"No Man Knows My History" Fawn Brodie

[Pahoran]

Wrong again. It was actually Theodule Deveria who discovered that, in 1856.

Really? Call for references, please.

Deveria recognised one of the facsimiles as being an Egyptian “funerary” document; but where did he ever see Joseph Smith Papyri XI and X to identify them as a Snsn text?

As did Breasted, Petrie, and Sayce did in 1912.

Which of them actually saw J.S. Pap. XI and X?

Nibley didn’t view it until what, 1965???

1. And he was the first to identify them as a Book of Breathings.

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

“Translation?” The correct spelling is accusation.

And, like most of the accusations I’ve seen in this forum, it is false.

He didn’t make anything up, he translated it; line by line.

That’s what “interlinear” means.

Have you seen any competent Egyptologist actually refute his translation, or do the anti-Mormon hate sites from which you source your “information” not contain any such thing?

Let me help you out here: Robert K. Ritner, who is a qualified Egyptologist and no friend of the Church lambasted Nibley for his translation. He did not say that Nibley “made stuff up” because, despite his prejudices, Ritner is not a brazen liar. He critiqued Nibley’s word choices in about three places.

That was it.

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.

The logic is not lost upon me, but it is certainly lost upon you.

Given that unbiased people are simply not motivated to devote hours of study and work on subjects about which they have no strong feelings, it follows that all sources are biased.

However, Hugh Nibley was a first-class scholar, and the Maxwell Institute is a scholarly organisation that does real scholarship. As such, it provides balance to the anti-Mormon Dreck that you so clearly prefer.

Calling it “agitprop” was certainly a false accusation. But then, you do seem to prefer them that way.

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

Do you do all your “thinking” in bumper-sticker slogans?

You are, as you perfectly well know, shifting the goal posts. If Catholic converts are only going to encounter this supposedly Catholic-hostile material after they have become converted, then it follows that we do in fact follow the proselyting guideline I laid out, above.

Incidentally, the allegedly Catholic-hostile material you mentioned does not mention the Catholic Church, and interpretations to that effect are speculative and non-authoritative, and have in fact been explicitly repudiated by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Does your agitprop ever mention this relevant fact?

Or perhaps not?

You dismiss anything remotely critical ans “anti-Mormon”,

“Remotely critical?” No.

Brazenly hostile? You bet.

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?

Of course there are redneck Mormons. They do not speak for me.

But if I have a “sanctimonious attitude,” it consists in nothing more than the fact that I walk my own talk. When people show up at the boards I frequent and start Catholic-bashing, I point out the error of their ways. And if that doesn’t work, I rip their arms off and feed them to them.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

There are a number of regular Catholic posters where I usually hang out. I hadn’t seen Soren for a while until he came back to ask for information on a particular question, but he can vouch for me. If 3DOP ever comes here, he will tell you the same.

Well, I suppose history will be kinder to Brodie’s work than Bushman’s.

And I think you are wrong. Time will tell, of course, but the simple fact is that Brodie, being entirely incapable of taking Joseph’s religious claims seriously, accordingly failed to understand him; because the key to understanding Joseph is that he took his claims seriously.

But then again, I suppose speculation an innuendo are always perferrable to the sanitized, sympathetic, and foremost, apologetic.

Thus ignoring the fact that, in the last analysis, everything that argues in the defense of a position is “apologetic.”

Brodie’s tome is an apologetic for secular cultural Mormonism.

Thinking on one’s own can be dangerous, no?

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

That’s right; you wouldn’t want them thinking on their own.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

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

 

[zaffiroborant]

Let me help you out here: Robert K. Ritner, who is a qualified Egyptologist and no friend of the Church lambasted Nibley for his translation. He did not say that Nibley “made stuff up” because, despite his prejudices, Ritner is not a brazen liar. He critiqued Nibley’s word choices in about three places.

Could you elaborate on Mr. Ritner being “no friend of the Church”?

 

[Eliza10]

Pahoran;6942046:

this is horribly uncharitable from a guy who demands charity.

this is horribly uncharitable from a guy who demands charity.

