Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Index


A work by author: Dr. Simon G. Southerton

Index to claims made in Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

This is an index of claims made in this work with links to corresponding responses within the FAIR Wiki. An effort has been made to provide the author's original sources where possible.

Introduction

Page Claim Response Use of sources

xiii
  • The Book of Mormon talks primarily of a small group of Jews who sailed from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
  •  The author's claim is false: Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, and was not a Jew, however, author later makes the correct statement regarding Lehi's ancestry on page 5. The author makes the same error, however on p. 188. This is our first hint that the author's familiarity with the necessary detail in the Book of Mormon is not adequate.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence—What are we looking for?
The work repeats itself on p. xiii and 188.
  • No specific verse given. This is an incorrect statement.—

xiii
  • Mormons believe that the dark skinned race constitutes the principal ancestors of the American Indians
  •  [ATTENTION!]

xiv
  • Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth.
  • No source given.
  • The common source for this statement is History of The Church 4:461

xiv
  • The Israelites are said to have arrived in a land kept from the knowledge of other nations.

xiv
  • There is no mention of any non-Israelite people in the New World.
  • None given.

xiv
  • The Book of Mormon describes the farming of Old World domesticated plants.
  • None given.

xiv
  • The Book of Mormon mentions horse, oxen, cattle and goats in the New World.
The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.
  • None given.

xv
  • Little has been discovered to support the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon.
  • No specific sources.
  • General reference to "anthropologists and archaeologists."

xv
  • The Mesoamerican cultures worshipped multiple gods and performed human sacrifice, which is not consistent with the culture of the Book of Mormon people.
  • The Book of Mormon Nephite culture is a minority culture in a larger cultural "sea." Human sacrifice and idol worship are mentioned by wicked Book of Mormon peoples.
  • See Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), all 6 vols:1–. for a close reading of the Book of Mormon in just such a context.
  • None given

xv
  • Many LDS scholars criticise mainstream scientific views in their defense of the Book of Mormon.
  • Without evidence this is a difficult claim to assess.
  • Can no mainstream view be challenged? Are all such views inherently correct?
  • None given

xv
  • The Church employs academics to professionally defend the Book of Mormon.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • None given.
  • This is an accusation frequently made on anti-Mormon discussion boards.

xv
  • The weight of evidence has forced LDS scholars to scale back the scope of the Book of Mormon.

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.
  • None given.

xvi
  • LDS leaders ignore LDS scholarship and continue to teach that Native Americans and Polynesians are literal descendants of the Israelites.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • None given

Chapter 1: A Chosen Race in a Promised Land

Page Claim Response Use of sources

3
  • Attempts to describe Mormon doctrine are "fraught with peril."
  • Author's opinion.

3
  • Reversals of doctrine regarding polygamy and regarding Blacks and the priesthood were "painful and damaging" to the Church.
  • Author's opinion.
  • No examples of the "pain" and "damage" are provided.

4
  • The idea that the words of living prophets supersede the words of dead prophets has been "recently" promoted.
  •  Absurd claim: This has always been the doctrine of the Church:
[When invited by Joseph Smith], Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,' said he, 'when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation, "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.'"[1]
  • If living prophets outrank scriptures, then living prophets clearly supersede dead prophets: whether written or spoken.
  • Changing doctrine
  • No source given.

4
  • Mormon doctrine is "fluid and changeable."
  • No source given.

7-8
  • The Nephites raise "herds of cattle, goats and horses."
The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.
  • No source given.

8
  • The Nephites raise Old World wheat and barley.
  • No source given.

8
  • The Nephites construct a temple that is "similar in splendor" to Solomon's.
  •  The author's claim is false: Nephi explicitly says that he uses Solomon's temple as a model, but "it [was] not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple" (2 Nephi 5꞉16).
  • Book of Mormon anachronisms—Temple in New World

8
  • The Nephites are skilled in the use of metals such as iron, copper, brass, gold and silver.
  • No source given.

8
  • The Nephites use steel to fashion swords, breastplates, and arm and head shields.
  •  The author's claim is false: "steel" is applied to two Old World weapons (Nephi's bow and the sword of Laban). Only in Ether are swords made of steel (Ether 7꞉9). Nephites are said to use steel (Jarom 1꞉8), but it is never described for breastplates, arm, or head shields.
  • The author is again shown to be woefully ignorant of the Book of Mormon text.
  • Book of Mormon anachronisms—Metals—Swords
The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.
The work repeats itself on p. 8 and 199.
  • No source given.

8
  • The Nephites built defensive mounds around their cities.
  • No source given.

8
  • The Lamanites vastly outnumber the Nephites.
  • No source given.

8
  • The "skin of blackness" is occasionally removed from the Lamanites when they are righteous, and returns to the Lamanites when they become unrighteous.
 * No source given

8
  • The Book of Mormon links the color of a person's skin to morality.

9
  • The Book of Mormon promotes the view that the "white race" is superior.
  • No source given.

10
  • In 1966 the Book of Abraham papyri were discovered.
  • Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), no pg. given.

10
  • The translation of the papyri does not resemble the Book of Abraham.
  • Larson, 1992

10
  • The denial of the priesthood to the Blacks was based upon the Book of Abraham.
  • No source given.

10-11
  • The Church publicly taught racist principles in the 1950's.

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church," Talk given at Brigham Young University on Aug. 27, 1954

11
  • The 1978 revelation allowing all men to hold the priesthood came in response to "public pressure."
  • No source given.

12
  • Many General Authorities believed that the priesthood prohibition would remain in place until Christ's return.
  • No source given.

12
  • Passages in the Book of Mormon were rewritten to "tone down references to skin color."
The work repeats itself on p. 12 and 40.

12
  • LDS scripture states that those with lighter skin color "are favored because of what they did as spirits in a pre-earth life."
  • No source given.

