Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?

[Johnnie Cake]

It's been about 14 years since I read Fawn Brodie's biography on Joseph Smith "No Man Knows My History".  As a young man her name was synonymous with the most vile, evil and loathsome people to have ever walked the earth.  Her book was cast by those who were even brave enough to mentioned to mention it portrayed it as anti-Mormon trash fit only for the rubbish bin or better yet the fire.  The LDS church even commissioned Hugh Nibley to write a counter apologetic attack on her work called "No Ma'am that Not History".  Ironically its Nibley's work that has been fallen into disfavor while much of Brodie's work has been vindicated.  Mormon historians even quote from and refer to her work.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"^[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."^[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."^[12]

and

Quote

In 1971, Marvin S. Hill, a LDS historian at Brigham Young University, wrote:

For more than a quarter century Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History has been recognized by most professional American historians as the standard work on the life of Joseph Smith and perhaps the most important single work on early Mormonism. At the same time the work has had tremendous influence upon informed Mormon thinking, as shown by the fact that whole issues of B.Y.U. Studies and Dialogue have been devoted to considering questions on the life of the Mormon prophet raised by Brodie. There is evidence that her book has had strong negative impact on popular Mormon thought as well, since to this day in certain circles in Utah to acknowledge that one has "read Fawn Brodie" is to create doubts as to one's loyalty to the Church.^[9]

One of her most controversial claims of Joseph's translation process of using a rock he discovered while digging a well being placed in his hat has even been accepted by the LDS church as factual and is in the process of being moved from its once lofty status as an anti Mormon lie to a mainstream faithful truth.

Since baptism is an essential LDS ordinance for admittance to the LDS Heaven and since Brodie has for the most part been vindicated...perhaps its time to let by gones be by gones and have her excommunication made null and void by reinstating her.  After all the church does have a history of forgiving those who have committed far worse transgressions such as John D. Lee who was posthumously rebaptized and allowed into the Mormon Heaven. Does someone whose work, with the passage of time, has become mainstream deserve to languish in hell?

So what do yeah say...will all in favor so signify...

[rongo]

Heck no! She was an apostate, who sought to damage the Church.

She wasn't excommunicated for accurate historical things that don't portray Joseph Smith/The Church in a good light. She was excommunicated for apostate behavior outside of her book as well.

Have you read Nibley's "No, Ma'am, that's not History?"  It documents things that she purposely misrepresented in her book. She is not a martyr to "rock in a hat before it became well-known."

[HappyJackWagon]

I get your point but I doubt Brody cares.

I'd prefer God work out her salvation instead of church leaders attempting to do so.

If the church wants to issue a public apology for mischaracterizing much of her work as anti-Mormon lies, when in fact the historical details are now vindicated, I'm cool with that. But I'm not holding my breath  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Heck no! She was an apostate, who sought to damage the Church.

She wasn't excommunicated for accurate historical things that don't portray Joseph Smith/The Church in a good light. She was excommunicated for apostate behavior outside of her book as well.

Have you read Nibley's "No, Ma'am, that's not History?"  It documents things that she purposely misrepresented in her book. She is not a martyr to "rock in a hat before it became well-known."

CFR- Are there references that indicate that her excommunication was due to apostasy "outside of her book"?

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It's been about 14 years since I read Fawn Brodie's biography on Joseph Smith "No Man Knows My History".  As a young man her name was synonymous with the most vile, evil and loathsome people to have ever walked the earth.  Her book was cast by those who were even brave enough to mentioned to mention it portrayed it as anti-Mormon trash fit only for the rubbish bin or better yet the fire.  The LDS church even commissioned Hugh Nibley to write a counter apologetic attack on her work called "No Ma'am that Not History".  Ironically its Nibley's work that has been fallen into disfavor while much of Brodie's work has been vindicated.  Mormon historians even quote from and refer to her work.

From Wikipedia:

and

One of her most controversial claims of Joseph's translation process of using a rock he discovered while digging a well being placed in his hat has even been accepted by the LDS church as factual and is in the process of being moved from its once lofty status as an anti Mormon lie to a mainstream faithful truth.

