Scripture is a horrible source to prove historical accuracy.<\/p>\n
History is skewed. All history. Each historical account we read was written by someone. That someone wrote only what they recollected or what they saw or what they researched. But there will always be elements they didn\u2019t recall or they didn\u2019t see or they didn\u2019t research.<\/p>\n
As such, all historical accounts are biased. The only way to overcome that bias is to consult multiple accounts of the same events. This will theoretically provide us with a broader, more representative, more accurate view of the event.<\/p>\n
The problem with scripture in this regard is that it often is the only account. As such, it is told through limited perspectives, often just one perspective.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s assume that the events told in the Book of Mormon actually happened. (This can equally apply to biblical narratives, too.)<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s assume Lehi took his family into the wilderness. Let\u2019s assume that what Nephi said happened actually did happen. But what about the things Nephi didn\u2019t tell us? What events occurred that we never read about because Nephi forgot about them or chose to not include them? What would our understanding of those events look like if we also had access to the perspectives of Sariah, Lehi, and Laman? What would our doctrinal understanding look like if we had the complete writings of Zenock, Neum, and Zenos, for example, rather than only Nephi\u2019s passing mention of them? How would our understanding change if we had access to the writings that Mormon chose not to summarize or include? What would the war chapters of Alma look like if we had the Lamanite perspectives available to us?<\/p>\n
It\u2019s one thing to turn to scripture for spiritual guidance. It\u2019s quite another to turn to it as a source of historical accuracy, something it fails at.<\/p>\n