Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

The "Sibyl" was an ancient Greek female oracle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl

Thank you. I couldn't find it in a search using JulieM's (and my) misspelling of it.

So here is Nibley's use of it in context:

Quote

The merciless logic of the Mormon doctrine made its strictly amateur missionaries from the outset the bane of the learned cloth throughout the world. What a piece of luck for "Joseph"! How her chuckle-headed, pipe-dreaming, glory-mongering hero ever produced a doctrine as wholly logical as anything done by a St. Thomas or a Calvin and at the same time as vivid and intimate as the faith of the Primitive Church is one of the more important issues our Sibyl has avoided. Certainly her "Joseph" is not up to the task, and until a more likely candidate than the Brodie mannikin turns up, we will just have to accept Joseph Smith's own story of what happened. 

It's more Nibley-style wit, referring to the author figuratively by a name applied to ancient female Greek oracles as a commentary on her penchant for asserting as fact what she could not possibly know.

Does using the "Sibyl" appellation thus make Nibley sarcastic? Yes. Does it make  him misogynistic or sexist? I don't think so. Obviously, JulieM does. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I think attributing "ogre" to JulieM's description of Nibley is an unfair extreme overstatement.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think attributing "ogre" to JulieM's description of Nibley is an unfair extreme overstatement.

I have substituted the phrase "misogynistic or sexist," containing terms that JulieM did apply to Hugh Nibley. They are quite bad enough, so I willingly withdraw the hyperbole.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kevin Christensen]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

So what I am getting from this thread is that Fawn Brodie got excommunicated for psycho analyzing Joseph Smith. I didn't know that was an excommunicatable offense.

No one seems to be pointing out a lot of errors in her assertions.  Which is odd because when the book came out people said it was filled with lies and false anti Mormon garbage

Was it filled with lies?  Because that would. be interesting to talk about. 

She got excommunicated for a very public apostasy.  That is.

I read it, and a lot of the conversation that is generated, which, if you make that sort of effort, leads to all sorts of interesting things.  This, for instance, from Richard L. Anderson:

Quote

What Joseph believed at the end and why he died are clear from his own words and contemporary reports of those closest to him. Though there is some historical clutter, my legal training has helped me to cut through such underbrush. The heart of law school is the “case method.” Classwork is normally based on discussing opinions of appellate courts that determine a point of law. Two aspects of this process upgraded my historical reasoning. First, before each case was discussed, professors rigidly insisted on defining the issues and the procedure that brought the action before a higher court. Though I ultimately abandoned law, I retained an intense sense of context, a habit of not looking at a historical document without defining its background or setting. Second, classwork also stressed extracting precise judicial decisions from the discursive comments of judges. What becomes law is the judge’s reasoning in deciding the case—what is said off the subject is not authoritative. This practice in separating court rulings from court philosophy has helped me separate firsthand information from mere opinions circulating without a known source. What is contemporary is not necessarily what is firsthand. The skeletal structure of history is what observers say or what is reliably reported from them. Yet many writing Mormon history are careless in applying this first principle of accurate reporting.

As a missionary, I read Fawn Brodie’s No Man Knows My History to give inquirers an informed response, and from that experience I gained early lessons in slanted narrative. Some early reviewers noted that her product was much closer to fiction than history in its story line, imaginative drama, and easy access to the thoughts of her characters. I double-checked all of her references to discover that a great many were either atypical or quoted out of context. And these two habits in using sources also appear in several recent scholarly books that contribute to the historical traditions of misrepresenting Joseph Smith. What do sources from or near Joseph Smith say? Fortunately for an accurate picture, the full publication of the Prophet’s letters, major papers, and journals is steadily making this important archival material more available.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=17

Anderson goes on with this, on the topic of whether Joseph Smith sent for the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage:

Quote

His bravery in the face of strong forebodings of death is documented by the men who stayed with him in prison, as well as by the letter he wrote to Emma the morning of the martyrdom: “I am very much resigned to my lot, knowing I am justified and have done the best that could be done.”¹³ His clerk, William Clayton, pictured Joseph’s “solemn and thoughtful” mood as he “rode down home to bid his family farewell,” adding: “He expects nothing but to be massacred . . . but there appearing no alternative but he must either give himself up or the city be massacred by a lawless mob under the sanction of the governor.”¹⁴ As in Missouri, the Prophet saw himself as a hostage, endangering his own life rather than risking the safety of his people. So it is jarring to read in two indirect accounts that he gambled on massive bloodshed by sending for the Nauvoo Legion in his last hours.