Yes. Pahoran’s not nice. But he should get a prize for being the most argumentative. He WILL have the last word, no matter what he is saying.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pahoran]

Could you elaborate on Mr. Ritner being “no friend of the Church”?

I’m not saying he’s nakedly hostile in the SirThomasMore mould. I’m saying that he basically thinks that we should sit in silence and let the Egyptologists tell us what the Book of Abraham means. He fails to grasp the fact that the question of what relationship the Book of Abraham has with any actual Egyptian papyri is not a settled question.

He dismissed Hugh Nibley as a “polemicist,” but he nevertheless described Nibley’s The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri as an “interlinear translation,” not as “making stuff up.”

There is a popular myth that Mormons are anti-intellectual and want nothing to do with secular learning. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing but respect for Professor Ritner’s Egyptological expertise, and feel that he has a lot to tell us about the papyri now in the Church’s possession. He simply is not qualified to pontificate about the nature and contents of the Book of Abraham.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

SirThomasMore;6942339:

this is horribly uncharitable from a guy who demands charity.

Yes. Pahoran’s not nice. But he should get a prize for being the most argumentative. He WILL have the last word, no matter what he is saying.

While your hero, SirThomasMore is nothing but sweetness and light. I understand.

In case you haven’t noticed, Eliza, I have only weighed in on threads relating to LDS things; and I have only taken issue with those who wish to bash my faith.

If your faith is somehow tied up with Mrs. Brodie being untouchable, then I am sorry. But if you want to actually discuss her once-vaunted psychobiography, then you need to understand that there is another side to the story.

And no, it really doesn’t lend itself to being expressed in bumper-sticker slogans.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[utah_rose]

Well this topic was introduced on the just-closed thread. SInce it is off-topic of the closed thread, here is the comment by Tikitokiguy, then I’ll comment:

:
I read that book about a month or so ago. I was hoping there would be some good things in it about Joseph Smith. I was hoping at least some of those marriages were really done to follow Gods will. Nope. It really breaks my heart. Smith was no prophet, he was pure man like me or you. What’s more, he’s worse. Hopefully if given the chance to scare women into marrying me, I would never do that. Somehow I knew it all to be false but hoped it wasn’t, and went ahead and joined the LDS church. Now out of depression, I read the book and it was wonderfully written and with therapy, helping me break away from the LDS church. It does break my heart. It also makes me sad so many followers choose to follow him. No wonder so many ex-LDS become atheists. Maybe they are so sad about so many people being fooled, they think God does not exist, can’t exist, because if He did exist He would not let so many people be fooled. And how can I tell the one man in the ward that calls me, always encouraging me to come back to the ward? How can I tell him I’ve become an enemy of the church? How can I tell him to find peace with myself I must be myself, and to forgive my dad I feel I must join his church - the Catholic church.

In the Elders Quorum meeting one time the teacher said he thinks if the church wanted all the men to go to Salt Lake and protect the church, most of us would probably go. He said most, not all. I asked myself - would I go to Salt Lake and protect the church? Would I die for the church? Then, I’m not sure. But now, no. I would not die for the church. But would I fight for and die for the Catholic church? Let me put it this way - dying for the LDS church would be a bad death for me. Dying for the Catholic church would be an honorable and worthy way to die. I can’t stand with the LDS church anymore. I stand with the
Catholic church because those people are like me, they are everyday people. I’ll stand with the Unitarian Universalists because they seem to accept all people and as I heard - all people are special and have dignity.

I live in Salt Lake City and I can tell you they rule with an iron fist in this state. We moved here over 30 years ago, and they are very clannish. Once they learn you are Catholic they don’t want their children associating with yours. Neighbors, once they learn you are Catholic, and no don’t want to convert to being LDS ignore you.

Fawn Brodie’s book is right on. I’m sorry to say that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a con man.

