Specific works/DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography (DVD)


A FAIR Analysis of:
DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography (DVD); Introduction to Book of Mormon Evidences (Seminar)
A work by author: The FIRM Foundation

About this work

When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument.
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Alternate Voices,” Ensign (May 1989): 28.

Within 48 hours the Lord provided the answer to how this was to be accomplished... What a tremendous blessing!... Within 48 hours again the Lord provided another 'miracle'... So the Lord is watching out for this project! ...I asked my dear friend [an emeritus LDS general authority] if he would give my wife and I a special blessing...The only thing I can share from the blessings is that the overall understanding is that this information will go out to "millions" who will be touched by the work, and that this will "embolden" the saints to open their mouths and declare anew the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ so that millions will find and enter his kingdom! The spirit was overwhelmingly wonderful and we felt so blessed to have that privilege.
—"Update and Request to Serve on the FIRM FOUNDATION Counsel," e-mail dated 9 May 2008.

FAIR has claimed that I have said or ‘implied’ that I think I have received revelation from God for the church. That is a blatant untruth that they have been propagating without a shred of evidence, because none exists. I have never thought, claimed, nor said that I have ever received revelation for the church. Ever. They intercepted an email where in I said that I felt that I had had some prayers answered, and they have tried to make that into ‘getting revelation directly from God for the church’. That is their FAIRytale. That is the problem with their attacks, they claim things that are absolutely untrue in order to castigate my character.
—Comment by The FIRM Foundation Blog — October 4, 2008

It is important to know what the Book of Mormon is not...President George Q. Cannon, First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities … is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work.”
—James E. Faust, “First Presidency Message: The Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, Jan 2004, 2–6

∗       ∗       ∗

A response to claims made in the DVD and associated seminar presentations

All of us make assumptions and have beliefs that are not necessarily true. As we learn more, we make adjustments to our beliefs. Sometimes those beliefs are heavily influenced by a particular book, website, DVD, or experience in our life. Depending on what foundational experiences we have, we may come to differing conclusions and opinions. This is a normal part of the learning process, and thus within the Church we find a variety of opinions on several issues. The Church has clearly identified some areas where there is no revealed doctrine. For example, there is no revealed doctrine on the age of the earth, the role of evolution, or the location of Book of Mormon geography. Church members, and even General Authorities, are free to express a variety of divergent opinions regarding these issues.

Members of FAIR don't mind there being a healthy debate on any of those issues as we understand that there is no revealed doctrine. We are free to all disagree. The danger comes when an individual starts proclaiming the words of Joseph Smith in one of these areas and, in spite of the Church's claims to the contrary, claims it is revealed doctrine. We also object when there are implications made that scholars who are affiliated with the Church and help write our Sunday School manuals are leading the Church astray.

With this in mind, we have focused a lot of attention on the writings, presentation, and DVD of one public speaker and fireside presenter who seems to have taken this position. Many have asked us why we single him out. It is not for his beliefs on Book of Mormon geography, rather, it is for the attitude that The Church and its leadership may have been led astray. We find that a dangerous position that must receive a vigorous response.

The DVD "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography" and its associated seminar series make a number of disturbing claims. In order to "prove" what is referred to as the Heartland model of Book of Mormon geography, the audience is first instructed on how to determine truth, and even how to interpret specific words contained in the scriptures. The audience is also presented with examples which are designed to lead the audience to believe that anyone that does not accept this geographical model is "discounting and disdaining" the words of Joseph Smith. Such an approach is insulting to faithful scholars and members who spend a significant amount of time and effort defending Joseph Smith against his detractors. The following sections provide an overview of some of the more egregious of these claims.

Revisions to the DVD

  • It should be noted that the revised DVD video includes categorical statements that there is no official Church position on Book of Mormon geography, and has dropped any statements stating or implying that revelation backs the position of the presenter. "There is an explicit statement by Emeritus General Authority Elder Hartman Rector at the beginning of the DVD, that there is no official Church position on Book of Mormon Geography." [1]
  • On the back of the cellophane DVD wrapper of the revised DVD is a sticky label imprinted with the following notice:

"Correction Notice: A quote from President Hinckley used in the presentation is used incorrectly and will be removed from the next version of the DVD. It was incorrectly understood that the Prophet was speaking of all people who dismiss Joseph Smith, including LDS scholars; however it has been brought to my attention that President Hinckley spoke specifically of non-members and did not specifically mention scholars. As stated in the presentation, if there are mistakes, they will be corrected."

