Fawn Brodie...

[MikeWaters]

...evidence that she was screwed up in the head:

1. homeschooled
2. graduated from Univ. of Utah

so she only "occasionally" taught history at UCLA. I wonder what her title was.

This is hilarious:

Gary Wills's review in the New York Review of Books is as acerbic as it is informative: "Two vast things, each wondrous in itself, combine to make this book a prodigy -— the author's industry, and her ignorance. One can only be so intricately wrong by deep study and long effort, enough to make Ms. Brodie the fasting hermit and very saint of ignorance. The result has an eerie perfection, as if all the world's greatest builders had agreed to rear, with infinite skill, the world's ugliest building." (NYROB Volume 12, Number 6, 18 April 1974)

Was she a kept woman?

Her husband Bernard preceded her in death by cancer in 1978. Brodie maintained many of the values taught by the LDS church such as strong ties to family which may have kept her loyal to Bernard in spite of a difficult marriage.

The author of the article makes a remark on what he considers her bias:

Her second biography, Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South (1959) was consciously an effort the rebuild the reputation of Thaddeus Stevens which she called an "about face" of her Smith biography's aims.

Says she requested a priesthood blessing while ill with cancer, before her death. I guess it's true there are no atheists in foxholes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Brodie

[SeattleUte]

Oh boy, Waters' post has so many lies in it I don't know where to start.

First, the Wikipedia article doesn't say Brodie asked for a priesthood blessing. It says she thanked her brother for the one he gave her, unilaterally. Big difference. And her brother is credited as the source of this story. The article does not equivocate about her "title" at UCLA. it says she was a "professor." That means she was tenured. In real academic circles Nibley couldn't carry her jock strap, er, jockey shorts.

The weakness in the book specifically cited by the article is that she dismissed the Solomon Spaulding theory as a plausible explanation for authorship of the Book of Mormon without fully exploring it as a possibility. Huh? The Solomon Spaulding theory is an anti-Mormon theory. The article says that her critics cite her conjectures associated with psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith. As I've written before, so what? This is an easy mark but it's 1% of the book. And her conjectures are grounded in fact. Is it unfounded speculation to say that Joseph was a sexual hedonist and a spinner of tall tales? Many would say that you could draw a different conclusion but these conclusions do have basis in fact.

The invective always leveled at Brodie reminds me of the oft-repeated assertion that a bunch of eyewitnesses saw the angel and the golden plates and made sworn statements to that effect--people repeatedly assert this because their parents and grand parents and great grandparents did, without even stopping to think whether an original or facsimile of an original document exists with actual signatures, etc., or, as noted by Mark Twain, that just about all of these purported witnesses were Whitmers.

Likewise, people dismiss Brodie as a liar just because that's what they've always heard, but they don't bother to read a line of the book.

Where are Brodie's lies? No one can identify any factual inaccuracies. That's an amazing achievement when you consider the bull's eye that's been painted on the book from its inception. Oh, and, how about the Church excommunicating her because she refused to denounce or re-write the book. Thank God for our "free agency."

In fact, Brodie's facts are now taken as established, are still widely discussed and analyzed, and are a starting point for current biographers including apologists such as Bushman. (Bushman IS an apologist just by refusing to address whether Joseph was a fraud. As Archea notes, any history of Joseph is "near history." He isn't Moses; an honest and unbiased biographer of Joseph Smith must forthrightly address the odds that he is a fraud, and explain his conclusion. Mullahs don't like any book that's not a "testimony" of the veracity of Joseph's story. Obviously if Bushman had written such a book only Deseret Book would have published it, and the readers would have been a limited class.) Bushman and every other JS biographer owes a huge debt to Brodie whether or not acknowledged.

