Rough Stone Rolling

[Just_A_Guy]

20 hours ago, LeSellers said:

A self-styled historian who made/makes it her calling to debunk famous men of the past. She took on Thomas Jefferson using the same mind-reading techniques applied in No Man, tried to explain TJ's actions via some sort of amateur psychology. Other historians took her to task for this breach of the norms, but, oddly, no one seemed to care when she used them to attack Joseph.

Lehi

As I recall, most of the ruckus over Brodie's work with Thomas Jefferson involved her giving credence to the idea that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children at a time when most historians were pooh-poohing the idea.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I recall, most of the ruckus over Brodie's work with Thomas Jefferson involved her giving credence to the idea that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children at a time when most historians were pooh-poohing the idea.

That is correct. I'm no expert on the Jefferson-Hemmings relationship but last thing I read about it was a few years ago and it was proved conclusively that Thomas or Randolph Jefferson did father several of her children. 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I recall, most of the ruckus over Brodie's work with Thomas Jefferson involved her giving credence to the idea that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children at a time when most historians were pooh-poohing the idea.

That is correct. I'm no expert on the Jefferson-Hemmings relationship but last thing I read about it was a few years ago and it was proved conclusively that Thomas or Randolph Jefferson did father several of her children. 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I recall, most of the ruckus over Brodie's work with Thomas Jefferson involved her giving credence to the idea that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children at a time when most historians were pooh-poohing the idea.

That's partly true, partly because "most" isn't "all".

Her approach, the mind-reading and projection, was also a major issue.

Quote

David Herbert Donald, the Charles Warren Professor of American History at Harvard, once observed of Fawn Brodie … that, in her biography of Thomas Jefferson, she seemed not to be bothered by the fact that she can adduce only slim factual support for her tales of what she primly calls Jefferson's "intimate life." Reluctantly she confesses that there is "no real evidence" as to what happened in the Betsy Walker case. ... Where there are documents, she knows how to read them in a special way. . . . Where documents have been lost, Mrs. Brodie can make much of the gap. . . . Mrs. Brodie is masterful in using negative evidence too. . . . But Mrs. Brodie is at her best when there is no evidence whatever to cloud her vision. Then she is free to speculate.

Quote

The most intensive review of Thomas Jefferson is by Garry Wills, historian and writer of a recent book on Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Writes Wills:

Two vast things, each wondrous in itself, combine to make this book a prodigy--the author's industry, and her ignorance. One can only be so intricately wrong by deep study and long effort, enough to make Ms. Brodie the fasting hermit and very saint of ignorance. The result has an eerie perfection, as if all the world's greatest builders had agreed to rear, with infinite skill, the world's ugliest building.. . . She has managed to write a long and complex study of Jefferson without displaying any acquaintance with eighteenth-century plantation conditions, political thought, literary conventions, or scientific categories--all of which greatly concerned Jefferson. She constantly finds double meanings in colonial language, basing her arguments on the present usage of key words. She often mistakes the first meaning of a word before assigning it an improbable second meaning and an impossible third one.

Quote

Professor Brodie's style is undistinguished, and sometimes her psychological readings of Jefferson's texts and political moves seem simplistic,

Yes, this last one if from a generally favorable review, but even people who want to believe the worst of Jefferson (or of Joseph) can recognize that she is not a good biographer.

Lehi

Edited August 8, 2016 by LeSellers

[omegaseamaster75]

20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I can see why LDS avoid the book, but remember that Bushman read the book several times, so did many members such as myself. Like Bushman and using his words we view it more as a challenge to our intellect than our testimony. 

The rub is that most of what Brodie presented about the prophet was true, even after all the objections and claims of falsehood etc, etc the brethren did not like seeing it in print. Times have changed since Brodie published her book and I think that if she published the same book tomorrow it would be received much more favorably.

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The rub is that most of what Brodie presented about the prophet was true

Again we return to Blake:

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Lehi

Edited August 8, 2016 by LeSellers
dup

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The rub is that most of what Brodie presented about the prophet was true, even after all the objections and claims of falsehood etc, etc the brethren did not like seeing it in print. Times have changed since Brodie published her book and I think that if she published the same book tomorrow it would be received much more favorably.

Do you remember when the Da Vinci Code came out and very gullible people  believed what it said about religion and history? I asked an art professor "Should we read the book?" She said, "You go read it and tell me what you think afterwards." I said okay. Than I read it and thought it was truly whacky fiction that is not based in history. I told my art professor that and she said "Exactly." 

That's the response LDS should have about the No Man Knows my History. Instead of "forbidding" it. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The rub is that most of what Brodie presented about the prophet was true, even after all the objections and claims of falsehood etc, etc the brethren did not like seeing it in print. Times have changed since Brodie published her book and I think that if she published the same book tomorrow it would be received much more favorably.

Do you remember when the Da Vinci Code came out and very gullible people  believed what it said about religion and history? I asked an art professor "Should we read the book?" She said, "You go read it and tell me what you think afterwards." I said okay. Than I read it and thought it was truly whacky fiction that is not based in history. I told my art professor that and she said "Exactly." 

