Church History Matters

038 How Can We Think Like Historians?

Nov 21, 2023

Learn how historians evaluate the reliability of historical claims and the importance of being source critical. They emphasize the significance of firsthand accounts and discuss the dangers of biased narratives. The hosts analyze witness accounts and allegations of adultery involving Joseph Smith. Stay tuned for an upcoming episode on evaluating historical statements.

57:47

Creator website

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Proximity of the source, time elapsed, and motives should be considered when evaluating historical claims.

Comparing accounts and examining supporting evidence are important in assessing the reliability of historical claims.

Deep dives

Evaluation of Historical Claims

When evaluating historical claims and assertions, it is important to consider several factors. First, the proximity of the source to the actual event is crucial. In the case of William McClellan's letter, it is a secondhand account of a conversation between Emma Smith and McClellan that allegedly took place in 1847, recalling an incident from 1836. Second, the time that has passed before recording the account raises concerns about accuracy. McClellan's letter was written in 1872, around 25 years after the conversation he claims to have had. Third, examining the motives of the person sharing the account is essential. McClellan had a contentious relationship with the Church and may have had ulterior motives to discredit Joseph Smith. Fourth, considering the factual basis versus opinion is important. McClellan's account is highly opinionated and lacks corroboration from other sources. Fifth, comparing the account with other sources reveals a lack of consistency and supporting evidence. Other sources do not mention the specific incident described by McClellan. Overall, given the distance in time, the questionable motives, and lack of corroboration, this historical claim should be approached with caution and skepticism.

Introduction

2min

Exploring Epistemology and Evaluating Doctrinal Claims

2min

Transition to History and Evaluating Historical Claims

8min

The Importance of Firsthand Accounts

27min

The Danger of Narrative Cropping in Historical Accounts

5min

Examining Witness Accounts

4min

Analyzing Allegations of Adultery

8min

Upcoming episode on evaluating historical statements

2min

How can we know what actually happened in the past? Whose stories are true? Piecing together accurate history can be tricky business. People in the past, like people today, were diverse. Some were honest. Some were not. Some were straight shooting truth tellers who gave honest (though subjective) accounts of what happened. Others emphasized or omitted specific details in ways that would serve their particular agenda. So, how should we think about and evaluate the reliability of historical claims and assertions to discern what is historically accurate from what is mistaken or misleading?

In this episode of Church History Matters, we dig into the basic toolbox trained historians use in their efforts to be “source critical.” And being source critical essentially means caring about where our information is coming from and being honest about what that information can and cannot tell us. It means we recognize that not all historical claims are created equal and so we aim to use only the best data to inform our understanding of the past. And while we cannot always protect ourselves from deception, developing the skill being source critical will greatly reduce the odds that we will be misled. So, in short, today is our crash course in learning how to think like a historian.

For show notes and transcript for this and other episodes go to https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/church-history-matters-podcast/