; BYU Studies 19 (Fall 1978):79-105.





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Practice of Rebaptism at Nauvoo.'; BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):226-32.





7. Chad J. Flake, BYU Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.121





Quinn, D. Michael. ';The Newel K. Whitney Family--In Some Ways, This Family's History Reflects the History of the Church Itself.'; Ensign 8 (December 1978):42-45.





8. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 21, No. 2, pg.242





Quinn, D. Michael. ';They Served: The Richards Legacy in the Church.'; Ensign 10 (January 1980): 24-29.





9. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 22, No. 2, pg.247





Quinn, D. Michael. ';A Gift Given, a Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women, a Response.'; Sunstone 6 (September-October 1981): 26-27.





10. Mormon Bibliography 1982; BYU Studies Vol. 23, No. 2, pg.234





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Joseph Smith III's 1844 Blessing and the Mormons of Utah.'; Dialogue 15 (Summer 1982): 69-90.





11. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 24, No. 2, pg.216





Quinn, D. Michael. J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1983.





12. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 25, No. 2, pg.59





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Jesse Gause: Joseph Smith's Little-Known Counselor.'; BYU Studies 23 (Fall 1983): 487-93.





13. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 25, No. 2, pg.79





Quinn, D. Michael. ';From Sacred Grove to Sacral Power Structure.'; Dialogue 17 (Summer 1984): 9-34.





14. Mormon Bibliography; BYU Studies Vol. 26, No. 2, pg.83





Quinn, D. Michael. ';LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.'; Dialogue 18 (Spring 1985): 9-105.





15. Mormon Bibliography 1992; BYU Studies Vol. 33, No. 2, pg.374





NMH Quinn, D. Michael, ed. The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992.





16. Mormon Bibliography 1992; BYU Studies Vol. 33, No. 2, pg.425





Quinn, D. Michael. ';Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood since 1843.'; In W%26amp;A, 365-409.





____. ';On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).'; In FH, 69-111.





____. ';150 Years of Truth and Consequences about Mormon History.'; Sunstone 16 (February 1992): 12-14.





Quinn has been influential as a source for books, as well as writing many articles, a few from BYU Studies are:





Diedrich Willers to ';Reverend Brethren,'; 1830, New York History Diedrich Willers, Letter (1830) cit.





New York History 54 (July 1973)





Source: 1830 Letter of Diedrich Willers, in D. Michael Quinn, trans. and ed., ';The First Months of Mormonism: A Contemporary View by Rev. Diedrich Willers,'; New York History 54 (July 1973):317-33.





The Flag of the Kingdom of God by D. Michael Quinn





The Historians Corner, BYU Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, p.105





The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844 by D. Michael Quinn





D. Michael Quinn, BYU Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, p.187





The Practice of Rebaptism at Nauvoo by D. Michael Quinn





D. Michael Quinn, BYU Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, p.226





Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles* by D. Michael Quinn





D. Michael Quinn, BYU Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, p.79





The Council of Fifty and Its Members,





1844 to 1945 by D. Michael Quinn





D. Michael Quinn, BYU Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, p.163





At times, other historians have been lambasted for ignoring Quinn's work:





Book Reviews; BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 1, pg.115





Church History in the Fullness of Times.





Reviewed by Dennis L. Lythgoe, columnist for the Deseret News in Salt Lake City and adjunct professor of history at the University of Utah.





This attractive volume gives the initial impression that it is a pathbreaking, progressive, one-volume account of Latter-day Saint history. Even though it is a manual for a religion course, it is formidable in appearance, suggesting substantive content. Although a paperback, it is aesthetically designed with numerous impressive photographs and illustrations. One highlight, for instance, is the photograph of the stained glass window of the First Vision from Salt Lake's 17th Ward chapel. Unfortunately, the manual's ultimate value is confined to the layout and the photographs because its content is surprisingly shallow and its scholarship disappointing.





