Is the LDS Church now resigned to its history?

[SeattleUte]

Not only are his books citrd frequently, but he is the only source anyone can site for a number of things. The reason for this is that he has seen documents from the church archives they don't let anyone look at any longer. That might be changing, but it has been true up until now.

Since we're delving into this, here are some quick thoughts on Quinn's importance.

First, I love the phrase he coined "magic world view". It's right on. However, I think I use it somewhat differently, more broadly, than Quinn originally intended it, and I think that this may be its greatest and longest lasting utility.

Second, who cites him and for what? Scholars that generate truly important stuff use original not secondary sources as the bulk of their authority. Why should they recycle Quinn's ideas? I can see that say, Bushman, would cite him after dashing out a few lines in his JS biography about the society in which Joseph matured. The fact that there were actual gold diggers, people with divining rods, soothsayers or whatever running around in what was then frontier America, Palmyra, NY, is somewhat interesting, but of anecdotal importance and not really surprising. But this would not be a crucial element of JS' biography (I'm speculating, as I have not read a word of Bushman).

Which leads me to my third point. Okay, he saw documents no one else saw for a long time, but Quinn's work is too narrow for my taste. I think Mormon Studies work of lasting importance places Mormonism in the larger historical context. What were the historical and prevailing ideas that led to Mormonism's advent and later informed it, and how did Mormonism in turn influence frontier America's outlook? Keeping within the narrow Mormon world view gets old fast and frankly isn't that important. This seems to be a criticism of not only his "Magic World View" but also his "Power" books.

Fourth, again, Signature is a very distinguished little press. But it's tiny and very narrow in its mission and inerests. Practically speaking, I doubt that publishing there generates much of a platform for a tenured or tenure track university position.

Finally, his work experience was as an assistant to Arrington as LDS historian, and with CES. That if anything erodes a platform for a career in mainstream academia.

LA's crack seems to me pretty funny, actually. I don't mean to run down Quinn. I'm just asking questions. Anytime I see someone canonized, by mos, exmos, progmos, whoever, I get the itch to do that.

Ultimately, what I'm addressing here is Lebowski's assertion that he was blackballed. I think the argument that he was blackballed is a weak case. That's all I'm saying.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ultimately, what I'm addressing here is Lebowski's assertion that he was blackballed. I think the argument that he was blackballed is a weak case. That's all I'm saying.

Actually, it was a case made by the Wall Street Journal. And I think their evidence is far more compelling than your rambling speculations.

[SeattleUte]

Actually, it was a case made by the Wall Street Journal. And I think their evidence is far more compelling than your rambling speculations.

lol it was a newspaper article based on nothing but innuendo except Utah's dean, the one person involved in a hiring decision who came out and actually told the Wall Street Journal why they didn't hire him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

lol it was a newspaper article based on nothing but innuendo except Utah's dean, the one person involved in a hiring decision who came out and actually told the Wall Street Journal why they didn't hire him.

Cherry picking again, I see.

I thought you didn't care about this?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Second, who cites him and for what? Scholars that generate truly important stuff use original not secondary sources as the bulk of their authority. Why should they recycle Quinn's ideas? I can see that say, Bushman, would cite him after dashing out a few lines in his JS biography about the society in which Joseph matured. The fact that there were actual gold diggers, people with divining rods, soothsayers or whatever running around in what was then frontier America, Palmyra, NY, is somewhat interesting, but of anecdotal importance and not really surprising. But this would not be a crucial element of JS' biography (I'm speculating, as I have not read a word of Bushman).

Which leads me to my third point. Okay, he saw documents no one else saw for a long time, but Quinn's work is too narrow for my taste. I think Mormon Studies work of lasting importance places Mormonism in the larger historical context. What were the historical and prevailing ideas that led to Mormonism's advent and later informed it, and how did Mormonism in turn influence frontier America's outlook? Keeping within the narrow Mormon world view gets old fast and frankly isn't that important. This seems to be a criticism of not only his "Magic World View" but also his "Power" books.

Fourth, again, Signature is a very distinguished little press. But it's tiny and very narrow in its mission and inerests. Practically speaking, I doubt that publishing there generates much of a platform for a tenured or tenure track university position.

Finally, his work experience was as an assistant to Arrington as LDS historian, and with CES. That if anything erodes a platform for a career in mainstream academia.

Once again, the fact that you can carry on like this with such an authoritative tone in spite of having read NOTHING significant related to the topic at hand in the last 35 years is amazing. But I guess that hubris is one of the things I have always enjoyed about you. An expert on everything.

[LA Ute]

Didn't we already treat you to one of these in another thread?

A traffic cone?

[SeattleUte]

IOW, nothing in the last 35 years. I rest my case.

No, less than 35 years. I'm not as old as you seem to think. We are contemporaries my friend.

[SeattleUte]

Questions for both of you:
Who's better qualified to direct a Mormon Studies chair (or whatever the proper term would be)? SU-I understand that you don't think these should exist, but you can at least understand how there might be some academic interest in one of the most important American religions/religious phenomena? If you don't like Quinn's qualifications, whose do you like?
And JL, I'm still not quite buying this theory about Mormon donors blackballing him. What about Jan Shipps (I think that's her name?)--she's navigated a career well enough. What happens to the professorship--does it just disappear? I would buy it if Quinn were more anti- in his stance. But he's not. He still publishes in Dialogue and Sunstone and I have a hard time believing that there aren't wealthy donors who at least see the value in both of those publications. I think something else is going on.

I don't necessarily think a chair in Mormon studies is a waste; if a donor will give money to endow honest scholarship in this area I'm sure some very good scholarly writing could be generated indefinitely. But see my point about what is truly important Mormon studies work.

As for Quinn, I think there are probably what, maybe at least a dozen others at least as qualified as him for such a job, being charitable. The things that Lebowski is complaining about is part of the ordinary knocks of life. When we apply for jobs, pitch business, etc. people make subjective value judgments about us that may seem infair, but they are subjective judgments that are inevitably part of a hiring decision. He couldn't find a job in this narrow area; so couldn't scores of other aspiring academics comparably qualified during the same period. Life isn't fair.

Regardless, Lebowski says I'm speculating but I think I've given some very good common sense explanations why he couldn't find a job.

[Pheidippides]

A traffic cone?

Have it your way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU, you and I have been repeating ourselves for the past page in this thread so I think I will go ahead and tap out. But I will continue to scratch my head at your passionate defense of heavy-handed wealthy LDS donors.

Have a great 4th of July, amigo.

[LA Ute]

Have it your way.

I'm beginning to get the impression you are trying to insult me.

[UtahDan]

This argument might be the strangest thing I've ever seen here.

[wuapinmon]

SU, regarding wondering about who is citing him, most academic texts include a lengthy section that we call a "review of literature" in my field. I imagine that you know or can intuitive what that means. I would hazard a guess that Prof. Quinn is oft cited in those kinds of works, which is a big deal because that means that his research is literally worth mentioning

[SoonerCoug]

I don't mean disrespect here. I think Signature Books does some important things, and I understand some of its books are beloved and praised, but how prestigious is Signature Books in the overall scheme of things? I note that this is where Quinn published his books. So, he didn't publish them with a university press, and he published them with a very small press that is pretty parochial in its focus and mission. I assume it's not like publishing with Oxford like Givens has (Oxford actually publishes a lot of non-academic popular stuff now).

My uncle George founded Signature Books.

[UtahDan]

My uncle George founded Signature Books.

Interesting. There is an good interview with him around somewhere.