One historian sits at the crossroads between the two

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

Like I said. Any more, only Mormon apologists pay any attention to the book's speculations, which are not the reason it is a classic, and are really beside the point.

Clearly had I apostatized on my mission I would have left. It might have happened had I gone to Germany.

[Solon]

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 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.

No argument here. Nobody in their right mind disputes Brodie's contribution to mormon historiography.

All I was saying is that in this three-way conversation between Morgan, Brodie, and Brooks, all I could read was Morgan's letters to Brooks and Morgan's letters to Brodie. I just wish I could read more of what Brooks and/or Brodie wrote back, rather than have to deduce through Morgan's responses.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Like I said. Any more, only Mormon apologists pay any attention to the book's speculations, which are not the reason it is a classic, and are really beside the point.

Clearly had I apostatized on my mission I would have left. It might have happened had I gone to Germany.

Funny, I never hear any criticism of Brodie's book, on any point, from apostates.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Funny, I never hear any criticism of Brodie's book, on any point, from apostates.

They're not reading it, then. I couldn't imagine reading that book and going apostate because of it: some of her conclusions are crazier than anyone - whether a prophet or a wacko - who claims to see visions. It's an important piece of historiography, and her narrative prose and use of sources are excellent, but there are much better monographs available today if you're just reading for content.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

They're not reading it, then. I couldn't imagine reading that book and going apostate because of it: some of her conclusions are crazier than anyone - whether a prophet or a wacko - who claims to see visions. It's an important piece of historiography, and her narrative prose and use of sources are excellent, but there are much better monographs available today if you're just reading for content.

Funny you should mention that. It's not clear that SU has ever read anything that he has commented on here.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Funny you should mention that. It's not clear that SU has ever read anything that he has commented on here.

I have "criticized" in this thread to the extent criticism is honestly merited. We all know Brodie engaged in some speculations that to some are arguably beyond the realm of kosher historical narrative.

You can take or leave the speculative part of her book as far as any thoughtful person should be concerned, because that isn't what matters about the book. The specualtive parts are just that. I acknowledge them, their inherent potential problems, and ultimately I am indifferent to them. The worst thing about the specualtive parts (comprising what, maybe 5% of the book?) is that they distract and give Mormon apoligists something to talk about.

Don't let the tail wag the dog. The originality of her empirical method applied to Mormonism and of her sources, and the artistry of her narrative are what matters and why the book is a classic.

Speaking of going for the capillary, if you're truly concerned about her "lack of formal historical training," see Shelby Foote, David McCullough, Barbara Tuckman, William L. Shirer, Winston Churchill, and just about anyone else who has written a fine historical work that endures in the popular imagination.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have "criticized" in this thread to the extent criticism is honestly merited. We all know Brodie engaged in some speculations that to some are arguably beyond the realm of kosher historical narrative.

You can take or leave the speculative part of her book as far as any thoughtful person should be concerned, because that isn't what matters about the book. The specualtive parts are just that. I acknowledge them, their inherent potential problems, and ultimately I am indifferent to them. The worst thing about the specualtive parts (comprising what, maybe 5% of the book?) is that they distract and give Mormon apoligists something to talk about.

Don't let the tail wag the dog. The originality of her empirical method applied to Mormonism and of her sources, and the artistry of her narrative are what matters and why the book is a classic.

Speaking of going for the capillary, if you're truly concerned about her "lack of formal historical training," see Shelby Foote, David McCullough, Barbara Tuckman, William L. Shirer, Winston Churchill, and just about anyone else who has written a fine historical work that endures in the popular imagination.

I think trying to prove Joseph Smith to be a fraudulent con-man is one of those "minor" speculative parts.

Does she still stand alone with that thesis, by the way?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think trying to prove Joseph Smith to be a fraudulent con-man is one of those "minor" speculative parts.

Does she still stand alone with that thesis, by the way?

I don't think concluding JS is a fraudulent con man is one of the edgy speculations in the book. I think that's a logical conclusion someone could fairly reach based on the totality of the evidence. It's probably what most anyone objectively and critically reviewing his life would conclude, and certainly within the realm of standard historical research and writing to make such a judgment about him.

I read people call JS a fraudster all the time, and to say that he's a deliberate fraud is the mainstream view among intellectuals is extremely generous to him and Mormonism. Rather, they take it as a verity. We have linked to this site several articles where people offhandedly call im that without much analysis. Right now I'm thinking of articles by Larry McMurtry, Jacob Wiesburg and James Wood. As I've noted, nobody except committed apoligists has taken the Book of Mormon seriously as a historical artifact existing before 1830. Even Teryl Givens doesn't if you read him closely.

Ultimately, who cares. I don't think it matters whether JS, in his own fevered imagination, thought he was lying or not. Maybe the line was blurred to him. That might be what really happened. We'll never know for sure, will we.

I think she is being speculative when she, for example, hypothesizes that Oliver Cowdery halucinated Peter James & John under the spell of JS's powerful personality and after hours and hours of sleep and food deprivation. Who knows what happened there? But the least likely thing that happened is that OC saw Peter James & John, as I think you know. So pardon her speculations.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think concluding JS is a fraudulent con man is one of the edgy speculations in the book. I think that's a logical conclusion someone could fairly reach based on the totality of the evidence. It's probably what most anyone objectively and critically reviewing his life would conclude, and certainly within the realm of standard historical research and writing to make such a judgment about him.

I read people call JS a fraudster all the time, and to say that he's a deliberate fraud is the mainstream view among intellectuals is extremely generous to him and Mormonism. Rather, they take it as a verity. We have linked to this site several articles where people offhandedly call im that without much analysis. Right now I'm thinking of articles by Larry McMurtry, Jacob Wiesburg and James Wood. As I've noted, nobody except committed apoligists has taken the Book of Mormon seriously as a historical artifact existing before 1830. Even Teryl Givens doesn't if you read him closely.

Ultimately, who cares. I don't think it matters whether JS, in his own fevered imagination, thought he was lying or not. Maybe the line was blurred to him. That might be what really happened. We'll never know for sure, will we.

I think she is being speculative when she, for example, hypothesizes that Oliver Cowdery halucinated Peter James & John under the spell of JS's powerful personality and after hours and hours of sleep and food deprivation. Who knows what happened there? But the least likely thing that happened is that OC saw Peter James & John, as I think you know. So pardon her speculations.

anyone who quotes Jacob Weisberg to make a historical point is a moron. Yes, you are a moron.

[MikeWaters]

Brooks was not a fan of Nibley's "No Ma'am That's Not History." He felt that an attack like that gave undue credence to Brodie, and it was also a bit too fundamentalist in tone.