Question 1: Just so I understand, is your post about “revisionist” church history about that we must seek truth from the Holy Ghost and not only from scholarly works of church historians?
Answer 1: Yes, only I would say we can ONLY know absolute truth by revelation. The danger is when historians try to convince us and our youth that you can know truth by fleshed based methodologies, like history.
Question 2: Or are you opposed to the publishing of newly discovered documents of church history that differ from what we knew 50 years ago?
Answer 2: . I am not against publication of any historical documents, as long as the readers and presenters acknowledge their human flaws and that there is no guarantee that the new documents are any more accurate than the old ones, or that they might not be superseded by some future discoveries or allegations. I have seen the presenters of the newer historical stuff, assume omniscience and challenge spiritually revealed truths based on flesh-based methodologies. I have also seen huge logical fallacies in their presentations, but the works are still being embraced as truth? That is a problem. One would think that the lessons of the Salamander Letter would keep historians humble, but it has not happened.
Question 3: Trying to wrap my head around this. It sounds like you are answering “yes” to BOTH questions. I love the new Saints book. Do you not?
Answer 3: What I have read so far, is fine, but it still contains opinions and questionable conclusions, which is not a problem, as long as members do not think it is scripture, or doctrine, or a substitute for revelation from God though the Holy Spirit. As long as they take it with a grain of salt like all other human works. It may be pro church, and pro LDS, but it is still flesh based, though granted as one reads it the Holy Spirit can affirm sections and/or parts to be true.
Summary: I have thoroughly enjoyed studying Church history throughout my life. I spent countless hours of research for my book “Whisperings From Far West” (in which I wrote about the significant events surrounding the rise and fall of Far West, Missouri), reading and rereading historical accounts, mainly from the 7 Volume “History of Church” edited by BH Roberts. Yet, I readily admit my humanity. I am subject to biases, flaws, imperfections. I would never claim or expect anyone to assume my book was the source of truth with regard to the events surrounding Far West. My conclusions and findings might be interesting, but they do not, by themselves constitute truth.
However, during my research and writing, as I pondered on some points or events, there were occasions when the Holy Spirit would come upon me and testify to the truth of that account or event. Those revelations to me from God do constitute the truth as revealed by God. Thus history by itself cannot be accepted as truth, unless the Holy Spirit confirms, verifies, reveals, to the heart and mind, the truth concerning the matter. Then, In such cases, it does not matter if a clear majority of other historical sources with reference to that fact contradict the one source or interpretation which the Spirit has confirmed as true and accurate. Truth is not a matter of human judged credibility or a function of the numbers of corroborating histories. Truth is, and should ever be, purely a matter of revelation from God.