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

(header)
 
(mv)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|author=Simon G. Southerton
 
|author=Simon G. Southerton
 
|noauthor=
 
|noauthor=
−
|section=Claims made in "Chapter 3: Lamanites in the Latter Days"
+
|section=Claims made in "Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit"
 
|previous=[[../Chapter 13|Chapter 13]]
 
|previous=[[../Chapter 13|Chapter 13]]
 
|next=
 
|next=
 
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
 
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
===Claims made in "Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit"===
 +
{{BeginClaimsTable}}
 +
|
 +
====199====
 +
||
 +
* No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.
 +
||
 +
* It is not clear that such links ''ought'' to be expected.  There is, however, some preliminary influence that belies the author's claim.
 +
* [[Hebrew and Native American languages]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====199====
 +
||
 +
* No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World
 +
||
 +
* ''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.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals#Horse|Horses in the Book of Mormon]]
 +
* [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots|Chariots]]
 +
* {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Horses}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====199====
 +
||
 +
* No swords or steel have been found in the New World
 +
||
 +
* {{FalseStatement}}: swords are well-known in the New World, just not European-style swords.
 +
* [[Book_of_Mormon/Warfare/Swords|Swords]]
 +
* [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals#Steel|Steel in the Book of Mormon]]
 +
* {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Steel}}
 +
* {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Swords}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====200====
 +
||
 +
* The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in Polynesia
 +
||
 +
* [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====200====
 +
||
 +
* Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"
 +
||
 +
* 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.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon historicity]]
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Most Mormons}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====200====
 +
||
 +
 +
* Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"
 +
||
 +
* 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?
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====201====
 +
||
 +
*The author presents a supposition that the Church has a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized
 +
||
 +
*This is pure speculation.
 +
*[[Book of Mormon historicity]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*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).
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====202====
 +
||
 +
* A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way."
 +
||
 +
* 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.
 +
** {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 1|date=September 1984|start=27}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20september%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
 +
* 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. {{ref|oaks.1}}
 +
* 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.
 +
* [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/New_World#Is_there_an_.22official.22_or_revealed_geography.3F|No official geography]]
 +
* [[Book of Mormon geography/Statements|Statements by Church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography]]
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists not official}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====202====
 +
||
 +
* The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography
 +
||
 +
* {{MindReading}}
 +
* The leaders of the Church apparently disagree, since they published John Sorenson's discussion of the same (see [[#202|p. 202]]).  Elder Oaks was likewise taught such ideas at BYU in the 1950s.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon geography/New World/Limited Geography Theory|Book of Mormon limited geography theory]]
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Most Mormons}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's opinion.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====202====
 +
||
 +
* Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.
 +
||
 +
* "Millions" may be an exaggeration.
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:All from Lehi}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====202b====
 +
||
 +
* The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church.
 +
||
 +
{{FalseStatement}}
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists not official}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====202-203====
 +
||
 +
* The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"
 +
||
 +
* LDS scientists do not expect that such evidence would exist.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific
 +
||
 +
* LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exist.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America
 +
||
 +
* LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exist.
 +
* [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography
 +
||
 +
* 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.
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.
 +
||
 +
* ''Some'' Mormons do, but the Church has no official position on such matters.
 +
* [[Evolution]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood
 +
||
 +
* ''Some'' Mormons believe this, others do not.
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Flood}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====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
 +
||
 +
* Why must LDS apologists defend a global flood or its implications when a global flood is not an official doctrine of the Church?  FAIR 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.
 +
* [[Global or local Flood]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's opinion.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====203====
 +
||
 +
* BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"
 +
||
 +
* [[Book of Mormon geography/New World/Limited Geography Theory|Book of Mormon limited geography theory]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====204====
 +
||
 +
* In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.
 +
||
 +
*Why is this supposed to be significant? In 1984, the ''Ensign'' actually ''published'' the Limited Geography theory.
 +
*[[Book of Mormon geography/Statements|Statements by Church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Unspecified statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1938.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====204====
 +
||
 +
* The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research
 +
||
 +
* Any youth being told this is being misled.  Where is the author's evidence?
 +
* [[Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon archaeology]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====204====
 +
||
 +
* The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated.
 +
||
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:No others}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====205====
 +
||
 +
* General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi.
 +
||
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:All from Lehi}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's conclusion based on preceding chapters.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====205====
 +
||
 +
* The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.
 +
||
 +
* [[Mormonism and native cultural traditions]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====205====
 +
||
 +
* The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship
 +
||
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists not official}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====205====
 +
||
 +
* The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location
 +
||
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Members discouraged}}
 +
* [[Book of Mormon geography/New World#Is there an "official" or revealed geography?|Is there an "official" or revealed geography?]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====206====
 +
||
 +
* There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.
 +
||
 +
* [[Hebrew and Native American languages]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's conclusion.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====206====
 +
||
 +
* LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas.
 +
||
 +
* [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence ]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====206====
 +
||
 +
* LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.
 +
||
 +
*{{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"?
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:Apologists}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====206====
 +
||
 +
* Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church.
 +
||
 +
* [[Conversion and the Book of Mormon]] {{nw}}
 +
* If members felt a spiritual witness of their connection to Lehi, this witness is confirmed by the findings of population genetics.
 +
{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing:Repeat:All from Lehi}}
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
 +
====206-207====
 +
||
 +
* The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history
 +
||
 +
* [[Book of Mormon historicity]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*Author's opinion.
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
====207====
 +
||
 +
* The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.
 +
||
 +
* The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals (or any other members) who break their covenants or undermine the faith of others.
 +
* [[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]]
 +
||
 +
*
 +
*No source given.
 +
|}

