I remember the first time I learned some of the challenging aspects of church history. The massacre at Mountain Meadows, details of polygamy, multiple accounts of the first vision, and etc. I felt doubt stirring in my mind and heart. It was painful, but short lived.[1]
On reflection, I now realize I assumed the Lord’s appearing to Joseph Smith meant the Lord was there 24/7 guiding the restoration. Consequently there could be no imperfections in the establishment of the church, or in the lives of those who carried the work forward, therefore church history would be uncomplicated and without blemish.
I wonder why I entertained such naive notions. I was a student of the scriptures and understood the difficulties the Savior had with His hand picked apostles. The Book of Mormon’s first family (Lehi and his wife Sariah, and their children) certainly couldn’t have contributed to my naïve ideal. The Standard Works of the church attest to the frailties of mankind, and nowhere teaches the ideal that church history, ancient or modern, ought to be uncomplicated and blemish free.
I read an article by a LDS church historian who didn’t mince words about the silliness of getting caught up in the problems of church history. Davis Bitton, a prominent LDS historian makes the salient point that those who know our history the best, church historians, remain faithful committed members of the church. He wrote:
Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote… Competent historians who have devoted many years of study to the issues have not felt compelled to abandon their faith in the restored gospel…
Think not when you gather to Zion,
Your troubles and trials are through,
That nothing but comfort and pleasure
Are waiting in Zion for you.
No, no, ’tis designed as a furnace,
All substance, all textures to try,
To burn all the “wood, hay, and stubble,”
The gold from the dross purify.
When Eliza R. Snow penned those words, they were good advice for the emigrants leaving Europe to join the Saints in the West. Similar counsel is sometimes needed by students of our LDS history. “Think not when ye study church history,” we might sing, “that everyone was always smiling, that the women were always dressed in freshly laundered, starched pinafores, that the men spoke softly, grammatically, and always politely, or that the children were well mannered angels.” Think not! In other words, get real! [2]
In my opinion, those who get hung up on issues in church history and claim this is reason for doubting, not believing, having their name removed from the records of the church, or not joining the church have other options available to them. For me it was found in prayer and study. Go here for my story
Following is additional information for those interested in this subject:
* YouTube-Davis Bitton Here
* F.A.I.R.-Davis Bitton Here
* Meridan Magazine-Davis Bitton Here
[1] It was shorted lived for me because I had been the recipient of many manifestations of the Spirit. All that I needed to do is reflect on these experiences and the doubt and pain I experienced were swallowed up.
[2] I Don’t Have a Testimony of Church History, Davis Bitton. Click Here for full text.
Well said.
Davis Bitton. Simply the greatest.
Amen! I just invested an enjoyable hour reading the David Bitton article. I had read excerpts from it somewhere before. Thanks for providing the links to the material. Your essay is good stuff – catchy title and great quotes from a trusted historian.
Interestingly, I also wrote about my observations of some who have read and been dismayed by what they have “discovered” in their studies of our history. Maybe they haven’t read Davis Bitton’s little talk.
I really appreciate this post and also for providing the links to Davis Bitton’s article, which I probably would not have read/found otherwise. Thanks!
Stephen, Ardis, Tim, Clean Cut
Thanks for coming by. I think Davis Bitton makes some excellent points on this issue for LDS.
Pingback: Times & Seasons » Posts You Might Have Missed 3
“I wonder why I entertained such naive notions.”
Probably because that it what the Church and it’s leaders have been wanting you to believe. While I wouldn’t go as far to say that this has explicitly been done (though I’m sure instances of it have occured), but rather they implicitly support such naivete by not correcting the notions you expressed, even though they surely know it occurs.
For example, in 1984 Elder Ronald Poelman gave a talk in general conference where he tried to dispel this notion. Some of the brethren disagreed with his talk and had it drastically and fundamentally rewritten for publication. They also had him re-tape the talk the following Wednesday for distribution overseas. Sounds of coughing and such were also added to the new talk so that it would seem like it was the original given at the conference. You can read the unedited version here.
Many have trouble believing in the Church even with a backdrop of faith-promoting history and the Official Narrative. Why then is it unreasonable to falter when one learns the thornier details?
Furthermore, for each fully informed historian who maintains the faith there is a fully informed historian who lost his faith. Why are only the former historians reasonable? This seems to suggest that these are matters in which reasonable minds and hearts could differ.
