One historian sits at the crossroads between the two

[MikeWaters]

most important LDS historians ever.

First off, the two most important LDS historians ever are 1) Fawn Brodie, and 2) Juanita Brooks.

When I see "sits at the crossroads", I mean that he mentored both these women, and strongly influenced their work such that it may not have been the same without him. Despite the fact that Brodie was an apostate, and Juanita was a committed member of the Mormon community and a believer. So who was this person?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

most important LDS historians ever.

First off, the two most important LDS historians ever are 1) Fawn Brodie, and 2) Juanita Brooks. . . . So who was this person?

Dale Morgan?

I think Quinn will crack this list when history has lent its perspective.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

Dale Morgan?

I think Quinn will crack this list when history has lent its perspective.

Yes, Dale Morgan. Grew up in the church, became deaf as a teenager after an illness. Became a historian of note himself. Was not a believer, but certainly wasn't anti-Mormon. He played mentor to both Brodie and Brooks.

Per the bio of Brooks, Brooks was an admirer of Brodie, probably because 1) Brodie was a woman, 2) she aimed for a more honest kind of history, and 3) she would also face the ire of the church.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, Dale Morgan. Grew up in the church, became deaf as a teenager after an illness. Became a historian of note himself. Was not a believer, but certainly wasn't anti-Mormon. He played mentor to both Brodie and Brooks.

Per the bio of Brooks, Brooks was an admirer of Brodie, probably because 1) Brodie was a woman, 2) she aimed for a more honest kind of history, and 3) she would also face the ire of the church.

It's too bad Morgan didn't finish his history of the Mormons. Some of his notes and letters on it were published by Signature in the 80s and is now available online: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org.../daletitle.htm

(Here's a review on JSTOR): http://www.jstor.org/stable/3640730

It's got letters to both Juanita and Fawn.

Good stuff.

[MikeWaters]

Brodie, as we know, held at the center of her theory of Joseph Smith, that he was a conscious and knowing Fraud. Juanita read the manuscript and did not agree with this tenet in particular (I join her in her opinion). But Morgan agreed with Brodie, on the basis of the inclusion of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Morgan was an atheist on his bad days, and an agnostic on his good days.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Brodie, as we know, held at the center of her theory of Joseph Smith, that he was a conscious and knowing Fraud. Juanita read the manuscript and did not agree with this tenet in particular (I join her in her opinion). But Morgan agreed with Brodie, on the basis of the inclusion of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Morgan was an atheist on his bad days, and an agnostic on his good days.

I read some of these letters on Saturday night while I was up with my kid, trying to get her to sleep. Morgan reads like he was a bit of an ass, but I thought this discussion between Brooks and Brodie, mediated through Morgan, was pretty darn interesting. I just wish I could have read more details of Brooks' critique of Brodie, rather than try to derive them from Morgan's response to her [Brooks].

[MikeWaters]

From the bio I am reading, Juanita was impressed, thought it was an important work, but disagreed with many of the conclusions. Morgan was impressed that Juanita didn't dismiss it out of hand, but addressed it on the issues.

Juanita was disappointed that Broadie was excommunicated, no doubt thinking that her time to be given a forced exit would come as well.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

From the bio I am reading, Juanita was impressed, thought it was an important work, but disagreed with many of the conclusions. Morgan was impressed that Juanita didn't dismiss it out of hand, but addressed it on the issues.

Juanita was disappointed that Broadie was excommunicated, no doubt thinking that her time to be given a forced exit would come as well.

Not that I'm in Brooks' league, I felt much the same about No Man Knows. Brodie's work makes tremendous use of primary sources, then goes into left field with its conclusions, seriously arguing for stuff like mass hallucinations.

Poor Juanita, that must have been a stressful time, feeling like it was only a matter of time.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I read some of these letters on Saturday night while I was up with my kid, trying to get her to sleep. Morgan reads like he was a bit of an ass, but I thought this discussion between Brooks and Brodie, mediated through Morgan, was pretty darn interesting. I just wish I could have read more details of Brooks' critique of Brodie, rather than try to derive them from Morgan's response to her [Brooks].

I think this is a little like criticizing Herodotus based on contemporary standards in your university History department. Brodie's work was so formidable for its evidentiary support as well as its artistry that she could have just left much more unexplained than she did, and her work would have been no less devastating and earth shattering. But truly, her speculations need not detract from the straight historical narrative when you consider how original that part of her work was.

She invented the field of Mormon historical study like Herodotus invented history. So what if she gave vent to some vexations and failed to just let the facts speak for themselves in every instance. I see these failings more as quirks of a work of historical significance and genius. Yes, the book remains a valuable history book. But it is also itself a historical artifact. We are all aware of the book's arguable weaknesses or failings, but they are hardly worth mentioning except to Mormon apologists who feel compulsively defensive about the book. To the rest of us, No Man No My History has entered another realm, not unlike the Histories.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think this is a little like criticizing Herodotus based on contemporary standards in your university History department. Brodie's work was so formidable for its evidentiary support as well as its artistry that she could have just left much more unexplained than she did, and her work would have been no less devastating and earth shattering. But truly, her speculations need not detract from the straight historical narrative when you consider how original that part of her work was.

She invented the field of Mormon historical study like Herodotus invented history. So what if she gave vent to some vexations and failed to just let the facts speak for themselves in every instance. I see these failings more as quirks of a work of historical significance and genius. Yes, the book remains a valuable history book. But it is also itself a historical artifact. We are all aware of the books arguable weaknesses or failings, but they are hardly worth mentioning except to Mormon apologists who feel compulsively defensive about the book. To the rest of us, No Man No My History has entered another realm, not unlike the Histories.

1. She was an apostate with disdain for the church and the subject matter of her biography.
2. She was not a trained historian.
3. She was not a trained psychoanalyst.
4. Her primary failing is therefore 1) her strong biases which she could not see past, and 2) overestimating her skills and abilities.

Juanita, among the two , is the one that had true courage. Brodie literally set out to write a historical hit-piece. In her mind, she was going to destroy Joseph Smith. Juanita was actually writing about something she deeply cared about, and therefore it was she that was risking much more. Brodie had intellectually divorced herself from the church long ago, both in location and spirit. The same was not true for Juanita.

Brodie deserves credit for being first, on the topic of Joseph Smith. But let's not overstate that credit.

I don't know how Juanita's life ends yet. I will see. But there will be a strong contrast there--Brodie with a broken marriage, a cheating husband, and not a lot of extended family relations. I think Juanita's end will be quite the contrast.

And not it doesn't surprise me that the craven sniveling apostate here who DIDN'T HAVE HALF THE GUTS MAX HALL HAD TO LEAVE HIS MISSION pays homage to his apostate-in-chief. Yet I know more in my pinkie about her life than he does.