  • In an introductory presentation attended by several FAIR members in March 2009 (well after the revision of the DVD), the presenter was still mentioning "LDS scholars discounting or disdaining" Joseph Smith.

Differences between seminar and DVD

It should be noted that some claims are unique to the introductory seminar, and are not made in the DVD. These are indicated where appropriate.

Specific geographical claims related to the Heartland model

The Heartland model makes a number of claims that contradict the Book of Mormon itself. For a discussion and response to specific geographical claims related to the Heartland model, see the main article:

Main article: Heartland model

Is there a "hierarchical" criteria for how to perform research on LDS doctrine?

In the seminar "Introduction to Book of Mormon Evidences," the presenter states that there exists a "research hierarchy" by which something can be determined:

  1. Scripture
  2. Statements of Joseph Smith
  3. Statements of the current prophet only while he is called as a prophet.
  4. Everything that does not fit into these three categories is to be considered opinion.

In order to demonstrate the proposed hierarchical order, the presenter notes that “prophets themselves are held accountable to the scriptures.” Citations that are used to back up this claim are:

  • Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203
  • Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, pp. 109-110.
  • Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, pp. 162-163.

It should also be noted that this "hierarchy" matches exactly the first testimonial on the "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography" web site:

...In working for the Church I was told to use for research only: 1) the scriptures 2) Joseph Smith and 3) the words of the Prophets, while they were prophets. All else was to be considered opinion. This is why I couldn't go along with the traditional sites of Book of Mormon Lands, as well as numerous textual evidences within the Book itself... (03.02.08 Name withheld) DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography—Testimonials off-site

Problems with the "hierarchy"

There are some serious problems with the "hierarchy" as it is presented:

  • It does not allow prophetic statements of Joseph Smith to be distinguished from his opinion.
  • It assumes a distinction between words spoken by the same Church leader before and after they are called as a prophet.
  • The “hierarchy” is designed to lead to the conclusion that the "statements of Joseph Smith" supersede the "statements of the current prophet while he is a prophet."

Setting up the hierarchy in this manner sets the stage for the presenter to apply prophetic weight to any statement made by Joseph Smith that deals with Book of Mormon geography. Ironically, a number of geographical statements made by Joseph that contradict the Heartland model are ignored. (To view statements made by Joseph Smith which contradict the Heartland model, see Joseph Smith's statements regarding Book of Mormon geography) One must therefore assume that only selected geographical statements from Joseph Smith are to be given prophetic weight.

In contrast to the claim that Joseph revealed a geography, the First Presidency has stated that Book of Mormon geography has not been revealed:

The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.
—George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography," The Juvenile Instructor 25/1 (1 January 1890): 18–19.

President James E. Faust recalled the words of George Q. Cannon in 2004.

It is important to know what the Book of Mormon is not...President George Q. Cannon, First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities … is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work.”
—James E. Faust, “First Presidency Message: The Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, Jan 2004, 2–6

The First Presidency Message for January 2004 is clear: the First Presidency has not changed its position regarding the location of a Book of Mormon geography. Attempts to formulate a Book of Mormon geography from Joseph Smith's statements are not the problem—the real issue is assuming that one can definitively say that Joseph claimed a revealed geography in contradiction to claims of current Church leaders. Attempting to create a "hierarchy" that in essence demotes the words of the living prophets below those of Joseph Smith is charting dangerous ground. To borrow the terms employed by the DVD and presentation, to do such a thing "discounts and disparages" the words of the living prophets.

