"No Man Knows My History" Fawn Brodie

[Pahoran]

I had to shut down my new laptop and fire up my old computer to answer you. Sorry for the previous failed attempt.

May I see what Brodie wrote about her book, as quoted above, please? Did she say she was an atheist?

I could refer you to a bunch of sources; but they are conveniently gathered together here.

(Should you have trouble getting through, let me know. Sometimes people report difficulties with logging directly into the articles.)

What kind of “naturalistic explanation” was she expecting to find for the BOM when it was so obviously based on Spaulding’s manuscript flavored with excerpts from the KJV and a smidgen of French and Shakespeare? I’m eager to read that.

Jim, I’m not quite sure how to break this to you, but Brodie flat-out rejects the Spaulding theory. It’s one of the few saving graces of her book; that, and the fact that it really is well-written and an engaging read.

I’ve read the “Spaulding manuscript;” the only one he was ever proven to have written. There is no Book of Mormon anything in it.

And, “a smidgen of French?” Dear me. In the circles I move in, there are two anti-Book of Mormon arguments that are reckoned to be the most pathetic. One is the silly “Jesus born at Jerusalem” argument, and the other the truly sub-freshman “Adieu” argument.

Even if true (evidence, please), there is nothing that would have prevented “ex-Mormon and atheist” Fawn Brodie from writing an objective, well-documented biography, which No Man Knows My History certainly is – not just in my own personal opinion, but in the judgment of many literary critics.

And that’s just the trouble. Literary critics, who are not trained in historiography, liked her book, the merits of which are largely literary.

Trained historians like her book a lot less, and those who have real knowledge of Mormon history like it least of all.

Brodie was not an untrained, Bible-college educated bumpkin, but a professional writer and peer-reviewed, university-trained historian who taught at UCLA. Others do not share your jaundiced view of her. She wrote several highly regarded histories.

“Highly regarded” in much the same way as NMKMH, i.e. the less people know about the subject, the more highly they regard her work.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

And also with you. (Where did I hear that before?)

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

I could refer you to a bunch of sources; but they are conveniently gathered together here.

(Should you have trouble getting through, let me know. Sometimes people report difficulties with logging directly into the articles.)

Jim, I’m not quite sure how to break this to you, but Brodie flat-out rejects the Spaulding theory. It’s one of the few saving graces of her book; that, and the fact that it really is well-written and an engaging read.

I’ve read the “Spaulding manuscript;” the only one he was ever proven to have written. There is no Book of Mormon anything in it.

And, “a smidgen of French?” Dear me. In the circles I move in, there are two anti-Book of Mormon arguments that are reckoned to be the most pathetic. One is the silly “Jesus born at Jerusalem” argument, and the other the truly sub-freshman “Adieu” argument.

And that’s just the trouble. Literary critics, who are not trained in historiography, liked her book, the merits of which are largely literary.

Trained historians like her book a lot less, and those who have real knowledge of Mormon history like it least of all.

“Highly regarded” in much the same way as NMKMH, i.e. the less people know about the subject, the more highly they regard her work.

And also with you. (Where did I hear that before?)

Regards,
Pahoran

does not matter that Brodie rejects Sapulding theory. The fact that several friends and family of Spaulding swore to the truth has not been refuted by anyone.

 

[LongJourney]

I had to shut down my new laptop and fire up my old computer to answer you. Sorry for the previous failed attempt.

I use a USB mouse on my laptop. Mousepads are very frustrating.

Does not matter that Brodie rejects Spalding theory. The fact that several friends and family of Spalding swore to the truth has not been refuted by anyone.

Mormons who live and die by the witnesses to the BoM totally ignore the witnesses to Spalding’s manuscript. We can find many motivations for the first group having lied. We can find NO motivations for the second group having lied. Unless you use your circular argument of anti-Mormonism.

There are many reasons for rejecting Mormon beliefs about the BoM. One does not have to believe in the Spalding theory to reject the BoM as scripture. To understand Spalding is to understand the good stuff in the BoM.

.

 

[scipio337]

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and leave it at that.

Yes, Hugh Nibley.

Frequently smeared, never discredited.

Yes, his translations of the Book of Abraham were rather accurate, weren’t they?

Pahoran:

Do you seriously think there’s an unbiased source that has anything important to say on any subject? The only reason anyone bothers to write anything at all is because they have some opinions they wish to argue for.

Indeed, which is why I can’t imagine why you would recommend Nibley or the Maxwell institute with a straight face. If Brodie represents “anti-Mormon propoganda”, what do Nibley and Maxwell represent? LDS agitprop.

I for one would follow your own advice in regards to proselytizing: “Instead of trying to find a way to point out the faults you imagine to be found in the Catholic Church, why not simply show the simple beauty, and hope, and joy, to be found in what you have?”

