Should Fawn Brodie's Excommunication be Over Turned?

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

(Incidentally, it launches a rather powerful attack on Brodie, in my opinion. In recent years, the pam-

phlet has been so criticized for its sarcasm that it was a pleasure for me to discover on rereading it

how on the mark it was.)

I believe that it wasn't criticized for its sarcasm as much as for its blatant sexism, misogyny and resorting to personal attacks against Brodie.  Nibley could have written an effective review without doing that.

Earlier in this thread, Nevo did a good job of describing what he sunk to:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68570-should-fawn-brodies-excommunication-be-over-turned/?do=findComment&comment=1209693507

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Aren't you doing a bit of psychoanalysis yourself here to judge Brodie?

That was the joke. That if we give Brodie a pass on these matters then we get to do the same with Brodie. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 2/1/2017 at 10:15 AM, Buckeye said:

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

She lied about being his daughter so she could get access to records at the Church Archives. Apparently there was a heated confrontation there between her and McKay.

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Back when this thread first started, I quote Bushman from that Bushman text on Nibley and Brodie,  page 9, end of second paragraph, the passage I was thinking of:

My apologies. I came a little late to the thread and hadn't read all the early comments. I probably should do that but it can be a bit daunting if you come late. Rereading them now.

[clarkgoble]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:49 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I think his work is pretty dated. I'd never refer to it as a good overview of the issues. But many of his arguments have withstood the test of time whereas some definitely haven't. (Speaking in general and not just of his Brodie review)

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

She lied about being his daughter so she could get access to records at the Church Archives. Apparently there was a heated confrontation there between her and McKay.

Can I issue a friendly CFR on that?  I'd love to read what took place!  Thanks in advance.

(I'll try to look it up too!)

Edited April 28, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

On 2/1/2017 at 1:53 PM, 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?

I wouldn't assume spirit prison is close enough to Mormon expectations to entail anyone with a background tied to Mormonism would immediately see Mormonism as true. That would seem to undermine the very notion of conversion. So presumably the veil of forgetfulness is in place and things are ambiguous enough, despite life after death, for other religious views to hold sway.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Can I issue a friendly CFR on that?  I'd love to read what took place!  Thanks in advance.

(I'll try to look it up too!)

It's in the wikipedia entry for Brodie. 

Quote

Eventually she returned to Utah, where she did research in the LDS Church Archives, gaining access to some highly restricted materials by claiming to be "Brother McKay's daughter," a subterfuge that made her feel "guilty as hell."^[18] Her pursuit of little-known documents was not discreet enough, and eventually it attracted the attention of her uncle David O. McKay. After a "painful, acrimonious encounter" with her uncle, Brodie promised never again to consult materials in the Church Archives.^[19]

The references are to Newell G. Bringhurst (1999). Fawn McKay Brodie: a Biographer's Life.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I believe that it wasn't criticized for its sarcasm as much as for its blatant sexism, misogyny and resorting to personal attacks against Brodie.  Nibley could have written an effective review without doing that.

If Brodie was to be judged in terms of her times then to be fair so should Nibley. The 40's weren't exactly the same as the present in terms of how such phrases were viewed. Today we have an ethic that any phrase that could be taken as demeaning and essentially tied to their feminine gender is completely inappropriate. (And I have no problem most of the time with that ethic) That simply wasn't the case in the 40's. And even today if we reversed the gender such comments would be fine. So consider contemporary view of the following inverted quotes from Nevo:

• "The reader who has plunked down four dollars has a right to expect something better than proof that is always found to rest on nothing but the man’s instincts."
• "In dealing with Emma, our author allows free rein to his man's intuition."
• "Time and again the discriminating reader asks in wonderment, 'Can’t the dear man do better than this?'" 

However completely justifiably we cringe at any reference to "woman's intuition" since women's voices have so often been devalued and demeaned by appealing to it. Yet as a criticism of the appeal to intuition I think Nibley often was on firm ground. That's a criticism even contemporary reassessments of Brodie still tend to make. And, as I mentioned earlier, it's a criticism people make of people following in Brodie's footsteps like Vogel.

Edited April 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's in the wikipedia entry for Brodie. 

