WHAT IT IS NOT: Saints is not doctrine, it is not scripture, it is not a source of absolute truth, nor is it revelation, though it makes some references to such things in its narrative.
For those who may have concerns about how to study “Saints” in its proper and intended place, here are two techniques which I have discovered to be helpful in my study of history.
Technique 1: I have found that reflecting upon the consistency of a narrative’s conclusions, and the inferences it draws, with what I know to be the revealed truth is a key. If that conclusion is consistent then I can move on to the next one and enjoy the story. If it is inconsistent with revealed truth, seems questionable, or out of sync with my experiences, or the doctrines and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I feel free to reject that conclusion or inference, or at least set it aside as I employ the 2nd technique.
When the Salamander letter first appeared, long before the horrific web of intrigue and murder finally led to its being discredited as a cleverly devised fraud, I had already rejected it outright. My only basis for refusing to accept its authenticity was that the letter was clearly inconsistent with what I knew spiritually about the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Heavenly Father’s ordered and powerful tutoring of His prophet. Thus, while historians and experts where engaging in apologetics, I was able to simply cast it aside as the fraud it was later proven to be. That is the power that comes with comparing historical claims to revealed truth.
Technique 2: When an inconsistency appears, I find it both interesting and revealing to check the original sources listed in the references, which at times requires going through several layers of referenced material to find the actual source. I enjoy pondering over why the referenced material was chosen over other records of the time. Searching for other references to that same event, which may contradict or cast a different light on the chosen reference is also helpful. Reviewing the original sources and the presenters for possible bias, human flaws, weaknesses, that might explain the contradiction is an essential part of the technique. I have found that considering the gaps, holes, or leaps of logic placed upon the original source by the historians in support of their conclusion, reveals much about the integrity of the writer. It should be noted here that the First Presidency encourages the use of supplemental materials provided with the book, and the online version of “Saints” even has links to some of the original sources, making them available with a click.
As an assignment in one of my early college courses at BYU, I was given a chapter of a book written by a very renowned and respected LDS author, and told to verify the cited sources. It amazed me to discover that some cites were taken out of context, some were misquoted, and in some cases the source did not even exist. The lesson was powerful and the professor pointed out that his intent was to teach us how NOT to do research. It forever changed my view to how I viewed research based conclusions, and provided me with a healthy dose of skepticism when it came to any discipline falling within the arm of the flesh.
In the next few blogs I will try to show how applying my technique to “Saints” has helped me to keep it all in focus. The three areas I will explore are “The Stone in The Hat”, “The Danites” and “Plural Marriage”. .......