Back to Mormonism Researched Page

No Man Reads Her Biography...With a Straight Face

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Hugh Nibley's analysis of Fawn Brodie is an all too short a masterpiece by any definition. His penetrating wit and criticism and demonstrations of Brodie's blatantly contradictory conclusions and ideas time and time and time again have not been refuted, rather enforced through later research and scholarship.

Nibley notes that Brodie claims that the documents for the history of Joseph Smith are certainly not lacking, but as Brodie claims, "they are fiercely contradictory."1 Nibley then notes that Brodie's method is simple. "Pick and choose his evidence." However, the problem here is that "one may prove absolutely anything ."2 Nibley finds Brodie's bias and in her own words, "I was convinced before I ever began writing the book that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet."3 She openly acknowledged that "the writing of history is clearly an act of manipulation.4 In fact, Brodie admitted that manipulation is a nasty word, "the good historian tries not to manipulate deliberately but to let the material shape itself."5 Naively she claimed that she would just work with the material and the stories she wrote had nothing to do with her selection at all, "they just shaped themselves." But this is utter nonsense. She began by writing about the Book of Mormon as "Frontier Fiction" and looked only at 19th century sources, and ignored everything else. She wanted the Book of Mormon to be fraudulent so she found her sources proved this. She was already convinced that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet before she ever began writing.6 And so her story goes that Joseph started out to write a history of the moundbuilders, and only later the idea hit on him to actually start a church and turn the text into a religious document and himself into a prophet.

This is her famous "evolutionary" approach that Nibley so skillfully picked to pieces as the silliness of it is betrayed at every turn in her book, as she clearly had to manipulate the sources in order to support her already made up mind about the whole affair of Mormonism and its founder. She bases many of her conclusions upon mere suppositions such as "it may have struck him" (p. 37) or "it might have been" (p. 36), or "perhaps Joseph speculated" (p. 36).7 When this evolutionary bias is applied to the Book of Mormon, comical results appear in Brodie. Joseph never originally conceived of the Book of Mormon as religious in nature at all, but "merely an ingenious speculation" (p. 55), "a mere money making history of the indians" (p. 83), and as to the golden plates themselves, Brodie informs us that "no divine interposition had been dreamed of." (p. 38 quoting the "Palmyra Reflector"). Now this is interesting! All this time Brodie knows, and knows full well that the plates were so sacred that they were never allowed to be seen, as she notes on page 42 of her book. Nay, "God's wrath would strike him down should he dare to examine the plates or look at him while he was translating" is what Joseph warned Martin Harris of! (p. 53). And yet we are to believe Brodie who desparately wants to support her thesis that "it never occurred to him [Joseph Smith] for a moment that such a singularly holy document might have even the slightest religious significance!"8

When Joseph Smith finished the Book of Mormon, Brodie informs us "he was rapidly acquiring the language and even the accent of sincere faith." (p. 80). So we are to understand that he had no sincere faith, you understand. What had already happened to him in his short life was only a drill to improve his accent!9

More silliness follows as we puruse Brodie's celebrated book. When Joseph Smith finally performs his first real miracle, a healing, Brodie contends that "Joseph must have been overwhelmed by this miracle, for he had no idea how common were such occurrences." (p. 86). Nibley wryly concludes: "No idea! And that after Brodie has been at pains to tell us how he had grown up in a world of faith healers and circuit-rider evangelists and camp meeting miracle. (cf. Brodie, p. 14!) Miracles of this sort had been his everyday fare from infancy, and yet in 1830 he has no idea that faith cures are common occurrences. His performance is not half as overwhelming as Brodie's discovery."10 There is a sting in that!

At the end of 1832, Brodie makes the remarkable discovery that Joseph Smith is, at last, "taking himself very seriously as a prophet." (p. 123). Again, Nibley showing Brodie's grossly inadequate evolutionary theory remarks, "And that ***AFTER*** the Book of Mormon and the revelations and visions founding the Church!" (Emphasis in original)11

Again, Brodie, keeping with her evolutionary bias imposed on Joseph in order for her to keep control of this supposed history, notes that in 1842, after building temples for years, Joseph Smith sudden just steals the rites of the Masons! (p. 280). But the temples did not change their design or meaning. In fact, Eduard Meyer noted that the founding of the Endowment House and a temple at the same time in 1841 shows that the essence of the temple rites were well established before then.12 But Brodie typically informs us that "it is doubtful whether Joseph sensed the truly staggering implications of his endowment system." (p. 282-83). But when we understand Mormon history, "More than five years before, Elijah himself had brought the keys to this work, 'lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse,' but Joseph failed to realize that it was really a big thing (D&C 110:15). Repeatedly our guide refuses to give Joseph Smith credit for knowing what he was about, in spite of his own emphatic declarations on the subject; she knows that he is really undergoing a slow evolution, stumbling blindly forward from one surprise to the next."13

Brodie completely undoes herself as she is wrapping things up. It was only at the end of his life, you see, that Joseph realized who and what he was. "it is now easy for him to believe...that God had willed [his success]." (p. 285) After what he has been through, it is about time! Yes, "Joseph was coming to look upon himself as the key figure in the setting up of a great religious kingdom." (p. 286). Nibley's comment is simply devastating: "And what pray, did he think he was doing all those years during which he was receiving revelations by the dozen, writing the Book of Mormon, building temples, establishing the church, and what-not? Was that all just a game with no idea behind it?"14 OUCH!

