FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 11: Difference between revisions
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
*John L. Sorenson, ''An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon'', 1985. | *John L. Sorenson, ''An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon'', 1985. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{misinformation|{{SourceDistortion}}: the author cites Sorenson, but does not explain how Sorenson responds to this very issue. | {{misinformation|{{SourceDistortion}}: the author cites Sorenson, but does not explain how Sorenson responds to this very issue. The final battle of the Jaredites makes it clear that they did not migrate a long way from the starting point (e.g., Ether was able to observe matters from a cave and return easily to hide.) | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{:Question: If the gold plates were orignally in Mesoamerica, how did they get to New York?}} | |||
==Response to claim: 160 - There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land== | ==Response to claim: 160 - There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land== | ||
Revision as of 20:34, 13 December 2016
Response to claims made in "Chapter 11: Plausible Geography"
| Chapter 10 | A FAIR Analysis of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church A work by author: Simon G. Southerton
|
Chapter 12 |
Response to claim: 153 - B.H. Roberts' manuscripts "Book of Mormon Difficulties" and "A Book of Mormon Study" were "clearly intended for publication"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
B.H. Roberts' manuscripts "Book of Mormon Difficulties" and "A Book of Mormon Study" were "clearly intended for publication."
Author's sources: Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The author needs to demonstrate this assertion. Many others have not agreed. Roberts' cover letter suggests otherwise.
Question: Why did B.H. Roberts write Studies of the Book of Mormon?
B.H. Roberts wrote the material contained in Studies of the Book of Mormon to illustrate the positions that critics would take
Critics use B.H. Roberts' critical evaluation of Book of Mormon difficulties to support their arguments. B.H. Roberts wrote the material contained in Studies of the Book of Mormon to illustrate the positions that critics would take. He was playing "devil's advocate" for the purpose of inspiring Church leadership to work on a better defense (as critics typically point out, Roberts was a "LDS apologist"). For instance, regarding Lucy Mack Smith's description of Joseph giving "amusing recitals" of ancient Americans, Roberts presented the critical conclusion that "These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare's and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard's."
From Lucy Mack Smith's history:
"From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every night evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children...
Response to claim: 153 - Roberts' concluded that a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon was "entirely plausible"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Roberts' concluded that a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon was "entirely plausible"
Author's sources: *Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
<onlyinclude>
- REDIRECTJoseph Smith's trustworthiness
Response to claim: 154 - LDS scholars have made a "steady retraction" of claims regarding the scale of the Nephite/Lamanite presence since the 1920's
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS scholars have made a "steady retraction" of claims regarding the scale of the Nephite/Lamanite presence since the 1920's.
Author's sources: *No source given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Authors and leaders have done so for many years. If the author knows this is true, why does he suggest (e.g., p. xv) that recent science has been behind the different view of geography and demography?- Statements by LDS leaders, scholars, and publications.
- Book of Mormon/Geography/New World/Limited Geography Theory
Response to claim: 156 - All Church presidents, General Authorities and "most church members" have believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
All Church presidents, General Authorities and "most church members" have believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography
Author's sources: *Alma 22꞉28-32
- Alma 50꞉34
- Alma 52꞉9
- Alma 63꞉5
- James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 1915.
- 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Leaders and members have differed on a point about which the Church has no official doctrine. Author(s) impose(s) own fundamentalism on the SaintsLogical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.
The author consistently argues that LDS scholars or apologists are "adjusting" their view on the Book of Mormon because they are being driven back in a rear-guard action by science. But, in fact, some LDS leaders and scholars have argued for a restricted geography and small numeric contribution of Lehites for over one hundred years.These beliefs were not held because of scientific "pressure," but because of their reading of the Book of Mormon text. In fact, the author admits that this has occurred since at least the 1920s (see p. 154)—long before any pressure from genetics issues. Yet, he continues to make the contradictory claim that the Church's defenders are now "on the ropes" and desperate for a solution.Response to claim: 156 - The Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
Author's sources: *1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon.