Since baptism is an essential LDS ordinance for admittance to the LDS Heaven and since Brodie has for the most part been vindicated...perhaps its time to let by gones be by gones and have her excommunication made null and void by reinstating her.  After all the church does have a history of forgiving those who have committed far worse transgressions such as John D. Lee who was posthumously rebaptized and allowed into the Mormon Heaven. Does someone whose work, with the passage of time, has become mainstream deserve to languish in hell?

So what do yeah say...will all in favor so signify...

Had never thought of the possibility of her excommunication being overturned. And now that I have, I'm in agreement, if that is the reason she was. I wasn't able to finish her book, maybe I should try again. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It's been about 14 years since I read Fawn Brodie's biography on Joseph Smith "No Man Knows My History".  As a young man her name was synonymous with the most vile, evil and loathsome people to have ever walked the earth.  Her book was cast by those who were even brave enough to mentioned to mention it portrayed it as anti-Mormon trash fit only for the rubbish bin or better yet the fire.  The LDS church even commissioned Hugh Nibley to write a counter apologetic attack on her work called "No Ma'am that Not History".  Ironically its Nibley's work that has been fallen into disfavor while much of Brodie's work has been vindicated.  Mormon historians even quote from and refer to her work.

From Wikipedia:

and

One of her most controversial claims of Joseph's translation process of using a rock he discovered while digging a well being placed in his hat has even been accepted by the LDS church as factual and is in the process of being moved from its once lofty status as an anti Mormon lie to a mainstream faithful truth.

Since baptism is an essential LDS ordinance for admittance to the LDS Heaven and since Brodie has for the most part been vindicated...perhaps its time to let by gones be by gones and have her excommunication made null and void by reinstating her.  After all the church does have a history of forgiving those who have committed far worse transgressions such as John D. Lee who was posthumously rebaptized and allowed into the Mormon Heaven. Does someone whose work, with the passage of time, has become mainstream deserve to languish in hell?

So what do yeah say...will all in favor so signify...

Nibley's work has fallen into disfavor with whom? Critics, apostates and anti-Mormons? That was forgone, wasn't it? In fact wasn't it already in disfavor with them?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get your point but I doubt Brody cares.

I'd prefer God work out her salvation instead of church leaders attempting to do so.

If the church wants to issue a public apology for mischaracterizing much of her work as anti-Mormon lies, when in fact the historical details are now vindicated, I'm cool with that. But I'm not holding my breath  

I'd be interested in what people think are "historical details that are now vindicated" in her book. How many can actually be listed?

I don't count rock-in-a-hat, because B.H. Roberts wrote about that in the early 1900s. This was available to anyone who read easily- accessible Church history material going back a long way, so it doesn't qualify for the complaint of "the leaders blame the members for ignorance, but the sources were really obscure." 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nibley's work has fallen into disfavor with whom? Critics, apostates and anti-Mormons? That was forgone, wasn't it? In fact wasn't it already in disfavor with them.

One of the last leaks had a letter about Nibley from the leaders.  Maybe that's what he's referring to?  

[Storm Rider]

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. 

[Tacenda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_M._Brodie

I don't see anywhere that she was going around bad mouthing the church. Are there any references about this? Aiming this at Scott and Rongo.

Found this too: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/ She was excommunicated 6 months after the book was published.

ETA: From reading the second link, I read the enlarged letter from the church. It mentions that she denied the BoM being historically true or a devine origin that came from God and JS restored it. Is that grounds for being ex'd? I guess it was back then.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

Have you read Nibley's "No, Ma'am, that's not History?"  It documents things that she purposely misrepresented in her book. She is not a martyr to "rock in a hat before it became well-known."

That is definitely not Nibley's finest work.  I found it to be a misogynistic mess full of personal attacks on Brodie.  He did make some points about her conclusions, but overall, I found it an embarrassing book for him to stoop so low as to compare her sources to:

"young women found making vivid, full, circumstantial and sincere accusations against attackers which are found upon investigation to be nothing more than objects of their own overwrought desires and imaginings."

He could have written the book without sexist, insulting comments like that.  Brodie made mistakes, but many sources now available weren't available at that time too.  

I don't think her excommunication will be overturned even though she's ended up being correct with much of her information.

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Duncan]

I think to get it overturned her family would have to write to the 1st Presidency and ask to get it done and then her and God can work it out in the life beyond

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_M._Brodie

I don't see anywhere that she was going around bad mouthing the church. Are there any references about this? Aiming this at Scott and Rongo.

