Choose your narrative

Recently a friend told me that history is history; i.e., historical events are facts. In a narrow sense, that is true, assuming we can validate or even corroborate historical accounts with extrinsic evidence. But if the historical events are based on human accounts, they are inherently subjective.

Any lawyer knows that no one has perfect recall, that no two witnesses will have identical memory about what they've observed, and that even any one witness will recall different details at different times. Memories are constructed from sensory inputs, which are themselves filtered by subjective criteria. 

Facts are merely a starting point because history is a narrative.

A famous example is recorded in John, who reported there was a "division" among the Jews who all observed the identical events yet reached opposite conclusions.

 19 ¶ There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

 20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

(John 10:19–21)

The respective groups John identified chose their own narratives, based on their assumptions, inferences, and theories. They observed events--facts--and then adopted a narrative that confirmed their pre-existing biases. 

This is why I have proposed the FAITH model of analysis: Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and Hypotheses.

Everyone in the world can agree to the facts. The problem arises when people conflate (or blend) facts with their own assumptions, inferences, theories, etc. The FAITH model allows us to pursue clarity, charity and understanding because it empowers us to make informed decisions.

The Jews divided into two camps based on the identical facts. Because of their respective assumptions, inferences and theories, some Jews concluded that Christ had a devil, while others concluded he could not have a devil.

_____

Among Latter-day Saints, we have similar differences based on the identical facts. I've discussed this in terms of the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, but it applies to other aspects of history, doctrine, and practice as well.

The FAITH model allows us to separate facts from assumptions, inferences, etc. It lays bare the intellectual ancestry of the various beliefs people have and enables us to see clearly how those beliefs have been created and fortified.

One impediment to implementation of the FAITH model is censorship. When people do not have all the facts available to them, they cannot make informed decisions. They cannot distinguish between facts and assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses. 

Censorship leads to the opposite of clarity, charity and understanding. 

Censorship obscures reality and invites distrust. It provokes animosity and suspicion of motives. It fosters contention and confusion.

With transparency, we can all pursue clarity, charity and understanding by using the FAITH model, thereby eliminating ignorance, confusion, mistrust, and contention.

Now, let's see if we can encourage our LDS historians to embrace the FAITH model and join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.