No man know my history

[LostGirl]

I am interested to hear any thoughts about this fawn brodie book, specifically whether you feel she was able to remain objective despite obviously believing Joseph was a complete fraud. Whether he was or not is not my question, I am more wondering how trustworthy the various stories and quotes and conclusions are.

It is interesting seeing the difference in tone between this book and rough stone rolling. I have found it quite compelling and an easier read than RSR.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Her research is respected enough to be cited in places in RSR. That's good enough for me. No author with skin in the mormon game can avoid bias.

[LostGirl]

Thanks FFM.

She presents the timeline in a way that leads to the conclusion that most of the revelations were coincidentally (or not) very timely solutions to problems occurring at the time. Her research appears solid, and her narrative makes sense, I just tend to be cautious when there is an obvious foregone conclusion.

FAIR is no different, just with opposite conclusions, which is why I don't even bother going to them for a review of her work. They are proof though that you can string together enough quotes and stories to support just about any argument you choose to make.

Overall I find the book fascinating and really wish I could discuss it in Sunday School

[Emower]

I agree that it's pretty hard to avoid bias in the Mormon research game. The only complaint I have is that she used some sketchy sources to support some conclusions. Otherwise I thought it was pretty good.

[moksha]

The Father of Mormon Apologetics, Dr. Hugh G. Nibley, wrote a pamphlet called, "No Ma'am, That's Not History". While many things Nibley objected to as not being history have now been admitted to in the Church essays and the rest confirmed by LDS historians, it never the less stands as a testament to railing against the wind.

The only difference, between what Fawn Brodie's history and that of faithful but honest LDS Historians, is drawing different conclusions from the same evidence.

[Hagoth]

The Father of Mormon Apologetics, Dr. Hugh G. Nibley, wrote a pamphlet called, "No Ma'am, That's Not History". While many things Nibley objected to as not being history have now been admitted to in the Church essays and the rest confirmed by LDS historians, it never the less stands as a testament to railing against the wind.

The only difference, between what Fawn Brodie's history and that of faithful but honest LDS Historians, is drawing different conclusions from the same evidence.

Dr. Nibley's article served it's purpose well. After reading it I was convinced for about three decades that reading Brodie's book would be an utter waste of time. When I finally read it I lost a great deal of my former respect for Nibley. Just another half-truth apologist.

[Jeffret]

Brodie's work was groundbreaking and pioneering. She brought valuable information out into the light, creating a new discipline of really studying Mormon history. For the most part it holds up pretty well; it has aged well. It's not perfect, but it's accomplishments outweigh its problems. Others have followed Brodie's lead and dug deeper and further. Many other works are more complete or more thorough on various topics, but hers still provides value. There are few actual errors in Brodie's work or where her conclusions are unwarranted.

In about the 70's, there was a major amount of soul-searching among real historians, which resulted in a transformation in how they approach their job. Prior to then, there was an assumption, largely unspoken or written, that it was possible, and expected, for a good historian to present a fully objective view of history. During this fundamental examination of the discipline, historians came to accept that such ideal is impossible. Rather than try to mask this fundamental flaw, legitimate historians agreed that they should take a different approach. They should try to be as objective as possible and present supporting and conflicting information, but they should examine and admit their own biases up front. This doesn't invalidate historical research and writing but recognizes upfront the limitations and the necessity of the reader to examine and evaluate.

Given the modern historians' approach, Brodie could not have remained fully objective because such is recognized as an impossibility. Bushman couldn't either, but he writes in more of a modern historian's style. He is a believer, he acknowledges his biases, but he tries to be very thorough in presenting all of the evidence.

I suspect a part of what you find more appealing about Brodie's work is that her biases more match yours. But a bigger part is a difference in the style. Some history books are more readable and some are more thorough.