Brodie & Nibley

[SeattleUte]

It's possible to see Brodie and Nibley as two sides of the same coin. Whatever charge LDS folks (most informed people outside LDS culture admire Brodie, hence I say "LDS folks") want to level at her, can be leveled at Nibley. Both purported to be "scholars" and "academics," and both deployed their formiddable education and intellect to attempting to discredit (in Brodie's case) or enhance (in Nibley's case) Mormonism's prestige and credibility.

But I submit that Nibley is by far the greater transgressor in this respect. Brodie undertook a pioneering approach to Josesph Smith's life that yielded a plethora of new material and insights. Yes, she had an agenda. But her employers did not, and while admittedly her case would have benefitted from language indicating more circumspection when addressing matters about which there is no credible historical record either to support or detract from Joseph's story, even a scholar must ultimately draw conclusions or her work lacks coherance and meaning. The foibles of "No Man Knows My History" could be cured with a single good edit. Brodie had diverse professional interests and published many books not touching on Mormonism.

Finally, Brodie was acting in a long tradition of scholars who deconstructed scripture and other alleged products of supernatural phenomena to better understand their origins. Exegesis and like pursuits may well have been what catalyzed the Enlightenment. Yes, there is always a book at the source of every religious movement. But history shows that once scholalars crack the code light pours through.

Nibley, in contrast, devoted his life to being Mormonism's chief pamphleteer and he was on the Church's payroll. Brodie and Nibley are alter egos, but Nibley reflects Brodie's worst instincts magnified by many times.

[All-American]

Oh, brother. You think Nibley is worse because you agree with Brodie's conclusions and you disagree with Nibley's conclusions. Give it a rest.

[creekster]

SU, this obssession you have for Brodie vs. Nibley is start to get a little strange. TO be honest, this almost sounds like AA damaged your pride slightly yesterday when pointing out your inconsistency and so this is your repsonse, which is really more about you than the topic or the subjects. Sorry, just taking a Rocky-esque approach (calling it like I see it). Please don't question me or else I may be required to specualte about whether you have eunuch-like characterisitics.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Oh, brother. You think Nibley is worse because you agree with Brodie's conclusions and you disagree with Nibley's conclusions. Give it a rest.

That's about it.

He ignores publications by Nibley outside of Church issues and he ignores that her other works are almost as bad as her tirade against Smith.

The Jefferson stuff was horrible.

If I want something readable, then I read fiction. If I want something deliberate then I read a scholarly exegesis.

To equate her work as scholarly is ridiculous. Now it started the effort to place the study of Smith in a scholarly fashion, but to consider it a legitimate work seems far-fetched. And even though I know the Jefferson foundation majority report agreed with her conclusion, the minority report is much more authentic in my opinion, much more scientific that the PC version adopted by the majority. That still doesn't make the Jefferson work worthwhile either.

What major credentials did she have as an historian? Was she a linguist? If I recall correctly, her degree wasn't in historical training, but rather she "acquired" that skill personally.

Nibley was a noted linguist with other skills. To compare the two is ludicrous. He has non apologetic works of merit and significant intellectual abilities that Brodie never manifested.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's about it.

He ignores publications by Nibley outside of Church issues and he ignores that her other works are almost as bad as her tirade against Smith.

The Jefferson stuff was horrible.

If I want something readable, then I read fiction. If I want something deliberate then I read a scholarly exegesis.

To equate her work as scholarly is ridiculous. Now it started the effort to place the study of Smith in a scholarly fashion, but to consider it a legitimate work seems far-fetched. And even though I know the Jefferson foundation majority report agreed with her conclusion, the minority report is much more authentic in my opinion, much more scientific that the PC version adopted by the majority. That still doesn't make the Jefferson work worthwhile either.

What major credentials did she have as an historian? Was she a linguist? If I recall correctly, her degree wasn't in historical training, but rather she "acquired" that skill personally.

Nibley was a noted linguist with other skills. To compare the two is ludicrous. He has non apologetic works of merit and significant intellectual abilities that Brodie never manifested.

She was a tenured professor of history at UCLA and her works were generally well received. No man Knows My History is a classic. Say all you want but she made tenure at a world calss research university and published quite a few books. Any aspiring scholar here should be happy for a career like that. You're just name calling. It's the LDS company line not shared by the world at large. Why don't you address the substance of my post?

Look, you and Waters always play this card that I haven't read all that Nibley wrote, etc. There's a reason I don't read this stuff. It's not worth my time. No Man Knows My History will remain in print eons after anything Nibley wrote is out of print and forgotten.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What major credentials did she have as an historian? Was she a linguist? If I recall correctly, her degree wasn't in historical training, but rather she "acquired" that skill personally.

I think she obtained an M.A. in English from the University of Chicago. She didn't get a PhD. However, she did become a full professor of history at UCLA.

Also, for those interested in No Man Knows My history, the book, Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect , is a nice volume to read as well. It is a collection of essays evaluating the biography from different perspectives.

[SeattleUte]

I did read the Timely and the Timeless a long time ago. And I read the No Maam That's not History pamphlet.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

She was a tenured professor of history at UCLA and her works were generally well received. No man Knows My History is a classic. Say all you want but she made tenure at a world calss research university and published quite a few books. Any aspiring scholar here should be happy for a career like that. You're just name calling. It's the LDS company line not shared by the world at large. Why don't you address the substance of my post?

Look, you and Waters always play this card that I haven't read all that Nibley wrote, etc. There's a reason I don't read this stuff. It's not worth my time. No Man Knows My History will remain in print eons after anything Nibley wrote is out of print and forgotten.

Who cares about the substance of your post? I'll say it: Brodie was smart. So what? Her book wasn't very good in some respects, although I actually enjoyed reading it. So what? Maybe she and Nibley are locked in some eternal cage match right now. So what? AA hit it right on the head: Nibley isn't worth your time because you disagree with him. Brodie isn't worth some of ours because we disagree with her. As with your and other's attempts to reduce the spiritual to the objectively verifiable or measurable, you have failed and you will always fail because this is not what it is about. I know you know that, and I know you agree with it, so I am left to wonder as to the end you are trying to accomplish. I conclude you are either trying to satisfy some personal obsession or you are trying to prey on some persons that you think might be fence sitters. If this is how you want to spend your day, so be it. I would rather have you finish your book so I could read that, which could only be more interesting that another diatribe about how Nibley is a waste of time compared to the incomparable Brodie.

New topic? Please?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

She was a tenured professor of history at UCLA and her works were generally well received. No man Knows My History is a classic. Say all you want but she made tenure at a world calss research university and published quite a few books. Any aspiring scholar here should be happy for a career like that. You're just name calling. It's the LDS company line not shared by the world at large. Why don't you address the substance of my post?

Look, you and Waters always play this card that I haven't read all that Nibley wrote, etc. There's a reason I don't read this stuff. It's not worth my time. No Man Knows My History will remain in print eons after anything Nibley wrote is out of print and forgotten.

She only got a Masters, never a Phd. How she got tenure is beyond me, but my bet is she would not be worthy of one in todays academic climate.

Her masters wasn't even in the discipline for which she has published her most famous works.

There's a saying, "Papier ist geduldig." So what.

[pelagius]

I think Seattle Ute's obsession does bring up something interesting. Are they the top 2 in terms of the impact/influence on the field of "Mormon studies" in the 20th century? Which one do you think will have the bigger impact in the future?