So, by the end of 1843, in order to keep with her self-stamped evolutionary theme in Joseph Smith's life, we are told by Brodie that "Joseph was now fully intoxicated with power and drunk with visions of empire and apocalyptic glory." (p. 354). What's more, at this time his idea of the Kingdom of God on earth becomes "subtly transformed from *a mere symbol* to a thing of substance." (emphasis added, p. 356). Many years before, Brodie actually entitled her chapter on the Kirtland era "My Kingdom is of This World"; (Chapter 13), but "now she decides that from the beginning the whole thing has been "a mere symbol" without substance." Such are the silly inconsistencies of Mormon history as written by a bias woman who had nothing better to do than invent her own brand and evolution of Joseph Smith in total disregard for anything he said or wrote on the subject. Brodie's mind reading produced some rather startling results for their sheer whimsy as history. Consider a point: "The culmination of Joseph's megalomania finds him without courage, "empty of conviction when he needed it most." (p. 376). Again, we search for the little birdie that tells Brodie these things. "He stood proudly before his men, betraying nothing by look, word, or gesture of his inner feelings." (p. 378) Since he betrayed nothing by look, word, or gesture of his inner feelings, we take the liberty to report that he was really thinking of a fishing trip made on his seventh birthday; there is no evidence of this, but of course his thoughts were *perfectly* concealed, you know."16 Now the impoortant question to ask in this regard about Brodie's writing.... is this history? "To present as facts what a man might have or could have or even possibly would have been thinking on an occassion when, far from revealing his thoughts, he covers them up, is a good game; but a book built up of alternate layers of psychological speculation and haphazard sources that only support them if accepted with a certain peculiar interpretation - such a book is not history."17

Brodie explains Joseph Smith's success from a perfectly logical viewpoint, if one accepts evolutionary trappings, but what really did happen is another thing entirely, and of course, Brodie is out to lunch, yet again regarding real Mormon history. She claims that Joseph's success was, of course, due to his personal "magnetism."(p. 73 - "his magnetic influence over his friends..."; p. 86 - "a magnetic sway over his people"; p.210 - "His magnetic presence in the pulpit") Brodie also notes that Joseph's teaching was a product of New England and smelled of the frontier (p. 187), and that his teaching was pleasingly materialistic and that it emphasized worldly prosperity, and it was a potpourri of everything else. (p. 402, 70).

Her explanations, while easy to come by, according to evolutionary doctrine embedded therein thanks to Mrs. B, break down completely in light of history as it really happened. The church derived its numbers and its strength largely from European converts who had never set eyes on Joseph Smith (Magnetic personality or not would have, of course, been entirely irrelevant), and these European converts, were, of course, entirely removed from what smelled of the frontier and Yankee tradition, the frontier being a hostile and forbidding place to them, and the church was certainly as detested in New England as on the frontier! In fact, of all the thousands of diaries kept from the converts, about their conversions, travels, hardships, ***nothing*** is more prevalent than the poverty, the meanness of people, their giving up their status, prestige, and world possessions, as they joined the Mormon church! Brodie, as usual, gets it all ***completely backwards***, which doesn't surprise us, as she is building up her evolutionary image, while real history shows what she ignores, namely the truth!18 In fact, she rests much of her book on insinuation, rather than facts. Consider a tale she herself admites is "apocryphal", yet nonetheless she tells it! It is concerning an attempt of Joseph Smith to walk on water. Now, interestingly Brodie says "Baseless though this story be, it is none the less symbolic." (p. 84). So we are told there is no justification at all for this story, this "apocryphal" tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing, however, this only proves to Brodie that Joseph Smith must always have been doing silly things like that, and that is what makes this fake story symbolic! "Why bother with mere symbols? Why not give concrete examples? Can she do no better than cite a tale that is ***known to be false*** simply because it symbolizes her idea of Joseph Smith?"19