But secondary sources may be quite wrong, and their continued use shows how prominent authors can be tempted by inferior data. Fawn Brodie created her melodrama of Joseph sending for the legion on his day of death, adding that commander Jonathan Dunham “pocketed the order and neglected to act upon it.”¹⁵ Her footnote explained: “This story is told by Allen J. Stout in his manuscript journal. . . . It is confirmed by T. B. H. Stenhouse in his Rocky Mountain Saints (New York, 1873).”¹⁶ But these reports are simply quoted without evaluation. Stout tells that he was activated as a company commander when the Prophet’s life was in danger, and he writes with intense frustration that the superior legion could not protect its leader: “And while they were in jail Brother Joseph wrote an official order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the legion and rescue him from being killed, but Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders.”¹⁷ All late Nauvoo diaries and recollections lament the circumstances of Joseph’s death, but only Stout is known to give the version of the aborted rescue order. Yet Stout was on duty in Nauvoo and had no personal knowledge of Joseph’s actions at the jail. Did some demand a scapegoat in rage at the murder? Since Dunham died a year later on special assignment in Missouri, he is an unavailable witness. As for the Stenhouse version, he was converted in England after the martyrdom; later losing faith in Mormonism, he related the supposed command from Carthage in order to ridicule Joseph’s martyrdom prophecies. Like Stout, he tells a story without a known pedigree, prefaced only by “it is understood.”¹⁸ But merely repeating a rumor does not confirm it.

Those with Joseph at Carthage are the only identifiable witnesses in this situation. A spirited and candid John Taylor tells how discussion on martyrdom day was “rather desultory” because there was no plan except to wait for a court hearing in two days. He adds that Joseph had already decided the question of using the legion. Taylor promised the Prophet freedom within five hours “if you will permit it, and say the word.” Taylor added that he had planned to “go to Nauvoo, and collect a force sufficient,” but “Brother Joseph refused.”¹⁹ In Taylor’s more detailed version of the same conversation, Joseph ruled out a legion rescue, had considered repeating the Missouri escape, but was firm in waiting for legal release. Answering Taylor’s offer of an armed force, Joseph said:

That will not be the best way. It would be much better, if we contemplated escape, to call for a change of venue, and while passing from one place to another, to escape from the custody of the constable, and then claim our legal rights and protect ourselves until we obtain them.²⁰

Enter Mark Hofmann. Interviewed according to his plea bargain, he told prosecuting attorneys that he created a Joseph command from Carthage after reading the above Brodie sources: “First let me say this is a very poor forgery and it was quickly done.”²¹ Forensic specialists examined this Dunham letter under microscope and ultraviolet light and found the same ink cracks and light shifts that marked other Hofmann forgeries.²² Before all this was known, the counterfeit order was included in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, on the basis of normal handwriting identification, though later editions listed Joseph’s fictitious letter on an errata sheet as one of the fraudulent items mistakenly included in the collection.

A recent history, The Mormon Hierarchy, shows no knowledge of the above facts, a symptom of its preoccupation with sources claiming violence in the Mormon past. Yet ignorance of the fraudulent Joseph Smith order “in his own handwriting” is not my main point here.²³ In rigorous history, proving opportunity to know is not the same thing as proving knowledge. After quoting the forged rescue order, Mormon Hierarchy tells how Dunham disobeyed it, using the sentence quoted from the Allen Stout journal. “And while they were in jail Brother Joseph wrote an official order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the legion and rescue him from being killed, but Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders.” The one central issue is whether or not Stout spoke from personal knowledge, and he gives no clue that he did. Recreating the mob mentality at Carthage, Dan Jones tells how he was given a letter from Joseph at noontime on the day of martyrdom, an urgent request to attorney Orville H. Browning at Quiny to represent the Prophet in two days at a treason hearing. Just before Jones rode away, “News of the letter went throughout the mob like the wings of the breeze, and some claimed that it was orders for the Nauvoo Legion to come there to save the prisoners, and others claimed some other things.”²⁴ It is irresponsible to quote Stout without showing that he had no better source than excited rumors. As discussed, John Taylor settles the issue by his firsthand report from the jail that Jospeh Smith would not authorize use of force.