For the LDS faith to be valid, it has to point out “faults” Mormons imagine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. You know, the who “plain and simple truths”, “Great and Abominable Church” thingy.

Ironic, no?

But I do aknowledge your vehement claims. You’ve inspired me to purchase Brodie’s book. I’ve never concerned myself with reading about LDS History, or Smith. I don’t read up on the Loch Ness Monster, either. But methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, so I ordered a copy on Amazon.

Thank you!

 

[Eliza10]

I could refer you to a bunch of sources; but they are conveniently gathered together here.

Oh my gosh, this is SO boring! Who is this bore, Louis Midgley, who writes such drivel?

You keep bringing up that she wrote the Jefferson bigraphy, and your author Midgley here says, " Thus she devotes five chapters and an appendix to the old tale about Jefferson’s supposed “affair” with Sally Hemings." Do neither you or Midgley know that gentic testing in 1998 confirmed Brodies theory that supposed the affair was a real one?

I don’t believe you could give us a bunch of sources, Pahoran, I think you all you’ve got is this long boorish aritcle thats uses many many words to say nothing intelligable. How can Brigham Young Universtiy put its name on that article? (Then again, how can a university put Brigham Young’s name on it??)

 

[LongJourney]

You keep bringing up that she wrote the Jefferson bigraphy, and your author Midgley here says, " Thus she devotes five chapters and an appendix to the old tale about Jefferson’s supposed “affair” with Sally Hemings." Do neither you or Midgley know that gentic testing in 1998 confirmed Brodies theory that supposed the affair was a real one?

What is the surprise to that? She did the same thing to Sally Hemings that she did to Solomon Spalding.

 

[Eliza10]

What is the surprise to that? She did the same thing to Sally Hemings that she did to Solomon Spalding.

I do want to read what you wrote about Spaulding - having read what Brodie said (a qucik review of my thoughts on that – I feel Brodie was trying to stick with provable facts as much as possible (not hard since ther was such a plethera of them), and was ignoring Smith’s famous fertile imagination, that he could have read Spaulding and embellished easily on his own).

But of course you are the Spaulding scholar not me. I do want to read that which you wrote, but - 500 pages has me hesitating right now, and I am wondering how long it will monopolize my computer when I try to download it. I just got done with Brodies fascinating Smith book which was long and involved, and I am trying to read a biography of St. Francis de Sales, which I had such hopes for but I am sure now has never won any literary accolades (I am laboring over it, hoping it will “catch”.)

Tell me, what did she do to Hemings that she did to Spaulding??

 

[Eliza10]

I see its not hard to open or taximg on the computer. I’m going to scroll down and read “Smith Family Dreams” as that topic has always been intersting to me, as many years ago our local papers did a series on the early life of Smith, from this area, and the testamonies of his neighbors was extremely telling - no wonder they had to move away from roots!

 

[LongJourney]

She discounted all information in favor of either theory, without adequate examination.

It is not the downloading of the book is the problem, it is trying to read it online. The download is quick enough. I have downloaded books such as Clavigero’s “History of Mexico” that are twice as long, they didn’t take much time at all. The text itself is only 247 pages. The rest is supporting documentation, which is necessary in a work of this type. Don’t let it intimidate you.

On Learning and Religious Fundamentalism 3
Jews or Vikings 12
Setting the Context 30
More Context 55
Sources for the BoM 66
Found in a Cave 83
Natives as Jews 84
Alma as the Soul 117
Nephites as Vikings 140
Catholics as Apostates 167
Brighamites as Proto-Nazis 186
Brighamites as Shape-Shifters 200
To Mirror the Soul 223
A Silver Cloud 233
Appendices 247
Biblical Excerpts 247
Excerpts from the “Book of Enoch” 273
Excerpts from Clavigero’s History of Mexico 282
Key Elements from “Manuscript Story” 332
Excerpts from Archaeologica Americana 351
Testimonies of the Witnesses to “Manuscript Found” 356
Smith family dreams 374
Statistical Analyses 380
Acknowledgments 383
Bibliography 384
The Book of Solomon 397

 

[Pahoran]

does not matter that Brodie rejects Sapulding theory. The fact that several friends and family of Spaulding swore to the truth has not been refuted by anyone.

The fact that anti-Mormons keep trying to resuscitate the Spaulding theory, the most-disproved theory of origins since the “dirty shirt” theory of abiogenesis, is a “tacit admission” that they simply cannot explain the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

There are many reasons for rejecting Mormon beliefs about the BoM. One does not have to believe in the Spalding theory to reject the BoM as scripture. To understand Spalding is to understand the good stuff in the BoM.

 

[Pahoran]

Yes, his translations of the Book of Abraham were rather accurate, weren’t they?

What translations of the Book of Abraham?

Are you referring to the fact that Nibley was the first person to identify Joseph Smith Papyri XI and X as a “Book of Breathings?” Yes, that was pretty accurate.