The references are to Newell G. Bringhurst (1999). Fawn McKay Brodie: a Biographer's Life.

Wow...so interesting!  Thanks, Clark.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think his work is pretty dated. I'd never refer to it as a good overview of the issues. But many of his arguments have withstood the test of time whereas some definitely haven't. (Speaking in general and not just of his Brodie review)

OK.

But you didn't really address my question, which was this:

Quote

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

So when you say his work has fallen into disfavor, you mean that some unspecified individuals frown on it, while others presumably think it  holds up pretty well. Which is no startling newsflash.

When you say a thing "has fallen into disfavor," there seems to be an implied meaning there that it has been universally discredited, which may or may not be the case (I don't believe it is in this instance). That's why I felt to probe a bit.

 

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So when you say his work has fallen into disfavor, you mean that some unspecified individuals frown on it, while others presumably think it  holds up pretty well. Which is no startling newsflash.

When you say a thing "has fallen into disfavor," there seems to be an implied meaning there that it has been universally discredited, which may or may not be the case (I don't believe it is in this instance). That's why I felt to probe a bit.

I think being seen as dated is the same as disfavor. Again, that's not to deny it's important place historically nor the things it gets right. Perhaps an analogy would be apt. No one uses B. H. Robert's histories as reliable guides and the first place one looks. People still see Robert's place as hugely important. And most of what Roberts says is right. But they are dated. Most of Nibley's apologetics are 50 years old or older. His stuff on Brodie is more than 70 years old. A lot of new data has come out and some of the data he used is faulty. 

As for who, I think the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism edited by Givens is a good example. Again this is no fault on Nibley. It's just that it's dated work. Often he was a trailblazer opening up new vistas for others to come and examine more closely. By way of analogy it's akin to biologists finding interesting things in mice models. Some things pan out when they start looking at human biology but many things don't. It doesn't mean such investigations on mice aren't valuable or important.

Edited April 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

Contra Wikipedia, Brodie did not gain access to "highly restricted" materials at the church archives.

Quote

While in Salt Lake, Brodie also visited the Mormon Church Library-Archives. But she quickly found access to research materials very restricted. She later recalled, "I learned very quickly that almost everyone is barred from its gates" with "a rule ... in force forbidding anyone access ... who is not completely without guile." Brodie attributed her own access to the fact that she was introduced as "Brother McKay's daughter," which made her feel "as guilty as hell.' She pursued her research but was initially very discreet: "I was scrupulously careful not to ask for anything remotely anti-Mormon." She spent most of her time going through two early Mormon newspapers published in Nauvoo, The Wasp and the Nauvoo Neighbor, which she characterized as "rich" with information.

Near the end of her visit, Brodie summoned enough courage to ask Assistant Church Historian A. William Lund for permission to examine manuscript material, in particular Joseph Smith's diary in his own handwriting—a 93-page account. Lund then referred Brodie to Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith as the only person who could grant such permission, acting in his capacity as official Mormon church historian. In meeting with Smith, Brodie told the Mormon apostle "quite frankly" that she "was trying to write scholarly and accurate history, to avoid sensationalizing and fictionalizing of any sort." She clearly stated that she was working on her own and without her father's blessing. Brodie characterized Smith's reaction to her own frankness as "most unfriendly." But Brodie pushed ahead, questioning Smith "about source materials in regard to polygamy in Nauvoo." According to Brodie, this high Mormon official gave her some rather astonishing answers. Among other things, he noted, "There are things in this library we don't let anyone see." He also told her that "a revelation on polygamy came as early as 1831 but has never been printed because it would be misinterpreted by the bulk of the church members."

— Newell G. Bringhurst, "A Biography of the Biography: The Research and Writing of No Man Knows My History," in Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1996), 15–16.

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think being seen as dated is the same as disfavor. Again, that's not to deny it's important place historically nor the things it gets right. Perhaps an analogy would be apt. No one uses B. H. Robert's histories as reliable guides and the first place one looks. People still see Robert's place as hugely important. And most of what Roberts says is right. But they are dated. Most of Nibley's apologetics are 50 years old or older. His stuff on Brodie is more than 70 years old. A lot of new data has come out and some of the data he used is faulty. 

