A question about Fawn Brodie

[_GoodK]

I've read it. And the because she writes from the perspective of a heretic, I found the book difficult to stomach. She made no attempt at objectivity or intellectual honesty. She used quote mining, out of context quotes, and quote splits, to support her assumptions.

Moreover, the link GoodK provided above contains an interview with Fawn where where she admits to using the archives for some of her material.

PS Her biography on Jefferson was pathetic.

I've owned NMKMH for quite some time, and I've never read it all the way through. I use it more for the Appendix than anything else, it's not any easy read. The Jefferson biography wasn't bad, I thought.

[_krose]

Lamanite:

I guess I can understand why you are offended by "LDS Inc," but it is accurate, is it not, as far as being incorporated? Don't they talk about things being licensed to the Corporation of the First Presidency?

Incidentally, I agree that you (as well as others I know) don't give yourself enough credit for being strong enough to turn yourself around. There are plenty of people who find religion for a while and it does nothing for them in the long run. The drive to be a better person comes from the inside.

-kr

(Sorry for continuing a derailment.)




.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

P.S. You didn't comment on Fawn as a historian.

Brodie entered the field of history at a transitional period in my opinion, and an interesting period at that. Her historiographical approach is quite dated but serves as a great example of the limitations of the era when sociology, psychology and history were blended so confidently. And as I said, a great writer. So it makes the book very readable and quaint at the same time in certain respects.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've owned NMKMH for quite some time, and I've never read it all the way through. I use it more for the Appendix than anything else, it's not any easy read. The Jefferson biography wasn't bad, I thought.

Not easy? For me it was the opposite, but this is likely a reflection of differing tastes of course. What didn't you like about it? Personally I find it more readable than Bushman's book, which is far superior to Brodie's in terms of history.

[_ludwigm]

Lamanite:
I guess I can understand why you are offended by "LDS Inc," but it is accurate, is it not, as far as being incorporated? Don't they talk about things being licensed to the Corporation of the First Presidency?
...

For example, from the 1979 hungarian edition's impressum page:

Copyright 1979 by the Corporation of the President
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
--------------------------------------------------------
Selections From The Book of Mormon
translated into Hungarian 1979.
--------------------------------------------------------
Printed in the United States of America
PBMI4405HU

[_Danna]

edit to add: Her access to the Church archives was not a result of familial relationships. (what's that word...starts with a "P" that implies favoritism due to family ties, damn brain!)

Lamanite dude,

Nepotism is the word that escaped my brain also...Thanks to wiki I retrieved it.

Let me say this to you bro, while you think that LDS Inc has credit for keeping you from the point of the mountian(in Utah), let me say this based on my observations:

No, you are different, just like I was different from my less than desirable familial ties.

LDS Inc has nothing to do with who you are. Your wife and you at your core deserves more credit than does Thommy and his corporate thugs.

Follow your heart and love.

Just my two cents.

Happy newest year to you and yours,

-CT

Who are you? and what have you done with CT/PP?????

[_Danna]

I read NMKMH about two years ago. I think Brodie was a great historian, but I was not fond of her attempts to 'psychoanalyse' Joseph Smith somewhat. I have read so many attempts to do that, and each comes out with interesting and plausible and totally different results. Having just read the interview on Salamander, it looks like she added those psycho-interpretive bits when she revised for the second edition.

I remember being disappointed to find that she used some of Mark Hoffman's fraudulent material in at least one place - of course she died before he was exposed, so she can't be faulted for that.

But overall I thought it was very interesting, and she didn't let 'psychoanalysis' stand too much in the way of fact-based reporting. With new material that has been surfacing since Brodie's death, the book is less relevant today, but still valuable as a place to start - to find an interesting aspect of Joseph's life and research further from there. The book would have been tremendously important pre-internet though, for its collection of hard-to find information in one place. She was a trail-blazer, and an amazing, brave woman considering her family position and the era she lived in.

[_GoodK]

Not easy? For me it was the opposite, but this is likely a reflection of differing tastes of course. What didn't you like about it? Personally I find it more readable than Bushman's book, which is far superior to Brodie's in terms of history.

I guess I don't care for her writing much. Some writers can discuss history without being dull but I don't think she is one of them. It's still a good book to have, and like I said the Appendix is very useful.

[_Dr. Shades]

Fawn Brodie was not denied access to Church archives. In her interview, as part of the Cal State Fullerton oral history program, she said "It is not quite true to say the manuscript sources were denied to me."

She says that she first negotiated, and successfully so, unfettered access to church archives. But, she decided not to use it. "I wrote to [Pres. McKay] saying I would not ask for any more material and I never went back to the church library. So, technically, I was given access, but I didn't use it." Indeed, when she lists her key library resources, she does not mention the church archives.

She explained that she didn't want to use church archives because of "an extremely difficult family situation," but I kinda wonder what she thought the publication of her book would do to her family.

Sort of a strange thing for a biographer to do, ignore the most crucial repository of documents on the studied subject.

All that is interesting, but it directly contradicts her quote and the biographical information hosted on Wikipedia. It says (emphasis mine):

"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."

So according to one source she did use it, but according to another she didn't use it. Strange.

I'm curious, as to those who have commented above, whether each of you actually possess the book. It is a remarkable literary watershed on the life of the Prophet, but few Mormons -- active or tepid believers -- actually have ever read it, much less possessed it.

I have read it and I possess it.

I remember being disappointed to find that she used some of Mark Hoffman's fraudulent material in at least one place[.]

That's impossible. The book came out in 1945, and her revised edition came out in 1977. Mark Hofmann's first forgery didn't "hit the market" until 1980.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I read NMKMH about two years ago. I think Brodie was a great historian, but I was not fond of her attempts to 'psychoanalyse' Joseph Smith somewhat. I have read so many attempts to do that, and each comes out with interesting and plausible and totally different results. Having just read the interview on Salamander, it looks like she added those psycho-interpretive bits when she revised for the second edition.

The psychoanalyst bits were largely present in her first edition. If I recall correctly she framed them more succinctly a little later, but most of it was already there. At the least in terms of the mind-reading, conjecture, and etc.

I remember being disappointed to find that she used some of Mark Hoffman's fraudulent material in at least one place - of course she died before he was exposed, so she can't be faulted for that.

Actually I think she dies before he was really known, no? Brodie died in Jan. 1981 and Hoffman's forgeries weren't known until after If I recall correctly. I don't believe she did any publishing between late 1980 and Jan. 1981 when she died. Maybe you are thinking of something different?

But overall I thought it was very interesting, and she didn't let 'psychoanalysis' stand too much in the way of fact-based reporting.

This is where the historian in me disagrees. I think Brodie used whatever source, no matter where from, to justify her theory from the outset. Rather than weighing certain historical anecdotes in terms of provinance, veracity, etc. it seems her selection was based on whether or not something made Smith look like a fraud. "Fact-based reporting" is quite far from how I'd characterize her aspproach, it borders on historical fiction, but I need to read it again now having read Bushman. I think he provides a good foil for Brodie, or vice versa.