Research is the Answer!

[creator]

I have started my own research into Joseph Smith and the formation of the church, but I'm not using any sources connected with any religious organisations which would of course would have a bias, I am using only historical, original primary
data.
I want to know once and for all what exactly happened, I'm tired of hearing all the stories of treasure seeking etc, I want to get to the bottom of it all!

How are you defining "only historical, original primary data"? What are some examples in this case? Wouldn't those still be biased based on who wrote them?

I just read "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling". It was definitely a very interesting look into the life of Joseph Smith.

I agree with others saying it's difficult to get an unbiased and completely objective view on anything. I do like to look at the contemporary sources (people who actually witnessed or experienced it) rather than someone recounting what they think happened 50 years ago, for example.

[creator]

This ongoing feud between Robin Hood and Dusty52 makes me wonder if they are brothers in real life.

[EmmaLee]

This ongoing feud between Robin Hood and Dusty52 makes me wonder if they are brothers in real life.

And they're both from England, so, maybe....

[Robin Hood]

This ongoing feud between Robin Hood and Dusty52 makes me wonder if they are brothers in real life.

And they're both from England, so, maybe....

Apparently he is from Singapore.

[oneClimbs]

Context is everything as it relates to the OP. Prooftexting as a premise puts you immediately on a sandy foundation and it reveals that you care more about a particular point you are trying to make than what is real.

“By study and by faith” I’ve heard those words repeatedly in my life and nobody has ever asserted the things the OP is accusing. To claim such a thing is frankly ridiculous and I don’t mean that as an insult I mean that objectively.

If you read Oaks in context as some here did, it is clear what he meant. In regards to research not being THE end all be all answer (it’s not an answer anyway but a process, a search), I have found that this point made by Avraham Gileadi is spot on:

“Because the closer we get to God the more marked the paradoxes, it sometimes seems that God includes enough ambiguity in his revealed word to provide an "out" to those who resist his invitations to seek the truth. At virtually every level, in effect, God has built into the scriptures two ways that you can interpret them: one for those who want to fall back on established views, right or wrong, that may have some element of truth but not the whole truth; the other for those who want to search out all God has revealed no matter how great the paradoxes. God makes that a test for us - a "snare" for the self-righteous, but a path into his presence for his "disciples". (269)

I’ve spent quite a bit of my life researching things and can say that when it comes to religious matters, you always hit this fork in the road where knowledge can only take you so far.

Even if you have VIDEO of an event happening it can be interpreted incorrectly, case in point: Covington. We should be even more careful with written accounts.

Alma 32 is a great model. It is very comperable to what we call the scientific method. Ultimately, the Spirit trumps all and I would say that these spiritual confirmations often come at the tail end of much study, research, and pondering. Those things are not THE answers but can help in leading TO the answers.