Chapter 2: Race Relations in Colonial America

Page Claim Response Use of sources

17
  • A similarity exists between the degraded Lamanites and the Native Americans of the 19th Century.
  • Note again only a dated anti-Mormon work is cited for this claim. No engagement with the large body of work done in response to Brodie is cited or engaged.
  • Amerindians as Lamanites

22
  • The Book of Mormon portrays the Lamanites as naked, head shaven, tent dwelling, arrow wielding and idle, similar to stereotypical perceptions of the Native Americans at the time.
  • No source given.

22
  • Joseph Smith may have woven "frontier prejudices" into the Book of Mormon.
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
  • The author needs to present actual evidence. In fact, the Book of Mormon sees the Lamanites as the equals of others, descendants of Israel, and blessed by God. This is a far cry from the frontier prejudice, where often "the only good Indian was a dead Indian."
  • No source given.

27
  • Joseph Smith "fell under the spell of the mounds and could not resist the lure of buried riches."
  • Silverberg, The Mound Builders, 1968.
  • Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1986), no pages cited.
  • Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 1971.

27
  • Joseph Smith used a "seer stone" or "peep stone" to search for buried treasure.
  • No source given.

27
  • Joseph Smith was charged with being "disorderly" for his money digging activities in 1826.
  • No source given.

28
  • Scholars have "concluded" that Joseph Smith was inspired by View of the Hebrews.
  • Persuitte, 2000.

28
  • The New World history in View of the Hebrews "shares close parallels with the plot of the Book of Mormon."
  • Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, 1825.

29
  • Joseph Smith was inspired by the myths surrounding the Moundbuilders in writing the Book of Mormon.
  • Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 1971.

30
  • Joseph "likely" added the story of the Jaredites to account for the speculation about the diversity of Indian cultures and languages.
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
  • We are told earlier that Joseph mirrored frontier prejudices. Yet, Vogel's book demonstrates that early settlers had little appreciation of the diversity of Amerindian culture. They regarded Amerindians as a monolithic group. These two claims do not mesh.
  • Jaredites added to the Book of Mormon as an "afterthought"  [needs work]

30
  • Joseph "likely" added the story of the Jaredites to account for how animals arrived in the New World after the Flood.

Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

The Church has no official position on the extent of Noah's Flood. Just because some members and leaders believe that the Flood was global in scope does not mean that everyone believes it.
The work repeats itself on p. 30, 42., and 203.

Chapter 3: Lamanites in the Latter Days

Page Claim Response Use of sources

37
  • Mormonism does not assign value to native cultures, their histories or mythologies.
  • No source given.

37
  • The Lamanite "family" has expanded to include Native Americans and Polynesians.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 268.

38
  • The patriarchal blessings of Native Americans and Polynesians often state that they are of the tribe of Manasseh (through Lehi).

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.

38-39
  • Modern day prophets repeatedly declare Native Americans and Polynesians to be descendants of Lehi.

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, Mar. 13, 1999. (Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Temple dedication)
  • James E. Faust, Church News, Mar. 18, 2000. (Tuxtla Gutierrez Mexico Temple dedication)
  • Thomas S. Monson, Church News, May 27, 2000. (Villahermosa Mexico Temple dedication)
  • Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, Aug. 7, 1999. (Guayaquil Ecuador Temple dedication)
  • Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, May 13, 2000. (Cochabamba Bolivia Temple dedication)

40
  • The Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned.

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
The work repeats itself on p. 12 and 40.
  • 3 Nephi 2꞉14-16
  • Spencer W. Kimball, "The Day of the Lamanites," The Improvement Era, December 1960, 922-923.

41
  • A general authority claimed that the writings of Ixtlilxochitl corroborated the Book of Mormon.

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • Milton R. Hunter, sometime in the 1960's.

42
  • Most Mormons are unaware that the New World has been continuously inhabited for 14,000 years.

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No source given.

42
  • The New World shows no sign of having experienced a universal flood.

Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

The Church has no official position on the extent of Noah's Flood. Just because some members and leaders believe that the Flood was global in scope does not mean that everyone believes it.
The work repeats itself on p. 30, 42., and 203.
  • No source given.

42
  • The Church employs apologists to defend the "myths" surrounding the Book of Mormon.
  •  The author's claim is false: Apologetics
  • This is a repeat of a claim on p. xv.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • No source given.

43
  • Members are encouraged not to try and determine where the Book of Mormon occurred.

Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.

Members are encouraged not to focus on the geography to the exclusion of the Book's more important spiritual message. BYU and FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) have published a great deal of member scholarship on geography, however. If the Church opposed this, it could easily be stopped.

Ironically, the author knows that there is no official geography (see p. 205) but continues to act as if it scandalous that the Church does not preach a non-official idea as official—perhaps hoping we will conclude that the model he describes is the official one which the Church dare not renounce.

The work repeats itself on p. 43, 142., and 205.
  • No source given.

45
  • Church leaders "seem reluctant or powerless to curtail" the belief among Mesoamerican and South American saints that they are descendents of the Lamanites.
  •  Prejudicial or loaded language

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • Author's opinion.

Chapter 4: The Lamanites of Polynesia

Page Claim Response Use of sources

47
  • The assumption that Polynesians are descendents of Lehi is the "most precarious" belief taken from the Book of Mormon.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • No source given.

47
  • "Mormon folklore" suggests that Hagoth colonized the Pacific.
  • It is not clear what normative value "folklore" has.
  • LDS scripture suggests that Hagoth probably voyaged to the Pacific. If he left any descendants, they probably persist among Pacific Islanders.
  • All from Lehi?
  • Polynesians as Lamanites

48
  • George Q. Cannon taught the Polynesians that they were descendents of the Israelites.
  • Scott G. Kenny, "Mormons and the Smallpox Epidemic of 1853," The Hawaiian Journal of History, 31:1-26 (1997).