Also, please think this way. If an angel of the Lord really appeared to Joseph Smith (Moroni) he may either have made this up OR it could have been Satan disguised as an angel of light because he so wants to destroy the Catholic Church. We are considered a “missionary state” because of the majority of Mormons.

Now, I do know many nice LDS people that I worked with but very few want to socialize. The one good thing though is that they do believe in family and are opposed to same sex marriage. I believe that they are brainwashed though and taught not to question, as you may have also been.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus 2000 years ago. He is the Head of the Church. The Pope takes his earthly place here on earth and is guided by the Holy Spirit.
As far as I know, Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity as we do, and furthermore believe that God was once a person and became God. They also believe they can too.

This is a replay from the Garden of Eden “You will be like God and know all things”.

Pray for them, but please come back to the Church. If you don’t have a Catechism, get one, so you’re thoroughly familiar with your Faith. It is too precious to lose.

 

[scipio337]

Really? Call for references, please.

Why? I know the game: “not from an anti-LDS source!”

Pahoran:

Have you seen any competent Egyptologist actually refute his translation, or do the anti-Mormon hate sites from which you source your “information” not contain any such thing?

Let me help you out here: Robert K. Ritner, who is a qualified Egyptologist and no friend of the Church lambasted Nibley for his translation. He did not say that Nibley “made stuff up” because, despite his prejudices, Ritner is not a brazen liar. He critiqued Nibley’s word choices in about three places.

That was it.

Do you mean this Robert Ritner critique?:

By 1861, T. Devéria had noted a series of anachronisms and absurdities in the supposed translation and woodcut vignettes, and in 1912 a solicitation for professional opinions on the matter drew uniformly derisive assessments from A. H. Sayce, W. M. F. Petrie, J. H.Breasted, A. C. Mace, J. Peters, S. A. B. Mercer, E. Meyer, and F. W. von Bissing. Apologetic response was muted, as the papyri no longer belonged to the church when it migrated west to Utah, and they were thought to have been lost, perhaps in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Aside from
ad hominem attacks on the Egyptologists themselves, the matter generated little further discussion.“Faced by a solid phalanx of PhD’s, the Mormons were properly overawed.” 7

…continued

[footnote 7:]Hugh Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great
Price,” The Improvement Era 71 (January 1968): 18–24, quote on p. 23. Within this and continuing installments, Nibley undercuts this “appeal to authority” by a
series of personal attacks: Mercer, “a hustling young clergyman” (ibid., p. 21), is extensively attacked in The Improvement Era 71 (May 1968): 55–57, and vol. 71 (June 1968): 18–22, not “primarily to discredit the authority” of the scholar, but to illustrate “the limitations and pitfalls of Egyptology in general” (June 1968, p. 22). Presumably for the same reason, Nibley notes that Sayce was a “spoiled dilettante” (vol. 71,
July 1968, p. 50), that Petrie “never went to a theatre” (ibid.), that Meyer “lacked aesthetic sense” (ibid., p. 51) but had a rationalistic bent that “ineffectively [sic!] disqualifies
himself from the jury” (p. 52), that Breasted was “pro-German” (p. 54), and that von Bissing
had “an uncompromising loyalty to a feudal society and feudal religion—hardly the man to look with a kindly eye on the supernaturalism. . . of a Joseph Smith” (p. 54,
emphasis added). European “feudal religion,” of course, presupposed the reality of supernatural intervention, but Nibley’s logic is peculiar in these tracts circulated
only among the faithful. The Egyptologists are stigmatized as being idiosyncratic and aloof, which should make their unified assessment even more compelling.
In any case, Nibley wants a sympathetic audience, not Egyptological fact. The August 1968 continuation derides the careers of T. Devéria, J. Peters, A. C. Mace,
A. M. Lythgoe, G. Barton, E. Banks, and E. A. W. Budge. Nibley’s tactic has been adopted by his followers. The earlier version of this article produced internet
discussions devoted not to the translation, but to scurrilous remarks concerning my own religious and personal habits. Let the scholar be warned.

utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf (Oh nos, a scary "anti Mormon site!!)

