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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.