Having been prepared by a committee, this volume lacks depth. The style is pedestrian, overly simplified, and spotty in its coverage of important material. But the most serious problems are found in the consistent lack of scholarship from beginning to end. For instance, few of the important scholarly works of Latter-day Saint history are used in any visible way in this volume...D. Michael Quinn wrote an indispensable book on President Clark, and the biography of President Kimball by his son and grandson is a major contribution to Latter-day Saint biography, yet neither is consulted.





SAMUEL W. TAYLOR and RAYMOND W. TAYLOR. The John Taylor Papers, Records of the Last Utah Pioneer.





Reviewed by Mark R. Grandstaff,





Book Reviews; BYU Studies Vol. 26, No. 3, pg.121





I suppose that is why The John Taylor Papers are such a disappointment. Instead of being a handy, well-annotated compilation of primary-source material, the work is polemical. The speculation that runs through the work does much to detract from its usefulness. For example, the interpretation of the ongoing feud between Brigham Young and John Taylor is based on an interview some fifty years after the fact. The authors perceive their grandfather as the final supporting brace for Mormon doctrinal integrity, for upon Taylor's demise the Church recanted polygamy and interweaved itself into the seamless web of American pluralism. Hence, as the authors claim, the pioneer period ended and modern Mormonism began. This is a well-worn thesis that has been dispelled by the recent writings of Jan Shipps, D. Michael Quinn, and Thomas G. Alexander.





D MICHAEL QUINN FALLS FLAT WITH ';EARLY MORMONISM %26amp; WORLD MAGIC VIEW';





For all his historical prowess, Quinn's undoing was his work ';Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.'; It is as though he let down his guard and forgot what scholarly rigor was with sources, philosophy, logic, and most important of all, methodology. Granted he is prolific, but this does not necessarily translate into solid quality articles and books of impeccible history and power. David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson noted that Quinn's work was irrelevant to the religiousity of Joseph Smith and the behavioral goals Quinn was trying to achieve.





David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson; BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 2, pg.161





';An example of the problems that occur when the purpose of third-paradigmatic historiography is forgotten by readers comes from a work of D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magical World View. At the outset Quinn clearly stated his own belief in the theological framework of the Latter-day Saint faith. He explained that even if the sources he treated are unusual, he does not believe that his analysis ';disparages Joseph Smith's integrity or prophetic claims.'; His intent, he stated, ';has simply been to sketch in broad strokes the outline of a topic that I believe merits the careful, cautious scrutiny of Mormons and non-Mormons alike. For if we hope to begin to understand fully the origins of Mormonism, we cannot ignore the environment and world view of its first adherents or of the place and meaning of magic.'; Quinn therefore posited a set of questions that he desired to investigate; the success of his investigation should be judged on methodological grounds, that is, on how well he acts the historian of the third paradigm. The fact that his work is unsuitable for exemplar historiography, that is, that it does not seek to build faith and motivate to good behavior, does not necessarily mean that for Latter-day Saints it is not a good work of history. On the other hand, Quinn cannot complain should ecclesiastical leaders refrain from recommending his work for internal consumption. His task is third-paradigmatic, generally irrelevant to reaching religious and behavioral goals.';





Many have now come out and claimed that Quinn simply let the facts speak for themselves. In fact, Quinn's conclusions have proven to critics of Mormonism that because his conclusion is not the one the Church has concerning Joseph Smith and Magic, that Quinn is the objective one, while Mormon historians are the bias ones! However, Daniel B. McKinlay lays this naive assumption to rest.





