Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

He uses himself in the footnotes as a source (other things he's written) and one footnote simply states "Careful search reveals that Mrs. Brodie has not made a single new document find!"...what kind of sourcing is that?  IMO, it's embarrassing and poor scholarship and poorly written (and I really like much of Nibley's other writings).

 

Is there something wrong with an author citing his/her own prior work in a footnote? Apparently not, according to this academic style guide.

Furthermore, citing published works is not the only legitimate use of footnotes. A footnote may be used for providing explanatory or peripheral content without bogging down the main body of the text.

Daniel Peterson does this a lot. In fact, I find that his footnotes are often the most interesting parts of his written discourses.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

As I stated earlier some of his arguments which he stated were hearsay have now been adopted as mainstream facts by the church

Such as?

Previously you mentioned "treasure seeking and translation method, polygamy that involved angels and flaming swords etc." Yet so far you've not provided any cites from Nibley's review where he challenged Brody on those things.

Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that the Church once regarded those items as anti-Mormon lies that have now been adopted as "mainstream facts by the Church."

Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

56 minutes ago, Vance said:

Who has ever quoted from her work in a positive way?

Mormon historians consistently use her groundbreaking work to support their own...several have been mentioned in this thread...go back and read the thread

Edited February 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The Hurlbut affidavits have long been considered scurrilous by Mormon scholars, Nibley among them. But pointing out their scurrilous nature does not, in and of itself, deny the existence of seer stones or that Joseph Smith engaged in treasure seeking.

For that matter, the Prophet himself admits, in Joseph Smith - History (Pearl of Great Price) to having engaged in treasure seeking. And the fact of Joseph having used a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon has long been a part of Church history. The anti-Mormons didn't discover.

However, placing treasure seeking and seer stones in the context of "magic incantations and nocturnal excavations" does taint them with the character of scandal stories -- which I'm sure is just the effect that the gossipy neighbors and Brody were trying to achieve.

At this point, the easiest thing would be for Johnnie Cake to admit that he spoke hastily and with little regard for accuracy when he said Nibley's review of Brody's book "has fallen out of favor," if, by that, he means it has fallen out of favor with the Church.

 

Ironic you're asking me to "acknowledge" however  I never said it has fallen out of favor with the church...but neither has his work been endorsed by the church to the best of my knowledge 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there something wrong with an author citing his/her own prior work in a footnote? 

Not at all if it contains a documented source for a fact based, scholarly purpose or statement, but Nibley uses himself as a source to support his own opinions such as this:

"It never occurs to her [Brodie] that there are things, especially if they are of a transcendent and "soul-shattering" nature, which one does not run off to report to the press and the neighbors."42

 

But, I'm curious if you're fine with Nibley's  personal attacks, supplying quotes accusing her of being obsessed with sex, and the quote where he insults young women that I posted earlier?  

Edited February 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ironic you're asking me to "acknowledge" however  I never said it has fallen out of favor with the church...but neither has his work been endorsed by the church to the best of my knowledge 

This is what you wrote:

Quote

Ironically its Nibley's work that has been fallen into disfavor while much of Brodie's work has been vindicated. 

It was ambiguously written. I thought you were referring to Nibley's review of Brodie's book (apparently I'm  not the only one who read it that way).

If you were saying that the entire body of Nibley's work has "fallen into disfavor," I think that's an even more outlandish statement -- if one can determine what it's supposed to mean.

Quote

... but neither has his work been endorsed by the church to the best of my knowledge 

This is a straw man and a deflection. The Church of Jesus Christ does not make a practice of endorsing individual writers' works. Even General Authorities, when they publish a book, customarily include a disclaimer absolving the Church of any responsibility for that book.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Such as?

Previously you mentioned "treasure seeking and translation method, polygamy that involved angels and flaming swords etc." Yet so far you've not provided any cites from Nibley's review where he challenged Brody on those things.

Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that the Church once regarded those items as anti-Mormon lies that have now been adopted as "mainstream facts by the Church."

Asked and answered

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not at all if it contains a documented source for a fact based, scholarly purpose or statement, but Nibley uses himself as a source to support his own opinions such as this:

"It never occurs to her [Brodie] that there are things, especially if they are of a transcendent and "soul-shattering" nature, which one does not run off to report to the press and the neighbors."42

 

 

Again, citing published works is not the only legitimate use for footnotes. A footnote can be used to provide explanatory or additional content that does not fit well in the main body of the text. And there's  not a thing wrong (or unprofessional or unscholarly) with doing that.

