Learning to Think Like a Historian

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. And others just lied. 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 that 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 of 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 trained historian.
This is the fourth episode of our 10-part podcast series on Good Thinking. For a full transcript of this episode, as well as show notes and additional resources, visit our website at doctrineandcovenantscentral.o...
You can also subscribe to our podcast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and other platforms, and follow us on popular social media platforms. Visit linktr.ee/churchhistorymatters to connect with us.
Originally published October 31, 2023
DISCLAIMER: While we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[@RyanMercer]

☺ 👍 you got it!

[@jonathanettinger6970]

Not yet 10 mins in and the overthinker needs to interject.
Your question was on the reliability of the source.
Trained historians are more likely to be informed with the specifics, BUT a General Authority is more readily reliable for being HONEST. They may not know, but they won't lie. Historians, however, can, and have, given deliberately erroneous accounts to further their favored perspective and/or agenda.
Important distinction, no?