"Friend"'s response to SU

[MikeWaters]

I sent him this:

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.

Friend's response:

Interesting. My question would be what is the meaning of "fact" or "facts"? Apparently, in this diatribe the author refers to fact that seems to exist independent of the observer but in other instances refers to fact based on the observer (i.e. "Brodie's facts"). It leaves one a bit befuddled but I have not read the piece that invoked this furious response.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I sent him this:



Friend's response:

I don't understand your friend's response. He needs to speak plain English. Maybe he doesn't know, uninitiated as he is, that Brodie's "facts" (as distinguished from her conjectures) were based upon historical records, and are unchallenged to this day, including by Bushman. Her book is closely footnoted. She has much more to support her facts than, say, common conceptions of Alexander the Great or Marco Polo. I don't know how else you establish historical facts.

I categorically deny my piece was a "diatribe."

[MikeWaters]

by "her facts" you mean that the sources she cited are not in dispute?

I presume you don't mean her spin on said sources are undisputed.

[tooblue]

"historical records" are fundametnally flawed ... you of all people should readily be willing to accept such a basic truth.

You cannot simply seperate her conjecture from the facts. The facts as she calls them were discovered as a result of premeditaion and therefore represent a mere portion of ALL the available facts.

This is true of all history!