But Mormon Hierarchy‘s skewed evaluation of Joseph is followed by another of Jonathan Dunham. In a Brodie-like disclosure, we are told that word of Dunham’s disobedience spread, and “Nauvoo Mormons” seem to be divided into two groups: “Some called him a ‘coward and traitor.’ Others dismissed him as a ‘fool and idiot.’ “²⁵ Although these categories carry the weight of a total opinion poll, the sentence is copied from the 1873 comments of Stenhouse, a disaffected Mormon who never saw Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo. The distortion is evident, since Nauvoo sources continue to show that Dunham was highly trusted after the martyrdom. The most obvious place to begin is a computer search of the History of the Church and Nauvoo periodicals, which indicate Dunham’s involvement in significant events after Joseph’s martyrdom: September 13, 1844, Dunham elected by the officers on the drill field as brigadier general of the second cohort of the legion, Brigham Young present; September 16, 1844, participated with the First Presidency and head legion officers in dedication the arsenal site; January 15, 1845, his name published with about four dozen priesthood leaders authorized to collect tithing and donations for the Church, with approval of Bishops Whitney and Miller.²⁶

Further evidence of Dunham’s respect in the eyes of leading Mormons comes in his admission to the Council of Fifty, the body under the Twelve involved in managing Church secular interests, including the coming exodus. On March 1, 1845, William Clayton noted Dunham’s initiation and appointment as assistant in a confidential mission to build Indian relationships, proceeding “from tribe to tribe to unite the Lamanites and find a home for the Saints.” Designations were made “by unanimous vote of the Council.” The mission had highest priority because it would help “fill Joseph’s measures” for a western location from which a worldwide message could proceed. Assignments were modified on April 11, when “President Young appointed J. Dunham, C. Shumway, Lorenzo Young to go with Brother Dana on the Western Mission.” This was Lewis Dana, whom Clayton called “a Lamanite of the Oneida nation.” Four days later Phineas Young was substituted for Lorenzo, with an open-ended commission to go “to the Indian Council at Council Bluffs and thence if they think best to the Pacific Ocean.”²⁷ Apparently general goodwill came from this diplomatic expedition, and Presidents Kimball and Young considered it important enough to record the setting apart and departure of the group, as well as intelligence that Dunham died on July 29, 1845.²⁸

Dunham’s record in the last year of his life does more than redeem his reputation. Had he disobeyed a Carthage order from Joseph, Brigham Young never would have trusted him to be third in command of the legion or to take tithes from the Saints or to accomplish a sensitive and dangerous mission. Dunham’s post-martyrdom career proves that he was far from intellectually or morally bankrupt in the eyes of the Saints. Adopting these 1873 labels of Stenhouse is not responsible history.

Dozens of eyewitnesses report Joseph’s farewells in leaving Nauvoo, as well as his discussions in the jail. They agree with Taylor that the Prophet was resigned to a probable martyrdom and was committed to leaving events in the hands of God. Several of Joseph’s statements in his final four days show in fact that he retained the spirit of prophecy. John Taylor rode with Joseph to Carthage and soon published the Prophet’s remarks on leaving Nauvoo—that he went innocent to the slaughter and would be murdered (D&C 135:4). In ancient history one might take a general report as indicative of public knowledge, but in Mormon history many correlating participants usually make historical hearsay unnecessary. Stout’s untraceable claim of a rescue order sharply deviates from the norm established by direct observers. The resources for understanding the Prophet include official minutes, letter books, discourse reports, private journals, contemporary newspapers, and responsible recollections. These furnish a control on Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo life, and a test and corrective for eccentric documents.

If you take the time to do the reading, and a lot of work has been done by many different people, the natural benefit is a good sense of just how much we've learned since Brodie wrote.  If you understand how paradigms change, often over generations rather than in a moment, how history changes in light of new information, new perspectives, and it you approach LDS history without a sense that nothing once heard in class should ever change and that we are entitled to an effort-free gift of omniscience from everyone who happens to have been made use of institutionally, whether early journal keepers, historians, manual writers, Sunday School teachers, seminary teachers, or whomever, then the notion of better history, of further light and knowledge, of increased understanding, can be part of a sense of enlightenment, rather than disillusion and socially useful resentment serving an sense of entitlement.

Regarding Brodie's place, Midgley commented in the Review:

Quote

Whatever one might think about Brodie’s ingenuity, her speculation about the Book of Mormon was not grounded in a careful assessment of its contents and was dependent on a selective acceptance of some of the earliest anti-Mormon lore.