Edited to add:

Here, for your edification, is an explanation from an online source about what footnotes are used for:
 

Quote

 

Footnotes are notes placed at the bottom of a page. They cite references or comment on a designated part of the text above it. For example, say you want to add an interesting comment to a sentence you have written, but the comment is not directly related to the argument of your paragraph. In this case, you could add the symbol for a footnote. Then, at the bottom of the page you could reprint the symbol and insert your comment.

 

Back to you:

Quote

 

But, I'm curious if you're fine with Nibley's  personal attacks, supplying quotes accusing her of being obsessed with sex, and the quote where he insults young women that I posted earlier?  

 

I'm not well-read in Nibley's works.

But he had an intelligent and somewhat sardonic wit that I can appreciate. Daniel Peterson is like him in that respect.

And yes, I recognize that some critics, apostates, anti-Mormons and other humor-challenged individuals hate it when Mormons do that sort of thing. That's their problem.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Asked and answered

So from your responses, then, I feel comfortable in concluding that you can't back up your assertion that Nibley's work has "fallen into disfavor."

Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, citing published works is not the only legitimate use for footnotes. A footnote can be used to provide explanatory or additional content that does not fit well in the main body of the text. And there's  not a thing wrong (or unprofessional or unscholarly) with doing that.
 

How can he possibly know what Brodie's thinking or what did or didn't "occur" to her?   And he uses himself as a source?  That's my point.

[Johnnie Cake]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Such as?

Previously you mentioned "treasure seeking and translation method, polygamy that involved angels and flaming swords etc." Yet so far you've not provided any cites from Nibley's review where he challenged Brody on those things.

Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that the Church once regarded those items as anti-Mormon lies that have now been adopted as "mainstream facts by the Church."

From LDS.org

... Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasureguarded by evil spirits. ...

Where once the church viewed Smiths activities as defaming or deceptive, they now acknowledge as truth

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So from your responses, then, I feel comfortable in concluding that you can't back up your assertion that Nibley's work has "fallen into disfavor."

Nope...it has fallen into disfavor...My point being that several of the arguments Nibley used to attack Brodie with the passage of time have vindicated Brodie not Nibley. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How can he possibly know what Brodie's thinking or what did or didn't "occur" to her?   And he uses himself as a source?  That's my point.

He can draw inferences from what she has written.

And for the third or fourth time, citing sources is not the only legitimate use of a footnote. See my prior response where I liinked to an online source about what footnotes are used for.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From LDS.org

... Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasureguarded by evil spirits. ...

Where once the church viewed Smiths activities as defaming or deceptive, they now acknowledge as truth

This is talking about describing the prophet in degrading terms. It does not deny the existence of seer stones. To my knowledge, neither the Church nor Nibley has ever denied the use of seer stones.

 

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not well-read in Nibley's works.

But he had an intelligent and somewhat sardonic wit that I can appreciate. Daniel Peterson is like him in that respect.

And yes, I recognize that some critics, apostates, anti-Mormons and other humor-challenged individuals hate it when Mormons do that sort of thing. That's their problem.

Nice dodge.  But, ok.

I find it interesting that you call people who don't find personal attacks, misogyny, and insulting sexist comments funny to be  "humor-challenged individuals".

Do you find this funny?  He's comparing Brodie to these young women:

"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."

I must be a "humor-challenged individual" because I find nothing funny about that insulting quote.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Nope...it has fallen into disfavor...My point being that several of the arguments Nibley used to attack Brodie with the passage of time have vindicated Brodie not Nibley. 

Regardless of how many times you restate it that his work has "fallen into disfavor," unless you substantiate it in some persuasive manner, I stand by my conclusion that you can't back it up.

Goodnight.

[Johnnie Cake]

Here's another example Scott

Quote

We would applaud such strong-mindedness were it not that on the very next page she accepts the stories of the same witnesses regarding "seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations."”(Nibley - No ma'am that is not my History)

Yes she accepted them and she was right to do so...and now the church accepts them also. What once was anti is now mainstream

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regardless of how many times you restate it that his work has "fallen into disfavor," unless you substantiate it in some persuasive manner, I stand by my conclusion that you can't back it up.

Goodnight.

Scott the mere fact that even your church acknowledges that Brodie not Nibley was correct puts his work in disfavor

[Johnnie Cake]

Bruce McConkie called peep stones tools of the devil...and yet today this same tool of the devil has had its Hollywood moment on the cover of the Ensign as it becomes mainstream...should I continue Scott?