49
  • Brigham Young stated in 1958 that the Polynesians were descendents of Abraham.
  • Norman Douglas, "The Sons of Lehi and the Seed of Cain: Racial Myths in Mormon Scripture and Their Relevance to the Pacific Islands," Journal of Religious History, 8:90-104 (1974).

49
  • The "curse was redefined" to apply only to people of African descent.
  •  History unclear or in error: there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon curse on Lamanites ever forbade them the priesthood if they repented. The author is confusing two quite separate issues.
  • Lamanite curse
  • Blacks and the priesthood
  • No source given.

52
  • Words spoken in General Conference are considered to be "akin" to scripture.
  • No source given.

53
  • Research has confirmed that there are strong links between Polynesia and the Orient.
  • There is nothing about the Book of Mormon that would preclude this.
  • Throughout this section, the author reads the Book of Mormon in the most naive way possible. But, for at least a hundred years before, leaders and members were saying very similar things. He is simply uninformed about LDS thought on the topic.
  • No source given.

54
  • Spencer W. Kimball and Heber J. Grant believed that the islanders were descendents of Lehi.
  •  Author(s) impose(s) own fundamentalism on the Saints: The LDS are not prophetic infalliblists, but in this case these two Church presidents may well be right.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • Spencer W. Kimball, "First Presidency Message: Our Paths Have Met Again," Ensign, 5:2-7 (1975)

54
  • The Church invested "vast sums of money" to build church schools in Polynesia, Mexico and Central and South America, but "denied" these benefits to Micronesia and Melanesia.
  •  Prejudicial or loaded language: the Church gets no credit for what it has done, only what it has not done.
  • Could the presence of schools have something to do with LDS membership levels, missionary efforts, etc.?
  • No source given.

Chapter 6: Science and the First Americans

Page Claim Response Use of sources

83
  • LDS Scholars frequently associate the Olmec and Maya with the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations.
  • No source given.

Chapter 9: The Outcasts of Israel

Page Claim Response Use of sources

120
  • We should expect the common culture, history and ancestry to be revealed in the genes of the lost 10 tribes and those of the kingdom of Judah if they are actually related.
  • No source given.

128-129
  • The Lemba can be genetically tied to the line of Aaron.
The work repeats itself on p. 128-129 and 190.
  • Webber Ndoro, "Great Zimbabwe," Scientific American, Nov. 1997, 62-67.
  • Tudor Parfitt, Journey to the Vanished City: The Search for a Lost Tribe of Israel, 1997.
  • Thomas, et al., "Y Chromosomes Traveling South: The Cohen Modal Haplotype and the Origins of the Lemba 'Black Jews of Southern Africa'," American Journal of Human Genetics 66:674-86 (2000).
  • Ezra 2꞉35

129
  • In Mesoamerica, there is no genetic support for European lineages.
  • No source given.

Chapter 10: The Lord's University

Page Claim Response Use of sources

135
  • Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
  • Some Mormons may believe this. Many others believe that there is no true conflict between science and religion, but realize that scientific ideas may be inaccurate based on limited data, or that religious understandings or preconceptions may need to be modified. The Church believes that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (A+of+F 1꞉9), which presupposes that previous ideas may be inadequate.
  • Mormonism and science

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), no page number given. GL direct link
  • Note: this reference is useless for establishing what statement of Elder McConkie's is being referenced.

135-136
  • Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No sources provided.

136
  • Mormonism declares that it "corners the market" on religious truth.
  •  The author's claim is false: Latter-day Saints recognize that there is truth and good in all religions, and that God works through men of science to reveal truth as well.
  • Salvation of non-members

136
  • Joseph Smith declared that all other religions were false.
Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."[2]

136
  • LDS think that all other religions are the "whore of the earth" and "church of the devil"

136
  • The current generation of Mormons is taught a selective view of Church history

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect," BYU Studies, 21:259 (1981)

137
  • Many church members are "blissfully unaware" of Brigham Young's practice of polygamy
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: how does the author know what members know? Brigham Young's polygamy is well known out of the Church. How likely is it that members remain unaware?
  • Brigham Young and polygamy

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997

137
  • Senior church leaders prefer that members not question changes in temple ordinances.
  • Church leaders "prefer" that members keep their covenants and not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temple.
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: members may discuss the endowment only in the temple; they may ask any question they like there of the temple president.
  • Temple endowment changes
  • No sources given.

138
  • LDS ecclesiastical leaders expect "unquestioning obedience" of church members.
  • Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not laughable.
  • The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.
  • Authoritarianism and Church leaders
  • Dallin H. Oaks, "Unselfish Service," Ensign (May 2009): 93–96. off-site

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • No sources given.

139
  • The Church "unofficially" discourages prayer to "Mother in Heaven"
  • Surely it is the Church's privilege to instruct its members in what it believes and condones, and what it does not? Members then make their own decision.
  • Heavenly Mother
  • AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1998. "Report of Committee A," Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. Sept./Oct.: 71-4.

140
  • Church leaders are "loath" to make unequivocal statements of doctrine.
  •  Absurd claim: a review of any general conference demonstrates that leaders are quite happy to make unequivocal statements.
  • If an area has no unequivocal statements, this is probably because it is not "doctrine," and the Church has no official position. Leaders are rightly wary of being misconstrued in such areas.
  • Changing doctrine

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • No sources given.

140
  • BYU's emphasis is on conformity rather than personal freedom.
  •  Absurd claim: the only source is the student honor code. How does this erode personal freedom? Every prospective student is aware of it, and agrees to abide by it. If he/she wants to do otherwise, he/she can easily choose to go elsewhere.
  • Authoritarianism and Church leaders
  • Student Honor Code, Brigham Young University

141
  • CES insists that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning.
  •  Absurd claim: Why is it strange that a group hired for religious instruction to supplement college or university work should want religion taught?
  • Mormonism and education  [needs work]
  • The only sources referred to are "parents."

