Non-Partisan history is more interesting.

[deacon blues]

Being a history buff, I pay special attention to other history buffs. We are weird, nerdy, and often snobbish. We are also often partisan to a particular view.
Civil War history buffs can be interesting, but if they are partisan to one side or the other, they can also be a pain in the tush. A Southerner who idolizes Robert E. Lee or a Northerner who idolizes Lincoln (this is me on occasion) or Grant, sometimes take offense and spoils an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
Mormon History buffs are even more often partisans. I'm disaffected and admittedly biased. But the less partisan we can be, the more interesting and, in my opinion, productive we are. Insights and better understanding can result from both sides if we listen with intent to understand, rather than just reply, or "win" a discussion.
This is difficult with an emotional topic like religion, but I think trying to do it can make our lives, and our world, better.

[moksha]

Any experience with non-partisan WWII discussions?

I know they must exist because I have watched dispassionate analysis videos of WWII naval battles in the Pacific. Strength in the naval as Joseph Smith used to say.

[moksha]

Interesting history question: Was beer invented by the Sumerians or the Mormons?

Bonus question: Was beer invented in 1829 or 8000 BCE?

[Not Buying It]

Being a history buff, I pay special attention to other history buffs. We are weird, nerdy, and often snobbish. We are also often partisan to a particular view.
Civil War history buffs can be interesting, but if they are partisan to one side or the other, they can also be a pain in the tush. A Southerner who idolizes Robert E. Lee or a Northerner who idolizes Lincoln (this is me on occasion) or Grant, sometimes take offense and spoils an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
Mormon History buffs are even more often partisans. I'm disaffected and admittedly biased. But the less partisan we can be, the more interesting and, in my opinion, productive we are. Insights and better understanding can result from both sides if we listen with intent to understand, rather than just reply, or "win" a discussion.
This is difficult with an emotional topic like religion, but I think trying to do it can make our lives, and our world, better.

Well, you know, I would agree if the Mormon apologists were dealing with history in good faith. Having a variety of honest perspectives can enrich any discussion. The beef I have with those defending the Church in discussions is that most of them aren't honest - because the truthfulness of the Church is sacrosanct to them, any fact that questions the credibility of the Church must be hidden, obfuscated, or mangled beyond recognition.

I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who is going to try and convince me that everybody was marrying 14 year old girls in the 1800s, or that Joseph didn't really think he was translating Egyptian when he wrote the Book of Abraham, or that horses in the Book of Mormon are really tapirs, or any of the other hundreds of dishonest and spurious assertions that apologists spout.

Otherwise, yes, I would agree 100%.