Or are you referring to his “Egyptian Endowment,” which includes an interlinear translation of said papyri? It appears to be a pretty decent translation.

Indeed, which is why I can’t imagine why you would recommend Nibley or the Maxwell institute with a straight face. If Brodie represents “anti-Mormon propoganda”, what do Nibley and Maxwell represent? LDS agitprop.

Ah, another example of poisoning the well. What is this, the latest Catholic virtue? Cardinal Newman would be so pleased.

I for one would follow your own advice in regards to proselytizing: “Instead of trying to find a way to point out the faults you imagine to be found in the Catholic Church, why not simply show the simple beauty, and hope, and joy, to be found in what you have?”

Thank you for your suggestion; but you’re a bit late. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how we do go about it.

Always have.

For the LDS faith to be valid, it has to point out “faults” Mormons imagine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. You know, the who “plain and simple truths”, “Great and Abominable Church” thingy.

Which is not found in any of our proselyting material.

Not that I expect you to be aware of that, of course. I’ve only been posting here on Catholic Answers (or should that be “Catholic Dismissals”) for a few days, but it is clear that the Catholic anti-Mormons are no better informed about LDS doctrine, history or scripture than the Redneck Baptist anti-Mormons I usually deal with.

Just a lot more triumphalistic.

Ironic, no?

No.

But I do aknowledge your vehement claims. You’ve inspired me to purchase Brodie’s book. I’ve never concerned myself with reading about LDS History, or Smith. I don’t read up on the Loch Ness Monster, either. But methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, so I ordered a copy on Amazon.

Thank you!

You’re welcome. If you’ve got money to throw away, you might as well throw it away on 576 pages of discredited mind-reading, speculation and innuendo as on anything else.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

LongJourney:
What’s this, Gaddy? Are you so determined to promote your ridiculous book that you’re reduced to quoting yourself in your blurbs?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

What’s this, Gaddy? Are you so determined to promote your ridiculous book that you’re reduced to quoting yourself in your blurbs?

Regards,
Pahoran

Oh, you have encountered Gadianton in the past? He is quite some warrior, isn’t he? That is why I asked him to host it.

 

[Pahoran]

It was the Alfred A. Knopf Award for history.

By a curious coincidence, Alfred A. Knopf was her publisher. Hmm, I wonder what effect it might have upon a book’s sales if the publisher is able to promote it as “award-winning.” What do you think, Jim?

I think it’s the documentation that makes Brodie’s book so persuasive. Smith’s fraud conviction in New York, for example.

Yes, apart from the minor details that it wasn’t for fraud and he wasn’t convicted, Brodie really nails that one!

And Smith’s digging for buried treasure with the aid of magic stones. And his many wives. The 19th century was an age of gullibility in U.S. But why ppl believe it now is beyond my comprehension.

Jim Dandy

People are just amazingly gullible, and will believe anything. Why, just the other day someone told me that there is a Church that people go to where the priest mutters some words, and the communion emblems turn into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, even though they still look, smell, taste and have the identical chemical composition of the bread and wine they were just moments before!

No, this is not a dig at Catholicism. It’s a timely reminder that everyone’s religious beliefs always look odd to non-believers, and that it takes absolutely no talent at all to jeer at others for their “gullibility.”

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

I use a USB mouse on my laptop. Mousepads are very frustrating.

Mormons who live and die by the witnesses to the BoM totally ignore the witnesses to Spalding’s manuscript. We can find many motivations for the first group having lied.

“Find?” That’s a rather creative way to spell “fabricate,” isn’t it?

So just what are the “motivations” for eleven men to “lie” about seeing the plates and maintain the “lie” even after Joseph Smith has excommunicated them? Even after he’d died? Even after the Church had moved away to the West? When they had no hope of any sort of financial gain by maintaining the “lie,” and every reason to expect money and notoriety if they stepped up to expose the “fraud?”

What motivations, again?

We can find NO motivations for the second group having lied. Unless you use your circular argument of anti-Mormonism.

You’re beating up a straw man. There’s no need for anyone to suppose that the Conneaut “witnesses” lied about anything.

Seventeen years or so after Spaulding had died, some old codger hears passages from The Book of Mormon being read. He vaguely supposes that it reminds him of something old Solly wrote once. Mind you, old Solly was a preacher, and as well as his failed literary attempts, he probably preached a few sermons, in which he quoted from the Bible. So on the one hand the old codger hears something vaguely biblical-sounding that talks about people living anciently on the American continent. Old Solly used to quote from the Bible, and had once tried to write something about people living anciently on the American continent.

And so he talks about it with his cronies in the tavern that evening, and over the next few days.

Pretty soon, a whole bunch of them “remember” that what they’d heard old Solly prattling about all those years ago was exactly what the missionaries read out the other day, word for word!

