Quote:
Originally Posted by woot
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.
|
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.