And while academics are often quite able to reconstruct and maintain their faith in light of historical problems, many many average Mormons are not. I suspect in terms of non-scholars, empirically your line of reasoning would suggest that those of us who stay faithful are the unreasonable ones.
In the end, calling those who doubt “unreasonable” and “not forthright” ends discussion and dialogue. It prevents the 99 from reaching the 1. And it likely pushes some over the edge, turning the 1 into 10.
In his recent book, On the Road with Joseph Smith, professor Bushman writes the following on pp. 120-121:
“While Mormons may think of Sunday School and home teaching as Mormon Culture, the work of [dissident and doubting Mormon scholars] is also part of the Mormon whole. The intensity of their interest helps us to recognize the flaws in our conventional divisions into faithful and unfaithful, believing and unbelieving, active and inactive. We all attach ourselves to Mormonism in some peculiar fashion; we all have our irksome points where we don’t feel comfortable and particular sites where we obtain a purchase on our religion. We should recognize that we are all part of big-tent Mormonism and acknowledge each other as brothers and sisters.”
To use Bushman’s terms, you have simply added another false “conventional division.” If you condemn the doubters in our midst as unreasonable and not forthright, you push them right out of the tent.
Larry, you beat me to it. I just want to add my amen. It’s important to always give people the benefit of the doubt–even though you think someone is being unreasonable or irrational, that person probably doesn’t, and in fact probably feels like he or she is being very reasonable. I believe that most people are well intentioned and act according to the knowledge they have received in the best way they know how. I know for me that kind of understanding in persons with whom I am engaged in dialogue about the gospel has helped me stay close to the Church.
Tech Narrator
No doubt church leaders have their hands full with the challenges of church history. I pray that they will be led to the best solution for all concerned.
I’m familiar with the Ronald Poelman story. It would be interesting to know more of the details. I wonder how Elder Poelman would describe his experience. To my knowledge he served faithfully and spoke in other general conferences.
Thanks for your comments.
Larry said: “Furthermore, for each fully informed historian who maintains the faith there is a fully informed historian who lost his faith.”
Wow, do you have sources for this statement. I would be interested in to know more details.
Larry said: “…calling those who doubt “unreasonable” and “not forthright” ends discussion and dialogue”
Mpb said: “It’s important to always give people the benefit of the doubt–even though you think someone is being unreasonable or irrational, that person probably doesn’t, and in fact probably feels like he or she is being very reasonable”.
After reading your comments and rereading mine I’ve decided to edit my post as follows:
In my opinion, those who get hung up on issues in church history and claim this is reason for doubting, not believing, having their name removed from the records of the church, or not joining the church have other options available to them. For me it was found in prayer and study. Go here for my story.
You’re right about giving people the benefit of the doubt. My initial remarks were for those who are “professional doubters”. I describe them as one whose post and comments nudge out faith and bump open the door to doubt in nearly everything they post and comment on. In other words, they have become professional doubters; they don’t appear to be interested in resolving their doubts, but seem to enjoy their role as a doubter.
Go here for my post on professional doubters:
http://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com/2008/06/one-part-faith-seven-parts-doubt-a-recipe-to-reduce-faith-and-maintain-doubt/
What complicates Brother Bitton’s argument (essentially “smarter guys than you or I have not had their faith shaken by studying LDS history”) is that LDS history — by its very nature as a bit of a backwater in American or Christian history — will tend to attract, as its students, mostly people who are already immersed in LDS culture. They come to the field already deeply invested in the proposition that the Church is what it claims to be.
Turn the argument around: Has any non-Mormon professional anthropologist, Egyptologist, linguist, etc. ever joined himself to the Church because he found the Church’s claims that touch upon those disciplines persuasive? Is there any good reason to dismiss their professional judgment (that LDS claims are unpersuasive) and uphold the judgment of learned LDS historians?
The notion that LDS claims are so self-evidently true to a person of good will is what drives so much of the enmity between members and former members. Joseph Smith declared that he would blame no one for not believing his history, as he would not have believed it himself (he said) if it had not actually happened to him. Many members seem to be trying to be “more royalist than the King” in this regard. The Church’s claims *are* implausible, given a clear-eyed view of the evidence. An infallible witness of the Spirit can overcome that burden, of course, but it requires nothing less than that.