Yes, it certainly sounds like a glowing review of Nibley’s scholarship on the issue.

Let’s do go on:

The word-for-word, incomplete translations in Nibley 1975 produce disjointed lines of the very sortcriticized by John Gee (“A Tragedy of Errors,”Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4 (1992): 93–119, esp. 105–6) regarding Charles M. Larson,
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992 [revised edition of 1985]) (hereafter C. Larson 1992). Cf. Nibley 1975, pp. 19–20: “inside (of ) the lake great (of ) Chonsu born of Taykhebyt justified likewise after lasped” with C. Larson as cited by Gee: “this pool great Khonsu born of Taykhebyt justified likewise after grasped.” Nibley noted that his literal translation
was “nonsense” (1975, p. 47).

Try a search of the PDF for the word “Misread”, and tell me if their total is “in about three places…That was it.”

 

[scipio337]

Pahoran:

The logic is not lost upon me, but it is certainly lost upon you.

Pahoran:

…However, Hugh Nibley was a first-class scholar, and the Maxwell Institute is a scholarly organisation that does real scholarship.

And the irony continues!

Pahoran:

Calling it “agitprop” was certainly a false accusation. But then, you do seem to prefer them that way.

No less of a false accusation than suggesting Brodie represents “anti-Mormon propoganda”,

Pahoran:

Do you do all your “thinking” in bumper-sticker slogans?

Yes, it one of the few ways to identify an American Redneck Catholic. Oh, besides “not knowing LDS Doctrine”.

Pahoran:

You are, as you perfectly well know, shifting the goal posts. If Catholic converts are only going to encounter this supposedly Catholic-hostile material after they have become converted, then it follows that we do in fact follow the proselyting guideline I laid out, above.

Incidentally, the allegedly Catholic-hostile material you mentioned does not mention the Catholic Church, and interpretations to that effect are speculative and non-authoritative, and have in fact been explicitly repudiated by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course! It would be a supreme leap in logic to consider anything by McConkie to be authoritative, and highly speculative, given the “Popes and priests” Lucifer “buys up” in 1984 version of the Endowment Ceremony.

It is purely speculative that any Restoration by Smith would be needed, if in fact there were no “faults” Mormons imagine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church.

Pahoran:

Does your agitprop ever mention this relevant fact?

Or perhaps not?

See above. I can only attribute it to American Redneck Catholic Syndrome. Then again, I’m not the one who considers the Maxwell Institute to be a “scholarly organisation that does real scholarship”.

“Remotely critical?” No.

Brazenly hostile? You bet.

I’m sure your celebration of non LDS, “remotely critical” works will be forthcoming.

Or, not.

Pahoran:

Of course there are redneck Mormons. They do not speak for me.

But if I have a “sanctimonious attitude,” it consists in nothing more than the fact that I walk my own talk. When people show up at the boards I frequent and start Catholic-bashing, I point out the error of their ways. And if that doesn’t work, I rip their arms off and feed them to them.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

There are a number of regular Catholic posters where I usually hang out. I hadn’t seen Soren for a while until he came back to ask for information on a particular question, but he can vouch for me. If 3DOP ever comes here, he will tell you the same…

I see, and now we add “internet tough guy”, (figuratively speaking, of course) to your list of grandiose accolades? Spare we unwashed masses from your greatness and wholehearted defense of Catholics!

Pahoran:

And I think you are wrong. Time will tell, of course, but the simple fact is that Brodie, being entirely incapable of taking Joseph’s religious claims seriously, accordingly failed to understand him; because the key to understanding Joseph is that he took his claims seriously.

I’m sure just as much time will be spent at the aforementioned Maxwell Instutite critiquing Bushman’s work, as there has been Brodies.

Perhaps we can come back in 40 years and discuss.

Pahoran:

That’s right; you wouldn’t want them thinking on their own.

Well, ususally we offer two books as a counter-point, and discuss it as a group. Of course, if they come up preferring Brodie’s scholarship to Bushman’s I’m sure you’d come up with an equally inane and dismissive excuse. Bon fait!

