Restoration Best Evidence of Apostasy?

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr Peterson,

I recently read in you Mormon Times article your comment that the restoration was the best evidence for the apostasy. I could not help but think this not a very good argument. It is rather circular and self fulfilling. Could not our friend Nightlion who posts on this board claim that his alleged revelations from God are the best evidence the LDS Church has wandered from its true purpose as he claims? Really anyone could use such an argument as evidence for about anything they wanted to prove could they not?

[_MCB]

If one believes in an open canon, one must preach apostasy.

[_basilII]

Why limit it to the great apostasy? The Restoration would also be the best proof possible of:

the prophethood of Joseph Smith
the prophethood of Thomas Monson
the existence of the Nephite civilization
Adam and Eve
6000 year old earth
the global flood
that Joseph got the translation of the papyri right
our preexistence
dark skin as a curse from God
even the very existence of God and the divinity of Jesus

The list could go on and on. If the Restoration happened as claimed then everything that the LDS church teaches must be true. Isn't it marvelous?

[_Aristotle Smith]

It's also the best possible proof that:

God REALLY wanted men to have sex with lots of women.
God wants a multi-billion dollar mall constructed in downtown Salt Lake City.
God thinks white shirts are a really snappy fashion statement.
God thinks it's an even snappier fashion statement if you thrown in a dark suit.
God doesn't want you to know where 10% of your money goes after it gets transmitted to SLC.
The Masons really know how to put on a religious ritual.
God really doesn't care all that much about honesty, provided you are teaching "Level A" doctrine and history.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I recently read in you Mormon Times article your comment that the restoration was the best evidence for the apostasy. I could not help but think this not a very good argument. It is rather circular and self fulfilling.

It might certainly seem so to someone who has missed part of the article that I wrote.

Here are the closing lines of that article:

Like early Christianity, though, Mormonism rests on historical claims about people and events, not on theological speculations. It rises or falls on whether certain things happened. Deductions from those events are secondary. The reality of the events is primary.

Mormonism declares that the original Christian church fell into apostasy. What is the best evidence for that claim? The fact that there was a restoration. The historical evidence for an apostasy is, in my judgment, excellent. But God's restoration of the church and the gospel proves it.

Are there still theological or philosophical puzzles? Yes. Though I anticipate that all will ultimately make sense, I don't expect to understand everything now. For example, the relationship between the Father and the Big Bang, which is itself probably beyond human reason, is unclear. Nevertheless, God called Joseph Smith from heaven and revealed the Book of Mormon. Convinced of that, I'm confident of what follows from it.

The very last sentence is what makes the argument non-circular: "Convinced [that God called Joseph Smith from heaven and revealed the Book of Mormon], I'm confident of what follows from it."

In other words, I am convinced on grounds external to the "circle" (grounds not expressly enumerated in this particular article, which was and could be only circa 700 words long) that the Restoration occurred. It is logically defensible and not at all circular, once that proposition is granted, to assume the truth of the claim of a universal apostasy, because it makes no sense on any normal understanding of the nature of God to believe that God would restore what had not been lost.

Such a position is logically valid (i.e., non-circular) even if a critic regards it as unsound (because s/he judges its premise to be false). I, of course, believe that its premise is correct, and that it is, therefore, both valid and sound.

[_Jason Bourne]

I did read the entire article. And yes I agree if one assumes, believes, concludes that in fact Joseph was the prophet of the restoration then it certainly would be evidence of an apostasy. Of course if one assume Nightlion is a prophet than that is evidence of an apostasy in the LDS Church as well. So, the leap still is one faith, which of course the faith rests on the evidence and what one concludes about it.

Thanks!

[_Tad]

The very last sentence is what makes the argument non-circular: "Convinced [that God called Joseph Smith from heaven and revealed the Book of Mormon], I'm confident of what follows from it."

In other words, I am convinced on grounds external to the "circle" (grounds not expressly enumerated in this particular article, which was and could be only circa 700 words long) that the Restoration occurred. It is logically defensible and not at all circular, once that proposition is granted, to assume the truth of the claim of a universal apostasy, because it makes no sense on any normal understanding of the nature of God to believe that God would restore what had not been lost.

Such a position is logically valid (i.e., non-circular) even if a critic regards it as unsound (because s/he judges its premise to be false). I, of course, believe that its premise is correct, and that it is, therefore, both valid and sound.

I would boil this down to, "because I believe so firmly in the Restoration, my argument is not circular."

Fair enough?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I did read the entire article. And yes I agree if one assumes, believes, concludes that in fact Joseph was the prophet of the restoration then it certainly would be evidence of an apostasy. Of course if one assume Nightlion is a prophet than that is evidence of an apostasy in the LDS Church as well. So, the leap still is one faith, which of course the faith rests on the evidence and what one concludes about it.

Thanks!

You're right that, while I'm persuaded of the claims of the Restoration, I'm not persuaded by the claims of Nightlion.

But, as I say, whether you are persuaded, or anybody else is persuaded, of the claims of the Restoration is irrelevant to the question of whether or not my position rests on circular reasoning.

The very last sentence is what makes the argument non-circular: "Convinced [that God called Joseph Smith from heaven and revealed the Book of Mormon], I'm confident of what follows from it."

In other words, I am convinced on grounds external to the "circle" (grounds not expressly enumerated in this particular article, which was and could be only circa 700 words long) that the Restoration occurred. It is logically defensible and not at all circular, once that proposition is granted, to assume the truth of the claim of a universal apostasy, because it makes no sense on any normal understanding of the nature of God to believe that God would restore what had not been lost.

Such a position is logically valid (i.e., non-circular) even if a critic regards it as unsound (because s/he judges its premise to be false). I, of course, believe that its premise is correct, and that it is, therefore, both valid and sound.

I would boil this down to, "because I believe so firmly in the Restoration, my argument is not circular."

Fair enough?

Not quite, no.

The firmness of my belief in the Restoration doesn't deliver my reasoning in the article from vicious circularity. The fact that my belief in the Restoration rests on grounds outside the circle does.

[_basilII]

If event A must logically proceed event B, and if we have strong evidence that event B occurred, then event A must have also occurred. There is nothing wrong with this line of reasoning in general. It can be a valid inference. For example, if someone is claimed to have been born, and I can verify that the person actually exists (say I meet them) then I can accept that the person was indeed born sometime in the past, given what I know about human biology.

Of course the crux of the argument is the validity of event B. What evidence do we have for and against B? And if events A and B are tied together logically then it also works both ways. If we have strong evidence that event A never occurred then that would cast doubt on event B as well. For me personally the need for a great apostasy works against the Restoration story rather than for it,

[_Jason Bourne]

You're right that, while I'm persuaded of the claims of the Restoration, I'm not persuaded by the claims of Nightlion.

But, as I say, whether you are persuaded, or anybody else is persuaded, of the claims of the Restoration is irrelevant to the question of whether or not my position rests on circular reasoning.

Yes again I agree. For you and anyone else that concludes that the restoration claim it no longer is circular. But only for those who reach such conclusions.