It has now been fifty-five years [71 now] since Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith first appeared in print. Why should her speculation still be receiving attention other than as a historical curiosity? For at least one good reason: When No Man Knows first appeared in November 1945, Brodie startled some of the Saints with the claim that the Book of Mormon was an intentional hoax fashioned by Joseph Smith out of materials he found in his immediate environment. Her claim seems to have played a role in getting the Saints to take seriously both the teachings and historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.¹¹¹ She also seems to have managed, whatever her own intentions, to have prodded Latter-day Saint historians into paying attention to previously neglected archival and other obscure texts related to Joseph Smith. She thus stimulated the production of more accurate, detailed, and authentic Mormon history. From my perspective, whatever one might think about the quality of her own scholarship, she should receive credit for these sanguine developments.

Despite Brodie’s engaging style, her treatment of the Book of Mormon turns out to have been cursory and flawed. No Man Knows has been promoted all these years mostly by those who are satisfied with a smoothly written, though implausible, treatment of the Book of Mormon and by those who have not given its arguments critical attention. Subsequent serious attention to the Book of Mormon has moved relentlessly away from Brodie’s explanation and assessment. It has thus become awkward to support the opinion that she had adequately explained Joseph Smith or confirmed the nineteenth-century authorship of the Book of Mormon. In addition, key components of her explanation have been directly refuted. Even for those sympathetic with her naturalistic stance, No Man Knows has become a nicely written historical curiosity rather than a source for solid arguments and analysis.

The decay of Brodie’s standing as a Mormon historian has not gone entirely unnoticed. Elsewhere I have described efforts to shore up her slumping reputation.¹¹² Bringhurst’s earlier essays and now his biography of Brodie fall within this general grouping. But he has not been able to fashion a portrait of one able to take the measure of Joseph Smith. No Man Knows My History is not a peg on which to hang unbelief, unless one is inclined to ignore much of what Bringhurst has uncovered about Brodie and most of the relevant literature published since 1945 on the Book of Mormon and on the Mormon past.¹¹³

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1453&index=3

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

One may disagree with her conclusions, but doesn't the church owe her an apology for the condemnation she received for bringing out a lot of hidden history?

Again I don't think most of the condemnation was for that. I think Nibley's pamphlet for good or ill captures the standard view fairly well.

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that he expressed embarrassment over his review. Clark Goble, from what I can see, has yet to substantiate that claim. 

Notice the word "if" in my sentence.  I wasn't definitively stating that this was a fact.  I was stating an if-then opinion or feeling of mine and I still stand by that.

Here's Clark's post regarding this (embarrassment) that was a part of the discussion earlier in the thread (you can ask him for more info on it if you choose to pursue it):

"It's not a good book [Nibley's].  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."

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

She got excommunicated for a very public apostasy.

According to Brodie, she was excommunicated for "heresy".

Here's an interview where she discusses it and gives more info:

http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

She states:

"I was excommunicated for heresy - and I was a heretic - ..."

There are also copies of her summons and letter of excommunication at this link.

The interview is very interesting to read (and so are the comments below as some of her family members commented).

Edited May 1, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Notice the word "if" in my sentence.  I wasn't definitively stating that this was a fact.  I was stating an if-then opinion or feeling of mine and I still stand by that.

Here's Clark's post regarding this (embarrassment) that was a part of the discussion earlier in the thread (you can ask him for more info on it if you choose to pursue it):

"It's not a good book [Nibley's].  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."

 

Still trying to find the interview. What I thought was a reference to the interview was a reminiscence on Nibley. I did find someone else who remembered the interview. This is from a comment by Russell Fox at T&S at the time of Nibley's death. (10:24 comment)

Quote

Also, Student Review once managed to interview Hugh Nibley; one of his students performed the interview for us in his office some Saturday. The guy came up with all sorts of questions, and Hugh answered them all. We all listened to the tape several times over; it was cool stuff. We ran it as “An (Almost) Uncensored Interview with Hugh Nibley,” from which my favorite line was a comment he made when asked about the BYU administration (as it existed circa 1994): “Lawyers! Lawyers everywhere! Nothing but lawyers!” Also, he called Supreme Court Justice Scalia “just plain stupid.”

Now that I have the correct reference I should be able to get the interview.

Also some have pushed my comments a bit further than I think they warrant. Being somewhat embarrassed isn't the same as all the arguments being wrong. Far from it I think Nibley makes a lot of good points - although again it's been quite some time since I read Brodie so I'm just going by memory. I read a library version at BYU so I don't have a copy in my own library.

