That doesn't answer my question.

Well, I've yet to read Bushman's book, so I can't comment if he puts a positive spin on things. My understanding is that he portrays JS as being more human.

I don't know if there will never be a truly objective book about Mormonism.

Read Brodie along with Bushman. Read Sunstone and Dialogue along with the Maxwell Institute. Read Quinn along with Givens. Watch Godmakers along with Plan of Happiness. There is no definitive, unbiased historical authority on the LDS church, if that was your question.

I guess that's my point. Any book from a faithful perspective, in my opinion, cannot possibly be objective. Faith is by definition not objective. On the other hand, books are a lot of work to write, so they tend not to be written by dispassionate people, so many books that evaluate it from an outside perspective tend to seem negative. Is the correct understanding of a religion always the faithful one? I would submit that this is obviously not the case.

I think Bushman is important for the church, because if the two options are the white-washed version and biased negative version, I would guess the biased negative version would be closer to the truth. Bushman seems to provide something in the middle, but I wonder if he includes some negative things only in order to appear objective while continuing in his faith-promoting agenda. It's been a while since I read his first book about the history of the church (the orange one), so I can't recall specifics.

It seems likely that the best perspective is going to come from reading a combination of viewpoints, and I think doing so is important in any topic. There are a bunch of creationists running around who actually believe that the science supports their position, because the only "science" books they read are the ones that put lipstick on their pig of a belief system. I bet you could make scientology seem like a good, upstanding set of beliefs from a faithful perspective.

Bushman admits his bias from the onset whereas so-called "unbiased" works do not.

Bushman discusses aspects of Smith, which many may not perceive as positive or negative, only reporting what he has found through research. Like a good historian, he doesn't always draw a conclusion, but allows the reader to decide. And I bet readers will draw different conclusions. Whereas in more biased works, you'll find readers are forced to make only one conclusion. That's my main critique of Brodie, she is biased but won't acknowledge her bias and tries to force the reader to make only one conclusion. Hence, her work is not good.

A professional historian's work will never leave the reader entirely satisfied, because no person will ever live a life devoid of nuance or imperfection.

I couldn't believe somebody who is supposed to be a professional could do such a horrible job.