 

[Pahoran]

Why? I know the game: “not from an anti-LDS source!”

Not my game. It is you, and not I, who is trying to poison the well against arguments you don’t like simply because of their sources.

I do insist, rightly, that anything purporting to give an LDS position should come from an LDS source. Which would seem to be fair enough, don’t you think?

Do you mean this Robert Ritner critique?:

That’s right; the one that asserts that Nibley gave an interlinear translation, and proves the accusation that he merely “made stuff up” to be a brazen falsehood.

Do you intend to apologise for your false accusation any time soon?

It’s also the one that does NOT say that Deveria identified any of the Joseph Smith Papyri as a Breathing document. So you’ve failed to provide a source for your claim.

utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf (Oh nos, a scary "anti Mormon site!!)

Nothing “scary” about it; but yes, UTLM is an anti-Mormon site, and I take the Tanners’ opinions with a grain of salt.

Yes, it certainly sounds like a glowing review of Nibley’s scholarship on the issue.

Since I never claimed that Ritner gave Nibley’s scholarship “a glowing review,” you are beating up a straw man.

Try a search of the PDF for the word “Misread”, and tell me if their total is “in about three places…That was it.”

I’m sorry, I was too busy doing a search for “made stuff up.” It wasn’t there.

Apparently, whoever made that accusation was lying.

Oh dear.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

And the irony continues!

In that case, you’d better alert the Vatican Library that they are working with a bunch of hack Mormon apologists.

No less of a false accusation than suggesting Brodie represents “anti-Mormon propoganda”,

Which it is. Brodie purports to write a biography of a man she does not understand, but her real purpose is to explain away his truth claims and prophetic charisms. And especially, the Book of Mormon.

Yes, it one of the few ways to identify an American Redneck Catholic. Oh, besides “not knowing LDS Doctrine”.

People are fully entitled to not know LDS doctrine. However, in not knowing, they really ought not to be pontificating about it.

Of course! It would be a supreme leap in logic to consider anything by McConkie to be authoritative,

Especially in the light of these relevant facts:

• The First Presidency made him change the offending entry; and
• He acknowledges in the front of the book that it represents his own views and has no official standing.

Does this fact get disclosed in your agitprop?

Or perhaps not?

As a person of good character, I will of course not be discussing any aspect of the ordinances of the Temple, past or present. As one who respects what is sacred to other faith traditions, I will invite you to do likewise.

It is purely speculative that any Restoration by Smith would be needed, if in fact there were no “faults” Mormons imagine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually you are putting the cart before the horse. The Restoration was necessary because God said it was. Any faults in any earthly church are more or less incidental to the point.

See above. I can only attribute it to American Redneck Catholic Syndrome. Then again, I’m not the one who considers the Maxwell Institute to be a “scholarly organisation that does real scholarship”.

No, but the Vatican Library does.

I’m sure your celebration of non LDS, “remotely critical” works will be forthcoming.

Or, not.

Probably not in this forum. I’m here to defend my faith against scurrilous attacks by triumphantly uninformed and militantly hostile people. Discussing the merits of other scholarship is something that I will do elsewhere.

I see, and now we add “internet tough guy”, (figuratively speaking, of course) to your list of grandiose accolades? Spare we unwashed masses from your greatness and wholehearted defense of Catholics!

Sigh. No “grandiose accolades” are in view. All I’m saying is that I extend the same courtesy to you that I ask for myself.

I’m sorry if that offends you.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Eliza10]

While your hero, SirThomasMore is nothing but sweetness and light. I understand.

Actually the St. Thomas More is my hero :

…http://floscarmeli.stblogs.org/images/Ward-Thomas More-small.jpg
…St. Thomas More’s farewell to his daughter, by Edward Matthey Ward

Please don’t be jealous. He is worthy of admiration!

Perhaps it’s More’s worthiness, like the worthiness of other Saints, that make me so SAD when I hear people these generations later giving “testimonies” of a man like Smith.