Likewise when I discussed Brodie's excommunication while I didn't mention apostasy what I was referring to was what in her book constituted apostasy. It wasn't discussing polygamy but pushing the idea that Joseph was a fraud and not a prophet. It seems to me that's apostasy by any reasonable definition.

Edited May 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Notice the word "if" in my sentence.  I wasn't definitively stating that this was a fact.  I was stating an if-then opinion or feeling of mine and I still stand by that.

 

It was the second part of your sentence, "... and I'm glad he did," that made it seem to me you were assuming it was foregone. If you are now clarifying that you meant it as a conditional, I'm good with that.

Quote

 

Here's Clark's post regarding this (embarrassment) that was a part of the discussion earlier in the thread (you can ask him for more info on it if you choose to pursue it):

"It's not a good book [Nibley's].  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."

 

I'm aware of what Clark posted. I don't view a vague recollection as substantiation. I'm waiting to see if he can document it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

According to Brodie, she was excommunicated for "heresy".

Here's an interview where she discusses it and gives more info:

http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

She states:

"I was excommunicated for heresy - and I was a heretic - ..."

There are also copies of her summons and letter of excommunication at this link.

The interview is very interesting to read (and so are the comments below as some of her family members commented).

I don't see a great deal of qualitative difference between heresy and apostasy.

 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see a great deal of qualitative difference between heresy and apostasy.

I didn't state there was, did I?  I was simply posting what Brodie had stated regarding her excommunication and a link to her interview for those who may be interested.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I didn't state there was, did I?  I was simply posting what Brodie had stated regarding her excommunication and a link to her interview for those who may be interested.

Fair enough.

Now that I think of it, I don't know that the handbook specifically lists "heresy" as grounds for Church discipline. My recollection is that the definition of apostasy -- or teaching false doctrine -- in the handbook includes a normative definition of heresy.

I wonder whether some dissidents enjoy applying the terms heresy or heretic to themselves because it makes them seem so sexy and rebellious and free-thinking -- as in Sonia Johnson's book From Housewife to Heretic.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

Here's the interview:

 

Note now that I read it, he's talking of Sounding Brass not No Ma'am That's Not History. So my bad.

Edited May 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Also some have pushed my comments a bit further than I think they warrant. Being somewhat embarrassed isn't the same as all the arguments being wrong. Far from it I think Nibley makes a lot of good points - although again it's been quite some time since I read Brodie so I'm just going by memory. I read a library version at BYU so I don't have a copy in my own library.

 

Just curious, so I'll ask: Assuming Nibley did say he was "somewhat embarrassed" by his own review of Brodie's book, would that, in your view, warrant defaming him as a "misogynist" and a "sexist"?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Here's the interview:

 

Note now that I read it, he's talking of Sounding Brass not No Ma'am That's Not History. So my bad.

Thanks for finding that.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just curious, so I'll ask: Assuming Nibley did say he was "somewhat embarrassed" by his own review of Brodie's book, would that, in your view, warrant defaming him as a "misogynist" and a "sexist"?

I think I already addressed that with the "presentist" response. I think from our current perspective those things he said would be considered sexist and inappropriate but they weren't seen like that in the 1940's. So I'd say they are sexist comments and I certainly wish he hadn't said them. I think we have to be careful how we deal with the comments though. Pretty much the status quo was sexist in those days. As I mentioned it appears it was Sounding Cymbals he was referring to not Brodie though.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kenngo1969]

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, to be precise.

P.S.: I think a pretty safe rule-of-thumb (and I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek) for anybody, not just someone who was as brilliant as Hugh Nibley was, is that, "I'm not responsible for anything I said [or for anything I wrote] more than five minutes ago."  Things change.  Time, the discovery of additional information unavailable at a prior time, additional perspectives, and so on, can render a prior work moot, or can render it irrelevant, or can otherwise dilute its impact, for even the Hugh Nibleys of the world, let alone for any of us.  I have yet to read The Student Review's coverage, but perhaps that's what Nibley was getting at. Still and all, though I'm hardly a Nibley devotee (frankly, I lack adequate grounding in most of the intellectual realms in which he traveled to appreciate his work fully), I'd have to think that the vast majority of his work has weathered well ... even the allegedly-sexist, allegedly-misogynistic No Ma'am, That's Not History.  Would he word some things differently in 2017 than he did in the 1940s?  Who wouldn't?  But if I'm not going to subject anyone else to presentist treatment, why should I make an exception for him?