On May 4, 2007 the First Presidency made a significant statement which it published on the Church Website. They clarified what is meant by official Church "doctrine". Church doctrine is only something that is:

  1. proclaimed under inspiration by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
  2. when the above individuals authorize it in Church publications.
  3. it is in the four Standard Works
  4. official declarations and proclamations
  5. the Articles of Faith

The First Presidency went on to say:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

The presentation and DVD therefore place what they claim are Joseph Smith's prophetic utterances against the words of later prophets. This places Church members in the untenable situation of having to choose to either accept the statements of modern prophets or to instead accept the presenter's interpretation of the words of Joseph Smith.

Living prophets have precedence

Scripture remains, as President Harold B. Lee taught, the standard for doctrine in the Church:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.[2]

But, even this statement has a caveat—scripture trumps private expression of prophets, but prophets united as the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve may amend, add to, or authoritatively interpret scripture in novel ways. This has no application to the current discussion, since there is no LDS scripture which affirms a revealed Book of Mormon geography.

With regards to the question of modern prophets versus part prophets (such as Joseph Smith), we must investigate further. While President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Ezra Taft Benson taught:

The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet....Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence (italics in original) (emphasis added).[3]

This matches what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught, as President Benson went on to illustrate:

The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ 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.’ ” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)[4]

Contrary to the claims made by the DVD, it has long been taught by Joseph Smith and others that official statements from the living prophet are given precedence to those of past prophets.

Conclusion on the "hierarchy" idea

Past and president leaders of the Church have all insisted that there is no revealed Book of Mormon geography. It is therefore inappropriate for lay members like the FIRM Foundation (or FAIR or anyone else) to declare that Joseph Smith did have revelation on the topic. If Joseph's revelation or another it to be announced or taught, this will be done by the present leaders of the Church and no one else.

LDS Scholars "discounting and disdaining" Joseph Smith?

Main article: LDS scholars "discounting and disdaining" the statements of Joseph Smith?

Both the DVD and presentation "Introduction to Book of Mormon Evidences" show unattributed statements from LDS scholars and indicate that these scholars are "discounting and disdaining" Joseph Smith. The presenter claims that the reason that a "two-Cumorah theory" had to be developed was because "we wanted to believe in Central America" as the location for the Book of Mormon.

This is an absurd claim. Despite the omission of the writers names and the DVD narrator's claim that this is "not about the individuals," the quotes from LDS scholars are easily identifiable. These quotes are still presented as "name withheld" in the introductory seminar." The seminar presentation and DVD therefore accuse Kenneth W. Godfrey, Matthew Roper, Jeff Lindsay and John Sorenson, all of whom are strong defenders of the faith, of "discounting or disdaining" Joseph Smith.

  • Quotes shown say "name witheld."
  • The quotes by LDS scholars are from Matthew Roper, Kenneth W. Godfrey, and John Sorenson.
  • The DVD shows a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, "Joseph Smith Jr.—Prophet of God, Mighty Servant," Ensign (December 2005).

Genetics

Three "supergroups" responsible for racial divisions?

In the seminar, it is claimed that all races on the earth descended from one of three "supergroups" associated with the sons of Noah:

  • All Caucasians are claimed to be descendants of Shem.
  • All Asians are claimed to be descendants of Japheth.
  • All Blacks are claimed to be descendants of Ham.

The presenter claims that "Ham's descendants went to Egypt" and that "Japheth went into the Asia area."

It should be noted that this racial assignment does not even match the traditional assignment of Japheth to the "white" race, Shem to the "red" race and Ham to the "black" race.

The designation of race in this manner is overly simplistic and ignores basic principles of population genetics. The "racialization" of Noah's sons is a modern invention, and has nothing to do with genetics or the original understanding of scripture. According to Stephen R. Haynes:

The familiar connection of Noah's sons with Europe, Asia, and Africa (the three regions of the Old World) developed only "slowly and tentatively" in the first centuries of the common era. What became the conventional "three son, three continent view" was elaborated by Alcuin (732-804) and refined in the twelfth century by Peter Comester (ca. 1100-1179). But these medieval associations were unstable, and the assignment of Ham to Africa, Shem to Asia, and Japheth to Europe was not inscribed on the European mind until the Age of Exploration.[9] By the nineteenth century, the same intellectual and social forces that contributed to the racialization of Noah's prophecy came to bear on Genesis 10, which was consistently read as an account of humanity's racial origins and as proof that "racial distinctions and national barriers proceed from God." [10] [5]

Priesthood curse?

