Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 13"

(mod)
m
Line 90: Line 90:
 
* LDS scientists have responded to DNA findings by claiming that it would be improbable to find evidence of an Israelite presence in the Americas.
 
* LDS scientists have responded to DNA findings by claiming that it would be improbable to find evidence of an Israelite presence in the Americas.
 
|response=
 
|response=
−
* 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."{{ref|southerton.1}}
+
* 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."<ref name="simon">Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).</ref>
 
* 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 [[#154|p. 154]].
 
* 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 [[#154|p. 154]].
 
* So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible&mdash;as the author seems determined to do.
 
* So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible&mdash;as the author seems determined to do.
Line 237: Line 237:
 
* LDS scholars claim that the impact of Book of Mormon immigrants to the New World made an impact "so small that they barely mattered."
 
* LDS scholars claim that the impact of Book of Mormon immigrants to the New World made an impact "so small that they barely mattered."
 
|response=
 
|response=
−
* 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."{{ref|southerton.2}}
+
* 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."<ref name="simon"></ref>
 
* 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 [[#154|p. 154]].
 
* 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 [[#154|p. 154]].
 
* So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible&mdash;as the author seems determined to do.
 
* So, this attack works only if one reads the text in the most naive, ill-informed way possible&mdash;as the author seems determined to do.
Line 286: Line 286:
 
* The author needs evidence for this claim.
 
* 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:
 
* 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.{{ref|md.33}}
+
: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.<ref>{{MD1|start=33}}</ref>
 
* In any case, if the "traditional view" does not match the Book of Mormon text, then it should be set aside.
 
* In any case, if the "traditional view" does not match the Book of Mormon text, then it should be set aside.
 
|authorsources=
 
|authorsources=
Line 362: Line 362:
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
=={{Endnotes label}}==
+
== ==
−
#{{note|southerton.1}} Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
+
{{Endnotes label}}
−
#{{note|southerton.2}} Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
+
<references />
−
#{{note|md.33}} {{MD1|start=33}}
+
 
 
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
 
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
  
 
[[fr:Specific works/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Index/Chapter 13]]
 
[[fr:Specific works/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Index/Chapter 13]]

Revision as of 21:13, 9 June 2014

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 13: LDS Molecular Apologetics"


Chapter 12
A work by author: Simon G. Southerton
 Chapter 14

180

Claim
  • Most Mormons have had their ancestors posthumously "baptized into the Mormon faith."

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  •  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."
  • Temples/Baptism for the dead

181

Claim
  • FARMS has downplayed the potential of James Sorenson's "global molecular genealogy project."

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  • The author needs to provide actual evidence of this claim.

181

Claim
  • 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 source(s)
  • Author's opinion that the project may reveal embarrassing information about the descendants of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders through plural wives.
Response

184

Claim
  • The Indian Student Placement Program was an attempt to turn them "white and delightsome."

Author's source(s)
  • Thomas Murphy, doctoral thesis.
Response

184

Claim
  • "Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."

Author's source(s)
  • Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton. 2003. "Genetic Research: A 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News, 44:20.
Response

185

Claim
  • LDS scholars experienced in DNA research have spoken only to Mormon audiences.

Author's source(s)
  • Scott R. Woodward, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FAIR. (2001)
Response
  •  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

185-186

Claim
  • 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."

Author's source(s)
Response
  • 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/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

Claim
  • LDS scientists have responded to DNA findings by claiming that it would be improbable to find evidence of an Israelite presence in the Americas.

Author's source(s)
Response
  • 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."[1]
  • 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/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

Claim
  • LDS writers claim that the presence of other people in the Americas actually supports "careful readings of the Book of Mormon."

Author's source(s)
  • 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
Response

186

Claim
  • 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.

Author's source(s)
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
Response

187

Claim
  • LDS suggest that it would impossible to use DNA technology to identify a small local colony of individuals.

Author's source(s)
  • 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
Response

188

Claim
  • 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."

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response

188

Claim
  • The author claims that Book of Mormon states that the Lehite/Mulekite groups were both descended from Jewish ancestors

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  •  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.

189

Claim
  • The author claims that the ancestry of Israelites living today will all "meet at the Caucasian branch of the human family tree."

Author's source(s)
  • No source provided.
Response
  • It is not clear what this has to do with the Book of Mormon.

190

Claim
  • The Lemba prove that it is possible to detect Middle Eastern genes in a foreign environment

Author's source(s)
  • 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
Response
  • 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.

190

Claim
  • Church leaders have consistently associated Lamanites with Central America.

Author's source(s)
  • Whiting, 2003b.
Response

191

Claim
  • The Mayan Empire is claimed to considered by Mormons to the closest to the people of the Book of Mormon.

Author's source(s)
  • No source specified.
Response

191

Claim
  • 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.

Author's source(s)
  • Brown, et al., 1998.
Response

192

Claim
  • The X lineage occurs in North America and is not found in Central America.

Author's source(s)
  • Hauswirth et al., 1994
  • Ribeiro-dos-Santo et al., 1996
Response

192

Claim
  • 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.

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  • 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/DNA evidence

192

Claim
  • The remaining 0.4% is likely the result of genetic mixture with people who came to the New World after Columbus

Author's source(s)
  • Author's conclusion.
Response

193

Claim
  • LDS scholars claim that the impact of Book of Mormon immigrants to the New World made an impact "so small that they barely mattered."

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  • 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."[1]
  • 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/DNA evidence
  • Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians

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.


193

Claim
  • A great number of Native Americans are now assumed to have been absorbed into New World Israelite civilizations.

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response

193

Claim
  • "Other people" in the Book of Mormon have "remained invisible" to most readers.

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  •  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/Anachronisms/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.


193-194

Claim
  • "Gentiles who inhabited the Americas before, during and after the Book of Mormon period are potential Lamanites."

Author's source(s)
  • 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
Response

194

Claim
  • Mormons have "traditionally thought" that any Asian presence in the New World occurred after the Book of Mormon period.

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response
  • 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.[2]
  • In any case, if the "traditional view" does not match the Book of Mormon text, then it should be set aside.

195

Claim
  • The children of Lehi were to be "kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."

Author's source(s)
Response

195

Claim
  • There are no explicit references to non-Israelites living near the Lehites or Jaredites.

Author's source(s)
  • Brent L. Metcalf, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone, 131:20-25 (2004).
Response
  • 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


195

Claim
  • Five hundred years after their arrival, groups were still identified as having descended from Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael, etc.

Author's source(s)
Response
  • 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

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

Author's source(s)
Response

197

Claim
  • Joseph Smith and other leaders taught that the Book of Mormon described the origins of the Indians in the western hemisphere.

Author's source(s)
  • 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
Response

197

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

Author's source(s)
  • No source given.
Response

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.


Notes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
  2. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 33. GL direct link
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Losing_a_Lost_Tribe:_Native_Americans%2C_DNA%2C_and_the_Mormon_Church/Chapter_13&oldid=118475"