Daniel B. McKinlay, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.87





';In reading Goff鈥檚 thesis, ...on pp. 6-7 he cites an excerpt of a letter Ron Priddis wrote to The Daily Universe at Brigham Young University, 29 October 1987, in which Priddis criticizes some of Richard L. Anderson鈥檚 methods in dealing with the question of Joseph Smith and magic. Priddis concludes that ';Anderson鈥檚 approach to history is to align sources in ways that best support preconceived concepts, using the most lenient standards to evaluate data he finds useful and the most narrow allowances for sources which contradict his views.'; D. Michael Quinn, on the other hand, when dealing with the same subject, ';has scrupulously followed his sources wherever they have led, letting history speak for itself.'; As Goff sees Priddis鈥檚 position, the latter considers any handling of historical sources that disagrees with his own to be tendentious, whereas the historian who agrees with him is simply appealing to ';brute facts,'; whose understanding is self-evident. The fallacy in this, according to Goff, is that there are no brute facts which in and of themselves present an infallible picture of reality. Any historical scheme we create is an interpretive venture. We take whatever data we can find and try to construct a plausible mechanism whose features cohere and make sense overall. But as Goff rightly says, ';We always give the data meaning; evidence doesn鈥檛 speak for itself'; (p. 183). It is ultimately meaningless, even impossible, therefore, to claim objectivity. Hence, ';our explanations of the past do not refer to what actually happened or the way things 鈥榬eally鈥?happen in the world鈥攁ll our explanations are interpretations based on prejudices and ideologies as we encounter the data left to us from the past. We judge the historical evidence as we see it, not as it actually is'; (p. 25). Not only are our conclusions based on prejudices and ideologies, but on value judgments, which are grounded on ';assumptions that cannot be defended, logically or empirically'; (p. 29).





QUINN'S DEFINITION AND LABEL AND USE OF MAGIC IS INCORRECT





FARMS, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, Number 1, p.57





The other aspect of the problem with defining magic was the peculiar correlation of the beliefs of the scholars making the definitions with the content of their definitions. With the exception of a few individuals like D. Michael Quinn, most scholars define magic in such a way as not to include their own beliefs and practices. The ';emphasis on religion as a system of beliefs, and the distinction between prayer and spell, the former being associated with 'religious' behaviour and the latter with 'magical' acts, was a Protestant legacy which was automatically taken over by later Victorian theorists like Tylor and Frazer, and given a universal significance as both historical and analytical categories useful in tracing the intellectual development of mankind from savagery to civilization.'; Sir Edward Tylor, called by some ';the Father of Anthropology,'; came from a ';non-conformist Quaker parentage and background which gave him a strong aversion to religious ritual of the kind displayed in Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. He had no feeling for what religion, particularly public, organized, ritualized religion, meant to the worshippers themselves.'; Tylor ';was a social evolutionist with a profound commitment to the science of social development.'; Thus, for him, '; 'magical arts,' witchcraft and the 'occult sciences' (as he called them), whenever they were encountered in the civilized European societies, [were] survivals from a barbarous past鈥hich they were destined to discard altogether,'; and he defined [p.58] ';magic'; accordingly. Tylor ';does not attempt to make a clear distinction between magic and religion but is content to claim 'as a minimum definition of Religion, the belief in Spiritual Beings', and to leave the rest of the supernatural to magic.'; Sir James Frazer was, like Tylor, part of the ';British Victorian intellectual establishment,'; and borrowed his ideas about ';magic'; essentially from Tylor. Bronislaw K. Malinowski, a native of Poland who was influenced by positivistic theories while a student, held views on religion that ';were a mixture of derivative Christian theology and pragmatist considerations akin to the doctrines of William James that however threatened to deteriorate into crude utilitarianism,'; and these views are reflected in his theories on magic. The most positivistic definition surveyed here is that of Ritner, an agnostic from a Presbyterian background. So, the Egyptologist Herman te Velde notes, ';The word magic is often used simply to label actions, sayings, and ideas that do not seem reasonable from a Western positivistic or Christian point of view.'; Stanley Tambiah, in his important book, Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality, tries to show how it is not coincidental that most of the major theoreticians of ';magic'; have been positivistic Protestants who have defined ';magic'; in such a way as not to include their own beliefs. ';Thus, 'magic' is relegated to the 'they' side of a 'we/they' dichotomy. This is simultaneously unfair to the materials and practices studied under the heading of 'magic,' and self- serving for the materials (mainly those we identify as 'our own') that are exempted from that label. It perpetuates a complacent double standard.';





