Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14"

(→‎Response to claim: 199 - No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World)
(→‎Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality")
Line 74: Line 74:
 
{{propaganda|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.
 
{{propaganda|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.
 
}}
 
}}
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Most Mormons}}
 
* [[Book of Mormon/Historicity]]
 
* [[Book of Mormon/Historicity]]
−
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Most Mormons}}
 
  
 
==Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"==
 
==Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"==

Revision as of 10:39, 26 November 2016

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit"


Chapter 13
A work by author: Simon G. Southerton

199 - No Semitic languages have been found in the New World

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Nobody is expecting to find Semitic languages in the New World.


Question: Is finding links between Hebrew and ancient American languages realistic?

The Lehite’s mother tongue all-but-disappeared shortly after their arrival in the New World

It is important to note that we may never find traces of Hebrew language among American languages for the simple fact that the Lehite’s mother tongue all-but-disappeared shortly after their arrival in the New World. When Moroni writes about reformed Egyptian, he also explains that the “Hebrew hath been altered by us also” (Mormon 9꞉33).

Like other ancient civilizations (such as Egypt) most New World inhabitants would not have been literate. While ancient Americans had a sophisticated writing system, it is likely that knowledge of this system was limited to the civic officials or the priestly class. In the Book of Mormon we infer that training and devotion were necessary to competently master their difficult writing system. King Benjamin, for example, “caused that [his princely sons] should be taught all the languages of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding” (Mosiah 1꞉3). Moroni, who had mastered the art himself, lamented that the Lord had not made the Nephites “mighty in writing” (Ether 12꞉23).

The most likely scenario is that the Lehites—who were a small incursion into a larger existing native populace—embraced the habits, culture, and language of their neighbors within a very short period after their arrival in the New World

The most likely scenario is that the Lehites—who were a small incursion into a larger existing native populace—embraced the habits, culture, and language of their neighbors within a very short period after their arrival in the New World. This is what we generally find when a small group melds with a larger group. The smaller group usually takes on the traits of the larger (or, at least, the more powerful) group—not the other way around. It is not unusual, however, for at least some of the characteristics of the smaller group to show up in the larger group’s culture. Typically, however, the smaller group becomes part of the larger group with which they merge. Thus, the Lehites would have become Mesoamericans. We see, therefore, the necessity to teach the Old World language to a few elite in order to preserve, not only the traditions, but also to maintain a continuation of scribes who could read the writings of past generations.

Even with such instruction, however, the script was most likely an altered form of Egyptian—perhaps adapted to Mesoamerican scripts—and altered according to their language. This suggests that ideas and motifs that originated in the Old World were adapted to a script that could be conveyed with New World motifs, or at least New World glyphs. Under such conditions, would there be any reason to expect that we’d find “Hebrew” among the Native Americans?


Question: Have any relationships been found between New World languages and Hebrew?

Recent scholarly research suggests a possible link between Uto-Aztecan (a family of about 30 Native American languages) and Hebrew

The Book of Mormon text suggests that Lehite language had a relatively minor impact on the speech of the Americas. It may be that Old World languages formed a type of "elite" language, used only by a few for religious purposes.

If, however, one is persuaded that the Book of Mormon text implies that some Hebrew links should still exist, preliminary linguistic data suggest that there are some intriguing links.

For example, Dr. Brian Stubbs argues for numerous parallels between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. As a professional linguist, Dr. Stubbs avoids the pitfalls of amateurs who simply point at similar words between two different languages. As he points out,

Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.

Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.

Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.

When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.[1]

A few of Stubbs' many examples are:

Hebrew/Semitic Uto-Aztecan
kilyah/kolyah 'kidney' kali 'kidney'
baraq 'lightning' berok (derived from *pïrok) 'lightning'
sekem/sikm- 'shoulder' sikum/sïka 'shoulder'
mayim/meem 'water' meme-t 'ocean'

Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, has made positive comments about Dr. Stubbs' research:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Atlantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)....

Lest skeptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.[2]

While the conclusions remain tentative, some of the details of this on-going research look promising. Certainly, nothing in the linguistic evidence provides plausible arguments against the Book of Mormon narrative.


Question: Have any relationships been found between New World languages and Hebrew?

Recent scholarly research suggests a possible link between Uto-Aztecan (a family of about 30 Native American languages) and Hebrew

The Book of Mormon text suggests that Lehite language had a relatively minor impact on the speech of the Americas. It may be that Old World languages formed a type of "elite" language, used only by a few for religious purposes.

If, however, one is persuaded that the Book of Mormon text implies that some Hebrew links should still exist, preliminary linguistic data suggest that there are some intriguing links.

For example, Dr. Brian Stubbs argues for numerous parallels between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. As a professional linguist, Dr. Stubbs avoids the pitfalls of amateurs who simply point at similar words between two different languages. As he points out,

Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.

Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.

Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.

When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.[3]

A few of Stubbs' many examples are:

Hebrew/Semitic Uto-Aztecan
kilyah/kolyah 'kidney' kali 'kidney'
baraq 'lightning' berok (derived from *pïrok) 'lightning'
sekem/sikm- 'shoulder' sikum/sïka 'shoulder'
mayim/meem 'water' meme-t 'ocean'

Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, has made positive comments about Dr. Stubbs' research:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Atlantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)....

Lest skeptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.[4]

While the conclusions remain tentative, some of the details of this on-going research look promising. Certainly, nothing in the linguistic evidence provides plausible arguments against the Book of Mormon narrative.


Response to claim: 199 - No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

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.


The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.

Question: In what context are chariots mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #126: What is the Nature and Use of Chariots in the Book of Mormon? (Video)

The Book of Mormon mentions "chariots," which one assumes to be a wheeled vehicle. It is also claimed that no draft animals existed in the New World to pull such chariots. It should be remembered that chariots do not play a major role in the Book of Mormon. They are mentioned in the following contexts:

Quotations from Old World scriptures

Apocalyptic teachings in Old World style

  • 3 Nephi 21꞉14 - Jesus speaks of "horses and chariots" in a symbolic and apocalyptic address

Used in conjunction with horses

  • Alma 18꞉9 - Ammon feeds the Lamanite king's horses, which are associated with his "chariots."
  • Alma 20꞉6 - Lamanite king uses horses and chariot for visit to neighboring kingdom
  • 3 Nephi 3꞉22 - Nephites "had taken their horses, and their chariots" to a central fortified area for protection against robbers

(It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality or ritual importance in war, since they brought chariots to the siege.)

Conspicuously absent is any role of the chariot in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon. Nor do horses or chariots play any role in the many Nephite wars; this is in stark contrast to the Biblical account, in which the chariots of Egypt, Babylon, and the Philistines are feared super-weapons upon the plains of Israel.


Gardner: "a correct approach to a Mesoamerican battle required all three elements: king, litter, and battle beast"

Wrote Mesoamerican expert Brant Gardner, who believes the Book of Mormon was situated in Mesoamerica:

Regardless of the reason for the presence of "horse" and "chariot" in the text, we must still deal with the question of what the original text might have meant the animal and conveyance that Joseph translated as "horse" and "chariot" to be. From this point on, all is speculation—but speculation consistent with the Mesoamerican world.

The wording describing horses and chariots is at least suggestive that the king would be transported in connection with the horse and chariot: "they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth." "Conduct him" does not necessarily mean that Lamoni was conducted in the horse/chariot. Indeed, verse 9 mentions horses and chariots, but only the king is "conducted." It is possible that we are dealing with several ritual objects rather than a conveyance. Verse 12, however, does suggest that conveyances are available for the king and his servants; but if would be highly unusual for servants to ride in a culture where everyone walks. Riding would confer upon them the same social status as the king—not to be thought of unless chariots were so common that they were in universal use. And nothing in the text suggests that they were.

If we are dealing with a conveyance, there is a Mesoamerican possibility. A king might be conveyed in a litter, but the litters were carried by men, not pulled by animals. However, an interesting connection between the litter and an animal occurs on what has been termed a battle litter. Freidel, Schele, and Parker note:

Lintel 2 of Temple 1 shows Hasaw-Ka'an-K'awil wearing the balloon headdress of Tlaloc-Venus warfare adopted at the time of the Waxaktun conquest, and holding the bunched javelins and shield, the original metaphors for war imported from Teothuacan. He sits in majesty on the litter that carried him into battle, while above him hulks Waxkluha=un-Ubah-Kan, the great War serpent.... Graffiti drawings scratched on the walls of Tikal palaces, depicting the conjuring of supernatural beings from the Otherworld, prove that these scenes were more than imaginary events seen only by the kings. Several of these elaborate doodles show the great litters of the king with his protector beings hovering over him while he is participating in ritual. These images are not the propaganda of rulers, created in an effort to persuade the people of the reality of the supernatural events they were witnessing. They are the poorly drawn images of witnesses, perhaps minor members of lordly families, who scratched the wonders that they saw during moments of ritual into the walls of the places where they lived their lives.

Thus, Maya art represents the king riding on a litter. In battle, capturing the litter was tantamount to capturing that king's gods. However, the graffiti litters at least open the possibility that these were simply formal litters and not limited to battle context. These litters were accompanied by a "battle beast," or an animal alter ego, embodied in the regalia of the king and litter. Thus, a correct approach to a Mesoamerican battle required all three elements: king, litter, and battle beast.