Found this too: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/ She was excommunicated 6 months after the book was published.

The only comment I've made on this thread thus far pertains to the unsubstantiated assertion that Nibley's review of Brodie's book has "fallen into disfavor."

[Kevin Christensen]

Among Bushman's comments on Hugh Nibley in a 2010 talk, notice this assessment of his response to Brodie:

Quote

Most of Nibley’s response takes the form of attacks on Brodie’s scholar-

ship and reasoning, not a defense of Joseph Smith. (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.)

 

I read No Man Knows My History back in the 1980s, and I've read several reviews including Nibley's, the Reassessing Brodie volume, Hill's biography, along with Bushman's two books, as well as Nibley's collected works. It struck me that her reputation is built on the fact that Joseph Smith is so interesting.  Not that she understood him or explained him all that well.  Her discussion of the Book of Mormon is particularly weak, from my perspective.  For all the footnotes she had, she didn't have access to many of his personal writings where his sincerity shines through, which contradicts her view of a con man who came to believe his own lies.   Here is Bushan's talk.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/19/1/S00003-5018465c329f92HughNibley.pdf

And incidentally, according to Nibley, in Criticizing the Brethren, on excommunication and what it means.

Quote

Alma was helpless. He “was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord” (Mosiah 26:13), and the answer was clear and explicit: “He that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church” (Mosiah 26:28). Excommunication was the limit of their authority and is the only power to punish which the Church has ever had. It is not the same power of excommunication claimed by the Roman church, where excommunication means the same as damnation. It is for God alone to judge and pronounce a sentence of eternal salvation or damnation, and that only when the time comes, as the Lord told the disciples at Capernaum (cf. Mark 3:28—29). The Lord told Alma that after being cut off from the Church, any who confessed and repented were to be forgiven out of hand, even as often as they repented (Mosiah 26:30—31). After that they were not to be judged or criticized by other members of the Church for what they had done.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1094&index=18

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The only comment I've made on this thread thus far pertains to the unsubstantiated assertion that Nibley's review of Brodie's book has "fallen into disfavor."

You're right Scott, I reread it and agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nibley's work has fallen into disfavor with whom? Critics, apostates and anti-Mormons? That was forgone, wasn't it? In fact wasn't it already in disfavor with them?

 

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

One of the last leaks had a letter about Nibley from the leaders.  Maybe that's what he's referring to?  

My guess is that what he's referring to could be summed up in this item description from the website of the Hugh Nibley Collection of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU.

Quote

Cultural Mormons who celebrated a new enlightenment with the appearance of Brodie’s treatment of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were deeply offended by what they considered Nibley’s flippant response. Hostility to Nibley has also been a rather common feature of the secular, revisionist element in the so-called New Mormon History, which has seen in Brodie’s account of Joseph Smith the beginning or basic outlines of an acceptable naturalistic account of Mormon things.

Again, I say, if you're going to assert that the review "has fallen into disfavor," you need to better define that. Fallen into disfavor with whom? Those already disposed to doubt or deny Joseph Smith's character as a prophet of God? No surprise there.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, 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.  

I think she did a good job considering that new sources have come to light after she wrote the book (both supporting her and showing her errors).

Even Bushman speaks well of her book:

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith" and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."  Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Buckeye]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR- Are there references that indicate that her excommunication was due to apostasy "outside of her book"?

Here's the best I could find with a quick search:

Quote

 

In May 1946, Fawn Brodie was living in New Haven and only a few weeks away from giving birth to her second child when she received a summons from the New England Mission of the LDS Church to answer charges of apostasy. (It is surmised that her uncle, David O. McKay, was behind the formal accusations, and that the matter was left to the New England Mission, to cover up the person who was the real driving force.) The summons letter accused her of asserting “truths which deny the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Priesthood and of Christ’s Church through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith, contrary to the beliefs, doctrines, and teachings of the Church.” Brodie did not answer the letter and did not appear before the tribunal. Less than a month later, a bishop’s court officially and summarily excommunicated her from the Mormon Church as a heretic.

http://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/features/the-mormon-excommunication-of-fawn-brodie-why-banishing-the-famous-biograph

 

 

Fun fact: Fawn Brodie's maiden and middle name is McKay. She was David O McKay's niece.

