Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?


Recommended Posts

Clark,

I gave you a rep point for your earlier post because I agree with its second paragraph, but does any other source undergird your contention that Hugh Nibley was embarrassed by No, Ma'am, That's Not History?  Thanks in advance. :) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. What? He says counterfeit ones like crystal balls are. In Mormon Doctrine he also says, "The prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim." While I'm just guessing I think his point is more the source of the revelation is different. 

Even then it sounds like, beyond source, he is making a categorical judgment about objects used. Peepstone is not seerstone is not urim and thummim.

But, yes,McConkie does seem to make allowances for Joseph, apparently working from the premise that he was prophet.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

Then obviously, any readmission she should receive is out of our hands. I don't believe she ever recanted any of her book.

First, I'd think that God would look on her heart regardless of her opinion about the legitimacy of her book.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even then it sounds like, beyond source, he is making a categorical judgment about objects used. Peepstone is not seerstone is not urim and thummim.

But, yes,McConkie does seem to make allowances for Joseph, apparently working from the premise that he was prophet.

More than just for Joseph. His point is primarily about counterfeit. I assume he's also thinking of Hirum Page in D&C 28. "tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;" I don't think McConkie is saying seerstones are only legitimate with an exception for Joseph, but rather making the broader claim that the source of revelation matters. 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because all my life I was taught that the Golden Plates were important when is all that was needed is a peep stone.

Yes, it was important.  This work did NOT originate in Heaven but was actually compiled and abridged by Mormon and completed by his son Moroni.  The "Law of Witnesses" applies here.  It truly is a testament of all that transpired in the Americas.  How it was translated is not as important as the record itself.  Joseph did not need to know the character set or the language(s).  The Golden Plates actually do exist and was required for the Restoration in the Latter Days.

First, Joseph was given the Interpreters for the initial 116 pages.  Then he used a stone (whatever you want to call it).  But he reached a point that he was able to operate completely by the spirit that he no longer needed any kind of U&T.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Then obviously, any readmission she should receive is out of our hands. I don't believe she ever recanted any of her book.

No, I don't believe she ever recanted.

Yes, it is out of our hands...of course. Even if she were alive it would be out of our hands. It's a speculative conversation :) 

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I gave you a rep point for your earlier post because I agree with its second paragraph, but does any other source undergird your contention that Hugh Nibley was embarrassed by No, Ma'am, That's Not History?  Thanks in advance. :) 

There used to be an archive of the old Student Review but apparently it's not around anymore. I knew people at the paper at the time and used to hang out in the room to study, although I was never part of the Student Review. I'd done some more research last night on it and I'm 90% sure it's this reference: Mark Burns, "Late Night: Starring Hugh Nibley," Student Review, 27 September 1989, 4. I found a few references from years ago, but most of them were written by me which wasn't too helpful. I know the BYU library has copies in its archives but it's such a pain going up to campus that I'll confess I'm not apt to look it up without good reason. I don't recall if the Peterson biography of Nibley mentions his views on the book although he has a full chapter on the events around it and says it was on the basis of that book that Nibley got hired by BYU.

Also, again to be clear, I don't think Brodie's is a fair biography. Further her embrace of psychoanalysis (which to me is a complete pseudoscience) to understand figures is deeply problematic. Some have discounted this problem due to her being right about Jefferson's affair with his slave that was proven by DNA analysis. That doesn't mean psychoanalysis is a good way to do history. For the record I've not read her Jefferson or Nixon biographies so I don't feel qualified to say much there beyond the category of psychobiology seeming a deep and problematic category. Even the American Psychology Association has warned of making psychological diagnosis without actually interviewing and working with the patient. (Which hasn't stopped many psychologists from making judgments about Trump although this has been decried by many - but how much worse would it be to use Freudian techniques to understand a figure from the distant past with limited records?)

Likewise, while there are problems with Nibley on Brodie, he also makes some good criticisms in amongst the chaff. Part of the problem was that for all its flaws, Brodie's was the first good biography of Joseph. Also if one is taking a naturalistic interpretation, then of course the way one deals with Joseph will be different. It has to be either fraud or delusion. (Brodie manages to have it be both of course)