I once found this line of reasoning persuasive, but then I realized that virtually every church can make the same claim. There are Catholic scholars who have studied the gruesome history of that church in detail, and have found no reason to abandon their faith. That fact alone proves nothing about the truth claims about that particular church–it only speaks to the ability of some people to preserve belief in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.
Further, most people who lose their faith in Mormonism after studying its history would not make the claim that historical facts “inevitably lead to the conclusion that the church is false,” or “require that Joseph Smith is a fraud.” Those are straw men at worst, and and best represent a burden of proof that most people don’t consider necessary to satisfy in order to form an opinion about the church’s truth claims. It’s a matter of probability.
For example, much of the church’s truth claims rest on the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith. If you read only the church’s whitewashed version of its history, he comes away looking like a pretty trustworthy guy. But if you read a more balanced account, it’s easy to see how someone might conclude that he is less than trustworthy. It’s not a matter of scientific proof, it’s just looking at the whole story in the proper context and deciding which of all possible explanations for the historical facts is most likely.
Amen Ishmael! As for a professional LDS historians that have left the Church have you considered Avraham Gileadi, Michael Quin, Maxine Hank, Lavina Fielding Anderson, who were excommunicated for teaching LDS history and historical doctrine. No doubt there are other less prominent historians that have left the Church quietly that we may never know of.
Thomas–
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know if anyone has sought out the church because of an expertise in anthropology, Egyptian, linguist, etc. But I do know that there are scholars who have said that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham appear to be authentic ancient documents. As you know Hugh Nibley make many contributions in this area, and though he is not longer with us, his work is.
Thomas said: “An infallible witness of the Spirit can overcome that burden, of course, but it requires nothing less than that.”
I agree with your point, because I have been given this kind of witness.
Ishmael & Jay–
I think the calling of the prophet Joseph Smith is unique. When was the last prophet like him? You have to go back to the apostle Paul and earlier to find a valid comparison.
With that said I don’t think your idea that church historians from the Catholic faith are comparable to LDS historians. What Catholic figure brought forth equivalent “revelation” to Joseph Smith? The Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and D&C are immense contributions that we can hold in our hands. In addition we have a well documented history with many rank and file members personal journals to verify the official history. We have a good view of things and based on that there is little reason for members to conclude Joseph was a fraud. I agree with Bro Bitton’s conclusion.
As for me, I wouldn’t join the church because of its history, if I were an outsider looking in. I would call it a church and leave it at that.
If the Lord hadn’t left the 99 and helped me back to the church by giving me the witness He did then I would be on the inactive rolls (If interested, see Jared’s Testimony for details).
Last point–I understand that Abraham Gileadi is a believing members and that Lavina Fielding Anderson and others have never denied their testimonies even though they are excommunicated. Correct me if I’m wrong about them.
Jared,
I know that Abraham Gileadi was rebaptized and Michael Quinn remains outside the Church but a very respected historian especially when it come to LDS history. As for the others I have no idea about what their belief in the Church is all I know if that they were excommunicated for talking too much about historical LDS doctrine.
Your dismissal of Ishmael’s very good point is disappointing. The Catholic Church has a very controversial history, which has weakened the testimonies of Some Catholics I know and others I’ve met. They are not able to reconcile the infallible Pope doctrine with the events and corruption that took place. The truth is it is exactly like the LDS Church. The Pope’s contributions may not be as significant to you as the D&C and POGP, as a non-Catholic, but to a Catholic they are extremely important. To say their not reveals how one sided you are being.
Jared, I think you’re missing my point, and you’re branching off into irrelevant facts by pointing out all of Joseph Smith’s unique contributions to Mormonism. That’s not the issue here. Let me see if I can simplify it a little by explaining my reasoning in more detail.
The Bitton quote argues that there is nothing in LDS Church history that would cause reasonable people to conclude the Church is false. His sole evidence for this claim is that historians who know all the details have not concluded that it is false. The implication is that if such damning historical facts did exist, then all reasonable church historians, upon encountering them, would conclude that the church is false. They have not, therefore such facts do not and cannot exist.
