rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. The big consideration isn't accuracy (i.e., there isn't a Johnnie Cochrane angel on the shoulder saying, "If it's accurate, you must acquit"), but tone and motive. Fawn Brodie's book and other comments were apostate in a way that Richard Bushman, or Juanita Brooks wasn't. Grant Palmer, discounting the "Golden Pot" stuff, to the extent that he was not inaccurate and being misleading, had a tone and purpose similar to Brodie, with similar results. There is a way to write accurate Mormon history that is apostate, and a way to write it that steers clear of that line. But, it isn't like the Church's hands are tied if someone who is an enemy to the Church writes things intended to turn people against it that have some things that are accurate in them. The Church can still (and should) discipline apostates when they are being unrepentantly apostate. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, rongo said: The big consideration isn't accuracy (i.e., there isn't a Johnnie Cochrane angel on the shoulder saying, "If it's accurate, you must acquit"), but tone and motive. Fawn Brodie's book and other comments were apostate in a way that Richard Bushman, or Juanita Brooks wasn't. Grant Palmer, discounting the "Golden Pot" stuff, to the extent that he was not inaccurate and being misleading, had a tone and purpose similar to Brodie, with similar results. There is a way to write accurate Mormon history that is apostate, and a way to write it that steers clear of that line. But, it isn't like the Church's hands are tied if someone who is an enemy to the Church writes things intended to turn people against it that have some things that are accurate in them. The Church can still (and should) discipline apostates when they are being unrepentantly apostate. Ok. You haven't contradicted anything I said, nor have you made the case that she was X'd for apostasy "outside of the book" she wrote. So it seems that the book was the impetus for the apostasy charge and excommunication. I'm open to additional information which is why I asked for the CFR. I haven't seen that answered yet which again leads me to believe that the book is the reason for the excommunication. We can argue about whether or not the book should be the reason for excommunication but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it wasn't the reason. 3
rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Ok. You haven't contradicted anything I said, nor have you made the case that she was X'd for apostasy "outside of the book" she wrote. So it seems that the book was the impetus for the apostasy charge and excommunication. I'm open to additional information which is why I asked for the CFR. I haven't seen that answered yet which again leads me to believe that the book is the reason for the excommunication. We can argue about whether or not the book should be the reason for excommunication but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it wasn't the reason. I'll see what I can find when I'm more able to look into it. I think the book was a large part of the reason, but she was also on the record elsewhere about her beliefs and intents. It is telling, isn't it, that she chose not to go to the disciplinary council at all? She was inactive, and a non-believer, but if she didn't care about the outcome enough to at least give her side and explain, why should the Church seek to overturn it?
HappyJackWagon Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, rongo said: I'll see what I can find when I'm more able to look into it. I think the book was a large part of the reason, but she was also on the record elsewhere about her beliefs and intents. It is telling, isn't it, that she chose not to go to the disciplinary council at all? She was inactive, and a non-believer, but if she didn't care about the outcome enough to at least give her side and explain, why should the Church seek to overturn it? OR she didn't attend because she knew the decision had already been made. For example, if she believed her uncle (David O'McKay) had been the accuser of apostasy, what are the odds that a mission president wouldn't sustain the prophet in agreeing that she was apostate. OR maybe she didn't view the process to be fair as she would be a lone woman amongst a group of all men judging her. OR... There are many reasons people may choose not to attend a DC. The reason you suggest is only one of the possibilities. PS- I'll be happy to see where she was on record elsewhere