142
  • CES instructs students not to attempt to locate Book of Mormon geographical locations

Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.

Members are encouraged not to focus on the geography to the exclusion of the Book's more important spiritual message. BYU and FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) have published a great deal of member scholarship on geography, however. If the Church opposed this, it could easily be stopped.

Ironically, the author knows that there is no official geography (see p. 205) but continues to act as if it scandalous that the Church does not preach a non-official idea as official—perhaps hoping we will conclude that the model he describes is the official one which the Church dare not renounce.

The work repeats itself on p. 43, 142., and 205.
  • No source provided.

142
  • Limited geography theories advanced by FARMS are "much too controversial" for CES students
  • No sources given.

142
  • Spencer W. Kimball believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
  • A talk by President Kimball given in 1977 (not listed in "Works Cited" section)

142
  • Church members are shocked at the "limited archaeological evidence" for the Book of Mormon

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No sources given.

143
  • LDS apologists continue to tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong."

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  •  Absurd claim: Some LDS DNA apologists, for example, are world-class experts in their field. These authors object to the misappropriate and misapplication of science, including that found in the work here under review:
  • Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link
  • John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
  • John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
  • D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link
  • Note that the author merely dismisses these experts, he does not engage their evidence or arguments.
  • No sources given.

143
  • Most members follow their leaders without question.
  • Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not laughable.
  • The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No sources given.

143
  • LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the creation of man.
  • No sources given.

143
  • LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the tower of Babel.
  • No sources given.

143
  • LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the Flood
  • No sources given.

143-144
  • The perception is that the Church has officially denounced evolution.
  • This perception, however, is false.
  • Evolution: all official statements.
  • McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1979.
  • Boyd K. Packer, "Our Moral Environment," Ensign, May 1992, p. 66. (This talk does not specifically mention the theory of evolution - Packer is stating that we are not simply "advanced animals," which the author includes in his quote.)

144

  • Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring) indicated that he could accept evolution.
  • If a well-known scientist could publicly express support for evolution and differ with some Church leaders, how does this contribute to the "perception" that the Church has "officially denounced evolution"?
  • The book cited was published and distributed to LDS youth—hardly the act of a Church trying to stamp out any support for evolution.
  • Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.

145
  • Eyring "avoided singling out senior leaders of the church for the bad press that evolution has received in LDS circles."
  • Eyring was not shy about demonstrating where he and (say) President Joseph Fielding Smith differed on this subject.
  • Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.

146
  • The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri

146
  • Mormons believe that the continents separated only after a global flood.
  • Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.
  • Global or local Flood

146
  • Mormons are "compelled" to believe in a global flood as symbolizing the "baptism of the earth"
  •  Absurd claim: how can Mormons be "compelled" to believe in anything?
  • Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.
  • Global or local Flood
  • No sources given.

148
  • FARMS' goal is to deter members from reading any book that challenges their faith

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • The author states that this is an "obvious" conclusion.

Chapter 11: Plausible Geography

Page Claim Response Use of sources

153
  • B.H. Roberts' manuscripts "Book of Mormon Difficulties" and "A Book of Mormon Study" were "clearly intended for publication."
  • Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.

153
  • Roberts' concluded that a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon was "entirely plausible"
  • Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.

154
  • LDS scholars have made a "steady retraction" of claims regarding the scale of the Nephite/Lamanite presence since the 1920's.
  • No source given.

156
  • All Church presidents, General Authorities and "most church members" have believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography
  •  The author's 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 Saints

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.

156
  • The Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
  • 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon.

156
  • A hemispheric geography most closely aligns with an "uncontrived" reading of the Book of Mormon.
  • Author's opinion.

159
  • Moroni makes no mention of traveling from Central America to New York in the Book of Mormon.
  •  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.)
  • Plates to New York
  • John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.

160
  • There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land.
  • 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.
The work repeats itself on p. 160, 193., 195., and 204.
  • 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.

163
  • The shrinking of Book of Mormon geographical models corresponds with the growing research showing that ancient Americans came from Asia.

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.
  •  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!
  • Limited geography theory
  • No source given.

164
  • A limited Book of Mormon setting is at odds with "a straightforward reading" of the Book of Mormon.
  • Others have disagreed. The limited model came out of a reading of the text, not out of scientific pressure or apologetic need.
  • Limited geography theory
  • Author's opinion.

164
  • The limited Book of Mormon setting contradicts D&C 54:8

Chapter 12: Faith Promoting Science

Page Claim Response Use of sources

168
  • LDS scholars believe that Mayan cities are prime candidates for where Lehi's people lived.
  • No source given.

168
  • The Jaredites are usually identified as the Olmec
  • No source given.

168
  • Joseph Smith declared the city of Palenque was a Nephite city, but modern scholarship indicates this city wasn't built until 600 A.D.
  • No source given by the author.
  • The statement made by the author about Palenque is incorrect. The earliest recorded ruler was K'uk Balam (Quetzal Jaguar), who governed Palenque for four years starting in the year 431 A.D.
  • Pottery shards show that Palenque was occupied as early as 300 B.C.
  • If one assumes, as Joseph apparently did, that Palenque was indeed a Nephite city, and knowing as we do now the tendency for Mesoamerican conquering rulers to destroy the monuments or records of previous ones, it would not at all be surprising to see the record go back only to the time that the Lamanites conquered the Nephites (approximately 400 - 420 A.D.).
  • A known reference to Joseph's statement about Palenque is Joseph Smith (editor), "Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America'," Times and Seasons 3 no. 22 (15 September 1842), 915. off-site GospeLink

168
  • The history of Book of Mormon archaeology is "littered with apostacy"
  • Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:40-48 (1973).