If your faith is somehow tied up with Mrs. Brodie being untouchable, then I am sorry. But if you want to actually discuss her once-vaunted psychobiography, then you need to understand that there is another side to the story.

I read the book and its excellent. An honest critique of one who read it without bias would be interesting. Actually I most would like to read a real “psychobiography” If one actually exists, someone please tell me about it!

 

[LongJourney]

Perhaps, Mr. Pahoran, as a New Zealander, you are unacquainted with North American history, and particularly the oral history of North American Natives. In their legends, there are some parallels in the BoM. And this is supported by European history. Re-interpreting the BoM in the light of these FEW parallels, transforms the meaning of the BoM.

As a presumably white New Zealander, you might find this threatening, eh?

 

[Pahoran]

Actually the St. Thomas More is my hero :

Please don’t be jealous. He is worthy of admiration!

Evidently. From Wikipedia:

Ackroyd, however, notes that More “approved of Burning”[40] For example, after the case of John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by More of harboring banned books, and who was sentenced to be burnt to death at the stake for refusing to recant, More declared: he “burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.”

Don’t you just yearn for the day when people like SirThomasMore could treat people like me as combustible material?

Well, hard as it must be for you to deal with, I’m afraid those days are gone.

Perhaps it’s More’s worthiness, like the worthiness of other Saints, that make me so SAD when I hear people these generations later giving “testimonies” of a man like Smith.

Yes, I see. Joseph just wasn’t saintly enough, having never burned any “heretics.”

I read the book and its excellent. An honest critique of one who read it without bias would be interesting. Actually I most would like to read a real “psychobiography” If one actually exists, someone please tell me about it!

I’m sure you enjoyed the book. As I said, it is an engaging read. There’s only one real problem with it: the Joseph she describes never lived.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Perhaps, Mr. Pahoran, as a New Zealander, you are unacquainted with North American history, and particularly the oral history of North American Natives. In their legends, there are some parallels in the BoM. And this is supported by European history. Re-interpreting the BoM in the light of these FEW parallels, transforms the meaning of the BoM.

As a presumably white New Zealander, you might find this threatening, eh?

Or perhaps not. Like Mrs. Brodie, you have an unfortunate penchant for reading the minds of people you’ve never met and do not understand.

You certainly are quite clueless about how “race consciousness” functions in New Zealand culture. I don’t think of myself as “white,” and that forms no part of my identity.

Sorry to disappoint you, and all that.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

Like Mrs. Brodie, you have an unfortunate penchant for reading the minds of people you’ve never met and do not understand.

Perhaps you, who have never met or had any opportunity to understand North American Natives, also have such a penchant.

 

[Pahoran]

Perhaps you, who have never met or had any opportunity to understand North American Natives, also have such a penchant.

Why would you suppose that? I have met some North American natives, and I have no illusions that I can read their minds.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

And were they from NorthEast North America? Did they know their history and culture?

No more posting tonight. I will see if your attitude is different tomorrow.

In order to understand the BoM, one must understand NorthEast North American history. My book was written with people like you in mind.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Evidently.

From Wikipedia:

 

[Pahoran]

It appears that one of my earlier posts was not nice enough. I can no longer edit it, so I shall now post an amended version.

Oh my gosh, this is SO boring!

I’m sure it would be quite unkind of me to opine on any subject, including but not limited to the appropriateness of your observation, but it seems to me that the article in question might have been written to inform rather than to entertain.

But that’s just my opinion. What do you think?

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

I realise that it is entirely fair and reasonable for you to express your boundless disdain for all mere Mormons, including (or especially) those who are personal friends of mine, and to do so without any possibility of encountering a commensurate response.

In answer to your question, he is a scholar.

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 know that.

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 – and it must be his fault (or maybe mine) that you missed it – 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??)

Well it happens that I’ve always heard that Brigham Young was in favour of education, and that he in fact founded a number of schools.

But then again, perhaps you know better than me about Mormon things. I’ve only been a Latter-day Saint all my life; what could I possibly know?

Is that acceptable now?

Regards,
Pahoran