Arrington was once the official church historian for the LDS Church. Of course, the natural place to point for reasons as to why this might be the case, is the fact that Leonard J. Of course, this book does present itself as objective and detached, and it does use these primary sources in such a way that seems to promote that view, but I just find it hard to believe that any man could be so level-headed and so wise and so prescient in all things. And I really enjoyed it - of course, taking it all with a pinch of salt.Īmerican Moses is similar in my eyes. It had no real pretence to presenting a well-rounded image of the man. That was a very fun read (this one is less actually fun) but Johnson didn't really try to hide the fact that his biography was intended to glorify Churchill. What this book reminds me of - the only history book I can think to compare it to - is Boris Johnson's book on Winston Churchill. It's not so much the subject matter (of course, it is strange, but it is what it is) - it's the fact that this book is so scrupulously sourced, with constant references to primary sources, and yet still presents an image of Brigham Young in which he appears benevolent and honest and good in just about all things. I think it has the opposite problem to Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |