Has Fawn Brodie been vindicated?

[_readtoomuch]

I was reading a little today about Fawn Brodie and her rather famous book "No man knows my history". The article spoke a bit about her book and the issues she brought up in it. It is my understanding that she spoke of Joseph Smith wives and the multiple visions and so on. I also read a little about Hugh Nibley's response. Given the Essays that are now issued by the Church, has anyone looked at her claims in the light of the current situation? I guess what I am trying to say is sort of like William Law's situation insomuch that he claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Joseph denied it oh course. Yet, today, the church admits he was a polygamist. Thus, William Law was vindicated. He really wasn't full of lies; like I was always told when I was younger. Likewise, Fawn Brodie wrote the book and was based on what I read, treated poorly by the church and the members and excommunicated. Yet today, many of her issues are now accepted on the church website.

Is her book worth reading? Is Hugh Nibley's rebuttal still relevant? In short, has she been vindicated?

Just curious what others think of this??

[_Sethbag]

Hugh Nibley's rebuttal was always a massive steaming pile of BS.

Of course Fawn Brodie has been vindicated. Though some may still disagree with her "mind-reading" of Joseph Smith, at least the general gist of her uncovering of Joseph's shady activities has been more than adequately established.

[_sock puppet]

Hugh Nibley's rebuttal was always a massive steaming pile of BS.

He knew his rebuttal was not accurate, he was a massive steaming Liar for the Lord.

[_Maksutov]

Hugh Nibley's rebuttal was always a massive steaming pile of b***s***.

Of course Fawn Brodie has been vindicated. Though some may still disagree with her "mind-reading" of Joseph Smith, at least the general gist of her uncovering of Joseph's shady activities has been more than adequately established.

The "psychobiography" concept is flawed, but she presented information to millions that only a tiny handful had been aware of before. Every biographer of Smith has had to take her into account.

After reading Nibley's 'rebuttal', replete with petty sarcasm and sexist condescension, I could never take him seriously as a thinker. I still don't.

[_Bret Ripley]

I have often suggested that people read Nibley's piece before they read Brodie. The end result is usually something along the lines of "what the hell was he talking about?"

[_Fence Sitter]

It's pretty simple.

Check the footnotes of any biography or Church history book written since she published No Man Knows My History.

I would say vindication is an understatement.

In fact if she were publishing the same book today she would not have faced any Church discipline at all.

Regardless on what one thinks of her conclusions, her prose makes the book a must read.

[_Equality]

On another thread, someone posted a list of 100 things she got wrong in her book. Oh. Wait. Never mind.

[_badseed]

I feel like a number of once maligned historians are slowly being vindicated as evidence comes out. Brodie, Brooks, and Quinn.

Bushman quotes Brodie in RSR and I think even had some good things to say about her work. If I recall correctly the recent MMM book by Turley et al does similar things with Brooks— specifically showing that she largely got it right. What is interesting with both Brodie and Brooks is that they did their work a while back and it's still holding up pretty well.

The Church's recent essay on polygamy seems to acknowledge that Quinn was right in his Post Manifesto Polygamy essay about the official and secret continuation of the practice after the First Manifesto. Quinn claims he was excommunicated for what he wrote but now it essentially has been corroborated officially.

[_DarkHelmet]

On another thread, someone posted a list of 100 things she got wrong in her book. Oh. Wait. Never mind.

Yep. The fact that BC Space claimed to have 100 error at his fingertips, but has been unable to list even one, and has gone into hiding is more proof Brodie has been vindicated.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

The Church's recent essay on polygamy seems to acknowledge that Quinn was right in his Post Manifesto Polygamy essay about the official and secret continuation of the practice after the First Manifesto. Quinn claims he was excommunicated for what he wrote but now it essentially has been corroborated officially.

I'm waiting for the same thing to happen with Quinn's Same Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.

But I'm not holding my breath.