I read 'faithful history,' written by LDS authors and presented as scholarly writings with annotations and footnotes to source documents and writings.
I read LDS history that does not meet the 'faithful history' standard, written by current LDS, former LDS, other religious scholars, and scholars who have been excommunicated for writing history that wasn't faithful but who still consider themselves believing Saints (D. Michael Quinn, Ph.D., for example).
In addition to reading LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer's admonition to LDS historians, The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect, anyone interested in the difference between faithful history and history should read D. Michael Quinn's heavily footnoted account of the long story of his loss of Temple Recommend and eventual excommunication for, among other things, writing about post-1890 Manifesto marriages and magic and the Mormon world view. It's a fascinating read and part of a group of collected works (primarily by LDS historians) about the difficulties of being a LDS historian given the admonition to write faithful history:
On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath).
Dr. Quinn still considers himself a believing Saint. He's considered perhaps the most knowledgable authority, living or dead, on Mormon history. NOTE: Quinn is gay. He came out of the closet long after being excommunicated. You'll hear people say he was excommunicated for that. There was more than a two-decade span between one and the other. He's just one of many LDS scholars excommunicated or disenfellowshipped (or who had a TR pulled) for writing history found to be unfaithful.
I support the right of LDS FR members to believe in their faith. This isn't about theology, it's about history. When facts about LDS history are covered up, they are hidden from members of the LDS church as well as non-LDS.
If lds actually knew the history of the foundation (and continuing history) of their “church” would they still be lds? place marker
thanks, I bookmarked the article for later reading.