I almost am finished with Brodie's book...

[fusnik11]

read it on the plane, on the beach, interesting read.

She labors from a interesting position and, IMO, is far too quick to demonize Joseph while dismissing the 'verifiable' miracles he produced witnessed by many people.

For those who have not read it, it could serve as a difficult read for the devout member. She presents Joseph as a scam artist of sorts, and demonstrates his evolution from poor boy to prophet much differently than presented in Bushman's book.

Her opinion is such:

a. Joseph poor, enigmatic, almost good looking, searching for a way out of the poverty of his father.

b. Joseph as a young boy is a story teller and tells people that he will one day write the story of the red man.

c. Joseph sees the value of church and establishment and contemplates the power a church would represent.

d. Joseph sees his Golden Bible as a means to create a church with virtually no doctrine as the BOM is highly ambiguous.

e. Joseph has a hypnotic power over people he used to manipulate peoples spiritual experiences.

The scholarship seems strained in parts and I feel she reaches in many circumstances, but the writing is superb and the read worthwhile.

For me, a highly interesting part of the book are the insights into the organization of the early chruch. The church was a highly different church than today as Joseph concerned himself with secular learning in physical buildings, and theological learning from groups of study. The early saints did not build church buildings, they built schools, mills, and houses. The church also was more of a focal point for the early members as it provided real estate, banking opportunities, food, shelter, etc.

[fuegote]

why are you reading?

[Quisqueyano]

If you choose to read Brodies book, you need to follow it up right away with Nibley's critique. It's called "No Ma'am, thats not history". And can be found on the farms website.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

read it on the plane, on the beach, interesting read.

She labors from a interesting position and, IMO, is far too quick to demonize Joseph while dismissing the 'verifiable' miracles he produced witnessed by many people.

For those who have not read it, it could serve as a difficult read for the devout member. She presents Joseph as a scam artist of sorts, and demonstrates his evolution from poor boy to prophet much differently than presented in Bushman's book.

Her opinion is such:

a. Joseph poor, enigmatic, almost good looking, searching for a way out of the poverty of his father.

b. Joseph as a young boy is a story teller and tells people that he will one day write the story of the red man.

c. Joseph sees the value of church and establishment and contemplates the power a church would represent.

d. Joseph sees his Golden Bible as a means to create a church with virtually no doctrine as the BOM is highly ambiguous.

e. Joseph has a hypnotic power over people he used to manipulate peoples spiritual experiences.

The scholarship seems strained in parts and I feel she reaches in many circumstances, but the writing is superb and the read worthwhile.

For me, a highly interesting part of the book are the insights into the organization of the early chruch. The church was a highly different church than today as Joseph concerned himself with secular learning in physical buildings, and theological learning from groups of study. The early saints did not build church buildings, they built schools, mills, and houses. The church also was more of a focal point for the early members as it provided real estate, banking opportunities, food, shelter, etc.

Some people like this book for a number of reasons.

First it critisizes the Church.

Second, it's written by a woman critisizing the Church.

Third, it, and this is my main criticism of it, tries to psycholanalyze Joseph, putting thoughts and fears into him, which (a) she has never demonstrated she is qualified to do, as shown by her abomination of a book on Thomas Jefferson, and (b) doesn't have very good research to support her major theses.

Fourth, she was related to David O. McKay.

If she were a female relative of David O. McKay, nobody would have given the book the time of day.

I guess one can say it reads easily. So what? Maybe Esquire does as well, but that doesn't make it credible.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

First it critisizes the Church.

I find her highly critical of Joseph, and sympathetic to the church members. She takes her jabs at all organized religion.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Second, it's written by a woman critisizing the Church.

A brilliant woman at that. I don't think it adds or distracts from the book itself, her having a vagina. It might have influenced her scholarship on polygamy, and it did influence her on her feelings and viewpoints of Joseph's aesthetics.

For a woman to be critical in her time would be revolutionary, but today it's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Third, it, and this is my main criticism of it, tries to psycholanalyze Joseph, putting thoughts and fears into him, which (a) she has never demonstrated she is qualified to do, as shown by her abomination of a book on Thomas Jefferson, and (b) doesn't have very good research to support her major theses.

His analysis of Joseph is what is straining in the book. She attempts to connect dots that may, or may not have existed, by connecting the stories, examples, and experiences of the people intimately associated with Joseph. I think she does a fantasticate job of nailing the feelings of the saints, the feelings of the people associated with Joseph and the situations surrounding the early members. Her insights into early church membership, relationships with the prophet, comings and goings, missteps and achievements are highly worthwhile and stand the test of time.

The content would be shocking and troublesome for some members, for others it might reiterate certain feelings, and for others, a good read to gain a different perspective on the man of our restoration.

[Quisqueyano]

Here is the link to Nibley's critique. I would be very slow to defend Brodie having read it.

http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php...nscripts&id=47

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

read it on the plane, on the beach, interesting read.