As for who, I think the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism edited by Givens is a good example. Again this is no fault on Nibley. It's just that it's dated work. Often he was a trailblazer opening up new vistas for others to come and examine more closely. By way of analogy it's akin to biologists finding interesting things in mice models. Some things pan out when they start looking at human biology but many things don't. It doesn't mean such investigations on mice aren't valuable or important.

Not to beat this into the ground, but now that I understand more clearly (I think) what it is you are trying to say, I would disagree that saying something is "dated" is a precise equivalent of saying it has "fallen into disfavor." Nor would I agree that the fact that subsequent scholars have built on Nibley's work and rebutted later and more sophisticated attacks on the Book of Mormon as they arose over time (something one would expect to happen) means that Nibley's work today is necessarily looked upon disfavorably, as though it had been debunked or falsified (something you have  not established).

It's an argument over semantics, I suppose, but "fallen into disfavor" strikes me as far too harsh a term for what you are endeavoring to convey,

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Contra Wikipedia, Brodie did not gain access to "highly restricted" materials at the church archives.

I wonder if Bringhurst changed his mind between the period he wrote the biography the wikipage references and that chapter in the Reconsidering collection. Anyone have a copy of the biography? It's out of print.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's an argument over semantics, I suppose, but "fallen into disfavor" strikes me as far too harsh a term for what you are endeavoring to convey,

That's a fair point. I suppose I'd perhaps qualify it as fallen into disfavor as a trustworthy primary source.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a fair point. I suppose I'd perhaps qualify it as fallen into disfavor as a trustworthy primary source.

Fair enough.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I believe that it wasn't criticized for its sarcasm as much as for its blatant sexism, misogyny and resorting to personal attacks against Brodie.  Nibley could have written an effective review without doing that.

Earlier in this thread, Nevo did a good job of describing what he sunk to:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68570-should-fawn-brodies-excommunication-be-over-turned/?do=findComment&comment=1209693507

 

Mid-20th century authorship and candor meets early-21st century political correctness. Result: Garden-variety presentism.

 

[juliann]

On 2/2/2017 at 0:10 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

 

In Hugh Nibley's book, The Myth Makers, he devotes almost an entire chapter discrediting the "Bainbridge court record. On page 142, he wrote  "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith"  and on the same page he wrote,  " and the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

Since the discovery in 1971 of the summons, trial notes, court record, Judge Neeley's bill for the trial costs and court witness statements, the charge is no longer disputed by Bushman, FARMS or any other LDS source I can find. 

 

 

I have to go from memory right now, but these sentences have been lifted out of context so I have to ask what your source is. What hasn't been found is the "damning" account that Bishop claimed found Joseph guilty...from his maid or someone.. So Nibley is asking why, if such proof existed, didn't Bishop mention it at all in his memoir.  So unless this maid's account has been found, that quote should not be used to mean something it didn't mean. 

None of that has anything to do with the reality. It is about representing sources accurately.

[juliann]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:15 AM, JulieM said:

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

Even Bushman speaks well of her book:

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

I was at Claremont as the Mormon Studies program was developed and Bushman became Chair. Brodie's book will always be an influence, as he states, but that isn't the issue. The problem with her book is its genre, psychobiography. That is why it isn't always respected. Bushman puts Vogel's book into the same genre. And it wasn't just him. Google it to see why it can be problematic and why she ran into problems doing the same thing with Jefferson. 

It also makes going after Nibley for anti-woman comments more complicated because psychobiography of Brodie's time was influenced by Freud. It doesn't get more misogynistic than that. 

 

[Nevo]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

The problem with her book is its genre, psychobiography. That is why it isn't always respected. Bushman puts Vogel's book into the same genre. And it wasn't just him.

I suggest you read Charles Cohen's article that Clark linked to earlier in the thread. This is a tired criticism that needs to be laid to rest. No Man Knows My History is no more of a psychobiography than Rough Stone Rolling is.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I suggest you read Charles Cohen's article that Clark linked to earlier in the thread. This is a tired criticism that needs to be laid to rest. No Man Knows My History is no more of a psychobiography than Rough Stone Rolling is.

Well, that wasn't exactly Cohen's argument. It was that the original version of NMKMH wasn't a formal psychoanalytic biography other than the revision part added in 1971. That is her formal embrace came after she'd finished the book and was moving on. However as Cohen notes towards the end, Brodie picked up the cultural attitude of her time which was perfused with Freudian models and anti-religious stances. (If Joseph is seen in terms of his culture to explain things, so too ought Brodie) 

Cohen's main critique is that she's psychologizing but doing it just by intuition. And not just intuition but, quoting Anderson on Brodie, pure invention. (This was Nibley's main critique too as the quotes you provided showed) So Cohen isn't disputing it as psychobiography. He's just disputing it's an informed psychobiology. Quoting him:

Quote

But if psychoanalysis did not inform the original text in 1945, what psychology did? The answer seems two-fold. For one thing, Brodie employed "common sense" psychology, an utterly theoretical approach (though for all that the tool of perhaps most historians most of the time), which is based on a scholar's own knowledge of human actions as much as anything else, and that views people's motives as conscious and their behavior straightforward. 

 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

Nevo had asked for references or examples here, Storm Rider (in response to your post above):

Nevo:  "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."

I'm interested in seeing those too if you've had time to find them.  Thanks!

I currently don't have my library with me and I doubt I could find my notes anywhere when I studied her book on Joseph Smith.  However, I googled the topic and I will list one link that will answer the question, but those who are interested will need to extend some effort by reading a lot of material. 

When historians, particularly ones that only seek to support their thesis like Brodie, make allegations the objective is to approach the topic from an open position.  Doing so may necessitate that they change their thesis or mold it around the facts.  I don't think Brodie every did this adequately.

As far as reversing her excommunication such an action is dependent upon repentance.  Has anyone any evidence that she every wanted to rejoin the church of her childhood?   

[Calm]

"but those who are interested will need to extend some effort by reading a lot of material."

Unfortunately that doesn't fill the requirement for the claim since you could spend do the same if you cared to.  The notes not being available to you is a different case and that is quite understandable, this is as available to you as it is to anyone else.

Just saying, not suggesting you have to look for them, making an observation that you just need to remove your claim if you aren't going to, that this link doesn't meet board standards.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Calm

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So Cohen isn't disputing it as psychobiography. He's just disputing it's an informed psychobiography.

Well, I suppose we could email Cohen and ask him but I think he is disputing that label. You seem to be drawing a distinction between formal psychobiography and informal psychobiography. But Cohen doesn't describe the book in those terms at all. He never refers to it as a "psychobiography" of any sort. Indeed, his major argument is that the 1945 book is not "written from a psychodynamic or psychoanalytic point of view" (to quote a standard definition). Yes, Brodie employed "common sense" psychology in her biography, but that doesn't mean she was writing psychohistory or psychobiography. 

Virtually all biographers "psychologize" to some degree. Few entirely eschew the temptation to try to get inside the heads of their subjects at times. Bushman, for example, suggests that Joseph's love for his father "may have included sympathy for a life blighted by shame," that Joseph "made his father's pain his own," and theorizes that, "in restoring priesthood, Joseph restored fatherhood" (see pp. 42, 263). Yet no one labels Rough Stone Rolling a psychohistory (even though Bushman was trained in psychohistory and admits it shaped his interpretation of Joseph Smith).

With regard to the supposed Freudian influences on No Man Knows My History, Cohen writes: 

Quote

The best one can do is to scan No Man Knows My History for some trace of psychoanalytic language, interpretation, or techniques with which someone familiar with one or more of Freud's works might have been conversant. . . . Few such references jump out from the original text. Brodie hardly even gestured toward Freudian theory, let alone employed it systematically, at one point even twitting 'psychiatric analyses' (in general) for having 'been content to pin a label' on Smith while ignoring 'his greatest creative achievement [the Book of Mormon] because they found it dull.' . . . Her clearest debt to Freud might have been her discussion of Smith's sexuality, yet Freud's influence seems to have extended only insofar as making it the subject of hot intellectual conversation. . . . The extent to which Brodie deserves any reputation for psychohistory in No Man Knows My History depends entirely upon the Supplement added in 1971, and even much of that essay is devoted to non-psychological matter."

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Nevo