A question about Fawn Brodie

[_Mercury]

Once again, lamanite is engaging in Black and White thinking. Its a scale you half baked islander!

As for clueless on a plate, I suggest you read the short pieces on objectivity again instead of rubbing out a drive-by booking. And I did outline my view very shortly. As this is an amateur board I do not see why I must meet to your level of standards you neither follow or subscribe to. True scholarship has already defined Mormonism and subsequent Mormon literature as biased and unable to recognise the core reality of the subject matter for which they study.

[_Mercury]

This is so Bush League.

Do you read your posts before hitting submit?

[_TAK]

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.

Honest? Nonsense.
As opposed to the possibility they would lie about their affiliations? How does their work become more trust worthy if they omit or ignore facts that other historians address such as Turley and Co. for instance did in M@MM ?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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?

Sounds like a good read. Here we have "unbiased" defined as containing "several unflattering things." A peculiar definition, that.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Once again, lamanite is engaging in Black and White thinking. Its a scale you half baked islander!

As for clueless on a plate, I suggest you read the short pieces on objectivity again instead of rubbing out a drive-by booking. And I did outline my view very shortly. As this is an amateur board I do not see why I must meet to your level of standards you neither follow or subscribe to. True scholarship has already defined Mormonism and subsequent Mormon literature as biased and unable to recognise the core reality of the subject matter for which they study.

You said that you outlined a "pattern of objectivity." I await your response as to where your outline can be found.

[_TAK]

Sounds like a good read. Here we have "unbiased" defined as containing "several unflattering things." A peculiar definition, that.

Thanks for the brilliant example of a non-answer..

[_Mercury]

Sounds like a good read. Here we have "unbiased" defined as containing "several unflattering things." A peculiar definition, that.

What is known: Joseph Smith was a prattling con man

What LOAP wants to accept as objective: Pieces that ignore joes bad side and hold up the "good things he did", mostly involving silly events relating to Mormonism.

[_Mercury]

Sounds like a good read. Here we have "unbiased" defined as containing "several unflattering things." A peculiar definition, that.

What is known: Joseph Smith was a prattling con man

What LOAP wants to accept as objective: Pieces that ignore joes bad side and hold up the "good things he did", mostly involving silly events relating to Mormonism.

Not to go Godwin but I imagine you would not accept a biography on Hitler if it mentions the Holocaust.

[_Mercury]

Sounds like a good read. Here we have "unbiased" defined as containing "several unflattering things." A peculiar definition, that.

Thanks for the brilliant example of a non-answer..

Yah, good luck on getting a conclusion that shatters LOAP's loose knowledge concerning objectivity.

[_Mercury]

Once again, lamanite is engaging in Black and White thinking. Its a scale you half baked islander!

As for clueless on a plate, I suggest you read the short pieces on objectivity again instead of rubbing out a drive-by booking. And I did outline my view very shortly. As this is an amateur board I do not see why I must meet to your level of standards you neither follow or subscribe to. True scholarship has already defined Mormonism and subsequent Mormon literature as biased and unable to recognise the core reality of the subject matter for which they study.

You said that you outlined a "pattern of objectivity." I await your response as to where your outline can be found.

Wow, are you that dense? Chomsky and the aforementioned citations I gave did not do this for me? Please read again (if you ever did) the articles I posted.