Of course the psychobiography remains with us. We first had Robert Anderson's Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. (I've not read that one so I don't know how much is contempary psychological theories and how much, if any, is psychoanalysis) Then more recently there was Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. It's been a long time since I read that and had a discussion with Dan a little after it came out. I enjoyed Vogel's biography even though I obviously completely disagreed with his naturalistic take trying to explain everything away of the divine. Much of it was pretty ridiculously speculative of course with lots of parallels not necessarily well grounded. And, like Brodie, he makes much of Joseph's childhood that I find dubious. To my eyes it is more a kind of naturalistic apologetic to explain Joseph quite akin to what Nibley does with apologetics. Which Vogel more or less seemed to fully acknowledge. So I don't have a problem with it. My problem with Brodie was more that she was doing the same thing but pretending to be more objective. (BTW - there's a good review of Vogel in BYU Studies that gets at a few of these issues although doesn't get at the naturalistic apologetic angle as well)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There used to be an archive of the old Student Review but apparently it's not around anymore. I knew people at the paper at the time and used to hang out in the room to study, although I was never part of the Student Review. I'd done some more research last night on it and I'm 90% sure it's this reference: Mark Burns, "Late Night: Starring Hugh Nibley," Student Review, 27 September 1989, 4. I found a few references from years ago, but most of them were written by me which wasn't too helpful. I know the BYU library has copies in its archives but it's such a pain going up to campus that I'll confess I'm not apt to look it up without good reason. I don't recall if the Peterson biography of Nibley mentions his views on the book although he has a full chapter on the events around it and says it was on the basis of that book that Nibley got hired by BYU.

Interesting.  Thanks! :) 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, I don't believe she ever recanted.

Yes, it is out of our hands...of course. Even if she were alive it would be out of our hands. It's a speculative conversation :) 

If she were alive, she could regain fellowship, so I am not sure what you mean by being "out of our hands" even if she were alive. There obviously have been excommunicated members which regained fellowship although obviously that is not up to members of an internet board. :) I believe for the most part Fawn was trying to be honest, but history has not born out all her assertions. Nevertheless, I don't place her in the realm of say the Tanners.

To a large degree Church history depends upon who you believe, and how one accepts and characterizes all the various versions of this history. Being that a lot of the history is hearsay, this process can allow people to paint various different portraits of the Church. She chose to attempt this for the founding leader of the restored church - a daunting task really - and one in which I don't believe she was entirely successful. I'm sure she viewed herself as a brave maverick, and her work is certainly more credible than say Pomeroy Tucker, but she does seem to have a certain bias which becomes evident especially in the light of hindsight and modern science.

Link to comment
On February 1, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, no.  Fawn Brodie chose to pick and choose what sources she would use.  If a source, a fact, did not fit her objective she left it out.  It is the very epitome of extremely poor scholarship.  She was excommunicated for being an apostate.  Though she is recognized as doing good research it is her desire to exclude conflicting facts that makes her unpalatable. 

Nevo had asked for references or examples here, Storm Rider (in response to your post above):

Nevo:  "You obviously feel strongly about this. I'm curious to see your five best examples of facts that Brodie intentionally suppressed because they conflicted with her thesis."

I'm interested in seeing those too if you've had time to find them.  Thanks!

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Then obviously, any readmission she should receive is out of our hands. I don't believe she ever recanted any of her book.

I think she made corrections in later editions after new sources were found or she realized she'd made errors.  

Link to comment
16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not a good book. Even Nibley was somewhat embarrassed by it. I recall someone from the Student Review back when I was at BYU interviewed him and he more or less said he had to write something. One of Nibley's specialties as I recall was Roman rhetoric. As such the book is a masterpiece of satire in that style. As history it involves an awful lot of avoiding issues and misrepresentation. (Which to be fair was true of the Romans too) There's an interesting lecture by Nibley on Roman Satire, btw, that I don't think was printed in any of the FARMS volumes.

None of that is to deny that Brody was not an active Mormon and in many ways antagonistic although my sense was she had some good feelings for us as well. She self identified as a heretic so accepting her at her word seems fair. Certainly she didn't believe so I'm not sure the excommunication means much although I've always wondered how that works if she converts in the next life. And there are some big problems in the book - primarily the psychological guesswork at Joseph's inner thoughts. She was taken to task by historians when she did that with Nixon as I recall. It's an important book, but I'm not sure anyone would call it accurate anymore just due to all the work that's been done sense. It's very dated. But it certainly wasn't as inaccurate as portrayed by many members at the time. Again though that says nothing about her aims which I don't think were quite as pure as some portray them.

Thanks for posting the Nibley lecture on Satire.  It is disturbingly relevant reading during the current US administration, even more so now than when he wrote.  And Late Night satire on that lamentable administration.   My wife and I treat as necessary therapy.  Samantha Bee, Colbert, Trevor Noah... 

I do think it notable that Bushman remains impressed by No Ma'am That's Not History. as "on point".  And try reading Lavina Fielding Anderson's take on Brodie in Revisiting No Man Knows My History.  That is very insightful if you want to recognize other voices besides Nibley.  I've also got a copy of F. L. Stewart's take on Brodie.  And several others.  Eugene England liked her prose and depth of research but noted that because she did not see most of his personal writings, she totally misconstrued his personal character, a rather serious problem for a biographer.

