Regarding Brodie

[All-American]

With all of the fuss yesterday over Fawn Brodie's book, and finding myself unable to contribute, having never read the entire book, I went to the BYU library yesterday to check a copy out. Two slightly humorous observations: 1), Fawn Brodie's book, while listed alphabetically by author's last name, somehow ended up on the very bottom shelf of the Joseph Smith biographies; and 2), Hugh Nibley's response could be found paired with every copy of Fawn Brodie's book. I really love Mormons sometimes.

I fully intended to read the book cover to cover, but having read the first three chapters, I don't think I will. I already have another sizeable book that needs to be completely read by next Friday, for one, but at the same time, I am having a really hard time finding much of significance in the book. I recognize the two-fold weakness in this claim, that I have read but a tenth of the book and began the reading biased against it, so I claim no authoritative ethos in passing judgement, but I thought I'd share a few thoughts.

One thing that bothered me. From the beginning was Brodie's frank admission that evidence was often unreliable: "It is not that documents are lacking: it is rather that they are fiercly contradictory." Hers, then, was "the task of assembling these documents-- of sifting first-hand account from third-hand plagiarism, of fitting Mormon and non-Mormon narratives into a mosaic that makes credible history." This, we see, is her method-- from the sizeable pool of information, take that which makes sense and use it to tell the story. This is just the opposite of history-- documents should form the skeleton upon which our ideas are founded; instead, Brodie takes the documents and fits them upon the structure of her ideas.

This disclaimer allows Brodie to cast aside whatever information does not suit her purpose. One example from page 18, and pointed out in Nibley's critique, states that "although fifty-one of Joseph's neighbors signed an affidavit acusing him of being 'destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits,' there is no evidence that viciousness was a part of his nature." No evidence? Is not the affidavit signed by fifty-one of his neighbors evidence? The burden of proof is clearly upon the author, yet no information is presented, cited, or noted. We have to take her word for it.

Inconsistency runs rampant throughout. A few pages before confirming a major motive of the book of Mormon ("the dream of somehow recouping the family fortune," a dream which "his marriage had doubtless doubled"), Brodie explains away the breastplate described by his mother, estimated to be "worth at least five hundred dollars," with a footnote stating that "Joseph may have found a copper breastplate, for such objects were frequently discovered in the [burial] mounds." The boy who had been running around the countryside looking for treasure but a few pages earlier had now made a substantial find and was keeping it quiet for the sake of running his ruse?

She also frequently picks and chooses her sources to suit her purposes. Brodie claims that it is "some time between 1820 and 1827" when "it occured to the youth that he might try to write a history of the moundbuilders." To show that the whole matter was conceived of as an economic venture first and a religious venture well second, Brodie shows that no citizens of Palmyra considered the project to have religious connotations-- overlooking Joseph's own family, who believed every word he said. Brodie acknowledges the record of Joseph's mother, who quoted from Joseph's record unquestioningly, but moves along without discussing the paradox she had just introduced.

The greatest surprise to me was the low quality of scholarship. I didn't find any tremendously new information, but I assume that the credit ought to go to Brodie for being the first to bring up the sources and ideas which have persisted since. But ideas are introduced, discussed, and accepted with very little reference to the information source from which they are derived. This stands in stark contrast to many other, more reliable historians-- and, just to make sure I'm really not making any friends with this post, I'll tell you flat out that I consider Hugh Nibley's scholarship to be of a much higher quality. Any work by Nibley will have extensive footnotes explaining the origin of nearly every thought, making his work available to analysis and criticism. Brodie seems to bank on authoritarianism.

To save you all the trouble, allow me to tell you all the reasons my analysis is invalid. I am biased, I am relatively uneducated, I took no more than half an hour to write this, and I didn't give Brodie a fair chance by virtue of neglecting the greater part of the work and by standing by my preconceptions. I'll tell you one thing, though: I had honestly expected to find a much higher quality production than what little I read. Having read Bushman, Madsen, Perry, and others, I found no new information in Brodie's book, and I will be charitable in assuming that her greatest contribution was the material that would be evaluated by later historians better equipped to handle it. The only thing left, then, was her interpretive spin on the matter, which I found to be very dissapointing.

Maybe someday I'll get around to the rest of the book. Probably not, though.

[Archaea]

This is why I have never finished it. From the chapters I've read, the beginning and parts in the middle, I would have given it a C, if I had been grading.

I'm surprised that Seattle, who would not tolerate that quality of work at his law firm, would consider it a "classic" on Mormonism. If that is classic Mormonism, then we suck and need to develop better classics.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

I didn't find any tremendously new information . . . I found no new information in Brodie's book. . .

