Dr. Shades is condescendingly referred to as "one earnest soul," who, it seems, does not know how to pick Brigham Young readings:[A]ppraisals of Brigham Young have also been abundant. Brigham was, it seems, not a decent man. Indeed, he was a frightening bully and a murderous tyrant.
Is this a fair assessment of what Dr. Shades was doing when he provided that list? Remember that I Have Questions asked someone to provide "parts of the historical record" that "support the assertion that BY was a bully and a tyrant."A basic understanding of the craft of historical analysis and writing might have taught The Earnest Soul mentioned above that, while contemporary sources are valuable, they still require weighing and evaluation. Contemporaries can be partisan and biased — and ignorant and foolish and dishonest — just as easily as later historians can be.
In other words, Dr. Shades was asked for data that fit a particular description. He was not asked to analyze it or to defend Brigham Young against my characterization of him. So, one wonders why Dr. Shades is referred to insultingly as "an earnest soul" as though he did something stupid in providing IHQ what the poster asked for.
Then, the proprietor offers his own reading list, one that others are practically compelled to agree is credible because "left-leaning" "mavericks" wrote some of the apologias and laudatory portraits. One notes, however, that these left-leaning mavericks were both dyed-in-the-wool and utterly devoted Latter-day Saints. This earnest soul (speaking of myself) notices, however, that one important biography of Brigham Young is oddly missing from the proprietor's recommendations:
Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, by John G. Turner
Why is it that recent and roundly praised biography of St. Brigham is missing from the proprietor's recommendations? After all, the foremost historian of Mormonism of our time (and another utterly devoted Latter-day Saint) seemed to think it was worth recommending:
Richard Bushman, though equally devoted to the LDS Church and its teachings, differs from Hugh Nibley and Eugene England in very important ways: he is an historian of the period in question and one whose work as such is regularly lauded beyond the provincial boundaries of the Church. It is interesting that such a man, a patriarch in the LDS Church, would be compelled by his scholarly integrity to publish in print that Turner's biography that will "require a reassessment of Brigham Young the man" reveals a Brigham that is "more violent and coarse" than the man Mormons have known.The story Turner tells in this elegantly written biography will startle and shock many readers. He reveals a Brigham Young more violent and coarse than the man Mormons have known. While lauding his achievements as pioneer, politician, and church leader, this book will require a reassessment of Brigham Young the man. ~Richard Bushman
Let me go with the esteemed and excellent historian Richard Bushman on this one. Something tells me that others are editing their reading lists to make sure that Mormons continue not to know how violent and coarse Brigham actually was.
And just to show that Bushman is not alone in his praise, read this fine Mormon historian's take:
Barlow is an excellent academic and historian, not to mention a faithful Latter-day Saint.Turner's treatment of the complex Brigham Young is unsentimental, cogent, critical, and fair. It takes its place alongside Leonard J. Arrington's magisterial American Moses to form the essential, mutually challenging portraits of one of America's greatest colonizers and religious figures. ~Philip L. Barlow
It is sadly predictable that this is the way things are. Cheap shots at Shades for answering a question with a list that matches the description of the materials requested, and a reading list that is designed to avoid the obvious conclusion the totality of the evidence provides, namely, that Brigham Young was a violent and coarse man. Professor Bushman, patriarch and highly esteemed historian, recognizes and is not afraid to publicize these facts.
And this is another incident that goes into my file of "why I dislike apologetics." Professor Bushman would not seek to hurt the LDS Church. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that he has done his best to represent the LDS Church and its history favorably within the boundaries of sound historical method and scholarly integrity. Apologists, it seems, have to go further and carefully curate their material so that members of the LDS Church are reassured that they can stay complacent in their highly edited views of the past. It is this impulse that leads people to ludicrous positions such as "Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy" or, if the clear facts are to be grudgingly acknowledged, it must at least be the case that he "did not have sex with his plural wives," another uproarious howler.
That doesn't rest well with me. I don't expect faithful LDS people to go around criticizing the second president of the LDS Church by routinely discussing the sizable blemishes on his saintly nimbus. At the same time, I don't think that saccharine depictions and selective or jingoistic defenses of religious leaders do anyone any favors, least of all the Latter-day Saints themselves. Anyone who knows the facts will feel sympathy and regret at the thought of these poor, "earnest souls," who have been kept in the dark by those who know better but are paternalistically protecting them from the harsh light of actual facts.
I get why some people, especially LDS historians, get their dander up about John Dehlin, but this is the precise phenomenon that insures John Dehlins will hit the internet to provide their version of the story. People feel insulted when they know that others have been carefully working to keep them in the dark. When they find out, as John found out, they feel betrayed, and they set out to do something to warn others. Pros may not like how they do it, but they have to see that it was practically inevitable, given how they were treated, that they would do it.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... young.html