Revision as of 21:01, 16 February 2010


Chapter 13
A FAIR Analysis of:
Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church
A work by author: Simon G. Southerton

Claims made in "Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit"

Page Claim Response Author's sources

199
  • No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.
  • No source given.

199
  • No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World
  • 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.
  • Horses in the Book of Mormon
  • Chariots
The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.
  • No source given.

199
  • No swords or steel have been found in the New World
The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.
The work repeats itself on p. 8 and 199.
  • No source given.

200
  • The Israelites of the Book of Mormon made no noticeable contribution to the native gene pool in the New World or in Polynesia
  • No source given.

200
  • Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the Book of Mormon is from reality"
  • 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.
  • Book of Mormon historicity

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.
  • No source given.

200
  • Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"
  • 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.
  • No source given.

201
  • The author presents a supposition that the Church has a history of ancient America may some day be de-emphasized
  • 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).

202
  • A limited Book of Mormon setting has "not been granted the church's official blessing in any way."
  • 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. [1]

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.
  • No source given.

202
  • The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography
  •  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
  • 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.
  • Book of Mormon limited geography theory

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.
  • Author's opinion.

202
  • Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.
  • "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.
  • No source given.

202b
  • The work of LDS apologists is not discussed in any public forum sponsored by the Church.

 The author's claim is false

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.
  • No source given.

202-203
  • The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America
  • Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

203
  • Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography
  • 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.
  • No source given.

203
  • Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.
  • Some Mormons do, but the Church has no official position on such matters.
  • Evolution
  • No source given.

203
  • Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood
  • 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.
  • No source given.

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
  • Why must LDS apologists defend a global flood or its implications when a global flood is not an official doctrine of the Church? FAIR 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.
  • Global or local Flood
  • Author's opinion.

203
  • BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"
  • No source given.

204
  • In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.
  • Unspecified statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1938.

204
  • The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research
  • No source given.

204
  • The Book of Mormon depicts the settlement of an area of the world that was previously unpopulated.

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.
  • No source given.

205
  • General Authorities tell members in certain areas of the world that they are the offspring of Lehi.

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.
  • Author's conclusion based on preceding chapters.

205
  • The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.
  • No source given.

205
  • The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship

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.
  • No source given.

205
  • The Church officially tells members not to attempt to link the Book of Mormon to any geographical location

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.
  • No source given.

206
  • There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.
  • Author's conclusion.

206
  • LDS apologists believe that the "miniscule Lehite colony" had no lasting impact on the Americas.
  • No source given.

206
  • LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.
  •  Absurd claim: 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.
  • No source given.

206
  • Millions of members feel a "familial bond" with Lehi that played a central role in their conversion to the church.

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.
  • No source given.

206-207
  • The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history
  • Author's opinion.

207
  • The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.
  • The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals (or any other members) who break their covenants or undermine the faith of others.
  • Education tends to increase, not decrease, activity rates and religious conviction in members of the Church of Jesus Christ.
  • Excommunication of scholars
  • No source given.
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=58715"