Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?

[Johnnie Cake]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is it any different than intelligent, honest human beings believing that someone can raise someone else from the dead, or that a man can be resurrected after His death?

Where are we supposed to draw the line?  

😳

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

😳

Whenever someone tries to argue (or implies in their argument) that only atheists are honest and intelligent, then it's easy to know that there's no reason to engage that person anymore because they aren't being logical or reasonable.  Hopefully he'll be back to answer the question.  

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Whenever someone tries to argue (or implies in their argument) that only atheists are honest and intelligent, then it's easy to know that there's no reason to engage that person anymore because they aren't being logical or reasonable.  Hopefully he'll be back to answer the question.  

The trick in life for me is trying to figure out how to engage a person who we assume aren't being logical or reasonable.  His statement seemed more snarky then conclusive to me. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

His statement seemed more snarky then conclusive to me. 

Hence, the clarifying questions.  

 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hence, the clarifying questions.  

 

I'd agree, it doesn't seem like he's interested in engaging.  That's too bad, I like differing perspectives. 

[sjdawg]

On 2/1/2017 at 7:57 PM, 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. 

That is far different that how the LDS Church selects its sources.  Correct?

[sjdawg]

On 2/2/2017 at 4:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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

 

I hadn't realized there was an interesting part to his written discourse.  My mistake

[Johnnie Cake]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

Whenever someone tries to argue (or implies in their argument) that only atheists are honest and intelligent, then it's easy to know that there's no reason to engage that person anymore because they aren't being logical or reasonable.  Hopefully he'll be back to answer the question.  

We often disagree but I've always appreciated your pragmatism and appreciation for viewing an argument from several viewpoints

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, sjdawg said:

That is far different that how the LDS Church selects its sources.  Correct?

This is really simple.  The Church does not seek out conflicting facts - it looks to teach a principle and uses sources that support that conclusion.

Contrast that strategy with a historian that chooses a specific outcome and then does their research and then ignores all facts that conflicts with their thesis.  One is a study for faith promotion and the others is supposed to be a historian.  Instead of being a historian she choose to be something less than honest.  She chose to prove a thesis by ignoring facts.

I don't see either party initially even playing in the same game or sphere.  

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is really simple.  The Church does not seek out conflicting facts - it looks to teach a principle and uses sources that support that conclusion.

Contrast that strategy with a historian that chooses a specific outcome and then does their research and then ignores all facts that conflicts with their thesis.  One is a study for faith promotion and the others is supposed to be a historian.  Instead of being a historian she choose to be something less than honest.  She chose to prove a thesis by ignoring facts.

I don't see either party initially even playing in the same game or sphere.  

I guess it's a question of whether an organization who represents it's faith promoting stories as history should be more responsible in doing history when telling history. 

[Nevo]

On 2/1/2017 at 8:57 AM, Storm Rider said:

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. 

 

On 2/1/2017 at 5:14 PM, Storm Rider said:

She wrote for an agenda and she purposely chose to ignore facts that conflicted with her agenda.

 

On 2/1/2017 at 5:22 PM, Storm Rider said:

She wrote what I call propaganda - she had an agenda and sought to prove her thesis not by accurate research, but by excluding facts that conflicted with her objective. 

 

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Instead of being a historian she chose to be something less than honest.  She chose to prove a thesis by ignoring facts.

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

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, February 06, 2017 at 9:08 PM, JLHPROF said:

Why?

And I mean that seriously.  Why is that particular claim so much less acceptable/believable than any other?
Scripture makes repeated reference to similar usage of "rocks".

Bruce R. McConkie made this statement: "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" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp.565-66).

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Bruce R. McConkie made this statement: "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" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp.565-66).

Yes, there are Satanic counterfeits for most sacred principles.
In fact, if you can find a Satanic principle, there is probably a corresponding principle of righteousness.  His entire methodology is to make us choose the false version and dismiss the true one.
The principle of marriage comes to mind...

[clarkgoble]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:44 AM, 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."

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

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

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by clarkgoble
Typo. Wrote Lincoln instead of Nixon. Whoa what a flub.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, there are Satanic counterfeits for most sacred principles.
In fact, if you can find a Satanic principle, there is probably a corresponding principle of righteousness.  His entire methodology is to make us choose the false version and dismiss the true one.
The principle of marriage comes to mind...

Yet Joseph used a peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon. The long-preserved and protected Urim and Thummim were not used after the lost 116 pages, and Joseph then used what McConkie calls a Satanic imitation to translate the Book of Mormon.

[USU78]

On 2/8/2017 at 11:17 AM, stemelbow said:

I guess it's a question of whether an organization who represents it's faith promoting stories as history should be more responsible in doing history when telling history. 

Because no human or group of humanity could possibly, by turns, eat spinach and tapdance

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet Joseph used a peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon. The long-preserved and protected Urim and Thummim were not used after the lost 116 pages, and Joseph then used what McConkie calls a Satanic imitation to translate the Book of Mormon.

That is a matter of opinion.

Joseph used a seerstone to translate the Book of Mormon.
The Urim and Thummim are seerstones embedded in holders that can be worn.  But that is just one kind of Urim and Thummim.  We are taught that entire planets can be Urim and Thummim.

The line between peepstone and seerstone is the source of the power.  One appeals to folk magic, the other appeals to God for aid. 