The book was published in 1945. It is itself a historical artifact. I think it's more accurate to say that those later biographers whom you cite as authorities to which Brodie added little or no new information themselves added little or no new information to Brodie's ground breaking work.

Regardless of the sorting that Brodie had to do, I assume that no one other than the alleged witnesses whose statements are found in the cover pages of the Book of Mormon said they saw gold plates or angels. I assume that none of the information she chose not to use claimed the temple ceremony had any source other than the Masonic rites, or that Joseph was in fact monogomous all of his days, etc., etc., etc. Do you take issue with Brodie's assessment that Joseph was in fact not vicious because 51 neighbors in fact said he was (I didn't get your point there; in fact I think she was being a little light hearted).

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The book was published in 1945. It is itself a historical artifact. I think it's more accurate to say that those later biographers whom you cite as authorities to which Brodie added little or no new information themselves added little or no new information to Brodie's ground breaking work.

Regardless of the sorting that Brodie had to do, I assume that no one other than the alleged witnesses whose statements are found in the cover pages of the Book of Mormon said they saw gold plates or angels. I assume that none of the information she chose not to use claimed the temple ceremony had any source other than the Masonic rites, or that Joseph was in fact monogomous all of his days, etc., etc., etc. Do you take issue with Brodie's assessment that Joseph was in fact not vicious because 51 neighbors in fact said he was (I didn't get your point there; in fact I think she was being a little light hearted).

As I said, I concede the likelihood that Brodie was the first to bring the information to light. She gets a gold star for that much.

My issue with Brodie's assessments is that she seems to already have the Joseph Smith she's looking for in mind, and will find the information she's looking for to back her up, ignoring whatever else is out there without giving sufficient justification. The statement of the 51 neighbors could be false, yes-- but Brodie already said much of the evidence avaliable would be contradictory. The burden is on her, then, to show why she is justified in dismissing their statement. Her justification is that "there is no evidence." You can't overturn evidence simply because it is not accompanied by other evidence-- you have to show why that evidence is false or irrelevant. She does neither.

And yes, I agree with you on one point: no one other than the people who have claimed to see the angel or the plates have claimed to see the angel or the plates.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The book was published in 1945. It is itself a historical artifact. I think it's more accurate to say that those later biographers whom you cite as authorities to which Brodie added little or no new information themselves added little or no new information to Brodie's ground breaking work.

Regardless of the sorting that Brodie had to do, I assume that no one other than the alleged witnesses whose statements are found in the cover pages of the Book of Mormon said they saw gold plates or angels. I assume that none of the information she chose not to use claimed the temple ceremony had any source other than the Masonic rites, or that Joseph was in fact monogomous all of his days, etc., etc., etc. Do you take issue with Brodie's assessment that Joseph was in fact not vicious because 51 neighbors in fact said he was (I didn't get your point there; in fact I think she was being a little light hearted).

Oh, and there is one other instance where a person claimed to have seen the plates. It was one woman at the end of a long workday all by herself, though, so we won't include it in the more authoritative lists, since we threw it in there just for fun.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

And yes, I agree with you on one point: no one other than the people who have claimed to see the angel or the plates have claimed to see the angel or the plates.

Next time I'm in Salt Lake I'll go again to the Church archives and see those original affidavits with signatures there in the glass cases for all to see just like the DOI and the Constitution at the National Archives. That's always an inspiring thing to see.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Next time I'm in Salt Lake I'll go again to the Church archives and see those original affidavits with signatures there in the glass cases for all to see just like the DOI and the Constitution at the National Archives. That's always an inspiring thing to see.

Care to try to make the argument that they didn't actually believe that record? That they didn't go to their graves with the reiteration of their testimony freshly fallen from their lips?

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=...le=transcripts

Good luck.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

Care to try to make the argument that they didn't actually believe that record? That they didn't go to their graves with the reiteration of their testimony freshly fallen from their lips?

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=...le=transcripts

Good luck.

You wouldn't believe how many people swore under oath in the courts of salem that they saw with their own eyes various acts of witchcraft and devilry performed by some of the women of their fair town. Had they not been such upstanding citizens, we might not be aware today of the significant presence of the black arts in our nation's early history.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

You wouldn't believe how many people swore under oath in the courts of salem that they saw with their own eyes various acts of witchcraft and devilry performed by some of the women of their fair town. Had they not been such upstanding citizens, we might not be aware today of the significant presence of the black arts in our nation's early history.

As we all know, no doubt, not all testimonies are equal. Being less familiar with the Salem Witchcraft trials as I am with the witnesses to the book of Mormon, you'll have to show me why the two are equally dismissable.

[tooblue]

A confession wilst faced with certain death .... or .... refusing to contradict a your own words after a long and fruitful life wilst faced with the reality of death.

Apples to oranges my good man ... in fact potatos to oranges!!