
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
< Criticism of Mormonism | Books | Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}} | |notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | ==Quick Navigation== | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 199 - No Semitic languages have been found in the New World|Response to claim: 199 - No Semitic languages have been found in the New World]] | ||
+ | *[[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: 199 - No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 199 - No swords or steel have been found in the New World|Response to claim: 199 - No swords or steel have been found in the New World]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#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|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]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"|Response to claim: 200 - Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#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"]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 201 - The author presents a supposition that the Church as a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized|Response to claim: 201 - The author presents a supposition that the Church as a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 202 - A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way"|Response to claim: 202 - A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way"]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 202 - The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography|Response to claim: 202 - The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 202 - Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees|Response to claim: 202 - Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 202b - The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church|Response to claim: 202b - The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 202-203 - The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"|Response to claim: 202-203 - The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific|Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America|Response to claim: 203 - Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography|Response to claim: 203 - Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago|Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood|Response to claim: 203 - Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#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|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]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 203 - BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"|Response to claim: 203 - BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 204 - In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon|Response to claim: 204 - In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 204 - The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research|Response to claim: 204 - The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 204 - The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated|Response to claim: 204 - The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 205 - General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi|Response to claim: 205 - General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 205 - The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies|Response to claim: 205 - The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 205 - The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship|Response to claim: 205 - The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 205 - The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location|Response to claim: 205 - The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 206 - There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica|Response to claim: 206 - There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas|Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs|Response to claim: 206 - LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 206 - Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church|Response to claim: 206 - Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 206-207 - The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history|Response to claim: 206-207 - The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history]] | ||
+ | *[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 14#Response to claim: 207 - The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals|Response to claim: 207 - The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals]] | ||
+ | {{parabreak}} | ||
==Response to claim: 199 - No Semitic languages have been found in the New World== | ==Response to claim: 199 - No Semitic languages have been found in the New World== | ||
Line 401: | Line 435: | ||
* [[Mormonism and education/Education and belief|Education]] tends to increase, not decrease, activity rates and religious conviction in members of the Church of Jesus Christ. | * [[Mormonism and education/Education and belief|Education]] tends to increase, not decrease, activity rates and religious conviction in members of the Church of Jesus Christ. | ||
* [[Excommunication of scholars]] | * [[Excommunication of scholars]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{endnotes sources}} | {{endnotes sources}} |
Chapter 13 | A FAIR Analysis of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church A work by author: Simon G. Southerton
|
No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.Author's sources: No source given.
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. 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?
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.
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.
No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World.Author's sources: No source given.
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
Used in conjunction with horses
(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.
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]
No swords or steel have been found in the New World.Author's sources: No source given.
The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in PolynesiaAuthor's sources: No source given.
Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"Author's sources: No source given.
Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"Author's sources: No source given.
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 author presents a supposition that the Church as 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).
A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way."Author's sources: No source given.
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 general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography.Author's sources: Author's opinion.
Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.Author's sources: No source given.
The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church.Author's sources: No source given.
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 genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none."Author's sources: Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.
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.
Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America.Author's sources: Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.
Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography.Author's sources: No source given.
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.
Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.Author's sources: No source given.
Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood.Author's sources: No source given.
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.
BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"Author's sources: No source given.
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.
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.
The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated.Author's sources: No source given.
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.
The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.Author's sources: No source given.
The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarshipAuthor's sources: No source given.
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 Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location.Author's sources: No source given.
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.
There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.Author's sources: Author's conclusion.
LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas.Author's sources: No source given.
LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.Author's sources: No source given.
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.
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.
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.
The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.Author's sources: No source given.
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now