FARMS, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, Number 1, p.59





D. Michael Quinn is the oddity, for though he did give more consideration to theoretical concerns than Ashment, the Tanners, and most other anti-Mormons, his definition not only deliberately encompasses what was then his own religion, but many others as well. Yet Quinn reverses the double standard: He only applies the pejorative label to his former religion, but not to any others. Consider how Quinn's definition of ';magic'; applies to the prayer through which a born-again Christian becomes saved: It is ';the use of means [prayer] that are believed to have supernatural power to cause a supernatural being [God] to produce or prevent a particular result [salvation and damnation respectively] considered not obtainable by natural means [works].'; Therefore, by Quinn's definition, the prayer through which one becomes born again is magic. Christ's grace also fits his definition since Quinn also includes any ';extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source.'; Now note the connotations that Quinn infuses into his use of the word. Someone who practices magic (our born-again Christian) looks at the world through the ';magic world view,'; which is ';animistic.'; He (or she) uses ';special words, signs, numbers.'; For the magician (our born-again Christian), ';no event is 'accidental' or 'random,' but each has its chain of causation in which Power鈥as the decisive agency.'; And though he may find his religion [p.60] ';both emotionally satisfying and rational'; this is only a ';perceived rationality.'; Do not be deceived; the magician (our born-again Christian) practices something that ';being by definition false or wicked, or both, couldn't possibly be confused with 'religion,' '; since it is nothing but ';a crude aggregate of superstitions.'; Even if he thinks his is a religion, it can ';scarcely differ from magical arts and incantations'; since it involves ';supernatural coercion, intricate rituals, and efforts to understand the otherworldly and ineffable.'; Our poor born-again Christian finds himself inextricably involved with one of the things he wanted to be saved from, just by trying to become saved. Now, I do not believe for a moment that born-again Christians actually fit this sordid portrait of animistic satanic superstitious pagans that Quinn paints, any more than Catholics, Mormons, or ancient Egyptians do. That is the point: Quinn's definitions of ';magic'; are a theoretical nightmare that irreparably flaw his book to the point of worthlessness. I fail to comprehend why any born- again Christian鈥攁s the Tanners ostensibly are鈥攐r any religious person, for that matter, would find Quinn's book useful, since it condemns not only Mormonism, but nearly every other religion, under the vituperative label of ';magic.';





ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM WITH QUINN AND HIS BOOK





John A. Tvedtnes, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.12





As I read Vogel鈥檚 comparisons, my mind drifted back to an earlier day, when I read D. Michael Quinn鈥檚 book, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. While I had no reason to doubt that Joseph Smith and many of his contemporaries were familiar with the magical beliefs and practices of the day, Quinn鈥檚 comparison of some of Joseph Smith鈥檚 writings with ideas published in magical texts to which the Smith family almost certainly had no access (especially those long since out-of-print) made me feel that the author had gone too far afield. In both cases, one wonders if Joseph Smith could have known all the facts that the authors could elicit only after intensive research. How large was the Smith Farm Library, anyway?!





QUINN'S NEW MORMON HISTORY IS NOT OBJECTIVE OR ALL THAT MUCH MORE TRUE AS FAR AS THAT GOES





(I am only picking a little here, and there in this review, as it is far too involved and so very thorough that I just cannot give it all here. It is easy to access it through FARMS. It is a very worthy read about the particular bias and axe to grind that new Mormon Historian Revisionists possess.





Gary F. Novak, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.231





Faithful History is a collection of essays from Signature Books that includes at least some of the recent discussion of the relationship of faith and history. Although editor George D. Smith deserves credit for publishing essays previously difficult of access like D. Michael Quinn鈥檚 ';On Being a Mormon Historian,'; the most noticeable thing about the volume is what was not included. Any discussion of ';faithful history'; remains incomplete without consideration of important essays by Thomas G. Alexander, M. Gerald Bradford, James Clayton, Marvin Hill, and Peter Novick. One can only speculate as to the reasons these essays were excluded while essays of marginal importance by Paul M. Edwards, C. Robert Mesle, Melvin T. Smith, Kent E. Robson, and Edward H. Ashment were included.