She labors from a interesting position and, IMO, is far too quick to demonize Joseph while dismissing the 'verifiable' miracles he produced witnessed by many people.

For those who have not read it, it could serve as a difficult read for the devout member. She presents Joseph as a scam artist of sorts, and demonstrates his evolution from poor boy to prophet much differently than presented in Bushman's book.

Her opinion is such:

a. Joseph poor, enigmatic, almost good looking, searching for a way out of the poverty of his father.

b. Joseph as a young boy is a story teller and tells people that he will one day write the story of the red man.

c. Joseph sees the value of church and establishment and contemplates the power a church would represent.

d. Joseph sees his Golden Bible as a means to create a church with virtually no doctrine as the BOM is highly ambiguous.

e. Joseph has a hypnotic power over people he used to manipulate peoples spiritual experiences.

The scholarship seems strained in parts and I feel she reaches in many circumstances, but the writing is superb and the read worthwhile.

For me, a highly interesting part of the book are the insights into the organization of the early chruch. The church was a highly different church than today as Joseph concerned himself with secular learning in physical buildings, and theological learning from groups of study. The early saints did not build church buildings, they built schools, mills, and houses. The church also was more of a focal point for the early members as it provided real estate, banking opportunities, food, shelter, etc.

The book is not perfect; what book of ambition and moment is? I could show you passages in the greatest works of literature that are terrible.

The reason the book endures is three-fold:

First, as you note, despite its flaws as a work of scholarship, it's extremely well written; it tells a gripping tale as well as a classic novel.

Second, it's easy to lose site of her innovation; but her biography of Joseph Smith was revolutionary in her approach and its reliance on many original documents she personally unearthed. She identified influences on Joseph, drew connections, and brought to light sordid and illuminating facts about his life and early church history that really are unchallenged to this day and are a starting point for people like Bushman (okay also a mainstay for creeps like the Tanners; still, the facts stand basically unchallenged). She broke completely new ground partly because until her no one with her traning and intelligence cared enough about her subject. Her passion for it burns through the pages. A facinating read is the story of how she came to write the book.

Third, the book's many virtues completly overwhelm its flaws. Hugh Nibly tried to savage her in a publication called "No Ma'am that's Not History" and made an ass of himself; he went for the capillary and came off sounding sexist, pompuos and mean. It was his low point.

It's the only book I'm aware of about Mormonism that is a genuine classic and will remain in publication long after you and I are gone from this material sphere.

[All-American]

There are just as many people who are slow to defend Nibley, having read the criticism.

For the record, I am a big fan of Hugh Nibley, and not a fan at all of Fawn Brodie.

Nevertheless, the thing I pick up out of this back and forth is that Brodie has done essentially the same thing scholars and members, both for the church and against the church, have done with Joseph Smith: you pick the details that most fit the description you want to depict, and ignore the rest. Church members are, to be perfectly frank, FAR more guilty of this than anti's are. Anti mormon literature tends to smack of poor history, but at least they stick with history. For us mormons, our favorite versions of Joseph Smith's story, from "The Work and the Glory" to "Legacy" to the most recent movie, is Historical FICTION.

Regarding his history, Joseph's analysis proves to be prophetic:

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it; I shall never undertake it . . . When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

A brilliant woman at that. I don't think it adds or distracts from the book itself, her having a vagina. It might have influenced her scholarship on polygamy, and it did influence her on her feelings and viewpoints of Joseph's aesthetics.

For a woman to be critical in her time would be revolutionary, but today it's neither here nor there.

I think his point is that when the book was published it was more visible becasue it was a woman that had written it in the context of the LDS church which was seen in those early days of the feminist movement (and still is by some) as being unfair to women. I don't think he thought her genitalia significantly assisted or hindered her research or writing.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Some people like this book for a number of reasons.

First it critisizes the Church.

Second, it's written by a woman critisizing the Church.

Third, it, and this is my main criticism of it, tries to psycholanalyze Joseph, putting thoughts and fears into him, which (a) she has never demonstrated she is qualified to do, as shown by her abomination of a book on Thomas Jefferson, and (b) doesn't have very good research to support her major theses.

Fourth, she was related to David O. McKay.

If she were a female relative of David O. McKay, nobody would have given the book the time of day.

I guess one can say it reads easily. So what? Maybe Esquire does as well, but that doesn't make it credible.

Archea, with all due respect, this is nonsense. I don't see anyone giving a rat's ass about Steve Benson's or Nibley's daughter's diatribes against the Church. The book on the merits is of a very high caliber. I will agree Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is bad; why don't you actually read No Man Knows My History, and with and open mind? The portions where she phsychoanalyzes Josheph are most easily criticized, and most often cited by apologists. However, these passages are a minor part of the book, and the phsychoanalyticl approach to history is, whatever its merits, now a mainstay. She pioneered it with this book. Your attack sounds very provintial, and, quite frankly, sexist.