FAIR's Response
Question: Why did the Church modify the introduction to the Book of Mormon from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors?"
The Church changed the wording to remove the assumption (inserted into the Book of Mormon in the 1920's) that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were exclusive descendants of Lehi
The Church made the change in wording to the introduction to the Book of Mormon to remove the assumption, which inserted into the Book of Mormon introduction in the 1920's and not part of the original text, that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were exclusive descendants of Lehi. This had been the generally held belief from the time that the Church was restored.
This change makes the Book of Mormon introduction compatible with current DNA evidence and acknowledges the fact that Lehi's group likely intermingled with the native inhabitants of the American continents based upon current knowledge of the DNA composition of the inhabitants of the New World. There is substantial scientific evidence of habitation in the Americas for thousands of years prior to Lehi's arrival.
If Lehi had any descendants among Amerindians, then after 2600 years all Amerindians would share Lehi as an ancestor. Even if (as is probable) the Lehite group was a small drop in a larger population 'ocean' of pre-Columbian inhabitants, Lehi would have been an ancestor of virtually all the modern-day Amerindians if any of his descendants married into the existing New World population.
Response to claim: 156 - A hemispheric geography most closely aligns with an "uncontrived" reading of the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
A hemispheric geography most closely aligns with an "uncontrived" reading of the Book of Mormon.
Author's sources: *Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
he issue of travel distances has yet to be reconciled with a hemispheric reading.Response to claim: 159 - Moroni makes no mention of traveling from Central America to New York in the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Moroni makes no mention of traveling from Central America to New York in the Book of Mormon.
Author's sources: *John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Misrepresentation of source: the author cites Sorenson, but does not explain how Sorenson responds to this very issue. The final battle of the Jaredites makes it clear that they did not migrate a long way from the starting point (e.g., Ether was able to observe matters from a cave and return easily to hide.)Question: If the gold plates were orignally in Mesoamerica, how did they get to New York?
Response to claim: 160 - There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land.
Author's sources: *Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.
- John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author cites Sorenson's work, but does nothing to engage his arguments for just such indications.Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.
Since scholars have long pointed to many textual clues which point to the existence of other non-Lehites in the New World, the author must dispense with such ideas if he is to succeed in portraying the Book of Mormon at odds with science. However, he does not engage the textual evidence that Latter-day Saints have found in abundance—he merely insists there is no evidence there.Response to claim: 163 - The shrinking of Book of Mormon geographical models corresponds with the growing research showing that ancient Americans came from Asia
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The shrinking of Book of Mormon geographical models corresponds with the growing research showing that ancient Americans came from Asia.
Author's sources: *No source given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
- Double standard: Even if the author's claim was true, why complain? He has argued that Mormons always make their religious beliefs trump science. But, if Mormons respond to science in changing their perceptions, this is seen as a bad thing!
Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.
The author consistently argues that LDS scholars or apologists are "adjusting" their view on the Book of Mormon because they are being driven back in a rear-guard action by science. But, in fact, some LDS leaders and scholars have argued for a restricted geography and small numeric contribution of Lehites for over one hundred years.These beliefs were not held because of scientific "pressure," but because of their reading of the Book of Mormon text. In fact, the author admits that this has occurred since at least the 1920s (see p. 154)—long before any pressure from genetics issues. Yet, he continues to make the contradictory claim that the Church's defenders are now "on the ropes" and desperate for a solution.Response to claim: 164 - A limited Book of Mormon setting is at odds with "a straightforward reading" of the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
A limited Book of Mormon setting is at odds with "a straightforward reading" of the Book of Mormon.
Author's sources: *Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Others have disagreed. The limited model came out of a reading of the text, not out of scientific pressure or apologetic need.Response to claim: 164 - The limited Book of Mormon setting contradicts D&C 54:8
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The limited Book of Mormon setting contradicts D&C 54:8
Author's sources: *DC 54꞉8