170
  • Thomas Ferguson was one of the better known early "Mormon archaeologists"

172
  • There is no evidence of iron or steel smelting in the ancient New World
The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.
  • Michael D. Coe et al., Atlas of Ancient America (1986).
172
  • There were no wheeled vehicles in ancient America
  • No source given.

172
  • There were no draft animals to pull wheeled vehicles
  • No source given.

172
  • There are no archaeological remains of wheat or barley in Mesoamerica. The barley found in Arizona doesn't count because it was only in a limited region.
  • The fact that barley was unknown in the Americas before the 1980s demonstrates that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Would we want to bet on barley never being found outside that restricted area?
  • Book of Mormon anachronisms—Plants—Barley
  • No source given.

173
  • Deer or tapir were never ridden by Native Americans, therefore they could not be the "horses" referred to in the Book of Mormon
  • "Horses" are never said to be ridden in the Book of Mormon. They never act like "old world" horses. They are often treated as a foodstuff. This might match some other animal quite well. The author has here proven the Book of Mormon advocates' point.
  • Book of Mormon anachronisms/Animals
The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.
  • No source given.

173
  • Dee Green said in 1973 that Book of Mormon archaeology does not exist
  •  Misrepresentation of source: Green argued—in 1969—that the requisite work had not been done (the author also gets the date wrong by four years).
  • Dee F. Green on Book of Mormon archaeology
  • It is telling that the author must resort to a source that is 35 years old. A more current assessment is available:
    • John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link
  • Book of Mormon archaeology
  •  Citation error: Dee F. Green, "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4:71-80 (1973).
  • The correct citation is: Dee F. Green, "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 3 (Summer 1969), 72-80.
  • This claim is also made in Becoming Gods, p. 66, 362n88

175
  • "Book of Mormon archaeology" has yielded little credible evidence
  • If the author is going to cite these sources, he needs to engage their evidence, not simply declare it not credible.
  • Book of Mormon archaeology
  • John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992).
  • Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (1964).
  • Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert: The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites, (1988).
  • Bruce W. Warren, Review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon: Settlements and Routes in Ancient America, and John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in BYU Studies 30:127 (1990).
  • David J. Johnson, "Archaeology" Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992).

176
  • The Smithsonian issues a statement that discredits the Book of Mormon
  • Smithsonian Institution.

177
  • LDS apologists claim that the simplification of the Smithsonian statement indicates that the original statement is now inconsistent with the current knowledge of Mesoamerican archaeology
  • Sorenson critique, 1995.

177
  • There is little evidence of a cultural link between Polynesia and the Americas. A linguistic link between a South American variety and Polynesian variety of sweet potato is not yet explained.
  • It is not necessarily reasonable to expect much of a cultural link if a small group (e.g., Hagoth) entered the larger Pacific cultural sphere.
  • Polynesians as Lamanites
  • No source given.

Chapter 13: LDS Molecular Apologetics

Page Claim Response Use of sources

180
  • Most Mormons have had their ancestors posthumously "baptized into the Mormon faith."
  •  The author's claim is false: Those who receive baptism for the dead are not "baptized into the faith." Members believe that non-members are thereby given the ability to accept or reject the gospel when they hear it. Baptism for the dead does not make them "Mormons."
  • Baptism for the dead
  • No source given.

181
  • FARMS has downplayed the potential of James Sorenson's "global molecular geneaology project."
  • The author needs to provide actual evidence of this claim.
  • No source given.

181
  • The Molecular Genealogy Foundation may reveal disconcerting "surprises" in LDS family trees that trace back to "well known polygamists" in the early church.
  • Author's opinion that the project may reveal embarrassing information about the descendants of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders through plural wives.

184
  • The Indian Student Placement Program was an attempt to turn them "white and delightsome."
  • Thomas Murphy, doctoral thesis.

184
  • "Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
  • Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton. 2003. "Genetic Research: A 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News, 44:20.

185
  • LDS scholars experienced in DNA research have spoken only to Mormon audiences.
  •  The author's claim is false
  •  Absurd claim: one LDS author on DNA matters is John Butler, an internationally recognized expert in the use of forensic DNA—he literally wrote the textbook used by law enforcement on this matter. Butler has spoken to many audiences about DNA matters.
  • John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
  • John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
  • Scott R. Woodward, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FAIR. (2001)

185-186
  • In response to the DNA issue, the Church linked to an article written by Jeff Lindsey, "a chemical engineer with no professional training in DNA research."
  • This is classic ad hominem. What matters are not Lindsey's credentials, but whether his argument is accurate. The author never engages Lindsay's evidence or argument; he simply treats it as unworthy of attention.
  • Ironically, the author of the book here under review has no professional training in population genetics (he is a plant biologist), and yet he expects us to accept his assessment.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<The author wishes to discredit anything he labels "apologetic" (i.e., any work that might contest his naive and ill-informed reading of LDS scripture). He does not engage their arguments, but uses a variety of tactics to avoid or dismiss them. The author sometimes claims that "apologetic" answers are not endorsed or promoted by the Church (allowing him to suggest that either such answers don't count because they aren't "official," or such answers are radical and therefore ultimately unacceptable—and the Church knows it.

Yet, the author knows that this claim is false, since he cites Jeff Lindsay on p. 185-186. Lindsay is an "apologist," and his work is cited by the Church's official website. There are also other examples of the Church using "apologetic" responses in a formal way.

The work repeats itself on p. 185-186, 202., and 205.

186
  • LDS scientists have responded to DNA findings by claiming that it would be improbable to find evidence of an Israelite presence in the Americas.
  • The author has actually elsewhere expressed his agreement with this claim, noting that LDS scientists have argued that "Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians]. I agree entirely. In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later."[3]
  • Interestingly, this admission was later removed from the website of Southerton's publisher. Southerton goes on to argue that the Book of Mormon "doesn't say this," but as we've noted some leaders and scholars have been reading the text that way for at least a century. The author even admits as much on p. 154.
  • So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible—as the author seems determined to do.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence

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.