Why, it’s almost as good as a “recovered memory.”

There are many reasons for rejecting Mormon beliefs about the BoM. One does not have to believe in the Spalding theory to reject the BoM as scripture. To understand Spalding is to understand the good stuff in the BoM.

I have read Spaulding’s only proven manuscript; there is nothing of the Book of Mormon in it.

Spaulding died in Ohio fourteen years before the Book of Mormon was published. Getting his “second manuscript” – never proven to have existed – into the hands of Joseph Smith in upstate New York requires a conspiracy theory that even the X Files producers would reject as too far-fetched.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

Perhaps you might want to read my book, rather than attacking it sight-unseen. Unless you are afraid to. Looking at the origins of a book as complex as the BoM needs much more than the examination of one possible source for it.

 

[Pahoran]

Oh my gosh, this is SO boring!

I’m sorry it’s too much for your attention span.

Who is this bore, Louis Midgley, who writes such drivel?

Once again, I apologise for bringing the other side of the story to your attention. I suppose that if all you want is something to confirm your prejudices, then the other side of the story is something you’d rather not hear.

You keep bringing up that she wrote the Jefferson bigraphy, and your author Midgley here says, " Thus she devotes five chapters and an appendix to the old tale about Jefferson’s supposed “affair” with Sally Hemings." Do neither you or Midgley know that gentic testing in 1998 confirmed Brodies theory that supposed the affair was a real one?

No I don’t; and neither do you.

What I know is that the DNA testing proved that one of the Hemings boys was descended from a Jefferson male. Which is not all that surprising; Sally was a slave, and slaveholders did sometimes take advantage. Midgley’s point – clearly lost on you – was that Brodie didn’t simply agree with a pre-existing rumour, but that she magnified whatever liaison there may or may not have been into a central episode of Jefferson’s “inner life;” and all that by taking the most egregious liberties with her sources.

I don’t believe you could give us a bunch of sources, Pahoran, I think you all you’ve got is this long boorish aritcle thats uses many many words to say nothing intelligable. How can Brigham Young Universtiy put its name on that article? (Then again, how can a university put Brigham Young’s name on it??)

Very easily; all that has to happen is that the university is run by people who base their views upon facts, instead of the ignorant stereotypes you evidently prefer.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Oh, you have encountered Gadianton in the past? He is quite some warrior, isn’t he? That is why I asked him to host it.

Yes, when it comes to pretentious buffoons, he’s just the man.

I take it, then, that you’re not him?

Perhaps you might want to read my book, rather than attacking it sight-unseen. Unless you are afraid to. Looking at the origins of a book as complex as the BoM needs much more than the examination of one possible source for it.

Do please tell me you’ve got some new reason to try to resuscitate this zombie theory? The last time it was attempted, the “handwriting analysis” effort collapsed in a heap.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[scipio337]

What translations of the Book of Abraham?

Are you referring to the fact that Nibley was the first person to identify Joseph Smith Papyri XI and X as a “Book of Breathings?” Yes, that was pretty accurate.

Wrong again. It was actually Theodule Deveria who discovered that, in 1856. As did Breasted, Petrie, and Sayce did in 1912. Nibley didn’t view it until what, 1965???

Pahoran:

…which includes an interlinear translation of said papyri? It appears to be a pretty decent translation.

“Interlinear translation”?? My translation: “made stuff up”.

Pahoran:

Ah, another example of poisoning the well. What is this, the latest Catholic virtue? Cardinal Newman would be so pleased.

I’m sorry that the logic of your own suggestion, there’s no “unbiased source” on the subject, even an LDS one, is lost upon you.

Pahoran:

Thank you for your suggestion; but you’re a bit late. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how we do go about it.

Always have.

Which is not found in any of our proselyting material.

It doesn’t need to be. Its part of the Standard Works. I know, “milk before meat”, right??

Pahoran:

Not that I expect you to be aware of that, of course. I’ve only been posting here on Catholic Answers (or should that be “Catholic Dismissals”) for a few days, but it is clear that the Catholic anti-Mormons are no better informed about LDS doctrine, history or scripture than the Redneck Baptist anti-Mormons I usually deal with.

Just a lot more triumphalistic.

You dismiss anything remotely critical as “anti-Mormon”, and *Catholics * are dismissive? Of course, your dismissals are only exceeded by your sanctimonious attitude. I suppose ther is no such thing as “Redneck Mormons” are there?

Pahoran:

No.

You’re welcome. If you’ve got money to throw away, you might as well throw it away on 576 pages of discredited mind-reading, speculation and innuendo as on anything else.

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, I suppose history will be kinder to Brodie’s work than Bushman’s. But then again, I suppose speculation an innuendo are always perferrable to the sanitized, sympathetic, and foremost, apologetic. Thinking on one’s own can be dangerous, no?

Don’t worry, I’ll also recommend it to my book-club.