I appreciate your thought on no proof ... in my own study it really bugs me that people in our day tend to write history or judge history from the yardstick of today or that they subjectively measure the past by stories related by the outcasts or enemies of a person or belief. Fir example, Nathaniel Hawthorne looked down on his Puritan ancestry, wrote an inaccurate or slanted side of it in the Scarlet letter and now we tend to look at Puritans with some harsher synonyms. Same with Mormonism .. the detractors to Joseph seem to carry the thought patterns and rewrite what it really was to fit the negative diatribe that they choose to promote. People with 'sour grapes' shouldn't dictate history. That is also not 'proof' for me when it contradicts reliable testimony. Thanks for your podcast.
I appreciate your thought on no proof ... in my own study it really bugs me that people in our day tend to write history or judge history from the yardstick of today or that they subjectively measure the past by stories related by the outcasts or enemies of a person or belief. Fir example, Nathaniel Hawthorne looked down on his Puritan ancestry, wrote an inaccurate or slanted side of it in the Scarlet letter and now we tend to look at Puritans with some harsher synonyms. Same with Mormonism .. the detractors to Joseph seem to carry the thought patterns and rewrite what it really was to fit the negative diatribe that they choose to promote. People with 'sour grapes' shouldn't dictate history. That is also not 'proof' for me when it contradicts reliable testimony. Thanks for your podcast.
Sadly, the vigorous training for historians seems to be a vestige of a lost generation. Hopefully, some rigorous dialogue may change the standard some