 

[Bruce R. McConkie, p 565+] PEEP STONES.

See Devil, Revelation, Urim and Thummim. In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones, or crystal balls. An instance of this copying of the true order occurred in the early days of this dispensation. Hiram Page had such a stone and was professing to have revelations for the up-building of Zion and the governing of the Church. Oliver Cowdery and others were strongly influenced thereby in consequence of which Oliver was commanded by revelation: "Thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him."

[Johnnie Cake]

More anti Mormon lies that are now embraced as mainstream truths by the church

Quote

Doctrines of Salvation vol.3 pg 225-226 - Joseph Fielding Smith denies that the seer stone was used in translating BoM

“While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24″

Should I go on Scott? What you're trying to do by trying to rewrite history is called gaslighting Scott...I'm not going to allow you to do it...past anti Mormon lies have become today's mainstream truths...accept it

Edited February 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Glenn101]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From LDS.org

... Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasureguarded by evil spirits. ...

Where once the church viewed Smiths activities as defaming or deceptive, they now acknowledge as truth

I beg to differ with your interpretation of that excerpt. It was not the Church that viewed Joseph's activities as defaming or deceptive. Abner Cole was an early critic of Joseph Smith who laid that charge against Joseph.

Nibley's only reference to peep stones was calling Brodie to task for rejecting the affidavits of certain character witnesses but turning around and accepting their stories about peep stones and magical incantations, etc.

Glenn

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I beg to differ with your interpretation of that excerpt. It was not the Church that viewed Joseph's activities as defaming or deceptive. Abner Cole was an early critic of Joseph Smith who laid that charge against Joseph.

Nibley's only reference to peep stones was calling Brodie to task for rejecting the affidavits of certain character witnesses but turning around and accepting their stories about peep stones and magical incantations, etc.

Glenn

Glenn did you read my other posts where past church leaders deny smith had or used peep stones even calling their use tools of the devil? All I'm saying in this now  high jacked thread is that this and other topic shared in Brodie's book, once viewed as anti Mormon lies have now been embraced by the church as mainstream truths

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bruce R. McConkie, p 565+] PEEP STONES.

Doctrines of Salvation vol.3 pg 225-226 - Joseph Fielding Smith denies that the seer stone was used in translating BoM

Can you name someone not in or married into the Fielding Smith/McConkie family? I already cited Joseph Fielding McConkie in the BoA thread as being a "seer stone denier," but he's family.  It does seem to me that the seer stone denier extremism is really only perpetuated today by McConkie-ite Mormons. 

B.H. Roberts, in the priesthood manuals (Church-wide, obviously endorsed by the Church) from 1903-1906, spoke openly and acceptingly of seer stones being used in the translation process. cf. Defense of the Faith and the Saints, volume 1, 162-184 passim. Have you ever heard of the museum of Church relics held by the Wilford C. Wood family in Woods Cross, Utah? They have several seer stones from prominent members (and many other important Church artifacts. They held key BoM manuscript parts that were preserved and transcribed with permission for the Critical Text Project). What makes Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, et. al.'s denials kind of embarrassing is that they knew about Joseph's use of seer stones and personal stones, but downplayed it because they personally didn't like the idea and thought that it would impeach Joseph Smith's legitimacy if people believed it. But, as Roberts, Nibley, Sperry, Kirkham, and many others wrote over the last 100+ years, the Church and average members knew much about it and were comfortable with it until the 1970s and 1980s (influenced by the Smith/McConkie family). 

In other words, citing only the Fielding Smith/McConkies to show that Brodie is vindicated at the expense of Nibley, et. al. (i.e., that the Church as a whole denied seer stones until Brodie's book) isn't a valid way to prove this. It proves only the Fielding Smith/McConkie party line. 

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

Can you name someone not in or married into the Fielding Smith/McConkie family? I already cited Joseph Fielding McConkie in the BoA thread as being a "seer stone denier," but he's family.  It does seem to me that the seer stone denier extremism is really only perpetuated today by McConkie-ite Mormons. 