After reading her tripe as history, we now realize that the Brodie evolutionary theory rests heavily on the word "now." If it is written, "he now refuses to beat his wife," or else "he now ate eggs for breakfast," one naturally assumes that the subject formerly did beat his wife in the one case, and in the other, that he formerly did *NOT* eat eggs for breakfast. That is what the words insinuate, but it is not what they say: actually the man may never have beaten his wife and always had eggs for breakfast. Mrs. Brodie introduces every selected key event in the life of Joseph Smith with a "now" of this sort, making it appear in each cae that the thing was occurring for the first time; for this she has no proof, of course, but the little "now" enables her to build up his career step by step the way she wants it, slow, long, and methodically towards a goal, all very solid evolutionarily, but totally useless as history.20 For instance, Brodie lets us in on the event of Joseph seeing Emma for the last time, however, "he knew that she thought him a coward." (p. 384). So here we see that Brodie knows that Emma knew that Joseph knew what Emma thought! Is this history??? "The business of the historian is to tell what happened, not what someone might have been thinking about what was happening. Does it take any skill or knowledge at all to write that "the Book of Mormon must have been a source of secret worry," (p. 275), or "Mormon ritual doubtless had its roots in the same unconscieous drives that led the prophet into polygamy," (p. 279), or to appeal continually to a secret imponderable quality known as "magnetism?"21

So while Nibley has been called "flippant" in his review, he has some very damn good points that are totally ignored by most critics who would rather simply label his review as "flippant", thus attacking the messenger, while ignoring the substance of his work. But that will never do, while in the same breath they proclaim Brodie as the all magical, all knowing, mistress historian of objective Mormonism! That is ribaldly idiotic. Brodie unfailingly fails to deal with the history of Joseph Smith. If no mans knows his history, then no man will know it any better after reading this diatribe of Brodie's, which, after all, is more autobiographical than true objective history.22 Brodie lamented the "destructive nature" of her book, and found the work caused "anxiety" in her yet she also felt that exposing Joseph Smith as a "fraud/imposter" was "fun," "fascinating," and "exciting." It was compulsive for her, "I had to. It was partly that I wanted to answer a lot of questions for myself."23 In fact, getting to the heart of the matter we find Brodie admitting to Dale Morgan, the one man most enthusiastic in helping her, that in writing her book she also felt that "writing the biography served her the same way 'the autobiographical novel serves many other writers; it has been a kind of catharsis.'"24 And indeed, Brodie also admitted that "I am fascinated by the close relationship between biographers and the subject or subjects they choose to write about...it is a deeply personal relationship into the intimate life of someone else unless it is to try to resolve some kind of inner conflict of one's own..."25 In fact, we now know why it is Brodie fumbled the ball so many times with her book on Joseph Smith. This was no history book at all, but rather an almost personal confession of her own screwy hang-ups in her own miserable life. "Our own identity is developed in the creative process of reconstructing someone else's life and psyche."26 Perhaps this is also why she viewed Joseph Smith as being irreligious. As Marvin Hill noted, "It is indeed a major weakness of her work that by her very assumptions she cannot get back into Joseph Smith's nineteenth century world, which was so religious in its orientation."27 Brodie never revised her work claiming instead that nothing warranted any changing at all. However, due to the very large increase of significant material on Joseph Smith, many of his own writings having been found and oprinted since her book, "it becomes impossible to believe Brodie's original thesis."28 In other words, all evidence concerning Joseph Smith shows him to be just what he presented himself to his friends and family as, "a man called of God to lead a movement and start a church."29 The evolution of history in Joseph Smith's life is simply not there, and is more reflective of Brodie than Joseph.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Nibley, "No Ma'am, That's Not History," in "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass," FARMS/Deseret Books, 1991, p. 5. Cf. Fawn Brodie, "No Man Knows My History," Knopf, 1966, p. viii.

2. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 5f.

3. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 40, note 5.

4. Louis Midgley, review of Fawn Brodie's, 'No Man Knows My History,' in FARMS, "Review of Books," Vol. 8, #2, 1996, p. 171.

5. Midgley, "Ibid.," p. 172. Citing the oral interview of Brodie by Shirley Stephenson.

6. Midgley, "Ibid.," p. 173.

7. Midgley, "Ibid.," p. 174.

8. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 17.

9. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 18.

10. Nibley, "Ibid," p. 19.

11. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 20.

12. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 22.

13. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 22.

14. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 23.

15. Nibley, "Ibid.," P. 25.

16. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 26.

17. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 27.

18. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 28.

19. Nibley, "Ibid.,: p. 32.

20. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 33.

21. Nibley, "Ibid.," p. 34.

22. Newell G. Bringhurst, "Fawn M. Brodie - Her Biographies as Autobiography," in "Pacific Historical Review," 1990, p. 208 - "The autobiographical aspects of 'No Man Knows My History' were particularly evident in the emphasis that Brodie gave to the difficult, often impoverished economic circumstances under which Joseph Smith lived during the early years of his life... to some extent, the economic conditions that Brodie described as affecting Joseph Smith's family were quite similar to those affecting Fawn Brodie's own family during the 1920's and 1930's." (p. 209).

23. Bringhurst, "Ibid.," p. 215.

24. Bringhurst, "Ibid.," p. 215.

25. Bringhurst, "Ibid.," p. 229.

26. Bringhurst, "Ibid.," p. 229.

27. Marvin Hill, "Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal," in "Dialogue," Vol. VII, #4 Winter, 1972, p. 75.

28. Hill, "Ibid.," p. 76.

29. Hill, "Ibid.," p. 76.