That's the response LDS should have about the No Man Knows my History. Instead of "forbidding" it. 

[LeSellers]

From another topic:

On 8/4/2016 at 10:29 AM, MormonGator said:

The one thing I'll say to a politicians defense is that they have every single word of theirs recorded, analyzed and critiqued-don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. But if I recorded every single one of your words, took them out of context, analyzed and critiqued them, I could make you look bad too. 

This is one reason it's so easy to attack Joseph Smith: from essentially the beginning of the Restoration, people recorded much or most of what he said, at least in public.

Lehi

Edited August 9, 2016 by LeSellers

[lonetree]

It's been quite a while since I looked at No Man Knows My History, but leafing through it earlier, I was struck by just how vigorous the writing was. Brodie had the power, not always present in historians, to make her subject vivid and 'there' to readers. Her discussion on the Book Of Mormon itself-page 69-which Bushman refers to at least twice in his early pages, is a concise treatment of the importance of historical context and written works. She may have been fond of characters who are not afraid of slashing at the undergrowth of conformity and then challenging others to follow. She also wrote a bio of Richard Burton, the British explorer, writer, religious experimenter-(a man who grabbed life by the throat, and squeezed it until it gave him what he wanted). 

Anyway, perhaps there have been some who read NMKMH and thought, 'I had no idea that this 'Smith' was such an interesting figure. Maybe I should know more about him-this fellow Bushman has written a new biography-hmmm.'

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, lonetree said:

It's been quite a while since I looked at No Man Knows My History, but leafing through it earlier, I was struck by just how vigorous the writing was. Brodie had the power, not always present in historians, to make her subject vivid and 'there' to readers. Her discussion on the Book Of Mormon itself-page 69-which Bushman refers to at least twice in his early pages, is a concise treatment of the importance of historical context and written works. She may have been fond of characters who are not afraid of slashing at the undergrowth of conformity and then challenging others to follow. She also wrote a bio of Richard Burton, the British explorer, writer, religious experimenter-(a man who grabbed life by the throat, and squeezed it until it gave him what he wanted). 

Anyway, perhaps there have been some who read NMKMH and thought, 'I had no idea that this 'Smith' was such an interesting figure. Maybe I should know more about him-this fellow Bushman has written a new biography-hmmm.'

I love this post. AMEN.  

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, lonetree said:

It's been quite a while since I looked at No Man Knows My History, but leafing through it earlier, I was struck by just how vigorous the writing was. Brodie had the power, not always present in historians, to make her subject vivid and 'there' to readers. Her discussion on the Book Of Mormon itself-page 69-which Bushman refers to at least twice in his early pages, is a concise treatment of the importance of historical context and written works. She may have been fond of characters who are not afraid of slashing at the undergrowth of conformity and then challenging others to follow. She also wrote a bio of Richard Burton, the British explorer, writer, religious experimenter-(a man who grabbed life by the throat, and squeezed it until it gave him what he wanted). 

Anyway, perhaps there have been some who read NMKMH and thought, 'I had no idea that this 'Smith' was such an interesting figure. Maybe I should know more about him-this fellow Bushman has written a new biography-hmmm.'

I love this post. AMEN.  

[An Investigator]

On 07/08/2016 at 11:29 PM, zil said:

Hi,

Sorry I don't know how to get rid of the above on my phone.   

two questions.. Answers most appreciated 

 

1, when did the Wow become compulsory?  I thought it was a covenant,  is this not the case? You have to speak to your Bishop if you break it so? 

 

2, The Book mentions speaking in tounges, I asked when investigating about the mention of tongues in the Articles of Faith,  yet I was told that it was like Missionaries being able to learn other languages really quickly and stuff, the book talks about it in what I would describe as an evangelical way.  Do we speak in tongues? I've never seen anyone at Church do it and Catholics are taught it's like mediums and things,  tools of the Devil.

[Jane_Doe]

(quick answers off the top of my head, someone else can provide more specifics)

1, when did the Wow become compulsory?  I thought it was a covenant,  is this not the case? You have to speak to your Bishop if you break it so? 

~1895.   For a couple of decades it was in the "good advice" category, giving people a chance to transition.  Nowadays it is a convent we make at baptism, and yes breaking it should be discussed with the bishop.

2, The Book mentions speaking in tounges, I asked when investigating about the mention of tongues in the Articles of Faith,  yet I was told that it was like Missionaries being able to learn other languages really quickly and stuff, the book talks about it in what I would describe as an evangelical way.  Do we speak in tongues? I've never seen anyone at Church do it and Catholics are taught it's like mediums and things,  tools of the Devil.

In Acts and other scriptural places, the gift of tongues is such that a person may hear the Gospel in their native language.  It is not non-sensical rambling show, but a tool for delivering HIs message in the way that it is understood.  I am not familiar with any early rambling examples (I have also not read RSR).  

[An Investigator]

Yeah it mentions this...