B.H. Roberts, in the priesthood manuals (Church-wide, obviously endorsed by the Church) from 1903-1906, spoke openly and acceptingly of seer stones being used in the translation process. cf. Defense of the Faith and the Saints, volume 1, 162-184 passim. Have you ever heard of the museum of Church relics held by the Wilford C. Wood family in Woods Cross, Utah? They have several seer stones from prominent members (and many other important Church artifacts. They held key BoM manuscript parts that were preserved and transcribed with permission for the Critical Text Project). What makes Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, et. al.'s denials kind of embarrassing is that they knew about Joseph's use of seer stones and personal stones, but downplayed it because they personally didn't like the idea and thought that it would impeach Joseph Smith's legitimacy if people believed it. But, as Roberts, Nibley, Sperry, Kirkham, and many others wrote over the last 100+ years, the Church and average members knew much about it and were comfortable with it until the 1970s and 1980s (influenced by the Smith/McConkie family). 

In other words, citing only the Fielding Smith/McConkies to show that Brodie is vindicated at the expense of Nibley, et. al. (i.e., that the Church as a whole denied seer stones until Brodie's book) isn't a valid way to prove this. It proves only the Fielding Smith/McConkie party line. 

What I quoted was a beloved apostle, a church historian and past president/prophet of the LDS church...but I could link to the Ensign peep stone article as well if you'd like

Edited February 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that the Church once regarded those items as anti-Mormon lies that have now been adopted as "mainstream facts by the Church."

Well, maybe Richard Bushman can convince you:

Quote

The stories of the Smith family performing magic rituals in the woods while hunting for buried gold or boxes of watches were the single element of the Prophet’s history that most differentiated Mormon accounts of his early life from the accounts of non-Mormons. Fawn Brodie . . . devoted much of a chapter to the Smiths’ nocturnal expeditions and their attempts to elude the guardian spirits who protected the treasure. At a trial in 1826, a witness told of Joseph directing money diggers to pursue a trunk that kept sinking deeper into the earth whenever their spades struck it. None of this appeared in Mormon accounts. Joseph admitted to employment by Josiah Stowell (also Stoal) in 1825 to dig for Spanish coins, but he claimed he had little faith in the venture and eventually persuaded Stowell to give it up. Later he implied that the stories about his treasure seeking were unfounded exaggerations of this one incident. . . . 

The response of Mormon historians in the 1970s was to deny almost everything. Beyond the Josiah Stowell incident, they argued, all the money-digging stories were fabrications of Joseph Smith’s enemies. They claimed that the sources for the stories were corrupted and therefore not to be trusted. . . .

Another fabrication, in their view, involved a purported trial in 1826 in which Joseph Smith was accused of “glass looking”—looking into a peep stone to find lost objects and buried treasure. The details of this trial came to light in 1873 based on court minutes that were supposedly brought to Utah by a niece of the justice at the trial, later a missionary with Daniel S. Tuttle, the Episcopal bishop of Utah. All this seemed too contrived to be taken seriously, and Church historians dismissed it all as the work of overzealous critics who sought to discredit the Prophet.

— Richard Lyman Bushman, "Joseph Smith and Money Digging," in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), Kindle locations 130–155.

Thus, for example, Elder John Widtsoe, in Joseph Smith: Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (1951), argued that Joseph was never involved in money-digging except during his brief employment with Josiah Stowell (p.34) and denied that Joseph ever used a seer stone to locate lost treasure: "Enemies have suggested, and widely circulated the suggestion that Stoal employed Joseph because he was said to have a peepstone by which lost treasure could be located. The suggestion is of course based upon his claim of having had communications with heavenly beings" (p. 34). Widtsoe also claimed that Joseph's 1826 charge of being a disorderly person "was found groundless" and suggested that "it was done to get him out of the country and away from Emma" (p. 35).

Hugh Nibley's 1961 The Myth Makers went even further, suggesting that there never was an 1826 trial. In his 1991 foreword to Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, historian David Whittaker acknowledged that a number of Nibley's conclusions had not aged well. Noting that Nibley "made no claims to be an expert in American or Mormon history" and wrote "in part under assignment, and preferring that his time could be devoted to other projects," Whittaker wrote: "Readers thirty years later should not be surprised to discover that, with the subsequent professionalization of the Church library and archives, the study of Mormon history has progressed on a variety of details discussed in Nibley’s works. For example, recent work has been done on the now available accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, as well as on money digging and his 1826 trial, and the earliest treatments of his religious claims. . . . Such new research has strengthened Nibley’s arguments in many cases; it has corrected him in others."

Now, of course, Joseph Smith's youthful involvement in folk magic and his 1826 trial as a "glass looker" are old hat. A senior historian in the Church History Department and research and review editor for the Joseph Smith Papers even wrote a thesis on "Joseph Smith as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet."

Edited February 2, 2017 by Nevo