Seerstones are a part of Mormon theology and feature throughout scripture.  If Joseph began using a peepstone and God chose to use that instrument to lead him in learning revelation I don't see why this is a problem.
I just don't understand why Joseph using a stone to translate bothers so many people.  Moses received the word of God written on stone tablets.  The Brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord turn stones into tools for lighting by filling them with power.  Why can't Joseph receive the word of God through stones?  And what difference does it make if the seerstone is embedded in a holder or held in his hand or *insert shock and horror* placed in a hat?

It's the power behind the message, not the tool by which it is received that matters.

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is a matter of opinion.

Joseph used a seerstone to translate the Book of Mormon.
The Urim and Thummim are seerstones embedded in holders that can be worn.  But that is just one kind of Urim and Thummim.  We are taught that entire planets can be Urim and Thummim.

The line between peepstone and seerstone is the source of the power.  One appeals to folk magic, the other appeals to God for aid. 

Seerstones are a part of Mormon theology and feature throughout scripture.  If Joseph began using a peepstone and God chose to use that instrument to lead him in learning revelation I don't see why this is a problem.
I just don't understand why Joseph using a stone to translate bothers so many people.  Moses received the word of God written on stone tablets.  The Brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord turn stones into tools for lighting by filling them with power.  Why can't Joseph receive the word of God through stones?  And what difference does it make if the seerstone is embedded in a holder or held in his hand or *insert shock and horror* placed in a hat?

It's the power behind the message, not the tool by which it is received that matters.

Once you detach yourself from the need to believe in it, the narrative including peepstones does take on a different appearance and inplications. But as long as you need it to be true, you might never be bothered by a thing.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, there are Satanic counterfeits for most sacred principles.
In fact, if you can find a Satanic principle, there is probably a corresponding principle of righteousness.  His entire methodology is to make us choose the false version and dismiss the true one.
The principle of marriage comes to mind...

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

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

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That is a matter of opinion.

Joseph used a seerstone to translate the Book of Mormon.
The Urim and Thummim are seerstones embedded in holders that can be worn.  But that is just one kind of Urim and Thummim.  We are taught that entire planets can be Urim and Thummim.

The line between peepstone and seerstone is the source of the power.  One appeals to folk magic, the other appeals to God for aid. 

Seerstones are a part of Mormon theology and feature throughout scripture.  If Joseph began using a peepstone and God chose to use that instrument to lead him in learning revelation I don't see why this is a problem.
I just don't understand why Joseph using a stone to translate bothers so many people.  Moses received the word of God written on stone tablets.  The Brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord turn stones into tools for lighting by filling them with power.  Why can't Joseph receive the word of God through stones?  And what difference does it make if the seerstone is embedded in a holder or held in his hand or *insert shock and horror* placed in a hat?

It's the power behind the message, not the tool by which it is received that matters.

Because all my life I was taught that the Golden Plates were important when is all that was needed is a peep stone.  We even sang songs about those Gold Plates.  We should have been singing songs about a rock in a hat.   Does that help you understand better why this is a problem for some? 

For you it changes nothing. For others it changes everything 

Edited April 28, 2017 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

Just now, california boy said:

Because all my life I was taught that the Golden Playes were important when is all that was needed is a peep stone.  We even sang songs about those Gold Plates.  We should have been singing songs about a rock in a hat.   Does that help you understand better why this is a problem for some? 

For you it changes nothing. For others it changes everything 

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

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because all my life I was taught that the Golden Playes were important when is all that was needed is a peep stone.  We even sang songs about those Gold Plates.  We should have been singing songs about a rock in a hat.   Does that help you understand better why this is a problem for some? 

For you it changes nothing. For others it changes everything 

And, McConkie is saying that the peepstones are Satanic.

[RevTestament]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:39 AM, 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...

Your characterizations are shall we say a little melodramatic. First, no one sent her to hell. I don't really know what kind of person Fawn Brodie is personally, but assuming she is a decent person, she probably won't spend an eternity in hell. Further, I believe some of her claims have for the most part been disproven. Unless she apologizes for those, and recants at least those portions of her work, no - her excommunication should not be "overturned." If she recants them and returns to the Church seeking readmittance, I would suppose the Church should consider it, but that is not "overturning" her excommunication. I believe it should stand as long as she stands by her book.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Your characterizations are shall we say a little melodramatic. First, no one sent her to hell. I don't really know what kind of person Fawn Brodie is personally, but assuming she is a decent person, she probably won't spend an eternity in hell. Further, I believe some of her claims have for the most part been disproven. Unless she apologizes for those, and recants at least those portions of her work, no - her excommunication should not be "overturned." If she recants them and returns to the Church seeking readmittance, I would suppose the Church should consider it, but that is not "overturning" her excommunication. I believe it should stand as long as she stands by her book.

She's dead. And not just mostly dead. She's dead, dead.

 

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And, McConkie is saying that the peepstones are Satanic.

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

Quote

Yet Joseph used a peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon. The long-preserved and protected Urim and Thummim were not used after the lost 116 pages, and Joseph then used what McConkie calls a Satanic imitation to translate the Book of Mormon.

We already had that debate, but it's not at all clear the U&T weren't used after the 116 pages. There are reasons to hold either view but the evidence is more ambiguous than you suggest. The main reason for the seer stone only view are primarily the late accounts of Emma and Martin Harris. The main reasons for the U&T being used at times are accounts it was returned. Even the late Harris accounts have the seer stone only being used for convenience. One issue is the possibility that a lens from the spectacles was popped out - although that's completely speculative. The strongest argument for the use of the U&T proper was that an early convert, Josiah Jones, describes the spectacles as being used during the period Cowdery was scribe thereby giving more weight to the early Cowdery accounts that had the U&T being used.

Edited April 28, 2017 by clarkgoble