186
  • LDS writers claim that the presence of other people in the Americas actually supports "careful readings of the Book of Mormon."
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
  • Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site

186
  • LDS scholars "have come to the conclusion" that Book of Mormon populations comprised a very small part of a much larger group of people on the continent.
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site

187
  • LDS suggest that it would impossible to use DNA technology to identify a small local colony of individuals.
  • D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link

188
  • The author claims that it is not likely that "founders effect" or "genetic drift" would "completely frustrate the identification of Israelite DNA in the Americas."
  • No source given.

188
  • The author claims that Book of Mormon states that the Lehite/Mulekite groups were both descended from Jewish ancestors
  •  The author's claim is false: Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, and was not a Jew, however, author later makes the correct statement regarding Lehi's ancestry on page 5. The author makes the same error, however on p. xiii. This is our another hint that the author's familiarity with the necessary detail in the Book of Mormon is not adequate.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence—What are we looking for?
The work repeats itself on p. xiii and 188.
  • No source given.

189
  • The author claims that the ancestry of Israelites living today will all "meet at the Caucasian branch of the human family tree."
  • It is not clear what this has to do with the Book of Mormon.
  • No source provided.

190
  • The Lemba prove that it is possible to detect Middle Eastern genes in a foreign environment
  • The Lemba are a special case, only made possible by their links to Jewish priestly families. 98% of known modern Jews cannot be identified by genetic testing.
  • Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype
The work repeats itself on p. 128-129 and 190.
  • John L. Sorenson, "The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000). [66–74] link

190
  • Church leaders have consistently associated Lamanites with Central America.
  • Whiting, 2003b.

191
  • The Mayan Empire is claimed to considered by Mormons to the closest to the people of the Book of Mormon.
  • No source specified.

191
  • There is too much genetic variation in the X lineage to account for Book of Mormon people to have arrived as recently as 2600 years ago.
  • Brown, et al., 1998.

192
  • The X lineage occurs in North America and is not found in Central America.
  • Hauswirth et al., 1994
  • Ribeiro-dos-Santo et al., 1996

192
  • LDS writers have overlooked the fact that Mitochondrial DNA research shows that 99.6% of Native Americans migrated to the American continent thousands of years before the Israelites came into existence, and none of these are candidates for Israelite origin.
  • LDS authors have anticipated such findings by at least a century (see, again, p. 154).
  • This attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible—as the author seems determined to do.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
  • No source given.

192
  • The remaining 0.4% is likely the result of genetic mixture with people who came to the New World after Columbus
  • Author's conclusion.

193
  • LDS scholars claim that the impact of Book of Mormon immigrants to the New World made an impact "so small that they barely mattered."
  • The author has actually elsewhere expressed his agreement with this claim, noting that LDS scientists have argued that "Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians]. I agree entirely. In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later."[4]
  • Interestingly, this admission was later removed from the website of Southerton's publisher. Southerton goes on to argue that the Book of Mormon "doesn't say this," but as we've noted some leaders and scholars have been reading the text that way for at least a century. The author even admits as much on p. 154.
  • So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible—as the author seems determined to do.
  • Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
  • Amerindians as Lamanites

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.
  • No source given.

193
  • A great number of Native Americans are now assumed to have been absorbed into New World Israelite civilizations.
  • No source given.

193
  • "Other people" in the Book of Mormon have "remained invisible" to most readers.
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
  • Just because someone does not notice something does not mean it was there. Again, the author seems determined to ignore any solution to his problem, and read the text in the most blinkered, ill-informed way possible.
  • Book of Mormon demographics

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.
The work repeats itself on p. 160, 193., 195., and 204.
  • No source given.

193-194
  • "Gentiles who inhabited the Americas before, during and after the Book of Mormon period are potential Lamanites."
  • 2 Nephi 1꞉5
  • John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link
  • D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link

194
  • Mormons have "traditionally thought" that any Asian presence in the New World occurred after the Book of Mormon period.
  • The author needs evidence for this claim.
  • Even Bruce R. McConkie (a good example of "traditional views") say many sources and influence on Amerindian populations:
The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century.[5]
  • In any case, if the "traditional view" does not match the Book of Mormon text, then it should be set aside.
  • No source given.

195
  • The children of Lehi were to be "kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."
  •  Misrepresentation of source: This promise applies only as long as the children of Lehi were righteous. They lost this blessing even within Book of Mormon times.
  • Amerindians as Lamanites
  • Book of Mormon demographics
  • John L. Sorenson, "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land Did They Find Others There?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (1992). [1–34] link

195
  • There are no explicit references to non-Israelites living near the Lehites or Jaredites.
  • Only critical work is cited; no engagement with LDS scholarship on the topic occurs.

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.
The work repeats itself on p. 160, 193., 195., and 204.
  • See response to source: John A. Tvedtnes, "Reinventing the Book of Mormon (Review of: “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Sunstone, March 2004, 20–25)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 91–106. off-site
  • Brent L. Metcalf, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone, 131:20-25 (2004).

195
  • Five hundred years after their arrival, groups were still identified as having descended from Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael, etc.
  • The author is assuming what he wants to prove—that all such labels were about descent, rather than political or religious affiliation.
  • Book of Mormon tribal affiliations

196
  • Familial terms used in the Book of Mormon imply a genetic link.

197
  • Joseph Smith and other leaders taught that the Book of Mormon described the origins of the Indians in the western hemisphere.
  • Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site
  • Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site

197
  • Mormons "tend to be hazy" regarding what past Church leaders have said regarding geography.

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No source given.

Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit

Page Claim Response Author's sources

199
  • No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.
  • No source given.

199
  • No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World
  • Wheeled chariots are never said to exist in the Book of Mormon. Horses are never said to pull chariots. They are associated with chariots, which is quite a different matter.
  • Horses in the Book of Mormon
  • Chariots
The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.
  • No source given.

