A question about Fawn Brodie

[_Lamanite]

Objective historiography is often taught and rarely practiced. Just be upfront about your bias in the Preface, a la - Richard Bushman! Ta Daaa!


Big UP!


Lamanite

[_Mercury]

Objective historiography is often taught and rarely practiced. Just be upfront about your bias in the Preface, a la - Richard Bushman! Ta Daaa!


Big UP!


Lamanite

You mentioned Bushman and the behavior of being objective in the same context.

You fail, try again.

[_Lamanite]

Objective historiography is often taught and rarely practiced. Just be upfront about your bias in the Preface, a la - Richard Bushman! Ta Daaa!


Big UP!


Lamanite

You mentioned Bushman and the behavior of being objective in the same context.

You fail, try again.

You're ignorance shows no bounds.

1. Bushman WAS upfront about his bias in the Preface to RSR. As opposed to Brodie's hidden agenda.
2. Southern Exposure is not the only Strip Club in SLC. We have many Strip Clubs and Gentleman's clubs as well. (you made the assertion in another thread)

[_rcrocket]

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

Which is a better source? Wiki or her own published interview? I realize that evidentiary sources don't play much importance around here. I recall Rollo's repeated claims that Quinn has been unable to get a job due to Mormon blackballing when Quinn was asked this question in a Sunstone presentation and denied it.

I personally put more trust in the interviews. But to each his own.

[_rcrocket]

As opposed to Brodie's hidden agenda.

That jargonesque cliché doesn't work here. She had no hidden agenda. She was out and out to shred the Prophet.

[_Nevo]

If you'll check the interview, you'll see that she was granted access but chose not to use the archives -- at least what she was interested in.

I'm curious, do you possess either the Joseph Smith biography or the Thomas Jefferson biography? Or read the latter? (I don't possess the latter and haven't read it.)

No. I borrowed them from the library. No man knows my history, I've had to borrow several times. I do own Isaacson's Jefferson biography. Now that's a Biography!

Isaacson's Jefferson biography, huh? You should really hang on to that because it appears to be the only copy ;)

As for No Man Knows My History, I own it and I think it's a wonderful piece of storytelling. For all of Bushman's gifts as a historian, I found his biography flat and somewhat colorless. Not so Ms. Brodie's book.

Here is one of my favorite passages:

What had overpowered Josiah Quincy, as indeed it did most of the prophet's visitors, was Joseph's magnificent self-assurance. Increased success had served to intensify his boldness and exuberance. The zest for living that he radiated never failed to inspire his own people with a sense of the richness of life. They followed him slavishly and devotedly if only to warm themselves in the glow of his presence.

They built for him, preached for him, and made unbelievable sacrifices to carry out his orders, not only because they were convinced he was God's prophet, but also because they loved him as a man. They were as elated when he won a wrestling match as they were awed when he dictated a new revelation. They retold tales of his generosity and tenderness, marveling that he fed so many of the poor in Nauvoo at his table without stint, and that he entertained friend and enemy alike. He was a genial host, warmhearted and friendly to all comers, and fiercely loyal to his friends.

Joseph was no hair-shirt prophet. He believed in the good life, with moderate self-indulgence in food and drink, occasional sport, and good entertainment. And that he succeeded in enjoying himself to the hilt detracted not at all from the semi-deification with which his own people enshrouded him. Any protests of impropriety dissolved before his personal charm. "Man is that he might have joy" had been one of his most significant pronouncements in the Book of Mormon, and from that belief he had never deviated.

He was gregarious, expansive, and genuinely fond of people. And it is no accident that his theology in the end discarded all traces of Calvinism and became an ingenuous blend of supernaturalism and materialism, which promised in heaven a continuation of all earthly pleasures . . . .

Although the prophet was the prime mover in all Mormon thinking and activity, he was himself tremendously affected by the powerful social unit he had created. As thousands of converts poured in from the East and Canada and the British Isles, the increasing pressure of administrative duties--of settling and housing these people and getting work for them--diverted his energy more and more into secular affairs. But there was an equally insistent pressure upon his inner character. These thousands looked to him to usher in the millennium. They clamored for spiritual enlightenment and demanded to know the laws of the kingdom of God. Joseph gave them the best that was in him, without affidavits, witnesses, or apology. And to one who reads through his sermons and journal for this period, it must seem that the role of prophet had finally swallowed up the man.

-- Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2d ed., rev. and enl. (New York: Knopf, 1971), 294-95.

[_Lamanite]

No. I borrowed them from the library. No man knows my history, I've had to borrow several times. I do own Isaacson's Jefferson biography. Now that's a Biography!

Isaacson's Jefferson biography, huh? You should really hang on to that because it appears to be the only copy ;)

Thanks for calling me out on that. I was thinking of 1776 by McCullough and Jefferson by Christopher Hitchens, But had been looking at Einstein by Isaacson for something else today. Totally my bad.


Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Lamanite]

As opposed to Brodie's hidden agenda.

That jargonesque cliché doesn't work here. She had no hidden agenda. She was out and out to shred the Prophet.

All I'm saying is that if she would have walked up to the Church Historian (Joseph Fielding Smith?) at the time and said, "I'm a heretic and would like to write a biography of Joseph Smith that would be contrary to the teachings and beliefs of the Church; can I take a peek at his personal papers?" I'm sure she would have been shown the door. But at least she could say she was honest.

Out to shred the prophet, to be sure. Open and upfront about it? Not in the least.


Big UP!

Lamanite

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Objective historiography is often taught and rarely practiced. Just be upfront about your bias in the Preface, a la - Richard Bushman! Ta Daaa!


Big UP!


Lamanite

You mentioned Bushman and the behavior of being objective in the same context.

You fail, try again.

I may not know the sound of one hand clapping, but I am pretty familiar with the sound of a person spouting off about something with which they are philosophically unfamiliar. I call it confident ignorance.

[_Mercury]

I may not know the sound of one hand clapping, but I am pretty familiar with the sound of a person spouting off about something with which they are philosophically unfamiliar. I call it confident ignorance.

Call your behavior anything you like. I am familiar with what objectivity is. As Bushman clearly dtrains himself to still hold on somehow to the myth of joseph Smiths positive character traits, he still falls short in explaining the utter lack of humanity from the man.