JulieM Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: OR she didn't attend because she knew the decision had already been made. For example, if she believed her uncle (David O'McKay) had been the accuser of apostasy, what are the odds that a mission president wouldn't sustain the prophet in agreeing that she was apostate. OR maybe she didn't view the process to be fair as she would be a lone woman amongst a group of all men judging her. OR... There are many reasons people may choose not to attend a DC. The reason you suggest is only one of the possibilities. PS- I'll be happy to see where she was on record elsewhere Here is a copy of an interview with Brodie: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/ She states in the interview (when asked if she's still a Mormon): A: Oh, no. I am an excommunicated Mormon. I was officially excommunicated when the biography of Joseph Smith was written and published. About six months after publication, there was a formal excommunication. Q: Would you care to explain more about that? A: I was excommunicated for heresy--and I was a heretic-- and specifically for writing the book. My husband was teaching at Yale at the time and we were living in New Haven, CT. Two Mormon missionaries came to the door and presented me with a letter asking me to appear before the bishop's court in Cambridge, MA to defend myself against heresy. I simply told them, or wrote a letter telling them, that I would not go because, after all, I was a heretic. So then I was officially excommunicated and got a letter to that effect. Q: This was because of writing the book "No Man Knows My History?" A: That is right. Here is a link to a copy of her summons and a copy of the decision to excommunicate her: http://www.salamandersociety.com/x-files/460523brodie_excom.pdf The entire interview is really interesting to read through too. Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM 3
Popular Post cinepro Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours 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. 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. Can you be more specific? Because if what you describe is "apostasy", then I fear the LDS Church itself has been in a massive state of apostasy for quite some time. 6
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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. I'm reading Nibley's review now. But if you don't mind saving me a bit of time, can you cite quotations in his work where he challenges Brody on the specific assertions you name here (treasure seeking, translation method, polygamy involving angels and flaming swords)? Are you saying his work has fallen into disfavor in hindsight because he contradicted Brody on these points? 1
bluebell Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: 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? Maybe it's because Taylor had a testimony of the church and believed it to be what it claims and that JS was a true prophet, and Brodie thought that JS was a conman and the church was a false religion? Not trying to be snarky but sincerely wondering if that's one of the reasons. 3
CA Steve Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Has anyone checked on her membership status or are we assuming she has not been rebaptized?
JLHPROF Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe it's because Taylor had a testimony of the church and believed it to be what it claims and that JS was a true prophet, and Brodie thought that JS was a conman and the church was a false religion? Not trying to be snarky but sincerely wondering if that's one of the reasons. That is as good a reason as any. Those who fight against the Church are probably less likely to be considered for posthumous re-admittance than those who maintain a belief. Of course that would mean there are a lot of dead fundamentalists and apostates who should be rebaptized since they maintained a belief in the Church despite disagreements. 1
rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe it's because Taylor had a testimony of the church and believed it to be what it claims and that JS was a true prophet, and Brodie thought that JS was a conman and the church was a false religion? Not trying to be snarky but sincerely wondering if that's one of the reasons. This. When reinstating, whether or not the person believes in the Church and means it well or harm is important. Elders Taylor and Cowley had testimonies, but disagreed with the ending of polygamy. They weren't trying to get people to think that the restoration was a fraud. 3
rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That is as good a reason as any. Those who fight against the Church are probably less likely to be considered for posthumous re-admittance than those who maintain a belief. Of course that would mean there are a lot of dead fundamentalists and apostates who should be rebaptized since they maintained a belief in the Church despite disagreements. You raise a good point. I think the Church might have made a mistake in doing as many posthumous overturnings and reinstatements as it has --- because there are not-as-famous people in the same boat who are not reinstated. I'm still not sure why John D. Lee's excommunication was overturned. Helmuth Hübner's excommunication was extremely problematic, and should have been overturned on procedural grounds in addition to moral grounds, so there will be cases. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 3 hours ago, JulieM said: One of the last leaks had a letter about Nibley from the leaders. Maybe that's what he's referring to? Johnnie Cake said he's too busy to fact check today so he has had to partially withdraw his assertion. Maybe you could help him out by running that down for him.
Jeanne Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 3 hours 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. Wow..I had no idea. She spoke her truth. I thought the book was good...but I would leave it to God. Actually, I don't think she cares anymore.
