Can you suggest some books for me?

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by bytebear

Actually, Brodie's approach was that Smith was either insane or just a brilliant fraud, but the problem is she twists the facts to come to her conclusions. The difference between her work and RSR is that RSR simply presents the facts as accurately as possible and lets the reader decide. In fact Bushman's approach was to present Smith's story as Smith would have seen himself. Brodie on the other hand had her conclusions already defined before she did her research, and chose only the facts and evidence that furthered her preconceived assertions.

Well it is certainly apparent you haven't read the book, either. What is it with church members attacking a book they haven't even read?? That should be your first clue that something isn't right with this picture..

At no point did Brodie characterize Joseph Smith as "insane". If you had read it, you would know that her thesis is that Joseph Smith was simply a charismatic religious leader who believed his own hype. Not an unusual approach at all, as history has shown there has been no shortage of charismatic religious leaders who sincerely believe their own claims, even if it meant an untimely death. I found her treatment to be objective and far more sympathetic than she needed to be.

Bushman's approach in "Rough Stone Rolling", on the other hand, is about as far from objective as you can get. Case in point, his conceding the fact that Joseph Smith did indeed engage in treasure-digging, glass-looking, and believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals, but spinning it as a "preparatory gospel." LOL.. if that isn't a non-scholarly approach, then I don't know what is.

If you prefer all your reading to be of the "faith-first" apologetic variety, then by all means, stick with "Rough Stone Rolling". Some of us prefer our biographies a little more academic.

[bytebear]

Originally Posted by Barter_Town

Well it is certainly apparent you haven't read the book, either. What is it with church members attacking a book they haven't even read?? That should be your first clue that something isn't right with this picture..

At no point did Brodie characterize Joseph Smith as "insane". If you had read it, you would know that her thesis is that Joseph Smith was simply a charismatic religious leader who believed his own hype. Not an unusual approach at all, as history has shown there has been no shortage of charismatic religious leaders who sincerely believe their own claims, even if it meant an untimely death. I found her treatment to be objective and far more sympathetic than she needed to be.

Bushman's approach in "Rough Stone Rolling", on the other hand, is about as far from objective as you can get. Case in point, his conceding the fact that Joseph Smith did indeed engage in treasure-digging, glass-looking, and believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals, but spinning it as a "preparatory gospel." LOL.. if that isn't a non-scholarly approach, then I don't know what is.

If you prefer all your reading to be of the "faith-first" apologetic variety, then by all means, stick with "Rough Stone Rolling". Some of us prefer our biographies a little more academic.

Have you compared the scholarly credentials of both Brodie and Bushman? I admit it's been many years since I read her tripe. Brodie most definitely implies Smith was "insane" in that she felt he must have had some kind of psychedelic experience to warrant such an unshakable testimony. She was well known for her technique of leaving out important details that did not further her agenda. She gives a small amount of lip service to alternative theories, but dismisses them quickly and expands on her own theories. She wan't writing a biography, but a thesis on her own ideas. Fine, but it should be presented as such. Objectivity be damned.

In your original post, you said of Brodie, "Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives." Would a "serious historian" lie to gain access to those church archives, that you tout as a badge of honor and authority? What you fail to mention is that she snuck into the archives under false pretenses. Some historian.

Where exactly in RSR does Bushman "say Smith "believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals." I have read the book several times, and I don't recall that particular concession. I would love to see a citation.

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by bytebear

Have you compared the scholarly credentials of both Brodie and Bushman?

Quite irrelevant.

I admit it's been many years since I read her tripe.

It is obvious that you have not read it.

Brodie most definitely implies Smith was "insane" in that she felt he must have had some kind of psychedelic experience to warrant such an unshakable testimony.

Please provide a citation. Thanks.

She was well known for her technique of leaving out important details that did not further her agenda.

Such as?

Does it bother you that much that she didn't approach her subject as a true-blue believer?

She gives a small amount of lip service to alternative theories, but dismisses them quickly and expands on her own theories.

Hmm.. sounds about like every other historian with a thesis.

She wan't writing a biography, but a thesis on her own ideas. Fine, but it should be presented as such.

Since when is a biography not a thesis on the historian's own ideas? And it certainly was presented as such:

Psychobiography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivity be damned.

You really should read the book before making such charges. Her approach is far more objective (and sympathetic) than the reputation certain church-members have given it over the years suggests. Think for yourself; read the book.

In your original post, you said of Brodie, "Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives." Would a "serious historian" lie to gain access to those church archives, that you tout as a badge of honor and authority?

Is it the information she found in the church archives that bothers you, or the fact that her introduction as "Brother McKay's daughter" gained her access?

What you fail to mention is that she snuck into the archives under false pretenses. Some historian.

From Wiki:

"Having found temporary employment at the Harper Library of the University of Chicago, Brodie began researching the origins of the Book of Mormon. By mid-1939, she confessed to her uncle, Dean R. Brimhall (another apostate Mormon), that she now hoped to write a full scholarly biography of Joseph Smith. Progress toward that goal was slowed by the birth of the Brodies' first child and by three rapid moves, a consequence of her husband's search for a permanent position. Nevertheless, in 1943 she was encouraged enough to enter her 300-page draft in a contest for the Alfred A. Knopf literary fellowship, and in May her application was judged the best of the 44 entries.

Brodie continued her research at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., where the Brodies now lived, as well as at the headquarters of the Reorganized LDS Church in Independence, Missouri. Eventually she also returned to Utah and managed some discreet research at the LDS Church Archives, gaining access to some highly restricted materials by being introduced as "Brother McKay's daughter," a subterfuge that made her feel "guilty as hell." Her pursuit of little-known documents was not discreet enough, however, and eventually it attracted the attention of David O. McKay. After a "painful, acrimonious encounter" with her uncle, Brodie promised never again to consult materials in the Church Archives.

In partial compensation, Brodie's research was enlarged by other students of Mormonism, most notably Dale L. Morgan (1914-1971), who became a lifelong friend, mentor, and sounding board. Brodie finally completed her biography of Joseph Smith in 1944, and it was published the following year by Alfred A. Knopf when Brodie was only thirty."

Fawn M. Brodie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where exactly in RSR does Bushman "say Smith "believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals." I have read the book several times, and I don't recall that particular concession. I would love to see a citation.

Being the whitewash / spin-piece that "Rough Stone Rolling" is, Bushman understandably doesn't delve very deeply into these issues. But any self-respecting scholar of LDS history knows about them and I'd be happy to provide sources.

Here is Bushman's spin on Joseph Smith's occult practices in regards to his treasure-digging and glass-looking, which oftentimes required appeasing the local hill and dale spirits (Bushman doesn't mention that part, of course), as a "prepratory gospel":

"After 1828, Joseph could no longer see that magic might have prepared him to believe in a revelation of gold plates and translation with a stone. It did not occur to him that without magic his family might have scoffed at his story of Moroni, as did the minister who rejected the First Vision. Magic had played its part and now could be cast aside."

So, magic prepares people for revelations from God? LOL.. if that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

I'm not saying "Rough Stone Rolling" doesn't have its merits. It is interesting to see how an active Mormon handles these rather difficult issues. But don't fool yourself into thinking this is an objective treatment of Joseph Smith; it isn't.

[bytebear]

So, because she "felt guilty as hell" it makes her actions acceptable? Give me a break. And, I love how you dismiss both historians credentials as "Quite irrelevant." In other words, you don't want to compare because in comparison to Bushman, Broadie looks a lot like Michael Moore.

[mnn727]

Gee Bartertown, because someone disagree's with your opinion. it means they couldn't have possibly read any of her books? Give me a break!

[Maxel]

I don't see anything wrong with your quotation of Bushman (regarding folkloric magic preparing the family for the acceptance of the Angel Moroni), Barter_Town.

I'm not versed at all in 19th-century spiritualism, but I'd hazard that an acceptance of 'magic'- an acceptance of, and belief in, the power of a higher force acting in nature to bring events and results contrary to the normal process of things- could very easily lead to an acceptance of the Gospel, where we believe that the 'higher force' is God's power. It brings the esoteric nature of the Biblical miracles 'down to reality', so to speak- miracles and miraculous events are no longer 'dead and gone' but still very much alive. An acceptance of magic doesn't necessarily lead to acceptance of God's miracles and miraculous events- but for some people, it very well could. Joseph's family could have been those kind of people.

I don't see how that's some sort of crazy, outrageous spin.

[allredcon]

Read everything you can by Truman G. Madsen.

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by bytebear

So, because she "felt guilty as hell" it makes her actions acceptable? Give me a break.

I don't think there is any excuse for that, as she readily admitted, but you have to wonder why they'd allow her access to the archives simply for being "Bro. McKay's daughter" (in reality, his niece) with no credentials whatsoever.

And obviously it wouldn't be such a big deal if the information she accessed wasn't so controversial for Mormons.

And, I love how you dismiss both historians credentials as "Quite irrelevant."

So, because one author has his PhD and the other doesn't, his book trumps hers?

Shouldn't you be comparing the books themselves?

In other words, you don't want to compare because in comparison to Bushman, Broadie looks a lot like Michael Moore.

Bushman is the spinmeister here, if anyone. By accepting Joseph Smith's claim of prophethood, everything that follows is viewed through that lens. And hey, that's great. If all your church-history reading is relegated to the faith-promoting variety, Bushman's book is perfect for you.

Brodie's book, on the other hand, doesn't begin with this assumption. So, if you want a more objective approach, read Brodie's book. If you want a faith-promoting spin-job, stick with Bushman.

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by mnn727

Gee Bartertown, because someone disagree's with your opinion. it means they couldn't have possibly read any of her books? Give me a break!

When someone claims that Brodie's book says things that it doesn't, it is obvious they haven't really read the book. This isn't a matter of differing opinions.

[mnn727]

Originally Posted by Barter_Town

When someone claims that Brodie's book says things that it doesn't, it is obvious they haven't really read the book. This isn't a matter of differing opinions.

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually wrote and stop trying to put words in my mouth and above all stop trying to tell people what they have done and not done.

Brodie is a lousy writer/researcher in my opinion that decides what she wants the data to say before she does the research, its what a lot of people think about her, and not only about her book about JS -- deal with it.