Mormonism: technology, astronomy, and physics

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Huh??

He refers to her work occasionally, but I seriously doubt anyone would characterize his book as a "rehashing" of her material.

apparently if you go the library and use a source that Brodie used first, your book is nothing but rehashing. sheesh.

brodie gets credit for being first, and for setting a certain standard (even if it would be considered pretty low).

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are trying to say that Brodie's theory as to the origin of the Book of Mormon is given credence today? ("Spaulding hypothesis")

Interesting. Do you like mayonaise or mustard on your baloney?

Did you read Brodie's book, Mike? She is NOT an advocate of the Spaulding hypothesis, in fact she explicitly shows where it goes wrong. She points out on a number of occasions where certain anti-Mormon factions' tracts were false.

I find it strange that you say no one believes Brodie. Low and behold after basically covering it up for 50 years, now Bushman's book comes out and the Brodie's evidence about Smith's magic and gold digging hobbies are suddenly give more credence.

[MikeWaters]

I'm saying that no one gives credence to Brodie's assertions as to the production of the Book of Mormon.

I recently read Brodie's biography, and we had extensive discussions about it. I'm going to be sending a copy of the book to Lebowski shortly. If I can ever hook up with the guy that is holding it.

Brodie was a young naive anti-Mormon when she wrote that biography. That doesn't mean that it was useless or entirely incorrect. It means that it was the product of an amateur who started with the hypothesis that Smith was a knowing fraud.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Did you read Brodie's book, Mike? She is NOT an advocate of the Spaulding hypothesis, in fact she explicitly shows where it goes wrong. She points out on a number of occasions where certain anti-Mormon factions' tracts were false.

I find it strange that you say no one believes Brodie. Low and behold after basically covering it up for 50 years, now Bushman's book comes out and the Brodie's evidence about Smith's magic and gold digging hobbies are suddenly give more credence.

It's one of the few theories she rejects. She concocts a bunch of her own. She is not a scholar under any pretense, at least not by judging from that work.

[MikeWaters]

Ok, my memory is wrong then. I think what I may be thinking of is the theory that Smith was nothing more than huckster deceiver ("a knowing fraud"). Or maybe there was some psychobabble theory...can't remember. But in this aspect, Brodie was woefully inadequate. She couldn't capture at all the essence of the man, because the religious mind was so thoroughly foreign to her, in my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are trying to say that Brodie's theory as to the origin of the Book of Mormon is given credence today? ("Spaulding hypothesis")

Interesting. Do you like mayonaise or mustard on your baloney?

She does not accept the Spaulding hypothesis. That comment blew YOUR credibility right there.

She wrote that A View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith likely influenced Joseph Smith. She also concluded that he and no one else wrote The Book of Mormon, even as she challenged Mormons' historic highlighting of Joseph's lack of education as "evidence" he couldn't have written it. Her facts have not been discredited, although admittedly her book does shade into advocacy at times. Moreover, her analysis of strains of frontier lore to which Joseph Smith was exposed appearing in the Book of Mormon in various forms--including, legends about native American common burial and re-burial grounds constituting collectively a site of a final conflict between aborigines, the masons inspiring the creation of "secret combinations," American aborigines constituting the lost ten tribes, Lehi's dream of the tree of life closely tracking a dream had by Joseph's father and described to Lucy Mack, etc.--have not been discredited. She was the first scholar to identify anachronisms in the Book of Mormon such as steel, elephants, horses, etc. She has not been discredited; in fact, her book while like all great biographies was a forerunner to perhaps more up to date treatments, remains relevant and generally accurate.

The fact that Bushman's book was so milque toast as a defense of Joseph Smith, leaving many of these problems to the realm of "mystery," demonstrates the power of Brodie's book. (Bushman apparently is now giving interviews to magazines like the New Republic revising history in saying that Mormons have never cared about physical proofs of the Book of Mormon for or against. Which is baloney. Bushman is part of the new effort to create a new face for Mormonism.)

If Brodie has been discredited so has B. H. Roberts. She was indebted to his Book of Mormon studies which raised many of the same points she did.

We've been over this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Huh??

He refers to her work occasionally, but I seriously doubt anyone would characterize his book as a "rehashing" of her material.

In an earlier post you said that Bushman was thorough and forthright in covering all the critiques of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. That could only be a rehash of what Brodie wrote on the Book of Mormon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In an earlier post you said that Bushman was thorough and forthright in covering all the critiques of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. That could only be a rehash of what Brodie wrote on the Book of Mormon.

Except for the fact that there are many other critiques of the BOM besides Brodie's. Come on, SU, her book has been around forever. You don't think anyone else has done any research on the topic that is worth quoting? If I had to guess, I would say he probably quotes Michael D. Quinn the most.

[MikeWaters]

Brodie was a dishonest "historian." I say "historian" only because she purported to write history. That is not to say all her work was bad or inaccurate.

She was terribly shallow in the spiritual sense and could never grasp what was obvious in front of her face.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Except for the fact that there are many other critiques of the BOM besides Brodie's. Come on, SU, her book has been around forever. You don't think anyone else has done any research on the topic that is worth quoting? If I had to guess, I would say he probably quotes Michael D. Quinn the most.

Well, if what she produced was a subset of what Bushman relied on I've made my point. I was responding to Waters' post that she's been "totally discredited."

Honestly, I don't think there's that much to add beyond Brodie. There just isn't a whole lot of there there. This isn't the story of Rome or anything like that. Quinn has so run out of fresh material that he's now really into the margins, writing about JS's facination with magic and such. You go to the exmo site and get dizzy going round and around with the same old topics. I have a feeling that Quinn and Bushman will be out of print and Brodie will still be the standard.