Edited May 1, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

According to Brodie, she was excommunicated for "heresy".

Here's an interview where she discusses it and gives more info:

http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

She states:

"I was excommunicated for heresy - and I was a heretic - ..."

There are also copies of her summons and letter of excommunication at this link.

The interview is very interesting to read (and so are the comments below as some of her family members commented).

Heresy, apostasy, po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh, to-may-toh, to-mah-toh?  

P.S.: "Heretic," though, certainly has a certain cachet among the illuminati.  

Edited May 1, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I already addressed that with the "presentist" response. I think from our current perspective those things he said would be considered sexist and inappropriate but they weren't seen like that in the 1940's. So I'd say they are sexist comments and I certainly wish he hadn't said them. I think we have to be careful how we deal with the comments though. Pretty much the status quo was sexist in those days. 

 

Be that as it may, I think misogynist is a pretty horrible accusation to make against someone in any age (and I recognize it was JuiieM, not you, who used that word). A normative definition of misogyny (according to Wikipedia) is "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls." Nothing that I've seen from Nibley comes close to justifying that accusation. As I said, it is defamatory.

Quote

As I mentioned it appears it was Sounding Cymbals he was referring to not Brodie though.

Again, thank you for posting the Student Review page and setting the record straight.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I noticed that Nibley never did use the word embarrassed with reference to that book. He was responding to the question "Which of your books do you feel is the worst?" and he gave Sounding Brass as his response. His reason was that he found the subject unpleasant and that he was "ordered" to write it.

But he didn't say he was embarrassed by what he wrote, only that, of all his books, that one was the worst.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, I think misogynist is a pretty horrible accusation to make against someone in any age (and I recognize it was JuiieM, not you, who used that word). A normative definition of misogyny (according to Wikipedia) is "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls." Nothing that I've seen from Nibley comes close to justifying that accusation. As I said, it is defamatory.

Part of the problem is that the left, particularly the academic left focused on intersectionality, have largely redefined the term so it's no longer about intent and feeling but roughly about whether it's producing an environment that feels hateful to women. I don't like this redefinition of misogyny at all, but it has largely become the lingua franca of the left. In the same way racist no longer is taken by the left to be about intents but the structures of society. So I suspect you're talking past one an other.

Now one problem I think happens is that the left often tries to have it both ways. That is they start with this more structuralist and impersonal sense of the term and then shift to the personal. That kind of equivocation is pretty common with pundits for instance and is why I personally don't like the terms. I think they frequently become just a sneaky way to tar people.

In this case though I really think the big issue is the culture of the time. In the same way I think we'd have to say that Abraham Lincoln was a horrible racist in his views. He was amazingly progressive for his time, but if we're making a statement it's hard to deny he was a racist.

Quote

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I noticed that Nibley never did use the word embarrassed with reference to that book. He was responding to the question "Which of your books do you feel is the worst?" and he gave Sounding Brass as his response. His reason was that he found the subject unpleasant and that he was "ordered" to write it.

But he didn't say he was embarrassed by what he wrote, only that, of all his books, that one was the worst.

If I say "I had to write something" and that I found the topic unpleasant and only wrote it because I was ordered I'd say that is being embarrassed by the work. But I can see others disagreeing. In my memory I thought he'd actually used the term "embarrassed" but I think I was recalling my judgment of those paragraphs.

Edited May 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Part of the problem is that the left, particularly the academic left focused on intersectionality, have largely redefined the term so it's no longer about intent and feeling but about whether it producing an environment that feels hateful to women. I don't like this redefinition of misogyny at all, but it has largely become the lingua franca of the left. In the same way racist no longer is taken by the left to be about intents but the structures of society. So I suspect you're talking past one an other.

Now one problem I think happens is that the left often tries to have it both ways. That is they start with this more structuralist and impersonal sense of the term and then shift to the personal. That kind of equivocation is pretty common with pundits for instance and is why I personally don't like the terms. I think they frequently become just a sneaky way to tar people.

In this case though I really think the big issue is the culture of the time.

 

I think that's a fairly accurate assessment.

I do believe it is important to be precise in one's use of terms and to not apply quirky definitions to words that are apt to be inflammatory to listeners or readers who can be expected to apply a more traditional, standard or normative definition to them.