D. Michael Quinn鈥檚 ';On Being a Mormon Historian'; is significantly changed from the typescript of his 1981 talk. Not only has Quinn added a lengthy apology for his activity since leaving BYU, but he has also combined paragraphs and added material to the 1981 core. I am confident that he would find, by the standards of inquiry he applies to others, his own ';policy of retroactive editing,'; ';deleted evidence,'; and ';reversed meanings'; not merely ';important,'; but among the ';more essential problems'; of his essay.





One of the strangest aspects of Quinn鈥檚 essay is the autobiographical material. Instead of telling his story in the first person, Quinn uses the third person. This allows him the luxury of referring to himself as ';this faltering young historian,'; ';this young historian'; (p. 74) and ';the young man'; (p. 73). While this adds a sense of melodrama that might not otherwise be possible, it hardly seems necessary.





Other oddities also occur. Quinn informs us that as a boy ';he subjected any religious proposition to rigid analysis'; (p. 73). Of course he means rigorous analysis; one can only begin to speculate to what ';rigid analysis'; might refer. By the time he was eighteen he ';had made a line-by-line comparison of the 1830 Book of Mormon with later editions'; (p. 73). While this task is no doubt noble, the footnote claims that ';the most detailed presentation of all changes in the Book of Mormon鈥檚 published 1830 text is the non-scholarly study by Jerald and Sandra Tanner'; (p. 101). Quinn seems unaware of the Critical Edition of the Book Mormon published by F.A.R.M.S. Finally, Quinn tells us that he ';completed a score of publications in LDS history, several of which have been described as 鈥榗ontroversial鈥?by some people'; (p. 74). Curiously, the footnote does not mention any book or article Quinn had written before 1981, but instead refers to reviews of two books written after he had delivered the original talk.





Of course Quinn鈥檚 personal odyssey ought not to have any bearing on his defense of objective history, New Mormon History, and environmental explanations of the foundation texts. Indeed, except for establishing his sincerity and honesty, which Quinn clearly thinks are relevant to a defense of New Mormon History, it is difficult to establish a clear connection between Quinn鈥檚 personal history and a theoretical discussion of objectivity and environmental explanations.





When historians use the word ';objectivity,'; it is clear that it either functions as a part of a system of rewards and punishments or as a way of handling evidence. For example, when criticizing Fawn Brodie鈥檚 No Man Knows My History, Marvin Hill wonders ';whether Brodie was very objective in formulating her thesis.'; Hill goes on in the next paragraph to expand somewhat on his criticism: ';It is difficult to understand how Brodie could have so badly misjudged Asael unless she formulated her thesis before she examined his writings.'; Here Hill gives a clear example of one of the functions of ';objectivity';: Brodie is punished for her thesis. Hill also provides a good example of using the word ';objectivity'; to evaluate evidence: ';Furthermore, [historians] have perhaps been satisfied with what Brodie had to say and seem hesitant to deal with Smith鈥檚 visions, his golden plates and his witnesses, all of which are awkward to handle objectively.'; In this case what Hill means by ';objective'; is that historians are unable to experience Joseph鈥檚 visions or examine the gold plates themselves. Of course, there seem to be no objective standards of objectivity. For Dale L. Morgan, No Man Knows My History was very nearly the last word in objective scholarship on Joseph Smith.





When Quinn begins to discuss theoretical issues, the essay goes from bad to worse. Quinn complains about criticism from Boyd K. Packer, Ezra Taft Benson, and Louis Midgley regarding environmental explanations of the Church鈥檚 foundation events. Quinn defines the word ';environment'; so broadly that the word loses almost all meaning. ';Without environmental influence or surrounding significant circumstances,'; says Quinn, ';there would be no revelation from God to the prophets'; (p. 77). It would, of course, be silly to say that prophets are unaware of their ';environment'; in the sense of being aware of circumstances around them. But this is clearly not the sort of thing ';New Mormon Historians,'; for lack of a better term, mean when they call certain kinds of explanations ';environmental'; or ';naturalistic.';





