Having not read Brodie...

[MikeWaters]

I am skeptical, and this is why.

Usually, when someone tackles something controversial and does it in fair way, they end up pissing off both sides to some extent.

So why is it that anti-Mormons gleefully tout this book?

Bushman's book, OTOH, pisses off some Mormon mullahs. And of course, won't be touted by anti-Mormons.

I'm not interested in reading any historian that has an a priori agenda. What evidence do we have that Brodie approached her biography with anything close to an open mind?

Are claims of selective evidence correct?

If true, I won't be bothering with her book.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am skeptical, and this is why.

Usually, when someone tackles something controversial and does it in fair way, they end up pissing off both sides to some extent.

So why is it that anti-Mormons gleefully tout this book?

Bushman's book, OTOH, pisses off some Mormon mullahs. And of course, won't be touted by anti-Mormons.

I'm not interested in reading any historian that has an a priori agenda. What evidence do we have that Brodie approached her biography with anything close to an open mind?

Are claims of selective evidence correct?

If true, I won't be bothering with her book.

I haven't read Brodie either, but all of this chat has certainly piqued my interest.

My understanding is that Brodie was engaging in a 'new' approach to history, one in which she attempted to tease out psychological meaning from facts that might support more than one interpretation. I don't think that this approach is so popular today.

I suppose we should approach her bio in the same way we might approach a history by any author that didn't subscribe to contemporary standards of scholarship. If we think we can still gain something from the person's research, in spite of bias and methodology, then we should partake.

The real question for me is which bio should I tackle first? Bushman or Brodie?

[MikeWaters]

Psychoanalysis is a dying beast now. It used to be that every psychiatrist was trained in it. Now it is rare for a psychiatrist to receive formal training in psychoanalysis. Informal training is what my program does.

But back in the days of Brodie, this was the explanation of the world. In a certain crowd at least. In 1945, psychoanalysis was yet to peak. By the 1970's when she published the Jefferson biography, the cracks in the armor were appearing, and we have witnessed a rapid decline in the importance of psychoanalysis ever since.

I am no more interested in reading an anti- version of Joseph Smith than I am a New Era version.

[cougjunkie]

I dont understand why we cant just see things as they are. All of these so called scholars and historians tend to leave out facts that contradict their theory and include the facts that support it. No one has yet to include everything in their biographies of Joseph, this happens as All-American said with Mormons and non-mormons alike. If you take a little of what each one has written you may have a fairly accurate depiction of his life and what he was really all about. I for one like to take things at face value and not question to much, i guess i am a good saint that way i will see it for what it is and trust it until it has been proven otherwise.

But some of us like Fus, need to look a little deeper in to things before we believe wholeheartedly in it and that is fine as well. However this IMO tends to lead more people astray than strengthening your testimony, The reason for this i believe is just like these historians if you search long enough for something you can manipulate what you actually believe to be exactly what you want.

It is what it is, if you want to find Anti-mormon literature to disprove the church it is out there, if you want to find stuff that calls Joseph a liar its readily available, if you want reports that say Dodge is the worst car manufacturer in the world that is also available, however this goes both ways, i am sure i can find evidence to refute all of these statements as well.

This argument will go on for time and all eternity, like a bishop told me once (cant wait to hear the backlash from this statement) "Dont worry about what you understand or dont understand just worry about the feelings you have when you are doing the things the lord asks"

This is how i live my life, may not be the most "Scholastic" way to do things but it is simple enough for me, however i do enjoy readings everyones take on things.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

I dont understand why we cant just see things as they are. All of these so called scholars and historians tend to leave out facts that contradict their theory and include the facts that support it. No one has yet to include everything in their biographies of Joseph, this happens as All-American said with Mormons and non-mormons alike. If you take a little of what each one has written you may have a fairly accurate depiction of his life and what he was really all about. I for one like to take things at face value and not question to much, i guess i am a good saint that way i will see it for what it is and trust it until it has been proven otherwise.

