You are what you read - Mormon History Books

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/689 ... an/?page=2

Over on the other board members are showing how well read they are of Mormon history and theology. Recommending Rough Stone Rolling but not Dan Vogel's book.They mention Massacre at Mount Meadows (Turley etc) but not Blood of the Prophets (Bagley). Criticisms such as plagiarism were made of Richard Wagner's bio of the early life of Joseph Smith.

One wonders what students in Institute studying the new history (inoculation) will be encouraged to read for further information

I have been reading Greg Prince's bio of Arrington. Dennis Lythgoe does a critical review of the book in the latest Dialogue.

[_Johannes]

I feel that, as a Nevermo, I've been enormously helped in learning about Mormonism by the works of D. Michael Quinn. I can understand why he still has faith, and I salute his stance in the face of the hostility of the institutional church.

[_JLHPROF]

All history books have bias.
Some are more obvious than others.
So yes, we are what we read. Pro Church, Anti Church, Middle road best attempts at objectivity.
All will be biased in some way.

We could read them ALL I suppose and get all sides. Probably the best methodology.

[_grindael]

Bias is so freaking negative. It is meant that way. All books have a point of view taken by the author based on their analysis/interpretation of the evidence. That doesn't mean this:

prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

I don't think either Bushman or Vogel were BIAS. They just see things from a different point of view. Both of their biographies are well worth the time to read.

[_sock puppet]

All history books have bias.
Some are more obvious than others.
So yes, we are what we read. Pro Church, Anti Church, Middle road best attempts at objectivity.
All will be biased in some way.

We could read them ALL I suppose and get all sides. Probably the best methodology.

Is that the approach you take to Alice in Wonderland too?

[_JLHPROF]

All history books have bias.
Some are more obvious than others.
So yes, we are what we read. Pro Church, Anti Church, Middle road best attempts at objectivity.
All will be biased in some way.

We could read them ALL I suppose and get all sides. Probably the best methodology.

Is that the approach you take to Alice in Wonderland too?

Of course. I'd love to read about Wonderland from the POV of the Queen of Hearts.
Oh wait..http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/author-interview-colleen-oakes-of-the-queen-of-hearts-trilogy

[_Choyo Chagas]

i don't like this "JLHPROF" guy, but this time he said a big truth

All history books have bias.
Some are more obvious than others.
So yes, we are what we read. Pro Church, Anti Church, Middle road best attempts at objectivity.
All will be biased in some way.

We could read them ALL I suppose and get all sides. Probably the best methodology.

an example:

Who was Joan of Arc? Who is Joan of Arc? From modern French politicians to feminists, from spiritualists to Catholics, Joan has different meanings. This site reflects on Joan and the Middle Ages in history, as well as in popular culture, to understand one of the world's great individuals.

Joan of Arc (1412-1431)
Perhaps the most famous individual victim of the Inquisition was the "Maid of Orleans" - Joan of Arc. Joan was born in Domremy, France in 1412. From age 13 onwards, she had a series of visions from the Archangel Michael, and the Saints Catherine and Margaret. In 1429, believing that she had received instructions to liberate France from the English, she rode 300 miles through enemy territory to see the dauphin, Charles VII. Eventually, Charles, convinced that her powers did indeed come from heaven, put Joan in charge of his army.
In 1429, Joan achieved her greatest military victory when she led 4,000 troops to relieve the besieged town of Orleans. After liberating Orleans, Joan defeated the English in several other battles, and liberated several other French towns.
In 1430, during an attack to liberate Paris, Joan was captured by the Burgundians, and sold to the British. She was tried by the French Inquisition fór sorcery and heresy, and burned at the stake in 1431. In 1456, the results of the inquisitorial trial were reversed by Pope Calixtus III - a rare example of the Inquisition being overridden by a pope. Pope Benedict XV canonized Joan of Arc in 1920.

[_Philo Sofee]

I am also saying now read out of all the books, and judge the probability of their claims and evidences......... but then that would be too fair a thing to do. Better go with the Spirit and read only what the Spirit (read "Church" here) wants you to.

Don't be too hard on JLHProf, Choyo .......... he is a pretty good guy actually, who appears to me to really be thinking through things. I don't agree with all his conclusions, anymore than I do with anyone else either, but it's nice to see his approach rather than the typical LDS responses (read "Zerinus" here).

P.S. Joan of Arc shows the power of a woman showing off her boobs to get men to do something significant with their energy. I read an article on that once, wish I could find it. It was quite fascinating! She offered sex to all of em if they won, then bore it all and led them to the victory! (that was what the article said anyway)

[_Choyo Chagas]

Don't be too hard on JLHProf, Choyo .......... he is a pretty good guy actually, who appears to me to really be thinking through things.

i was courteous. wasn't i?