What is meant when using the term ';environmental'; to explain the foundation texts, especially the Book of Mormon? Richard Bushman says, ';According to the environmentalists, Joseph absorbed images, attitudes, and conceptions from upstate New York rural culture and wove them into the Book of Mormon.'; The point of discovering what parts of the upstate New York environment went into the Book of Mormon is to demonstrate how Joseph Smith may have fabricated it. When George D. Smith discusses the ';sources of the Book of Mormon,'; he provides a genuinely environmental explanation. For Smith, the sources of the Book of Mormon include ';Joseph Smith鈥檚 own personal experiences,'; Ethan Smith鈥檚 View of the Hebrews, ';stories of the mysterious Indian burial mounds,'; and facile borrowings from the Bible. Smith鈥檚 explanation comes down clearly on the not-prophet side of the prophet/not-prophet dichotomy.





Whatever else may be said about environmental explanations, they are clearly not benign nor merely conditions that prophets ';observe or experience'; (p. 77). To attempt to define the word ';environmental'; so broadly as to include everything is merely an attempt at softening the language. Quinn would have done better to examine carefully the way Elder Packer and Midgley use the word, examine the sorts of arguments to which they object, compare their arguments with the examples they employ, and then object to their examples if incorrectly used. Providing a soft or thin definition of ';environmental'; serves only to cloud the issues.





After softening the definition of ';environmental,'; Quinn introduces a distinction between monistic history and pluralistic history (p. 79). Pluralistic history is, of course, the good history because it considers ';more than one explanation'; (p. 79). Pluralistic history is also preferable because it ';acknowledge[s] the existence of other reasonable, honest, and conscientious in terpretations'; (p. 80). Although I do not wish to argue solely for ';monistic histories,'; if these are the categories in which I must work, these personal qualities of the ';pluralistic'; historian, while admirable, do not guarantee true history.





Quinn then illustrates how alternative explanations and differing categories can be employed for the good of pluralistic history. According to Quinn, the Book of Mormon suggests that the destruction of the Nephites can be attributed to adultery, fornication, the Gadianton robbers, secret combinations, unrighteous lawyers and judges, and pride (p. 80). He then suggests that ';secular terms'; can be used to describe the same events. Those terms include ';moral disintegration, social disorganization, political discontinuity, and socio-economic disparity.'; However, it is not at all clear that these terms can be substituted without loss of meaning. Within the latter categories, a strong and talented tyrant might be as good a solution as, if not actually preferable to, the Book of Mormon solution of repentance. Notice also that any suggestion of sin, moral responsibility, and alienation from God is absent from Quinn鈥檚 ';secular terms.'; From the point of view of Book of Mormon prophets, any explanation that excluded the sins, pride, and follies of the Nephites would be a blatant misunderstanding of the situation and the only real solution, repentance.





Quinn鈥檚 argument borders on the truly funny when he claims that Elder Packer鈥檚 suggestion for seeing the hand of the Lord in our history leads to ';the Mormon equivalent of the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility'; (p. 81). As if this were not enough, Quinn next appeals to the ';LDS doctrine of free agency'; to support his pluralistic history. He then leads us, not surprisingly, through ';benignly angelic Church leaders,'; ';accommodation history'; (p. 84), ';cushioning evidence,'; ';a protective, paranoid approach'; to our past (p. 85), and a ';public relations defense'; (p. 86). Quinn鈥檚 reductio has a flair for hyperbole, but it does not exceed what follows in his ';Aftermath.';





The ';Aftermath'; recounts the persecution Quinn has suffered since delivering the original talk. Although advised against publishing ';On Being a Mormon Historian,'; Quinn cannot imagine that the reasons could be anything but personal. Private conversations with deans, apostles, and students, some of them clearly based on hearsay, contain quotation marks (p. 92). Does Quinn possess notes he took of these conversations? Where is this material coming from?





