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

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

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

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

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

∗       ∗       ∗

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

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

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

Specific geographical claims related to the Heartland model

The Heartland model makes a number of claims that contradict the Book of Mormon itself. For a discussion and response to specific geographical claims related to the Heartland model, see: Book of Mormon geography/Models/Limited/Meldrum 2003

Is there a "hierarchy" for how to determine truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with the "hierarchy"

There are some obvious problems with the "hierarchy:"

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

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

Yet, the First Presidency does not claim that Book of Mormon geography has ever been revealed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The First Presidency went on to say:

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

LDS Scholars "discounting and disdaining" Joseph Smith?

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

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

• For details on this claim, see: LDS scholars "discounting and disdaining" the statements of Joseph Smith?

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

Genetics

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

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

The presenter claims that "Ham's descendants went to Egypt" and that "Japeth went into the Asia area." Note: This racial assignment does not even match the traditional assignment of Japeth to the "white" race, Shem to the "red" race and Ham to the "black" race.

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

The familiar connection of Noah's sons with Europe, Asia, and Africa (the three regions of the Old World) developed only "slowly and tentatively" in the first centuries of the common era. What became the conventional "three son, three continent view" was elaborated by Alcuin (732-804) and refined in the twelfth century by Peter Comester (ca. 1100-1179). But these medieval associations were unstable, and the assignment of Ham to Africa, Shem to Asia, and Japheth to Europe was not inscribed on the European mind until the Age of Exploration.[9] By the nineteenth century, the same intellectual and social forces that contributed to the racialization of Noah's prophecy came to bear on Genesis 10, which was consistently read as an account of humanity's racial origins and as proof that "racial distinctions and national barriers proceed from God." [10] ^[1]

Endnotes

1. [note] Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery, (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 5.  ^[ATTENTION!] Add Haynes refs [9] and [10] here.