A question about Fawn Brodie

[_Dr. Shades]

So according to one source she did use it, but according to another she didn't use it.

Which is a better source? Wiki or her own published interview? I realize that evidentiary sources don't play much importance around here. . . I personally put more trust in the interviews. But to each his own.

Nice.

The Wikipedia material was quoted from Bringhurst's biography of her.

[_rcrocket]

You're not very discriminating in your assessment of evidence.

Nor have you ever been, but that is another matter.

[_harmony]

You're not very discriminating in your assessment of evidence.

You disagree with Bringhurst's biography then?

[_rcrocket]

Do you favor a Wiki entry over a published interview of Brodie herself? [Let me predict here -- you won't answer.] The answer to your question is "no, not having read it."

[_Lamanite]

I have the relevant biographies, Prince, Bringhurst, and Nibley's bio by Petersen (I think this has relevant information).

Problem is that none of them have stellar indexes. So I'll dig through them and return and report!


Big UP!


Lamanite

[_Mercury]

mercury?

what?

[_Mercury]

To return to your previous question, though, regarding "what LDS publications do not follow this pattern you mention," I don't see any history books that don't follow a pattern of selection, Some do so better than others, in my opinion. I just finished one, Kathleen Flake's The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle, (University of North Carolina Press). I strongly recommend this book as far superior, historically speaking, to Brodie's No Man Knows.

Oh, I see, you wanted me to respond to this tilting at windmills response you threw together. OK, fine. Here is my response:

Thank you for stating that no LDS publications follow the pattern of objectivity I had outlined.

You are free to continue doing whatever it is you do besides professional historical research.

In the meantime I want to wave my finger at you for going at the muddy water routine of throwing a book at me that you probably have nto even read...or own...or knew aout before doing a google search.

Edited to add:
On a similar note, I don't trust the philosophical basis you supposedly espouse, as it has led you to conclude that a ludicrous idea involving indians, gold plates, stones in hats, divinely protected bank fraud, racism, sexism, emotional abuse in the name of a deity, polygamy...etc etc etc.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, I see, you wanted me to respond to this tilting at windmills response you threw together. OK, fine. Here is my response:

Thank you for stating that no LDS publications follow the pattern of objectivity I had outlined.

Where did you outline a pattern of objectivity in the thread?

In the meantime I want to wave my finger at you for going at the muddy water routine of throwing a book at me that you probably have nto even read...or own...or knew aout before doing a google search.

Actually I sincerely recommend the book. And yes, I've read the entire thing.

[_Lamanite]

Thank you for stating that no LDS publications follow the pattern of objectivity I had outlined.

This is so Bush League.

Name one Historical book that is completely objective. Please, I'm begging you to throw out a title.

The cool part about Historians like Arrington, Bushman, Bitton, Davis, Turley, Mauss, et al, is that they are honest about their biases and how it may or may not affect their work.

Like LOAP, I didn't see this pattern you described, but I would like to see the pattern written out and then see an associated historical piece that follows its guidelines perfectly.

Lamanite

[_TAK]

This is so Bush League.

Name one Historical book that is completely objective. Please, I'm begging you to throw out a title.

Lamanite

I read Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (Simon & Schuster (2003)) last year, it did not come across as bias.. There were several unflattering things about Franklin, so tell me why it is bias?