Ten Books Everyone Should Read

[Borderline Divine]

How "Standing Tall: The Shawn Bradley Story" hasn't made this thread should give us all pause.

[SeattleUte]

Is that still the best JS bio? I never got around to reading it and wonder how well the scholarship would hold up 60 years (or whatever it is) later. I understand RSR is pretty good, but would be skeptical of it having been written by an apologist, albeit one more willing to delve into the warty bits.

I don't care if it's the best JS bio from an "intellectual" standpoint. It's the classic; the original, and the most literary, I bet. It will be in print long after all the others are out and as long as the Book of Mormon is in print.

[woot]

I don't care if it's the best JS bio from an "intellectual" standpoint. It's the classic; the original, and the most literary, I bet. It will be in print long after all the others are out and as long as the Book of Mormon is in print.

Well sure, but as I've probably demonstrated here, I get just as annoyed with artificial or made-up complaints against mormons as I ever did. I just wouldn't want to read it if it's full of misconceptions, just as I wouldn't want to read anything by the Tanners.

Creekster's summary seems to match what I can find in reviews, so maybe it is worth a shot. I've added it to the ever-growing queue.

[MarkGrace]

Is that still the best JS bio? I never got around to reading it and wonder how well the scholarship would hold up 60 years (or whatever it is) later. I understand RSR is pretty good, but would be skeptical of it having been written by an apologist, albeit one more willing to delve into the warty bits.

Why would a biography written by an apologist raise any greater degree of skepticism than one written by a defector? Bushman notes in his prologue that any study of Joseph's life is going to be problematic by nature because no historian/academic has simply a passing objective interest in his life. They are either disbelievers trying to justify why they left the church, or they are believers seeking to protect the prophet's image. And even to the extent that a moderin historian could have merely an academic interest in Joseph and not be trying to push one side of the agenda, all the source documents fall on one side of this divide anyway so the work is bound to reflect that.

I think the best answer to read both (and maybe to a lesser extent Nibley's retort).

[SeattleUte]

Well sure, but as I've probably demonstrated here, I get just as annoyed with artificial or made-up complaints against mormons as I ever did. I just wouldn't want to read it if it's full of misconceptions, just as I wouldn't want to read anything by the Tanners.

Creekster's summary seems to match what I can find in reviews, so maybe it is worth a shot. I've added it to the ever-growing queue.

You are betraying your usual fine instinct and respect for aesthetic concerns.

Creekster's observation is certainly the conventional wisdom, and defensible. So why not read everything but the psychobabble? On the other hand, how can a psychological investigation into Joseph Smith not be something worth considering? (Brodie herself in the intro acknowledges her own speculatoins, and that she is not a trained psychologist. It seems critics in a way might be holding her honesty against her, but I bet it wouldn't take a trained pscychologist to make some defenseible speculations about Smith's psyche.) As far as "makign things up" is concerned, you should revere Sister Brodie as the first scholar who took Joseh Smith seriously as a subject of study, and anlayzed his life from a critical perspective.

Your compairson of Brodie to the Tanners speaks volumes about your enlightenment on this subject.

[woot]

Why would a biography written by an apologist raise any greater degree of skepticism than one written by a defector? Bushman notes in his prologue that any study of Joseph's life is going to be problematic by nature because no historian/academic has simply a passing objective interest in his life. They are either disbelievers trying to justify why they left the church, or they are believers seeking to protect the prophet's image. And even to the extent that a moderin historian could have merely an academic interest in Joseph and not be trying to push one side of the agenda, all the source documents fall on one side of this divide anyway so the work is bound to reflect that.

I think the best answer to read both (and maybe to a lesser extent Nibley's retort).

While I reject Bushman's notion that everyone must have an axe to grind for one side or the other, I had forgotten that Brodie was a former member. Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean that she had an axe to grind, despite JS's famously incorrect pronouncement to the contrary.

I do agree that it is difficult to find documents from the time that aren't heavily biased in one direction or the other. During my time at BYU I wrote a piece about the "Mormon War" in which I spent some time going through some original documents of the period and it was quite striking how much the non-Mormons in the area hated the Mormons. Even though I was still quite faithful at the time, I couldn't help but conclude the paper by saying that the Mormons largely brought the "persecution" on themselves.

[woot]

You are betraying your usual fine instinct and respect for aesthetic concerns.

Creekster's observation is certainly the conventional wisdom, and defensible. So why not read everything but the psychobabble? On the other hand, how can a psychological investigation into Joseph Smith not be something worth considering? (Brodie herself in the intro acknowledges her own speculatoins, and that she is not a trained psychologist. It seems critics in a way might be holding her honesty against her, but I bet it wouldn't take a trained pscychologist to make some defenseible speculations about Smith's psyche.) As far as "makign things up" is concerned, you should revere Sister Brodie as the first scholar who took Joseh Smith seriously as a subject of study, and anlayzed his life from a critical perspective.

