That awkward moment when you’re reading Sherlock Holmes and it turns into the Book of Mormon
And I do mean literally the Book of Mormon.
There is a section in my Kindle version of the collected stories of Sherlock Holmes, right after A Study in Scarlet, that is a chunk of the Mormon biblical text. It took me about 5 minutes of reading to figure out that Sherlock Holmes was not, in fact, a part of this story. Nor was it anything ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
I have no qualms with the Church of Latter Day Saints, but I would greatly prefer it if they stayed out of my Sherlock.
Conan Doyle most definitely did write the part you’re describing. A Study in Scarlet comprises two “parts” - part 1, which introduces the reader to Holmes & Watson [as well as them to each other] and part two - “The Country of Saints”.
Holmes himself might not be a part of it, given that it starts off in 1847, some seven years before the character is born [based on information from “His Last Bow”], but part two of the story is most definitely connected to part one.

![Book Review: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - (Sherlock Holmes) A Study in Scarlet.
[Kindle - Book #14] | [2011: Book #4]
First published in 1887, A Study in Scarlet was the first ‘full length’ Sherlock Holmes story that Conan Doyle wrote. The book is presented as a second hand account of sorts - written not by Holmes (as I expected, many years ago when I first read the book), but by Dr. Watson. I guess it would be pointless recounting the details of Holmes & Watson - as characters go, they’re perhaps the most famous crime fighting duo (or duo fullstop) ever written.
I haven’t read the Holmes stories for a number of years, however my interest was sparked again, upon re-watching Sherlock, the BBC Mini-Series from 2010, which used elements of A Study in Scarlet, for the pilot episode, A Study in Pink. A quick browse around the internet resulted in a beautifully illustrated version of the entire Holmes series, for the Kindle, which is how I read it.
It was interesting to see just how similar the 1887 story was to the 2010 adaptation - the parts that Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss kept worked well in the show, but because they also changed significant parts of the plot, it helps keep both stories seperate, and unique. I’m glad I decided to re-read the stories, and can’t wait to start re-reading The Sign of Four, the second book in the series.
[Queued Post]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfh4yrdeYC1qa7o0ko1_500.jpg)


![So now you know. [Part 1/3 House / Hugh Laurie related posts]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ktmoydsxih1qa7o0ko1_500.jpg)