Share this Episode

Comments 7

  1. I worked for the British publisher of Fawn´s biography in the early 1970´s. I was also on a bishopric in England, and was threatened with disciplinary action for owning the book and trying to discuss some issues arising from her amazing book? Still have that original copy which I treasure, along with some of her later biographies. A big “worthyness” issue in those days was to be accused of knowing or having sympathies with the RLDS!

    1. Post
      Author
  2. John, you said: “Listeners, if any of you can help us find that original pamphlet and even preferably a link on the web to the Deseret News article that would have been the first review of No Man Knows My History, I want to see what the church’s substantive, well what Brodie calls propaganda, I want to see what that propaganda was, hear the way they justify what came out in the book, first of all, so I want to do an episode on that.” (1:41:26).

    I don’t know about Deseret News, but the March 1946 issue of Improvement Era contains a review of No Man Knows My History. It’s online at https://archive.org/details/improvementera

    Find the issues from 1946 (see the sidebar on the left) and then click on the “view as list” icon to show each issue as a row with a date. Click the March 1, 1946 issue. On the page control slider at the bottom, go to page 6 of 68, although this page is printed as page 132 in the original.

    I would not categorize this review as friendly to Ms. Brodie, of course, but neither would I categorize it as a predominantly or even partially ad hominem argument. The reviewer never questions her motives for writing the book and never claims that her arguments are worthless because of her character flaws or moral failings. There is a difference between sarcasm and ad hominem attacks.

    1. Also see electronic page 35 and 64 for some more interesting details. The article goes on to explain away one of the problems that Fawn Brody brings up.

      I agree it wasn’t an ad hominem but maybe a strawman? They only focused on (I think) 2 main issues that were easily explained away.

      The article also uses “anti-mormon” as a thought stopping tool to dismiss any credibility and goes on to say “[the book] will have no interest to Latter-day Saints who have correct knowledge of the history of Joseph Smith, and who are surfeited with shallow treatments of their faith, and who know by heart the untrue charges against Joseph Smith…” So basically implying that a good member would not come to any other conclusion.

    2. Hi all,

      I do not recall hearing anyone in the podcast use the term “ad hominem argument”, in fact it wasn’t in the quote referenced from Mr. Dehlin.
      However, the term “propaganda” was used and quite correctly. Don’t take my word for it, but do a dive on the “term” use, history, and origin @
      Smith, Bruce Lannes. “propaganda”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Jan. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda. Accessed 5 November 2021.
      Thanks, MW

  3. Hi all,

    I do not recall hearing anyone in the podcast use the term “ad hominem argument”, in fact it wasn’t in the quote referenced from Mr. Dehlin.
    However, the term “propaganda” was used and quite correctly. Don’t take my word for it, but do a dive on the “term” use, history, and origin @
    Smith, Bruce Lannes. “propaganda”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Jan. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda. Accessed 5 November 2021.
    Thanks, MW

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.