Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" - How Accurate?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

In another thread about S-R theory, a popular critic referred to those who hold to the SASA theory of Book of Mormon origins as Brodieites, I assume referring to Fawn Brodie. I've just started reading "No Man Knows My History" and so far think it is well written. But is it good history? I realize that the TBMs will say that it is not, but I am curious about the critics. What is the consensus about Brodie's biography and are there better alternatives out there?

[_Ray A]

I've read it a couple of times and thought (in some areas) she was more generous to Joseph Smith than I expected. Her bio has also been referred to as "psycho-history" (or psycho-biography), in that she delves into the mind of Joseph Smith and claims to understand what motivated him to do and claim certain things.

It's best to read reviews to get a better perspective, then form your own opinion after reading the book. Marvin Hill is a fairly objective Mormon historian, in my opinion, and his review, though dated (1972) is still worth reading:

Review of No Man Knows My History.

In her supplement Brodie contends that new available sources on Joseph Smith do not demand any major revision of her interpretation (p. xi). I would challenge this. There are in the Church archives hundreds of manuscripts by or about Joseph Smith which Brodie did not see and which are now generally available to scholars. In none that I have examined is there a hint that Smith thought of himself in any other terms except those manifest in his published writings--that he was a man called of God to lead a movement and start a church. When one has read through and noted carefully this vast miscellany of material, it becomes impossible to believe Brodie's original thesis. Joseph Smith played out his role not only before his wife and all his friends every minute of every day, of which we have record, beginning in 1829, but also in the few personal diaries which he wrote himself.

One of Brodie's mentors was Dale Morgan. See his letter to Brodie on p.67 (28 August 1944):

Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism:Correspondence and a New History

And for various views:

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith.

[_Uncle Dale]

...it is well written. But is it good history?
...

If by "well written," we mean that a complex subject is depicted
in simplistic terms -- that practically anybody can fathom -- then
perhaps the term is applicable.

If we take the term to mean a literary style which is pleasing to
the reader, full of bright quips and intelligent allusions -- then
perhaps "well written" is marginally applicable.

The lady's book was written as a personal biography, and is best
judged by the standards pertaining to that literary genre. When it
comes to conveying an accurate picture of our ancestral past, I'm
tempted to apply Nibley's conclusion: "No Ma'am, That's Not History."

This is not to say that Mrs. Brodie was so careless as to publish
the wrong birth date for President Smith -- nor to miss capturing
the sense of adventure and admiration felt by Smith's followers.

Accurate history is not composed merely of correct dates, a
pleasing style and a plausible re-creation of the zeitgeist of a
bygone era, however. Accurate history entails piecing together
the dis-articulated puzzle pieces of a past age in a way which
is reasonable, informative and predictive of additional facts.

I do not see where Mrs. Brodie's speculations have been well
confirmed by subsequent discoveries of historical facts. Nor do
I see where modern investigation has supported her conclusions
as to Smith's motives, personal thoughts, unvoiced purposes, etc.

That is only my opinion -- and there have been many readers who
take her book as a suitable blueprint, not only for chronicling the
life of President Smith, but also as an explanation for our entire
Restoration Movement.

One of the limitations of projecting biography as the history of a
popular movement, is that biography naturally limits itself to a
single historical figure -- or, perhaps to a family or other small group.

The Latter Day Saints' experience, from its beginnings in the 1820s,
has been the composite history of many, many people -- each one
of them making his/her own contribution, be it great or small.

Beyond the obvious problems inherent in "psycho-biography," I see
a greater problem in projecting biography as history. There is too
much chance that associated historical persons will thus be reduced
to caricatures of their actual selves -- to cardboard figures on a
poorly lit theatrical stage.

Rather than reading Brodie, I'd suggest a perusal of I. W. Riley,
from whom Brodie appropriated many of her themes and notions.

UD

[_karl61]

Fawn Brodie was the only historian in the church that had balls.

[_MCB]

One must be very careful when doing psychological analysis of historical figures. Only the most obvious of pathologies can be diagnosed in a situation of historical distance. Too many have spent too much time, to little productive purpose trying to explain such a complex person as Joseph Smith.

[_Dr. Shades]

In another thread about S-R theory, a popular critic referred to those who hold to the SASA theory of Book of Mormon origins as Brodieites[.]

??? What does "SASA" stand for?

[_Uncle Dale]

In another thread about S-R theory, a popular critic referred to those who hold to the SASA theory of Book of Mormon origins as Brodieites[.]

??? What does "SASA" stand for?

"Smith, And Smith Alone"

???

UD

[_MCB]

And in order to hold to a Smith alone theory, yet have compassion for him, the psychological analysis must get positively etherial.

Simpler to say that he had the combination of abilities and disabilities that suited him for the role, with a list of supporting caracters. Misspelling intentional.

[_Uncle Dale]

And in order to hold to a Smith alone theory, yet have compassion for him, the psychological analysis must get positively etherial.
...

Last I heard, Mike Quinn viewed the Book of Mormon as a 19th century
production -- but accepted Smith as a true prophet.

I may have that wrong (or, he may have changed), but perhaps a
"liberal" Mormon can accept Brodie's history and still retain a great
deal of compassion and admiration for Smith.

It would be interesting to read a Quinn critique of NMKMH.

UD

[_Ray A]

Last I heard, Mike Quinn viewed the Book of Mormon as a 19th century
production -- but accepted Smith as a true prophet.

I may have that wrong (or, he may have changed), but perhaps a
"liberal" Mormon can accept Brodie's history and still retain a great
deal of compassion and admiration for Smith.

It would be interesting to read a Quinn critique of NMKMH.

UD

Dale,

I don't want to hear what you "heard", or that "I may have that wrong (or, he may have changed)", but something verifiable from Quinn himself.

Until then, I have to go on:

The Rest Is History (pdf)