Your compairson of Brodie to the Tanners speaks volumes about your enlightenment on this subject.

While I appreciate the somewhat back-handed compliment, I have certainly never claimed to know much about the secular- or anti-mormon literature. My exposure to such material is very limited, particularly relative to my exposure to faithful mormon literature, in which I was completely enveloped for quite some time.

It is interesting that for most of my life Fawn Brodie and the Tanners were lumped together as simply anti-mormons. I'm sure that's how she was treated by many of the faithful.

[Shaka]

No Umberto Eco?

The Name of the Rose is one of my favorite books. It's right up there with the collective works of V.C. Andrews.

[MarkGrace]

While I reject Bushman's notion that everyone must have an axe to grind for one side or the other, I had forgotten that Brodie was a former member.

How many serious Joseph academic/historians that don't fall on one side of this divide do you think are out there? I have no idea, but I can't imagine there a many (if any) out there that have seriously dedicated themselves to the study of his life and don't come from one of these two camps.

Like I said, I think it's best to read both but just realize you're never going to get a single, definitive account of his life. I read No Man and figure I'm getting the apostate version, and then read Rough Stone and figure I'm getting the apologist version. Both are worth reading, though we're talking about close to 1,000 pages here and a lot covering the same ground.

[Borderline Divine]

While I appreciate the somewhat back-handed compliment, I have certainly never claimed to know much about the secular- or anti-mormon literature. My exposure to such material is very limited, particularly relative to my exposure to faithful mormon literature, in which I was completely enveloped for quite some time.

It is interesting that for most of my life Fawn Brodie and the Tanners were lumped together as simply anti-mormons. I'm sure that's how she was treated by many of the faithful.

I could be mistaken but my understanding was that Fawn Brodie was an active member while she wrote No Man, and was ex-d after it's publication.

Anybody know the facts?

[MarkGrace]

I could be mistaken but my understanding was that Fawn Brodie was an active member while she wrote No Man, and was ex-d after it's publication.

Anybody know the facts?

She was a "member" by technical definition, but I think that's it. From what I've read she was on her way out the door well before the book was published and she was exed.

At least that's what I've read. Who knows if it's accurate.

[MarkGrace]

So I was curious and read her wiki page. Not that wiki is the source of all truth and knowledge, but the timeline they have is something like this:

- '36 Brodie says she lost her faith in religion entirely
- Started research sometime in '39 and at that point decided she wanted to write a full biography on the life of Joseph
- '43 enters a rough draft into a literary competition
- Continues to research and completes the book in '44
- No Man published in '45

[creekster]

You are betraying your usual fine instinct and respect for aesthetic concerns.

Creekster's observation is certainly the conventional wisdom, and defensible. So why not read everything but the psychobabble? On the other hand, how can a psychological investigation into Joseph Smith not be something worth considering? (Brodie herself in the intro acknowledges her own speculatoins, and that she is not a trained psychologist. It seems critics in a way might be holding her honesty against her, but I bet it wouldn't take a trained pscychologist to make some defenseible speculations about Smith's psyche.) As far as "makign things up" is concerned, you should revere Sister Brodie as the first scholar who took Joseh Smith seriously as a subject of study, and anlayzed his life from a critical perspective.

Your compairson of Brodie to the Tanners speaks volumes about your enlightenment on this subject.

I am nothing if not conventional. I liked Brodie's book and thought it worth reading. Bushman's book is also very good. But I think that having read those I would then encourage anyone interested in JS to read the volume published a few years ago with his journals in it. Fascinating stuff and I think ti really puts his world view on display. (for example, I have read before how the early saints were in a millennial fervor but this becomes crystal clear when reading his journals.)

[Borderline Divine]

So I was curious and read her wiki page. Not that wiki is the source of all truth and knowledge, but the timeline they have is something like this:

- '36 Brodie says she lost her faith in religion entirely
- Started research sometime in '39 and at that point decided she wanted to write a full biography on the life of Joseph
- '43 enters a rough draft into a literary competition
- Continues to research and completes the book in '44
- No Man published in '45

Thanks

[SeattleUte]

Thanks

Brodie was a prodigy who was in college by age 16, and got her PhD at a very young age. She was waiting for her husband to finish his doctorate, fooling around in the library at University of Chicago, when she got the idea for No Man. The book was published when she was age 30. I'm sure one of the things that drove her from her faith was the LDS Church's treatment of women, which isn't much better today.