199
  • No swords or steel have been found in the New World
The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.
The work repeats itself on p. 8 and 199.
  • No source given.

200
  • The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in Polynesia
  • No source given.

200
  • Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"
  • Only those who rely on the author for understanding how leaders and scholars have seen these issues for the last century would be disquieted. The facts provide no reason for concern.
  • Book of Mormon historicity

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • No source given.

200
  • Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"
  • Since when are "traditional" beliefs binding? Only beliefs anchored in revelation or scripture are of ultimate value.
  • Church dioramas and audio-visual productions have tended to emphasize the Mesoamerican model of the Book of Mormon—would the author have us believe that this is done against the wishes of the leaders of the Church?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • No source given.

201
  • The author presents a supposition that the Church has a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized
  • Brent L. Metcalf, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (1993).
  • Mark D. Thomas, Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives (1999).

202
  • A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way."
  • There is no official geography, so of course no official endorsement is present.
  • Sorenson's limited setting, however, was published in the Church's official magazine, the Ensign. This is hardly a sign that leaders of the Church disapprove.
    • John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1," Ensign (September 1984): 27.off-site For second part of the article, see off-site
  • Dallin H. Oaks reminisced about his time at BYU, and noted:
Here [BYU, 1950s] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.
In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity [i.e. those who argue that the Book of Mormon is not a literally true record, as it claims] must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas. [6]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<The author wishes to discredit anything he labels "apologetic" (i.e., any work that might contest his naive and ill-informed reading of LDS scripture). He does not engage their arguments, but uses a variety of tactics to avoid or dismiss them. The author sometimes claims that "apologetic" answers are not endorsed or promoted by the Church (allowing him to suggest that either such answers don't count because they aren't "official," or such answers are radical and therefore ultimately unacceptable—and the Church knows it.

Yet, the author knows that this claim is false, since he cites Jeff Lindsay on p. 185-186. Lindsay is an "apologist," and his work is cited by the Church's official website. There are also other examples of the Church using "apologetic" responses in a formal way.

The work repeats itself on p. 185-186, 202., and 205.
  • No source given.

202
  • The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
  • The leaders of the Church apparently disagree, since they published John Sorenson's discussion of the same (see p. 202). Elder Oaks was likewise taught such ideas at BYU in the 1950s.
  • Book of Mormon limited geography theory

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
The work repeats itself on p. 42, 135., 135-136., 136., 137., 142., 143., 197., 200., and 202-203.
  • Author's opinion.

202
  • Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.
  • "Millions" may be an exaggeration.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • No source given.

202b
  • The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church.

 The author's claim is false

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<The author wishes to discredit anything he labels "apologetic" (i.e., any work that might contest his naive and ill-informed reading of LDS scripture). He does not engage their arguments, but uses a variety of tactics to avoid or dismiss them. The author sometimes claims that "apologetic" answers are not endorsed or promoted by the Church (allowing him to suggest that either such answers don't count because they aren't "official," or such answers are radical and therefore ultimately unacceptable—and the Church knows it.

Yet, the author knows that this claim is false, since he cites Jeff Lindsay on p. 185-186. Lindsay is an "apologist," and his work is cited by the Church's official website. There are also other examples of the Church using "apologetic" responses in a formal way.

The work repeats itself on p. 185-186, 202., and 205.
  • No source given.

202-203
  • The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography
  • The author needs some evidence for this statement. Apologists and scholars have always pointed out that a variety of views have been expressed by leaders and members.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • No source given.

203
  • Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.
  • Some Mormons do, but the Church has no official position on such matters.
  • Evolution
  • No source given.

203
  • Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood
  • Some Mormons believe this, others do not.

Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

The Church has no official position on the extent of Noah's Flood. Just because some members and leaders believe that the Flood was global in scope does not mean that everyone believes it.
The work repeats itself on p. 30, 42., and 203.
||
  • No source given.

203
  • LDS apologists need to explain how people have lived in Australia and the New World separately for tens of thousands of years without evidence of a global flood having disturbed them
  • Why must LDS apologists defend a global flood or its implications when a global flood is not an official doctrine of the Church? FAIR is committed to the proposition that there are a variety of logical and intellectually plausible solutions to such issues, and does not believe that one must be entertained to the exclusion of others.
  • Global or local Flood
  • Author's opinion.

203
  • BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"
  • No source given.

204
  • In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.
  • Unspecified statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1938.

204
  • The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research
  • No source given.

204
  • The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated.

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.
The work repeats itself on p. 160, 193., 195., and 204.
  • No source given.

205
  • General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • Author's conclusion based on preceding chapters.

205
  • The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.
  • No source given.

205
  • The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<The author wishes to discredit anything he labels "apologetic" (i.e., any work that might contest his naive and ill-informed reading of LDS scripture). He does not engage their arguments, but uses a variety of tactics to avoid or dismiss them. The author sometimes claims that "apologetic" answers are not endorsed or promoted by the Church (allowing him to suggest that either such answers don't count because they aren't "official," or such answers are radical and therefore ultimately unacceptable—and the Church knows it.

Yet, the author knows that this claim is false, since he cites Jeff Lindsay on p. 185-186. Lindsay is an "apologist," and his work is cited by the Church's official website. There are also other examples of the Church using "apologetic" responses in a formal way.

The work repeats itself on p. 185-186, 202., and 205.
  • No source given.

205
  • The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location

Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.

Members are encouraged not to focus on the geography to the exclusion of the Book's more important spiritual message. BYU and FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) have published a great deal of member scholarship on geography, however. If the Church opposed this, it could easily be stopped.

Ironically, the author knows that there is no official geography (see p. 205) but continues to act as if it scandalous that the Church does not preach a non-official idea as official—perhaps hoping we will conclude that the model he describes is the official one which the Church dare not renounce.