But some of us like Fus, need to look a little deeper in to things before we believe wholeheartedly in it and that is fine as well. However this IMO tends to lead more people astray than strengthening your testimony, The reason for this i believe is just like these historians if you search long enough for something you can manipulate what you actually believe to be exactly what you want.

It is what it is, if you want to find Anti-mormon literature to disprove the church it is out there, if you want to find stuff that calls Joseph a liar its readily available, if you want reports that say Dodge is the worst car manufacturer in the world that is also available, however this goes both ways, i am sure i can find evidence to refute all of these statements as well.

This argument will go on for time and all eternity, like a bishop told me once (cant wait to hear the backlash from this statement) "Dont worry about what you understand or dont understand just worry about the feelings you have when you are doing the things the lord asks"

This is how i live my life, may not be the most "Scholastic" way to do things but it is simple enough for me, however i do enjoy readings everyones take on things.

Faith is an amazing concept when one actually uses its power.

Why someone who is an active temple goer chooses to fill his life with anti-mormon rhetoric....crap that is basically the equivalent of getting the Church Beliefs from The British Sun Newspaper....then that tells you the person truly doesn't know what they REALLY believe.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

I haven't read Brodie either, but all of this chat has certainly piqued my interest.

My understanding is that Brodie was engaging in a 'new' approach to history, one in which she attempted to tease out psychological meaning from facts that might support more than one interpretation. I don't think that this approach is so popular today.

I suppose we should approach her bio in the same way we might approach a history by any author that didn't subscribe to contemporary standards of scholarship. If we think we can still gain something from the person's research, in spite of bias and methodology, then we should partake.

The real question for me is which bio should I tackle first? Bushman or Brodie?

The facts and sources are the same in both, essentially, but the conclusions are both different and predetermined, both parties using what they find to bolster the conceptions already formed. I'm of the opinion that, given the amount of people who have looked at Joseph Smith and tried their worst, there never will be a history that will gain general acceptance.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

The facts and sources are the same in both, essentially, but the conclusions are both different and predetermined, both parties using what they find to bolster the conceptions already formed. I'm of the opinion that, given the amount of people who have looked at Joseph Smith and tried their worst, there never will be a history that will gain general acceptance.

The potential for a more authoritative history exists, if we are to believe that the church has documents that it has chosen NOT to release to the world. Hopefully some day the historical records are released to the public.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

I haven't read Brodie either, but all of this chat has certainly piqued my interest.

My understanding is that Brodie was engaging in a 'new' approach to history, one in which she attempted to tease out psychological meaning from facts that might support more than one interpretation. I don't think that this approach is so popular today.

I suppose we should approach her bio in the same way we might approach a history by any author that didn't subscribe to contemporary standards of scholarship. If we think we can still gain something from the person's research, in spite of bias and methodology, then we should partake.

The real question for me is which bio should I tackle first? Bushman or Brodie?

You need to read the book. If Under the Banner of Heaven was an inspiration to you, Brodie's book will blow your mind. Krakauer covered the same ground she did but much less artfully or comprehensively. Mormon apologishts highighit her psychoanalysis which was a minor part of the book. See my post in the other thread.

[SeattleUte]

Brodie's 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.

[danimal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Psychoanalysis is a dying beast now. It used to be that every psychiatrist was trained in it. Now it is rare for a psychiatrist to receive formal training in psychoanalysis. Informal training is what my program does.

But back in the days of Brodie, this was the explanation of the world. In a certain crowd at least. In 1945, psychoanalysis was yet to peak. By the 1970's when she published the Jefferson biography, the cracks in the armor were appearing, and we have witnessed a rapid decline in the importance of psychoanalysis ever since.

I am no more interested in reading an anti- version of Joseph Smith than I am a New Era version.

I agree that psychoanalysis is losing, or more likely, has already lost the battle in psychiatry, but it's alive and well in many academic disciplines, especially the humanities.

I haven't read Brodie yet either, but my understanding is that her interpretations are stretches, but not malicious.