And if you look at any post-war Film Noir, you get a deeper look at how different 1940's post war culture is from today as part of the background context in which Nibley wrote.  And if you look at Nibley's The Sacrifice of Sarah, and Patriarchy and Matriarchy, you get a better look at how his thought on women changed.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If she were alive, she could regain fellowship, so I am not sure what you mean by being "out of our hands" even if she were alive. There obviously have been excommunicated members which regained fellowship although obviously that is not up to members of an internet board. :) I believe for the most part Fawn was trying to be honest, but history has not born out all her assertions. Nevertheless, I don't place her in the realm of say the Tanners.

 

There are also examples of excommunicated members being reinstated or having their excommunication nullified posthumously. Not sure why that would really matter as God could take care of things himself, but whatever :) 

In either case, like you say, it is not up to members of an internet board to make those decisions so it is "out of our hands".

Link to comment

I'm late in the thread but I don't think a reinstatement is necessary.  These things have already been mentioned but I think this option really only occurs when 1. The individual did not want to sever their ties with the church and 2. The individual's descendants felt strongly that the person should be reinstated and can present good evidence of such.  Frankly, I just don't see that it makes any difference.  In the end, we all have to stand before a loving God and account for our choices in life and I would rather put my trust in such a meeting than any mortal formality.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks for posting the Nibley lecture on Satire.  It is disturbingly relevant reading during the current US administration, even more so now than when he wrote.  And Late Night satire on that lamentable administration.   My wife and I treat as necessary therapy.  Samantha Bee, Colbert, Trevor Noah... 

I tend to disagree with Nibley on satire. I think satire can be good but can also cause more troubles than it solves. Not to go down the rat hole of a tangent but The Atlantic had a great article on the issue. Honestly I think a lot of those critiques apply to Nibley and his satirical take on Brodie and similar things. While understandable given the times, I'm not sure it helped the church especially given that much of Brodie's history was accurate.

So while I raise Nibley as a satirist - particular as a Roman satirist - that's not necessarily a complement I'm making.

Quote

I do think it notable that Bushman remains impressed by No Ma'am That's Not History. as "on point".  And try reading Lavina Fielding Anderson's take on Brodie in Revisiting No Man Knows My History.  That is very insightful if you want to recognize other voices besides Nibley.  I've also got a copy of F. L. Stewart's take on Brodie.  And several others.  Eugene England liked her prose and depth of research but noted that because she did not see most of his personal writings, she totally misconstrued his personal character, a rather serious problem for a biographer.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Brodie wasn't important or the best biography for years.  But it was definitely a product of its times - particularly the Freudian psychoanalysis. It also had limited data. But it was the first real biography of Joseph. It's kind of shocking how many decades it took for a better one to come out. Again Mormonism's tendency to hagiography hasn't helped us here I think. The reality is that non-Mormons won't and can't buy the divine intervention view of Joseph. Brodie's biography was a huge step up over what was around before. But I think Rough Stone Rolling is so superior in every way it's hard to take seriously anymore.

I also think there are big problems with the book even if it's much, much better than Nibley's portrayal suggests. BTW - to go along with your list Davis Bitton's reassessment in Dialog is worth reading (although the last few pages are cut off in the online version). I don't want to portray everything Nibley writes as wrong - although I confess it's been a long time since I read Nibley on Brodie or the rest of the stuff in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass. I just think it's the weakest of all Nibley's stuff by far.

BTW - which Bushman text are you thinking of? I know of this one on Nibley and Brodie but it doesn't talk about being on point. Or did he have a chapter in Revisiting No Man Knows My History? I confess I've not read that or Anderson's chapter.

Edit: I think it was that one and this quote:

Quote

Incidentally, it launches a rather powerful attack on Brodie, in my opinion. In recent years, the pamphlet [Nibleys review] has been so criticized for its sarcasm that it was a pleasure for me to discover on rereading it how on the mark it was.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Added Bushman quote
Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

You mean the kind of marriage that you have to lie to your wife about and promise the family of your 14 year old bride eternal salvation for?

The irony of Mormons calling gay marriage Satan's counterfeit is amusing 

 

Actually, I was referring to civil marriage, state marriage.  The mortal equivalent of the heavenly pattern with no actual power to unite.
The one that is deified by religions and governments alike.  The one that pretends to say "what God has joined together" but God has nothing to do with it.

Gay marriage was not what I was referring to but I guess now it falls under the civil marriage category and is as counterfeit as any other civil marriage.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, I don't believe she ever recanted.