Quote

If I say "I had to write something" and that I found the topic unpleasant and only wrote it because I was ordered I'd say that is being embarrassed by the work. But I can see others disagreeing. In my memory I thought he'd actually used the term "embarrassed" but I think I was recalling my judgment of those paragraphs.

It occurs to me that one way to gauge whether Nibley truly was embarrassed by the book would be if he disavowed or sought to temper or modify his words in any way. I don't see him doing that -- at least not as reflected in this Student Review article.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do believe it is important to be precise in one's use of terms and to not apply quirky definitions to words that are apt to be inflammatory to listeners or readers who can be expected to apply a more traditional, standard or normative definition to them.

The problem is that this isn't a quirky definition on the left. It's the only definition they accept. They see the problem as the right not keeping up to date on language.

Quote

It occurs to me that one way to gauge whether Nibley truly was embarrassed by the book would be if he disavowed or sought to temper or modify his words in any way. I don't see him doing that -- at least not as reflected in this Student Review article.

That's a fair point. I just note the tone of his response. I wished they'd asked specifically about that and No Ma'am.

Edited May 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I already addressed that with the "presentist" response. I think from our current perspective those things he said would be considered sexist and inappropriate but they weren't seen like that in the 1940's. So I'd say they are sexist comments and I certainly wish he hadn't said them. I think we have to be careful how we deal with the comments though. 

I agree.  And for the record, I do not believe that Nibley was either a sexist or a misogynist, but some of his personal attacks in his review we're definitely sexist and misogonistic (such as the ones I've posted here as examples), IMO.  

I wonder if he was ordered to write this book as he was ordered to write "Sounding Brass"?  

This exchange in the interview was fascinating (thanks for posting it):

SR:  "So which of your books do you feel is your worst?"

 

Nibley:  "Oh!  I think by far the one called Sounding Brass.  I was asked to write that.  The brethren came down and asked me.  They said I was assigned to write that.  And I hated every minute of it because it's such an unpleasant subject.  There was nothing pleasant about it, I didn't like it at all."

 

SR:  "I think you make some valid points in the book, however."

 

Nibley:  "Yeah, well I had to do something.  But that was the one I was ordered to write."

 

SR:  "Who 'ordered' you?"

 

Nibley:  "Well, Brother Richard L. Evans and Mark Peterson.  They came down, they sat down in my office, and they said, 'You will write that book!'  That was it.  For some reason that was something I found very distasteful."

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

59 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, to be precise.

I think the one he's referring to that he was ordered to write is this one(?):

Sounding Brass: Informal studies of the lucrative art of telling stories about Brigham Young and Mormons

From what I can tell, the other title (from your post) is a compilation or reprint of several of his books or writings that includes No Ma'am, That's Not History.

Maybe Clark can clarify which one Nibley was referring to, but I would imagine it's the first one.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  And for the record, I do not believe that Nibley was either a sexist or a misogynist, but some of his personal attacks in his review we're definitely sexist and misogonistic (such as the ones I've posted here as examples), IMO.  

 

If you don't regard Nibley as a hater of women and girls, you should not accuse of him of behavior that, by definition, marks him as a hater of women and girls.

Quote

I wonder if he was ordered to write this book as he was ordered to write "Sounding Brass"?  

 

I wonder if Elvis is still alive. I wonder if the NASA lunar landings were faked.

Quote

 

 

This exchange in the interview was fascinating (thanks for posting it):

SR:  "So which of your books do you feel is your worst?"

 

Nibley:  "Oh!  I think by far the one called Sounding Brass.  I was asked to write that.  The brethren came down and asked me.  They said I was assigned to write that.  And I hated every minute of it because it's such an unpleasant subject.  There was nothing pleasant about it, I didn't like it at all."

 

SR:  "I think you make some valid points in the book, however."

 

Nibley:  "Yeah, well I had to do something.  But that was the one I was ordered to write."

 

SR:  "Who 'ordered' you?"

 

Nibley:  "Well, Brother Richard L. Evans and Mark Peterson.  They came down, they sat down in my office, and they said, 'You will write that book!'  That was it.  For some reason that was something I found very distasteful."

 

One can find a task unpleasant due to, say, its subject matter, yet stand by the honesty and propriety with which the task was accomplished.

Again, nothing in NIbley's comments published in this article leads me to conclude that he was in any way embarrassed by the work he accomplished, notwithstanding he did not like having to do it.