Quinn portrays his ';college dean,'; the late Martin Hickman, as conveying persecution from General Authorities and later lamenting that practice. In the early 1980s, Dean Hickman held numerous conversations with those involved in what was then called ';the Mormon history debate.'; Other reports of these conversations have also been published by ';New Mormon Historians,'; sometimes as a defense for their own actions, sometimes as an attempt to silence criticism. Although it is difficult to determine exactly what may or may not have taken place in these meetings, especially since it is no longer possible simply to ask Dean Hickman, there is undoubtedly another side to this story which has yet to be told.





Quinn points out that the persecution involved attempted censoring of various manuscripts and that he lived in a ';climate of repression.'; Of course, ';no one ever gave [him] an ultimatum or threatened to fire [him] from Brigham Young University,'; but he resigned anyway (p. 93). The ';extinction of free thought'; at BYU made it ';an Auschwitz of the mind'; (p. 94). Quinn cannot provide a single example of any censorship other than people offering him their advice. But if he cannot see that their advice was in his best interest it is not their fault. The hyperbole of Quinn鈥檚 statements is obvious, but, at least as far as Auschwitz is concerned, Quinn should be careful not to trifle with serious matters.





Quinn makes it appear as though all attempts at censorship have been directed at historians and that they are merely the good guys representing free inquiry, scholarship, and first amendment rights. Thomas G. Alexander suggests the same thing. There is another side to this question in which I have played a small part and which bears telling here.





In May 1986, I delivered a paper at the meetings of the Mormon History Association titled ';The Function of Naturalistic Terms in Environmental Explanations of the Book of Mormon.'; After the session, Lavina Fielding Anderson, then associate editor for Dialogue, requested that I submit the paper for publication, which I did. To make a long story short, for the next two years, Dialogue stalled and delayed publication. The most interesting comments came from the ';blind referees.'; Although the paper had been delivered to them without an author鈥檚 name, one came back with my name pencilled in at the top. One of the comment sheets referred to me by name. After the two years without a commitment to publish, I finally gave up on publishing the essay in Dialogue.





In 1990 BYU Studies agreed to publish my essay, now titled ';Naturalistic Assumptions and the Book of Mormon.'; Well after the essay was refereed and accepted for publication, it once again ran into trouble. Apparently, in the view of some, the essay contained ';controversial material.'; Since a portion of the essay dealt with some of the work of BYU History Professor Marvin Hill, he was permitted to read the essay and apparently made attempts to block its publication. After some delay, I was informed that it had ';been clear to the board of trustees and back.'; After the BYU board of trustees (the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) had approved the essay for publication, there was still a matter of language being added to the essay to soften my criticism of Hill鈥檚 position. Fortunately, the editors of BYU Studies were very flexible and we were able to work through all the areas of difficulties. It seems ';New Mormon Historians,'; whatever their virtues, are not above attempting censorship when it is in their self-interest to do so.





The issue of censorship is largely a smokescreen and has little to do with the theoretical issues involved with objective Mormon history. The real point of Michael Quinn鈥檚 story is to let readers know who the good guys (historians, mostly) and bad guys (apostles, mostly) are in his story. In my story I鈥檝e reversed the good guys and bad guys. The good guys (apostles, the BYU board of trustees) allow publication of my paper; the bad guys (historians) attempt censorship. One of the troubling aspects of Quinn鈥檚 story is that things always appear to be ';just happening to him.'; He does not appear to view anything that happens as the consequence of his own actions. (pp. 236-240)





All in all, since Quinn wrote his ';Early Mormonism and the World Magic View'; his history has gone downhill. He lacks the rigor, the thinking through of the problems he brings up, the logic, and most important of all, the methodology he uses. I cannot include the reviews in the ';BYU Studies'; here. This is long enough already, but we at least now see another side of the issue, and can certainly understand how naive it is to be thinking that Quinn is impeccible and has written more true history than faithful Mormon historians.








http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/le鈥?/a>
Michael Quinn is a well respected historian who has researched the history of the Mormon Church based on substantiated documentation.





The account of the prophecy about David Smith can be found in this book:
Stir it up dude 8o) thanx for 2





I love questions like this................8o)

No comments:

Post a Comment