If the primary purpose of a historical treatise is to assist the reader in forming conclusions about the “truth” of a matter, then of COURSE the author’s own prejudices and approach are relevant. A bit ironic how a hypothetical historian would insist that we can’t take the “History of the Church” (or conversely, the “Nauvoo Expositor”) at face value without knowing more of the background of those who wrote these documents and the context in which they were written–and then demand that his own work not be evaluated through the same lens.

As I have said in the past, I am a dedicated parser, so it bothers me when my words or actions are not taken at face value but rather filtered through a subjective lens of supposition and assumption – in a way like your use of the term “persuasion”. I honestly am not focused on “persuasion” in my decision to disclose or not disclose; I am focused on “real understanding” – which is very different than persuasion. Many times I don’t care if someone agrees with me (if I am able to persuade them), but I always care that they understand me – regardless of whether they accept my view or not. Sometimes disclosing or not disclosing affects a person’s ability to understand – which is much more fundamental than agreement.

However, some of the biases that mislead the most aren’t easy to disclose or to even be aware of. Since these are often common biases of certain ages and communities, we may need to wait for perceptive historians to point them out. “He shared the peculiar biases of his age. . .”

Much of my own growth has been a gradual recognition of biases that I earlier thought were simply “the way it was,” and I assume I am nowhere near the end of this process, which means most of my biases remain intact and invisible to me.

#24 What I think is most interesting is the way disclosures become yet another rhetorical device, used to persuade, sometimes by deception. (I’m NOT suggesting Ray is misleading anyone, only that his focus remains upon persuasion, and the uses of disclosure are selected with that that purpose in mind).

Shut up, just shut up. You had me at “born/raised in Midwest to Utahns.”

I don’t think disclosure is necessary and usually not even helpful in understanding a text, even for those fixated on authorial intent.

I like what Leslie Torch said:

“If I’d said, ‘Oh, I made my record in Istanbul,’ then everyone would be like, ‘We can hear the sweetened mint tea in small glass cups.’”

I like what Leslie Torch said.”>said:

“If I’d said, ‘Oh, I made my record in Istanbul,’ then everyone would be like, ‘We can hear the sweetened mint tea in small glass cups.’”

On the other hand, I think that upon the first viewing of the documentary, I was a little irritated at the lack of identification because I worried that it could have precisely the result that it did have among jittery LDS viewers already very concerned about how badly PBS might portray their faith. But more generally I have found that it enriches my reading of a text when a writer of history (in any of the fields of history that I am interested in, not just Mormon history) discloses points of bias or at least of experience that implies bias. Understanding the everyone has biases and that these biases will inform what particular inferences are drawn from what appear to be facts in the historical record, such disclosure can put the text into context and facilitate analysis and engagement with the conclusion drawn.