Here is the genesis of the charges that Brody told "lies":

When Brody pointed out close parallels between the Masonic rituals and Mormon temple rites, and that Joseph Smith was a Mason for a long time, at the time this was a revolutionary, stunning revelation. It had been buried under a heap of myth and sheer ignorance. She identified anachronisms in the Book of Mormon such as horses, steel, the written word, to which no one (except poor dismissed B.H. Roberts) had paid much attention. She drew comparisons showing that the Masons were an inspiration for the Gadianton robbers, and between prevalent frontier mythology in Joseph's time and the origin and fate of the Nephites and Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon that to this day haven't been challenged, and in fact to which Bushman himself paid homage. In a highly illuminating passage she conclusively demonstrated that Lehi's "dream" regarding the tree of life was lifted from a letter from Joseph's father to his mother describing a dream had by his father. She unearthed and fleshed out B.H Roberts' revealing analysis of close similarities between Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" and The Book of Mormon, also noting that Ethan Smith was Oliver Cowdery's minister. Her critical analysis of the Book of Abraham and the circumstances of its creation presciently foreshadowed the discovery of the papyri in the Metropolitan Museum, the resulting debunking of any idea that they contained the contents of the purported Book of Abraham, and the heat Mormonism would eventually take for practicing racial apartheid. She shed light on the rampant lechery, sexual predation, sexism, and marital infidelity that in Mormon lore was placed under the rubric of "polygamy," including the facts about Fanny Alger.

Where, pray tell, are the lies? I don't see any "lies," not in Brodie's book about Joseph anyway. And as any honest reader acknowledges, it is awesomely well written. It's an amazing achievement from a girl, out of our own culture, raised in the sticks to do nothing but bear kids and clean house, of which we all, every one of us, should be damn proud.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Oh boy, Waters' post has so many lies in it I don't know where to start.

First, the Wikipedia article doesn't say Brodie asked for a priesthood blessing. It says she thanked her brother for the one he gave her, unilaterally. Big difference. And her brother is credited as the source of this story. The article does not equivocate about her "title" at UCLA. it says she was a "professor." That means she was tenured. In real academic circles Nibley couldn't carry her jock strap, er, jockey shorts.

The weakness in the book specifically cited by the article is that she dismissed the Solomon Spaulding theory as a plausible explanation for authorship of the Book of Mormon without fully exploring it as a possibility. Huh? The Solomon Spaulding theory is an anti-Mormon theory. The article says that her critics cite her conjectures associated with psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith. As I've written before, so what? This is an easy mark but it's 1% of the book. And her conjectures are grounded in fact. Is it unfounded speculation to say that Joseph was a sexual hedonist and a spinner of tall tales? Many would say that you could draw a different conclusion but these conclusions do have basis in fact.

The invective always leveled at Brodie reminds me of the oft-repeated assertion that a bunch of eyewitnesses saw the angel and the golden plates and made sworn statements to that effect--people repeatedly assert this because their parents and grand parents and great grandparents did, without even stopping to think whether an original or facsimile of an original document exists with actual signatures, etc., or, as noted by Mark Twain, that just about all of these purported witnesses were Whitmers.

Likewise, people dismiss Brodie as a liar just because that's what they've always heard, but they don't bother to read a line of the book.

Where are Brodie's lies? No one can identify any factual inaccuracies. That's an amazing achievement when you consider the bull's eye that's been painted on the book from its inception. Oh, and, how about the Church excommunicating her because she refused to denounce or re-write the book. Thank God for our "free agency."

In fact, Brodie's facts are now taken as established, are still widely discussed and analyzed, and are a starting point for current biographers including apologists such as Bushman. (Bushman IS an apologist just by refusing to address whether Joseph was a fraud. As Archea notes, any history of Joseph is "near history." He isn't Moses; an honest and unbiased biographer of Joseph Smith must forthrightly address the odds that he is a fraud, and explain his conclusion. Mullahs don't like any book that's not a "testimony" of the veracity of Joseph's story. Obviously if Bushman had written such a book only Deseret Book would have published it, and the readers would have been a limited class.) Bushman and every other JS biographer owes a huge debt to Brodie whether or not acknowledged.

Here is the genesis of the charges that Brody told "lies":