The seminar presenter also noted that if one was "not a semite" that the person "won't be able to hold the priesthood," and that "to hold the priesthood one has to go back to Shem." This is alluding to the "curse of Ham:" a concept that was developed in order to justify the practice of slavery. The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years. The "curse of Ham" is not a doctrine of the Church. There was also never anything that required a supposed descendant from Japeth to "go back to Shem" to hold the priesthood.

For a more detailed discussion, see:

Main article: The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"

Distortion of genetic data

Mitochondrial clock puts "Eve" to 6,000 years ago

Claim: An article in the journal Science "called "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" it said, '...researchers have calculated that 'mitochondrial Eve'—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that of all living people—lived [100,000 to] 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using this new clock (this new calibration), she would be a mere 6,000 years old.'"

Facts: The work presented in Science served to prove that a key assumption required for "molecular clocks" was inaccurate. The authors of the Science article suggested that part of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) called the "control region" was not a good place for a DNA clock. This was conclusively demonstrated within two years by the same research team, who found that "the [control region of mtDNA] has not [changed] at a constant rate across all human lineages...and is consequently less suitable for dating..." In contrast, the areas "outside of the [control region change] in a roughly 'clock-like' manner, enabling a more accurate measurement of mutation rate, and therefore improved estimates of times to evolutionary events."[6]

Researchers then performed a check on their X-chromosome and mtDNA clocks. They knew that nuclear DNA (where the X-chromosome is located) changes about three times slower than mtDNA, which would put the last common ancestor about three times further back in time than mtDNA calculations would.

Their X-chromosome DNA clock put the last common ancestor at 535,000 ± 119,000 years. A third of that would be about 178,000 years ± 40,000 years. Their mtDNA clock gave a last common ancestor at 171,500—once the faulty "control region" was left out. This is an impressive match, and since it comes from two separate, unrelated techniques, they confirm each other—yet more evidence that something was wrong with the mtDNA clock that used the control region.

So, within two years of the article used in the DVD presentation, the problem had been defined and a solution found. The FIRM Foundation must have been unaware of this updated information because their assumptions and conclusions are based on a misreading of the outdated data presented in the Science news summary. However, despite having this pointed out to them, they continue to rely upon flawed reasoning.

Endnotes

  1. [note] Steven Danderson, A look at Meldrum’s revised DVD…. (March 31, 2009)
  2. [note]  Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
  3. [note]  Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," devotional address at Brigham Young University, 26 February 1980. off-site
  4. [note]  Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals."
  5. [note] Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002), 5–6. ISBN 978-0195142792. [9] Haynes (224) cites Benjamin Braude, "The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods," William and Mary Quarterly 54 no. 1 (1997): 111, 112, 114, and notes that Braude concludes on p. 142 that "the racial identities [Noah's] sons have borne have been remarkably unstable. Shem, Ham and Japhet have been ever-changing projections of the likes and dislikes, hatreds and loves, prejudices and fears, needs and rationales through which society continually constructs and reconstructs its selves and its opposites." [10] Haynes also cites Harry Lucey, God and the Nations (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947), 23, and cites p. 24 in the endnote: "God thus apportioned the inheritance of the nations: He moved the Japhetic group of families to the northern parts of the earth, the group of families springing from Ham to the southern continents, the Semitic peoples to the central belt; and later Israel received the crown of the lands in the center of all when God had developed that nation from Abraham." Continues Haynes, "In the twentieth century, Genesis 10 has been regarded as the key for understanding the origins of both nations (as in the preceding title) and races). See A.H. Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament (London: Religious Tract Society, 1925)."
  6. [note]  M. Ingman, et al., "Mitochondrial Genome Variation and the Origin of Modern Humans," Nature 408:6813 (2000), 708, 712.

Further reading

Heartland (Meldrum) Geography claims

FAIR wiki articles

Template:BoMGeographyWiki

FAIR web site

Template:BoMGeographyFAIR

Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Specific_works/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography_(DVD)&oldid=40565"