This logic should hold true for any church. I think we can both agree that the history of the Catholic church is full of damning facts that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that the Catholic church is false. Yet Catholic historians who have investigated these facts in detail have not left their church. This violates the logic set up by Bitton, which relies on the assumption that anyone who encounters evidence descrediting thier church will leave said church. If people can know damning facts about their own religion and still choose to remain believing members of that religion, then we cannot reliably conclude anything about the existence or nonexistence of disconfirming evidence for that religion from the belief status of its historians.
To sum up, the Catholic story is full of holes, yet its hirtorians still believe it. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the Mormon story is full of holes, and its historians still believe it.
As you’ve demonstrated, the only way to go from here is to venture off on other arguments about how Mormonism is different from Catholocism, and those might be good and valid arguments, but they are beyond the scope of Bitton’s focus, and should not be necessary to prop up his logic. He is saying that we can conclude something about the nature of church history from the faith of church historians alone, and that is demonstrably untrue.
Ishmael–
This is how I approach this situation:
Is it logical to use the words of an authority as evidence to reach a decision about a question? Yes
Is Brother Bitton an authority on LDS church history? Yes
Therefore, what brother Bitton says about LDS church history supplies credible information to those who have questions about church history.
Your argument states:
The catholic church has a history full of damning facts.
Catholic historians still believe in the Catholic church.
Therefore, church historians can still believe in a church with damning facts so brother Bitton’s argument is invalid because of the example of Catholic historians.
The way I settle this interesting argument is to say that the Catholic tradition is so different from the Mormon tradition that I don’t think Catholic historians can be logically used to invalidate brother Bitton’s position.
I don’t want to grind on another church so I’ll use the argument of pro-life and pro-choice on the issue of abortion to further illustrate my point.
I am pro-life in the tradition of a Mormon. I have logical arguments to support my view.
Those who are pro-choice also have logical arguments to support their view.
The difference is that those who are pro-choice do not believe in God, or do not believe in the same God, I believe in.
Therefore, because our belief systems are so different we don’t share a logical basis to argue from. We’re at an impasse. We just end up talking pass each other.
In order for your logic to be sound, you need to show why Mormon scholars can be relied upon to abandon their faith given the presence of damning historical facts. Once again, Bitton’s point only holds if that’s the case. Evidence from other churches show that the opposite is true–historians of every religious persuasion maintain faith in spite of the damning facts they encounter. If Mormon historians are uniquely susceptible to apostacy, the burden of proof rests on Bitton to demonstrate it.
Is it logical to use the words of an authority as evidence to reach a decision about a question? Before you answer that, you might want to brush up on a logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority.” Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds in history and certainly an authority on natural laws, but that doesn’t mean that we can conclude that anything he said about alchemy is factual.
Bitton, as an LDS historian, can certainly speak about the facts of church history with authority. His conclusion about the content of church history being free from damning evidence may be correct, but the sole evidence he has provided to support this conclusion is unsound. If he wants to demonstrate to his audience that his conclusion is right, he needs to come up with some better evidence than the faithfulness of church historians. (Because every church has faithful historians.)
Ishmael–
I enjoyed the read. Thanks for expressing yourself clearly, kindly, and with strong reason. I’d love to be on your team if I were in a debate.
Thank-you so much for this. It was something I needed to hear.
@Ismael: I think you are sadly missing the point of this entire argument Ismael. Mormons and Catholics do not have “faith” in and “testimonies” of their respective churches’ histories. That is what Bitton was saying when he points out that many a Mormon historian sees no contradiction between history and doctrine.
Rather, their faith is in the principles and doctrines which their respective religion happens to espouse, being the institutions from which they learned such things.
Why do you think that these churches do not bother much with their history? Because that is not what they are about. They are educational institutions concerned with the perfecting of the saints through the gospel of Christ, not cliques of elite historians chronicling the mistakes and the poor choices of their predecessors.
Meanwhile, since you mentioned logical fallacies, I think you should remember the most used and abused fallacy against the LDS faith the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, that, in layman’s terms, it is the classical “shoot the messenger, not the message” argument. Many an anti-Mormon use the fact Joesph Smith wasn’t perfect to argue that somehow the principles and facts he preached wrote weren’t true.
The problem we have with secular intellectuals it that they typically make pronouncements and claims based on incomplete and often very biased resources.
PS: By the way, the “authority” fallacy only applies to unqualified authority, not a mere appeal to authority. Issac Newton was a qualified authority on mathematics and physics, but not alchemy.