When Brody pointed out close parallels between the Masonic rituals and Mormon temple rites, and that Joseph Smith was a Mason for a long time, at the time this was a revolutionary, stunning revelation. It had been buried under a heap of myth and sheer ignorance. She identified anachronisms in the Book of Mormon such as horses, steel, the written word, to which no one (except poor dismissed B.H. Roberts) had paid much attention. She drew comparisons showing that the Masons were an inspiration for the Gadianton robbers, and between prevalent frontier mythology in Joseph's time and the origin and fate of the Nephites and Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon that to this day haven't been challenged, and in fact to which Bushman himself paid homage. In a highly illuminating passage she conclusively demonstrated that Lehi's "dream" regarding the tree of life was lifted from a letter from Joseph's father to his mother describing a dream had by his father. She unearthed and fleshed out B.H Roberts' revealing analysis of close similarities between Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" and The Book of Mormon, also noting that Ethan Smith was Oliver Cowdery's minister. Her critical analysis of the Book of Abraham and the circumstances of its creation presciently foreshadowed the discovery of the papyri in the Metropolitan Museum, the resulting debunking of any idea that they contained the contents of the purported Book of Abraham, and the heat Mormonism would eventually take for practicing racial apartheid. She shed light on the rampant lechery, sexual predation, sexism, and marital infidelity that in Mormon lore was placed under the rubric of "polygamy," including the facts about Fanny Alger.

Where, pray tell, are the lies? I don't see any "lies," not in Brodie's book about Joseph anyway. And as any honest reader acknowledges, it is awesomely well written. It's an amazing achievement from a girl, out of our own culture, raised in the sticks to do nothing but bear kids and clean house, of which we all, every one of us, should be damn proud.

The lies are in her conjecture ... there is no way around it, gender, education, how much time she spent teaching at an institution of higher learning is irrelevant. Conjecture is judgment based upon inconclusive evidence.

[fusnik11]

She is from Ogden, she is quality people.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

She is from Ogden, she is quality people.

Is she legion because there are many?

[MikeWaters]

I missed the first sentence that said she was a professor.

The article does say she requested the blessing. At least by my interpretation of this statement (bold is my emphasis):

Actually, Brodie only thanked her brother Thomas for a "priesthood blessing"—a type of special prayer requested by Brodie

SeattleUte makes it seem as if Brodie's conjecture has established the Book of Mormon as fraud, formuated and penned by J.S. I don't know that that is the current opinion most scholars. But who am I?

So Seattle, do you think that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, in a fashion not inspired by extra-terrestrial beings/forces?

The Book of Mormon is by far the most important product of J.S. It stands here today as a document that defies simple explanation. And pardon me if I get a bit religious here, which I know is uncool--it is the vehicle that allows for the revelation of God to Man of the restoration of His church (for those of us who believe such a process exists).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So Seattle, do you think that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, in a fashion not inspired by extra-terrestrial beings/forces?

I think it was a product of his industry and imagination.

[SeattleUte]

The whole story about the priesthood blessing is suspect. As the article notes, purportedly her active brother is the source of it. Still, it appears the product of many layers of hearsay. As the article notes, people have tried to embelish the story into her asking to be re-baptized, which the article notes is false. Finally, while I admire Wikipedia, needless to say it's not wholly realiable.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The whole story about the priesthood blessing is suspect. As the article notes, purportedly her active brother is the source of it. Still, it appears the product of many layers of hearsay. As the article notes, people have tried to embelish the story into her asking to be re-baptized, which the article notes is false. Finally, while I admire Wikipedia, needless to say it's not wholly realiable.

You're no better than an apologist and wouldn't make a very good historian.


As soon as information appears that doesn't fit within your world view, you dismiss it out of hand.

BTW, I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, but I don't find it odd for a dying person to have somebody pray for them. Even the cynic may think, "hey, if it's not true and I die, no harm done, but if there is some truth, then it might help." I'd say that might be somebody covering her bases. Dying people, even hard core cynics act differently during the moment of death, not that they are any closer to perceiving truth but they change, at least the few deaths I have witnessed.

So it is possible, it was fabricated or it is also plausibly true. Either her corpse has decomposed and nothing further awaits Brodie, or she waits in Dante's infernal at the lowest level of purgatory.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The whole story about the priesthood blessing is suspect. As the article notes, purportedly her active brother is the source of it. Still, it appears the product of many layers of hearsay. As the article notes, people have tried to embelish the story into her asking to be re-baptized, which the article notes is false. Finally, while I admire Wikipedia, needless to say it's not wholly realiable.

Seattle what if I were tell you I have read extensive documents that show that Brodie struggled with his testimony even though by all public accounts it was gone? In other words, throughout her whole life she wrestled with the feelings she had concerning witnesses she felt were bore to her by a higher being that contradicted the message she presented in her book?

Would that lessen the content of the book?