[Johnnie Cake]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

One of the last leaks had a letter about Nibley from the leaders.  Maybe that's what he's referring to?  

It's is and its what motivated my post

[CA Steve]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'd be interested in what people think are "historical details that are now vindicated" in her book. How many can actually be listed?

I don't count rock-in-a-hat, because B.H. Roberts wrote about that in the early 1900s. This was available to anyone who read easily- accessible Church history material going back a long way, so it doesn't qualify for the complaint of "the leaders blame the members for ignorance, but the sources were really obscure." 

Historians on a particular subject build on what they think are accurate representations of that subject by previous historians. In fact, it is expected that when one repeats  something in their book that has already been revealed by a previous historian, that a footnote is provided giving the previous historian credit for his or her work. In my opinion, if one wants to see how well her work has held up, all one need to do is check how often her work is cited by those who wrote about Mormon history after she published NMNMH. It has been a while since I read RSR but if I recall correctly Bushman cites Brodie more than any other single author. To this day, almost any book I pick up that deals with Mormonism and or Joseph Smith, cites her. She, along with Dale Morgan and Juanita Brooks are three of the most influential Mormon history authors. So I believe that not only has her work held up but it still remains the gold standard of biographies on Joseph Smith. The woman could flat out write.

Edited February 1, 2017 by CA Steve

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Here's the best I could find with a quick search:

 

Fun fact: Fawn Brodie's maiden and middle name is McKay. She was David O McKay's niece.

That all matches what I remembered. It sounds to me like the charge of apostasy was centered on the claims she made in the book.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nibley's work has fallen into disfavor with whom? Critics, apostates and anti-Mormons? That was forgone, wasn't it? In fact wasn't it already in disfavor with them?

It is my belief that it has...however I'm quite busy today and don't have time to do a fact check...so for the time being will partially-withdraw this assertions for a later date...however I will contend that the mere fact that many of Brodie's assertions (treasure seeking and translation method, polygamy that involved angels and flaming swords etc) all considered once to be anti Mormon lies...have become mainstream even with the LDS church, is on its own, a form of vindication even she wouldn't have imagined....a vindication that casts Nibley's work into disfavor?  If not then certainly question.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think she did a good job considering that new sources have come to light after she wrote the book (both supporting her and showing her errors).

Even Bushman speaks well of her book:

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith" and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."  Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."

It doesn't seem like he is speaking well of her work but acknowledging that her work is the most well known work on JS.  From Kevin Christensen's quote on Bushman, it seems like he agreed with Nibley's assessment of her book.

But i completely admit that i might be reading either or both quotes wrong.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Since baptism is an essential LDS ordinance for admittance to the LDS Heaven and since Brodie has for the most part been vindicated...perhaps its time to let by gones be by gones and have her excommunication made null and void by reinstating her.  After all the church does have a history of forgiving those who have committed far worse transgressions such as John D. Lee who was posthumously rebaptized and allowed into the Mormon Heaven. Does someone whose work, with the passage of time, has become mainstream deserve to languish in hell?

Well, she was excommunicated for "for apostasy, citing the publication of her views "contrary to the beliefs, doctrines, and teachings of the Church."
Apostle John W. Taylor was excommunicated for the same thing, in his case continued resistance to the second manifesto.

The Church rebaptized Apostle Taylor and restored all his blessings posthumously.  Why not Brodie?

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't seem like he is speaking well of her work but acknowledging that her work is the most well known work on JS.  From Kevin Christensen's quote on Bushman, it seems like he agreed with Nibley's assessment of her book.

But i completely admit that i might be reading either or both quotes wrong.  

I'd imagine that Bushman didn't agree with many of Brodie's conclusions, but I think he speaks well of her in the quote.  

We can disagree, but he could have just remained silent about her rather than saying her work was "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers".

Eminent:

(of a person) famous and respected within a particular sphere or profession.

"one of the world's most eminent statisticians"

synonyms:

illustrious, distinguished, renowned, esteemed, preeminent, notable, noteworthy, great, prestigious, important, influential, affluential, outstanding, noted, of note

• used to emphasize the presence of a positive quality.

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM