Analyzing LDS Church History
Five major factors should be considered before one commits to believing historical source documents as completely valid or true. While we cannot fully understand what may have influenced the LDS historical statements, documents and memories of centuries ago, we can (and probably should) reduce the chances of being misinformed as much as possible. This episode looks at the basic factors that can help determine credibility or risk when it comes to LDS source material.
Listen to the podcast
Watch the video
Show Notes – Analyzing LDS Church History
These five factors are the biggest things to consider in trying to determine the authenticity and reliability of historical documents.
1. Latency
Latency answers the question: “when did the event happen and how ling afterwards was it discussed?”
✅ Contemporary
Written or spoken within the current time frame of the events being discussed.
? Early Recollections
Recorded months or within a few years after the event, while the subject being discussed is still somewhat relevant.
⛔ Late Recollections
Recorded several years or even decades after the event.
2. Proximity
Proximity deals with “how close was the source to the events being described?“
✅ 1st Hand
Author had first-hand knowledge of the events being described, seeing, hearing or experiencing the event themselves as it unfolded. Generally credible, but not immune to false witness.
? 2nd Hand
Author is retelling something that they heard someone else say, without being a witness themselves to the events being discussed. Use discernment. Citing first hand records helps.
⛔ 3rd Hand+
Author receives hearsay or altered versions of the story (“telephone game”) where information degrades with each retelling. Rarely reliable for details. Not considered evidence.
3. Verbatim
Verbatim solves the question of “what level of detail is reported and how possible is the ability to recall such?”
✅ Scribal Verbatim
Source author was present & wrote the words spoken at the event. What is written is usually credible, but often missing the totality of information. Original source material more credible than rewrites and copies.
? Phrase Verbatim
Author is remembering short and concise ideas or statements. Shorter more general phrases are more believable than lengthy, detailed excerpts. Reading published sources (newspapers, scripture, minutes) is best.
⛔ Dialogue Verbatim
Recollection of detailed, lengthy verbatim is proven impossible, except with concerted efforts of memorization are made. Retelling long verbatim conversations (not reciting “scribal verbatim”) is impossible and easily dismissed.
4. Origination
This one is a matter of “is this an original source, and if not, how far removed is this copy from the original?”
✅ Original document
The originating documents exists and are available for handwriting sampling, paper & ink authentications & critical analysis by experts, historians and curious people.
? Copy, edit, re-write
No original copy exists. Copies are claimed but unverifiable. Details should exist around who copied it, where, when and under what circumstances. Does the copy match the original?
⛔ Copies of copies
No original copy exists, or copy is several versions removed from original. Not uncommon to destroy original documents after new copies are altered. True copiers often preserve originals.
5. Incentives (Bias)
What biases or reasons to produce this witness might the author have?
✅ Truth’s sake
Declarations of truth with no personal gain. Often done in effort to declare truth or correct falsehood. Backed with precedent, scripture, witnesses and drama-free storyline.
? Gainsaying
Gainsaying statements for social or monetary gain, or else gossip designed at weakening others’ influences. “Me too” recollections, unfounded and boastful storytelling, campaigning for power, etc.
⛔ Avoiding punishment
Contrived or campaign-driven statements or witness collection efforts to avoid incarceration, excommunication, financial loss, loss of power, embarrassment, etc. Collusion & secrets.
Hey Mark – just perusing the website – great stuff indeed!
One question RE: the editor’s note that is on “Joseph Smith & William Clayton (1842, Aug 18)”… assuming this truly is Joseph’s handwriting (I’m no expert, and not sure if any experts have opined on this one). Doing a quick CTRL+F scan for Joseph first hand accounts, this seems to be the only one that shows up in the Polygamy column.
Despite the multitude of evidences that indicate that more likely than not Joseph was NOT a polygamist, AND fully appreciating the mad rush by the Brighamites to craft the narrative for the looming legal battles, I’m not quite sure how to explain this one away. I mean, it’s in his own handwriting; he references something that happened between him and the Whitneys; he mentions keeping hidden from Emma; and something about fullness of blessing to be sealed. One other thing I find noteworthy is that the letter wasn’t burned as requested.
Curious on if you’ve had any similar thoughts?
Thx MC
Hi Peter,
Regarding this letter that you’re referencing, it was written while Joseph Smith was in hiding (obviously), so here are some ideas:
Emma was being followed by many, who were trying to find out where Joseph Smith was hiding out. To be part of his hiding would drag the Whitneys (and Emma) in by association, and be akin to harboring a fugitive. This was a very high-stakes operation. Keep in mind there was a bounty on Joseph Smith to anybody that would find him. Showing u at different times than Emma and not traveling with Emma would minimize the risks of a larger group of people sneaking around a cornfield at night. That’s what the “safety” is that he’s referring to. It’s not the “safety” of being able to have sex with his best friends daughter right in front of her parents, who are invited along for the ride. And yes, some people really believe that that’s what it means.
The next sentence clarifies what safety he’s referring to:
He’s telling them to ESCAPE OBSERVATION as the reason for not traveling with Emma!
Obviously, Joseph is asking them to destroy the letter so that they wouldn’t know where he was found. Think about it: This letter contains the exact location of his hiding and explains in detail how to approach and what time of day to come. Obviously, ANYONE would request such things to be destroyed.
Lastly, for the fans of the salacious romance novels, let’s think about this for a minute rationally. I have zero experience seducing underaged sex partners, but if that was my goal and my strategy, I definitely would not have been as stupid about it as Joseph apparently was, according to his critics. Joseph Smith was an intelligent man.
If Joseph Smith wanted to have sex with little Sarah Ann Whitney, why on earth would he
Makes zero sense. Almost as stupid as Joseph Smith allegedly inviting Levi Hancock (her uncle) to watch the old “romp in the hay” with Fanny Alger. ?