 

a spiritual outburst on Jan 22 1833, the school of the Prophets. "much speaking and praying in tongues... Lucy Smith remembered hearing this while baking bread, she dropped her work and joined the meeting. P213 

 

Obviously they were all speaking the same language so... It's more evangelical 

Edited August 15, 2016 by An Investigator

[Guest]

On 8/8/2016 at 11:14 AM, omegaseamaster75 said:

most of what Brodie presented about the prophet was true

Satan likes to hide dog poop in brownies.

[zil]

1. See https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-81-89/section-89-the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

2. What Jane said.  While there may have been instances of someone speaking something incomprehensible and while that may have been the gift of tongues (what do I know? 1 Corinthians 14:9, 13-14), I cannot see a good purpose for it if no one present can understand.  If one tries to argue that it's evidence of something, how can anyone else judge the validity of the evidence without understanding?  I think in this day and age, the gift of tongues / interpretation of tongues are gifts to learn to speak, understand, and translate between known languages, and I've read / heard about members and missionaries receiving these gifts for the purposes of teaching the Gospel or otherwise helping others.

The fact that the gift of tongues is almost always mentioned together with the interpretation of tongues is relevant, IMO: 1 Corinthians 12:10, Mormon 9:7, Moroni 10:15-16, D&C 109:36 (most interesting), D&C 46:24-25, Acts 2, etc.  (And Ezra 4:7 interestingly includes the same combination, but clearly describing only one language.)

Other scriptures, like 3 Nephi 26:14, have a different context, but like the example you gave, it's clear that what was spoken was understood by others, not just the speaker, even if the language was previously / otherwise unknown.  I think that is an important principle in determining if something is a gift of the Spirit or an imitation thereof.

FWIW.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, An Investigator said:

2, The Book mentions speaking in tounges, I asked when investigating about the mention of tongues in the Articles of Faith,  yet I was told that it was like Missionaries being able to learn other languages really quickly and stuff, the book talks about it in what I would describe as an evangelical way.  Do we speak in tongues? I've never seen anyone at Church do it and Catholics are taught it's like mediums and things,  tools of the Devil.

I think the WoW question has been answered well enough.  And while the tongues thing has been commented on, I still want to add something.

There are three ways that tongues and interpretation of tongues is manifest properly.

1) Someone speaks in an unknown tongue and others are given the interpretation of tongues to be able to understand it as if in their own native tongue.
2) Someone speaks in an unknown tongue and a specified person is given the interpretation to be able to translate for others.
3) Someone speaks in a tongue which is not his own, but is the tongue of others present.

When it is NOT manifest properly, there is no understanding of what is being said.  That will be the key.  If there is nothing communicated, then this is usually not of God.  While there is certainly an elevated feeling of the Holy Ghost present, the feeling alone is not enough.  Something must be communicated.

I've personally experienced the gift of tongues as a missionary and in other circumstances not related to missionary work.  But I'll tell you of the experience I had as a missionary.

I was learning Spanish as a missionary.  I did not have the benefit of the MTC (missionary training center) language courses.  It was early enough that I was struggling to say a complete sentence at a reasonable speed.  But during one particular lesson, I spoke fluent Spanish at normal speed throughout the lesson.  Both they and I understood it all.  Even today, when I speak Spanish I start with English and translate in my head.  I'm just a lot faster.  But during that lesson, I thought in Spanish.  I spoke it and understood it as if it were my native tongue.  I've never experienced that since.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Guest

[An Investigator]

Wow.. Thats amazing,  thanks for sharing.  And thanks for the replies.

[Maureen]

On 8/15/2016 at 2:23 PM, An Investigator said:

Sorry I don't know how to get rid of the above on my phone.   

two questions.. Answers most appreciated 

1, when did the Wow become compulsory?  I thought it was a covenant,  is this not the case? You have to speak to your Bishop if you break it so? 

2, The Book mentions speaking in tounges, I asked when investigating about the mention of tongues in the Articles of Faith,  yet I was told that it was like Missionaries being able to learn other languages really quickly and stuff, the book talks about it in what I would describe as an evangelical way.  Do we speak in tongues? I've never seen anyone at Church do it and Catholics are taught it's like mediums and things,  tools of the Devil.

Investigator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link an article from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought so I'll let you know what it is and you can google it. The article is called Speaking in Tongues in the Restoration Churches, by Lee Copeland. I think he wrote it in 1991 but I'm not sure.

M.

[omegaseamaster75]

I have always related it to my ability to learn and understand a second language. I learned Spanish reading and writing in about 3 months I even perfected the accent. (while on my mission) I am still fluent, no need to think about things I can just do it like I was born doing it.

 

[Guest]

I'm ordering Rough Stone Rolling, but hope it doesn't damage my testimony of Joseph Smith. Then again I read the CES Letter twice and I still have strong faith in Joseph Smith.

[Guest]

I just ordered it on amazon and holy crap I didn't realize it was 784 pages in paperback. That's a long book.

[An Investigator]

It's 500ish pages then the bibliography which is quite comprehensive.    Ive heard of the CES letter but I have no desire to read it if I'm honest.