A book that made me stay agnostic

Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" was first published in 1945. On various points of detail, it has been superseded by more recent research. Also, one can debate whether or not Brodie's psychological and hypercritical take on Joseph Smith is correct or methodologically meaningful. Still, "No Man Knows My History" remains the classical biography of the Mormon prophet. Everyone who is interested in Mormonism from a non-Mormon ("non-faith promoting") perspective must read and come to terms with this book. Brodie herself was expelled from the Mormon (LDS) Church after the book's publication. Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley responded with a piece bearing the sexist title "No, Ma'm, that's not history". I'm not sure whether it's still available, or whether anyone really cares. As for Brodie, she eventually became a successful history professor and wrote biographies of Thaddeus Stevens, Richard Burton, Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon. I haven't read them, but apparently they are heavily dependent on Freud and psychoanalysis, which strikes me as somewhat problematic. (Many American scholars seem to have a very reverential attitude to Freud. Perhaps patricide is in order?)

What makes Brodie's biography controversial is her forthright description of Joseph Smith as a fanatic and deliberate con man. In a later edition, she dubs him a megalomaniac. To Brodie, it seems obvious that if somebody makes claims that are patently absurd from an atheist viewpoint, that person must be a conscious liar. In the same manner, she writes off Joseph Smith's earliest followers as easily fooled, manipulated or hypnotized. Today, it's considered bad politic among anthropologists or comparative religion scholars to take matters quite this far. (Richard Dawkins is another case again. But then, he's a biologist.) However, I must admit that I feel a certain sympathy for Fawn Brodie's position. Smith, after all, made some pretty extreme claims!

Regular prophets claim to have visions, hear voices or meet supernatural personages. The visionary might be honestly reporting a subjective, psychological experience. He may even be (honestly) delusional. But Joseph Smith claimed to have found, seen and handled an actual material artefact, the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon were "translated" through the aid of an equally material artefact, the Urim and the Thummim (apparently, some kind of spectacles). Moreover, the Three Witnesses claimed to have had a collective vision of an angel showing them the golden plates, while the Eight Witnesses claimed to have both seen and handled the plates in a strictly down-to-earth fashion. The problem, of course, is that the entire story is absurd: there never were any golden plates, no Urim and Thummim, etc. It's therefore difficult not to charge Joseph Smith with conscious fraud, and his followers with extreme gullibility.

The same basic story applies to the Book of Abraham, where Smith did have access to an actual document, but where the "translation" is fraudulent. Add to this Smith's personal character, which included secret polygamy (while the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy), joining the Freemasons and copying their rituals (while the Book of Mormon condemns Masonry), revisions after the fact of published church material, etc. And what about prohibiting alcohol in Nauvoo while still running a saloon in the main building? Smith's disciples don't inspire much confidence either. The Three Witnesses all left the Mormon Church, yet insisted that their testimony about the golden plates was true. Smith's estranged wife Emma Hale Smith joined a monogamous breakaway group after her husband's death, taking revenge on Smith's polygamous successor Brigham Young by claiming that Smith had never been a polygamist.

If this is how religions are usually conceived, I rather stay agnostic!

Readers of "No Man Knows My History" should also consult "Reconsidering No Man Knows My History", a critical reappraisal of Brodie's book edited by Newell Bringhurst.