The importance of using primary sources

In my last post, I criticized Jonathan Neville’s use of second- and third-hand sources to demonstrate the truth of his theological views and the error of his opponents’.

James Harvey Robinson, professor of history at Columbia University from 1895 to 1919, was one of the most influential historians of his time, and his views on the study of history continue to shape the study of it today. In the first chapter of his work, Readings in European History, Volume 1, he explained the importance of using primary sources:

It is well known that the oftener a report passes from mouth to mouth the less trustworthy and accurate does it tend to become. Unimportant details which appeal to the imagination will be magnified, while fundamental considerations are easily forgotten, if they happen be prosaic and commonplace. Historians, like other people, are sometimes fond of good stories and may be led astray by some false rumor which, once started into circulation, gets farther and farther from the truth with each repetition. . . .

One of the first questions then to ask upon taking up an historical work is, Where did the writer obtain the information? Has the writer simply copied his statements from the more easily accessible works in a familiar language, however unreliable and out of date they may be; or, dissatisfied with such uncertain sources, has the writer become familiar with the most recent researches of the distinguished scholars in the field, in whatever language they may have been written; or, still better, has the historian made a personal study of the original evidence which has come down to us of the events and conditions which are under discussion?

[pp. 2, 3–4]

It’s not only historians who are subject to the tendency to garble, inflate, and invent the details of accounts; it is, in fact, a human tendency from which no one is immune—even prophets and apostles. In doing so, these good men had no motive to be untruthful. In fact, they likely weren’t even aware if they had altered a story in the retelling.

Such is the case with the story of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and the cave full of plates: It’s almost certain that there is a true and accurate account of this experience that has been lost to history, and the late, second- and third-hand versions we do have do not accurately reflect what Joseph and Oliver actually experienced.

One consistent hallmark of the “Heartland” geography theory is its use of non-primary sources, synthesized accounts, and faith-promoting rumors to prove that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon took place inside the boundaries of the modern United States.

I hope this blog will shine a light on the unfortunate pretense that is the “Heartland” movement.

—Peter