Early Mormonism
[LDS-Bookshelf] Quinn’s Swan Song
From: wlbagley <[email protected]>
Subject: [LDS-Bookshelf] Quinn’s Swan Song
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:51:28 -0700 (MST)
Friday night I attended Michael Quinn's signing of the revised edition ofEarly Mormonism and the Magic World View at Kent Walgren's delightfulScallywags shop. I arrived an hour early (I'd lost my invite) and Kentwondered how the event would be attended in light of the holidaycompetition. Only about 25 people showed up (and as far as I could tell,no other Shelfers), which was unfortunate since this was a thoroughlyremarkable event.Quinn spoke briefly about his calling and experiences as a historian, andthen read passages from the book. With the publication of his fourthmajor work in four years, he considers his work in Mormon historyessentially complete and leaves in January for Mexico--tho he did indicatehe has no idea if he'll actually be able to turn over a new leaf and leavethe life he has led for 30 years behind. While I hope the lure of researchand the excitement of the hunt draws him back, I won't begrudge him themuch-deserved rest and would understand if he finds new worlds, completelyunrelated to MoHist, to explore.What follows is my interpretation of what Quinn said and may not match howthe best Mormon historian of my generation sees his own work, but I hopeit's close.He began by describing how what began as a hobby became hisprofession--"an interesting ride." Quinn considers himself a"conservative revisionist," one who reexamines religious history withinthe context of faith, as opposed to "secular revisionists" who adopt anaturalistic approach. This is an important insight into his work, forwhile radical revisionists (like you-know-who) consider the truth claimsof religion beyond historical proof, Quinn sees his work as an explanationof how a religion with as problematic a history as Mormonism can--andis--revealed truth. He honestly admits that he's an apologist--and hedraws a distinction between his position and that of polemicists besttypified by FARMS fanatics. (The new intro quite wonderfully skewers theFARMSboys by quoting their thoroughly strange justifications of theirdespicable tactics: yet another clumsy attempt to justify an ideologybased on "the end justifies the means.") Ironically, both FARMS and Quinnare engaged in the same cause: supporting Mormon claims. Quinn simplydoes it within the standards of scholarship--and brilliantly. He quoteseditor D. C. Peterson as wondering if FARMS' new masters will accommodatetheir "polemical edge." [Intro, x] Let's hope not, for as Quinn notes,polemics "is a dishonorable vocation." [xi](Anyone want to take a bet that FARMS will trim its sails or [more likely]so profoundly embarrass the church that it will be dumped from its currentassociation with BYU?) Although I've expressed my desire for an "amphibian-free" edition ofEM&TMWV, Quinn explained why he considers salamanders as relevant to earlyLDS history. I don't buy this tenuous connection completely, but hiscomplex argument reveals an interesting fact: Quinn is simply trying toexplain the evidence connected to LDS origins, honestly and completely. Healso described how his personal odyssey led him to investigate magic.While visiting the Church Patriarch to see a Hyrum Smith diary, he saw oneof HS's magic parchments (see figs. 49-81; I think it's in theresomeplace). He thought, "There's no way [based on his then-understandingof Mormonism] I'm ever going to understand this." A less valiant historianwould have simply moved on, but Quinn began the work that led to thisbook. Quinn answered questions for more than an hour, and the discussion rangedfrom phrenology, OS Card, independent scholarship, losing his job,unearthing Alvin, to his legacy and much more. I was especially interestedin his evaluation of NMKMH as an "ideological assault on Joseph Smith." Henamed Hill's book as the best JS bio and referred to Bushman's "sort-of" bio. I argued that Bushman presented such an unbalanced set of evidence asto be dishonest, but Quinn argued that as a historian RB had the right toselect only the evidence that supported his "faith-affirming" interpretation. Personally, I learned much about how differently Quinn and those of my ilkdiffer in our approach to our craft. But fundamentally, we perhaps agreeon the most important aspects of our calling: openness to new evidence,thoroughness, and above all, honesty. I've already expressed my opinionsabout some of Quinn's technical failings, but I'm in solid agreement withwhat Kent said in his intro: "I believe Michael Quinn is the mostimportant Mormon historian of the last 50 years."Will Bagley