The work repeats itself on p. 43, 142., and 205.
  • No source given.

206
  • There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.
  • Author's conclusion.

206
  • LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas.
  • No source given.

206
  • LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.
  •  Absurd claim: Just for example, members of FAIR include current or former bishops, elders' quorum presidents, stake presidents, mission presidents, and area authority seventies. How can these groups be described as "cut off from the larger church community"?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.

Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.

The work repeats itself on p. xv, 42., 143., 148., 200., 203., and 206.
  • No source given.

206
  • Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

Taking the position that Lehi existed, then population genetics predicts that virtually all Amerindians and Polynesians are his literal descendants. They are simply not exclusively his descendants. The author wants to make Lehite links absurd or impossible.
  • No source given.

206-207
  • The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history
  • Author's opinion.

207
  • The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.
  • The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals (or any other members) who break their covenants or undermine the faith of others.
  • Education tends to increase, not decrease, activity rates and religious conviction in members of the Church of Jesus Christ.
  • Excommunication of scholars
  • No source given.

Endnotes

  1. [note]  Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report (October 1897), 18-19.
  2. [note]  History of the Church, 5:517. Volume 5 link
  3. [note]  Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
  4. [note]  Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
  5. [note]  Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 33. GL direct link
  6. [note]  Dallin H. Oaks, "Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Annual Dinner Provo, Utah, 29 October 1993; cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2–3.

Further reading

Template code Inserts this reference Click to edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition}} To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition edit
{{To learn more box:''Under the Banner of Heaven''}} To learn more about responses to: Under the Banner of Heaven edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Price}} To learn more about responses to: Robert Price edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon}} To learn more about responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ashamed of Joseph}} To learn more about responses to: Ashamed of Joseph edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Moser}} To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Moser edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Parrish}} To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Parrish edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Benjamin Park}} To learn more about responses to: Benjamin Park edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith}} To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon}} To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: ''Big Love''}} To learn more about responses to: Big Love edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Brett Metcalfe}} To learn more about responses to: Brett Metcalfe edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bill Maher}} To learn more about responses to: Bill Maher edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bruce H. Porter}} To learn more about responses to: Bruce H. Porter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Carol Wang Shutter}} To learn more about responses to: Carol Wang Shutter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: CES Letter}} To learn more about responses to: CES Letter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Charles Larson}} To learn more about responses to: Charles Larson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Christopher Nemelka}} To learn more about responses to: Christopher Nemelka edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Colby Townshed}} To learn more about responses to: Colby Townshed edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Contender Ministries}} To learn more about responses to: Contender Ministries edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Crane and Crane}} To learn more about responses to: Crane and Crane edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: D. Michael Quinn}} To learn more about responses to: D. Michael Quinn edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dan Vogel}} To learn more about responses to: Dan Vogel edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David John Buerger}} To learn more about responses to: David John Buerger edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David Persuitte}} To learn more about responses to: David Persuitte edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Denver Snuffer}} To learn more about responses to: Denver Snuffer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dick Bauer}} To learn more about responses to: Dick Bauer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Duwayne R Anderson}} To learn more about responses to: Duwayne R Anderson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Earl Wunderli}} To learn more about responses to: Earl Wunderli edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ed Decker}} To learn more about responses to: Ed Decker edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Erikson and Giesler}} To learn more about responses to: Erikson and Giesler edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ernest Taves}} To learn more about responses to: Ernest Taves edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Fawn Brodie}} To learn more about responses to: Fawn Brodie edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: George D Smith}} To learn more about responses to: George D Smith edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Grant Palmer}} To learn more about responses to: Grant Palmer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hank Hanegraaff}} To learn more about responses to: Hank Hanegraaff edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hurlbut-Howe}} To learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Brooke}} To learn more about responses to: James Brooke edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Spencer}} To learn more about responses to: James Spencer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James White}} To learn more about responses to: James White edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner}} To learn more about responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD}} To learn more about responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: John Dehlin}} To learn more about responses to: John Dehlin edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jonathan Neville}} To learn more about responses to: Jonathan Neville edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Kurt Van Gorden}} To learn more about responses to: Kurt Van Gorden edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery}} To learn more about responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne}} To learn more about responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Luke WIlson}} To learn more about responses to: Luke WIlson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Marquardt and Walters}} To learn more about responses to: Marquardt and Walters edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Martha Beck}} To learn more about responses to: Martha Beck edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Mcgregor Ministries}} To learn more about responses to: Mcgregor Ministries edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}} To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: New Approaches}} To learn more about responses to: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}} To learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Van Wagoner}} To learn more about responses to: Richard Van Wagoner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling}} To learn more about responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rick Grunger}} To learn more about responses to: Rick Grunger edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Ritner}} To learn more about responses to: Robert Ritner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rod Meldrum}} To learn more about responses to: Rod Meldrum edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Roger I Anderson}} To learn more about responses to: Roger I Anderson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ronald V. Huggins}} To learn more about responses to: Ronald V. Huggins edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Sally Denton}} To learn more about responses to: Sally Denton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Simon Southerton}} To learn more about responses to: Simon Southerton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Thomas Murphy}} To learn more about responses to: Thomas Murphy edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Todd Compton}} To learn more about responses to: Todd Compton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Vernal Holley}} To learn more about responses to: Vernal Holley edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Walter Martin}} To learn more about responses to: Walter Martin edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Wesley Walters}} To learn more about responses to: Wesley Walters edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Will Bagley}} To learn more about responses to: Will Bagley edit


Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.
We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend:


Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Losing_a_Lost_Tribe:_Native_Americans%2C_DNA%2C_and_the_Mormon_Church/Index&oldid=46711"