Yes, it is out of our hands...of course. Even if she were alive it would be out of our hands. It's a speculative conversation :) 

At her death bed she asked her brother for a blessing but wrote a note that that request shouldn't be taken as changing her views on the Church. As many have noted, given her own often unhappy life, if she read Joseph's childhood (often speculatively) as a way to understand Joseph, perhaps her own childhood and her mother's mental illness gives a reflection into her own views of Joseph's childhood. (Her mother attempted suicide several times and finally achieved it by setting herself on fire)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Not only that, the peepstone method is actually a dictation method for Joseph. The stone literally did the translating, and Joseph read the words from the stone to his scribe. Thus, all the apologetics depending on the intricacies and vicissitudes of human translation are like oil on water,  they cannot apply to this method of BoM production.

Seerstone.
If you cannot differentiate between a seerstone and a peep stone then the conversation is moot.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And, McConkie is saying that the peepstones are Satanic.

Peepstones are satanic.
Seerstones are from God.

Joseph was a seer once called by God to the work, thus even if he started out using the rock as a peepstone, the minute it was used by God it became a seerstone.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Seerstone.
If you cannot differentiate between a seerstone and a peep stone then the conversation is moot.

Take a look at its usage. The rock Joseph used is commonly referred to as a peepstone.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Peepstones are satanic.
Seerstones are from God.

Joseph was a seer once called by God to the work, thus even if he started out using the rock as a peepstone, the minute it was used by God it became a seerstone.

I'm not fond of playing semantics.

And the second paragraph is operating under a premise. Take away the premise, take away the emotional attachment, describe the events from a more sterile perspective and the see what happens.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I tend to disagree with Nibley on satire. I think satire can be good but can also cause more troubles than it solves. Not to go down the rat hole of a tangent but The Atlantic had a great article on the issue. Honestly I think a lot of those critiques apply to Nibley and his satirical take on Brodie and similar things. While understandable given the times, I'm not sure it helped the church especially given that much of Brodie's history was accurate.

So while I raise Nibley as a satirist - particular as a Roman satirist - that's not necessarily a complement I'm making.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Brodie wasn't important or the best biography for years.  But it was definitely a product of its times - particularly the Freudian psychoanalysis. It also had limited data. But it was the first real biography of Joseph. It's kind of shocking how many decades it took for a better one to come out. Again Mormonism's tendency to hagiography hasn't helped us here I think. The reality is that non-Mormons won't and can't buy the divine intervention view of Joseph. Brodie's biography was a huge step up over what was around before. But I think Rough Stone Rolling is so superior in every way it's hard to take seriously anymore.

I also think there are big problems with the book even if it's much, much better than Nibley's portrayal suggests. BTW - to go along with your list Davis Bitton's reassessment in Dialog is worth reading (although the last few pages are cut off in the online version). I don't want to portray everything Nibley writes as wrong - although I confess it's been a long time since I read Nibley on Brodie or the rest of the stuff in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass. I just think it's the weakest of all Nibley's stuff by far.

BTW - which Bushman text are you thinking of? I know of this one on Nibley and Brodie but it doesn't talk about being on point. Or did he have a chapter in Revisiting No Man Knows My History? I confess I've not read that or Anderson's chapter.

A lot was going on in the church and society in general from 1945, not just Brodie but changes in historiography, an as Kuhn says, paradigm change often takes a generation or more, and to get to Bushman and the Joseph Smith Paper's project is something that takes time.   Midgley had a good essay on that in the Review, treating Brodie as a useful catalyst that prodded LDS historians to improve. 

Personally, as an English Major, I like good satire, not as the main course, but as part of a balanced diet, it contains necessary and beneficial nutrients.  Satire can be abused, as well as abusive.  But the corrosives, as William Blake observes in his satire, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" can be "salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid."   And I'm very fond of Sounding Brass.  I find it the funniest sustained Mormon writing ever.  Afterwards, I went on to read Wife No. 19, and yep, he's right about the oft married Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning, who ought not be recast as a Feminist Hero for the Ages.  There are far better candidates to choose from.

Back when this thread first started, I quote Bushman from that Bushman text on Nibley and Brodie,  page 9, end of second paragraph, the passage I was thinking of:

(Incidentally, it launches a rather powerful attack on Brodie, in my opinion. In recent years, the pam-
phlet has been so criticized for its sarcasm that it was a pleasure for me to discover on rereading it
how on the mark it was.)
 

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

At her death bed she asked her brother for a blessing but wrote a note that that request shouldn't be taken as changing her views on the Church. As many have noted, given her own often unhappy life, if she read Joseph's childhood (often speculatively) as a way to understand Joseph, perhaps her own childhood and her mother's mental illness gives a reflection into her own views of Joseph's childhood. (Her mother attempted suicide several times and finally achieved it by setting herself on fire)

Aren't you doing a bit of psychoanalysis yourself here to judge Brodie?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...