If Joseph Smith, while translating, came upon an unfamiliar idea but which seemed to describe a kingly conveyance associated with an animal, would it not have seemed logical to him to describe it as a horses and chariot for the king? I see the plausible underlying conveyance as an elaborate royal litter, accompanied in peacetime by the spiritual animal associated with the king. This animal was a type of alter-ego for the king, and was called the way [pronounced like the letter "Y"]....[5]

Gardner's case may be strengthened by the mention of chariots being brought to the lengthy siege in 3 Nephi—suggesting again a possible ritual use associated with warfare.

The most frequent loan-shift applied to the horses by the native americans who first received the Spaniards was "dog". This was the case 45% of the time. Images of these conveyances associated with what appear to be dogs have been documented before. [6]


Response to claim: 199 - No swords or steel have been found in the New World

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

No swords or steel have been found in the New World.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Swords are well-known in the New World, just not European-style swords.
The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.
The work repeats itself on p. 8 and 199.

Response to claim: 200 - The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in Polynesia

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in Polynesia

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

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.

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.

Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

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.

Response to claim: 201 - The author presents a supposition that the Church has a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The author presents a supposition that the Church has a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized.

Author's sources: *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).

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is pure speculation.

202

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

* A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way."

Author's sources: *No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

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.[7]
  • Teaching for decades at the Church's flagship school and appearing in the Ensign are as close to "official" endorsement one is likely to get about a matter about which there is no revelation. The Church is unlikely to ever endorse any scholarly position that does not have revelatory confirmation.

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.

Response to claim: 202 - The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography.

Author's sources: Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

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.

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.

Response to claim: 202 - Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

"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.

Response to claim: 202b - The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

This is false. The FairMormon Conference is discussed in the Deseret News and the Church News.

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.

Response to claim: 202-203 - The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none."

Author's sources: Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

LDS scientists do not expect that such evidence would exist.

Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific.

Author's sources: Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exists.

Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America.

Author's sources: Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exists.

Response to claim: 203 - Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

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.

Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Some Mormons do, but the Church has no official position on such matters.

Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

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.

Response to claim: 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

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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.

Author's sources: Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Why must LDS apologists defend a global flood or its implications when a global flood is not an official doctrine of the Church? FairMormon 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.

Response to claim: 203 - BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 204 - In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources: Unspecified statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1938.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Why is this supposed to be significant? In 1984, the Ensign actually published the Limited Geography theory.

Response to claim: 204 - The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Any youth being told this is being misled. There is nothing in the Church curriculum that states this. Where is the author's evidence?

Response to claim: 204 - The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

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.

Response to claim: 205 - General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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

Author's sources: Author's conclusion based on preceding chapters.

FAIR's Response

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.

Response to claim: 205 - The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 205 - The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

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.

Response to claim: 205 - The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is incorrect. The Church emphasizes the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon, and does not encourage attempts to link its geography to a real world location. However, the Church does not tell its members not to attempt it.

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.

Response to claim: 206 - There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.

Author's sources: Author's conclusion.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

LDS apologists believe that the Lehite colony had a cultural impact on the Americas, not a genetic impact.

Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This claim is absolutely absurd. 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.

Response to claim: 206 - Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

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

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

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.


Response to claim: 206-207 - The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history.

Author's sources: Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

That is because the General Authorities believe that the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened: They are not even attempting to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from "real" history.

Response to claim: 207 - The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals

The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:

The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.

Author's sources: No source given.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

No, the Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals (or any other members) who break their covenants or undermine the faith of others.

Notes

  1. ↑ Brian D. Stubbs, "Looking Over vs. Overlooking: Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/1 (1996). [1–49] link
  2. ↑ Roger Williams Westcott, "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America," in Across Before Columbus?, edited. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy (Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998),193–197; cited by Jeff Lindsay, "Nugget #8: Uto-Aztecan and the Book of Mormon: Linguists Provide Possible Evidence Consistent with Book of Mormon Claims," jefflindsay.com (accessed 16 September 2007) off-site
  3. ↑ Brian D. Stubbs, "Looking Over vs. Overlooking: Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/1 (1996). [1–49] link
  4. ↑ Roger Williams Westcott, "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America," in Across Before Columbus?, edited. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy (Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998),193–197; cited by Jeff Lindsay, "Nugget #8: Uto-Aztecan and the Book of Mormon: Linguists Provide Possible Evidence Consistent with Book of Mormon Claims," jefflindsay.com (accessed 16 September 2007) off-site
  5. ↑ Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:287–288. Footnotes and one obvious typographical error have been silently omitted. Italics added to the internal quotation.
  6. ↑ "Put Away Childish Things: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon with Mature Historical Understanding" by Neal Rappleye; FairMormon Conference 2017 - pg. 23 https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Rappleye_2017FM_Presentation.pdf
  7. ↑ 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). Reproduced in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 237–48.
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_14&oldid=145803"