JulieM Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Johnnie Cake said he's too busy to fact check today so he has had to partially withdraw his assertion. Maybe you could help him out by running that down for him. The letter was from the first presidency (secretary) and it relates to Nibley's work on the papyri. I thought Johnnie was just making a general statement about the leaders distancing themselves from Nibley's work (nothing specific about his response to Brodie's work). The leaks labeled this letter a "disavowal" of Nibley. (IMO that's too strong a word to use as they just stated Nibley's writings "have been done entirely on his own responsibility and do not have the official approval and sanction of the church"). 1
cinepro Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Johnnie Cake said he's too busy to fact check today so he has had to partially withdraw his assertion. Maybe you could help him out by running that down for him. This is the letter. It specifies that they're referring to his writings on the "papyri scrolls" and not everything Nibley had ever written. https://www.docdroid.net/ySraZVB/first-presidency-disavows-hugh-nibley1975.pdf.html
cinepro Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: This. When reinstating, whether or not the person believes in the Church and means it well or harm is important. Elders Taylor and Cowley had testimonies, but disagreed with the ending of polygamy. They weren't trying to get people to think that the restoration was a fraud. If the Church was wrong about ending polygamy, then it was in apostasy. And I'm pretty sure it's still an ex-communicable offense to say that. Edited February 1, 2017 by cinepro
cinepro Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 27 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Wow..I had no idea. She spoke her truth. I thought the book was good...but I would leave it to God. Actually, I don't think she cares anymore. It does raise an interesting question. She's now in a position to know exactly what the truth is regarding Joseph Smith and his life experiences. If Jesus and Joseph Smith visited her in the Spirit World (or, if she's in spirit prison, just Joseph Smith), and explained her error to her and she recognized her mistake and repented, then what happens?
Jeanne Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: It does raise an interesting question. She's now in a position to know exactly what the truth is regarding Joseph Smith and his life experiences. If Jesus and Joseph Smith visited her in the Spirit World (or, if she's in spirit prison, just Joseph Smith), and explained her error to her and she recognized her mistake and repented, then what happens? Well..if LDS doctrine holds true..there will be some sort of chance and repentance is part of that progression. I don't know. Really...if at the time in mortality that she felt she did the right thing..that is all that matters. (IMO)
Johnnie Cake Posted February 1, 2017 Author Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm reading Nibley's review now. But if you don't mind saving me a bit of time, can you cite quotations in his work where he challenges Brody on the specific assertions you name here (treasure seeking, translation method, polygamy involving angels and flaming swords)? Are you saying his work has fallen into disfavor in hindsight because he contradicted Brody on these points? I'm saying it because so many (including those I've already listed) items which were formerly considered anti Mormon have been embraced by the church and are in the process of being made mainstream which undermines Nibley's arguments 1
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Nah, I am okay with letting her burn in hell. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) error- bad information Edited February 1, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Nah, I am okay with letting her burn in hell. I think we should take a vote and decide it right here and now.
rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 59 minutes ago, cinepro said: It does raise an interesting question. She's now in a position to know exactly what the truth is regarding Joseph Smith and his life experiences. Objection. Facts not in evidence, counselor! If you study what the Brethren have said about the spirit world through the ages, including what the scriptures say ("that same spirit will rise with us," etc.) , I don't think there is any basis for the assumption that passing on to the spirit world is a big "Ah hah! The Mormons were right after all!" moment. It seems to me that atheists will still be just as firm in their atheist belief, even though it would seem that the existence of a hereafter might give them pause. The existence of missionary work from other churches, etc. indicates that our spirits and our intellects will be the same as they are here. Hence, it isn't a given that people will accept the temple work that is done for them. If Jesus and Joseph Smith visited her in the Spirit World (or, if she's in spirit prison, just Joseph Smith), and explained her error to her and she recognized her mistake and repented, then what happens? How much of a difference would a visit from Jesus and/or Joseph Smith have made if they had visited her in life? From the interview JulieM posted, I don't think it would have affected her one bit. And, I think the effect of a spirit world "big wig" visit would have about the same effect. After all, we don't believe that such ministerings mean that all people will repent and accept the gospel there, either. Why would Fawn Brodie be different?
JulieM Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'm saying it because so many (including those I've already listed) items which were formerly considered anti Mormon have been embraced by the church and are in the process of being made mainstream which undermines Nibley's arguments I'm going from memory, but I think Nibley called the treasure seeking and use of seer stones neighborhood "gossip".
Recommended Posts