Revision as of 20:36, 15 May 2010

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Quick navigation

• Index of claims

About this work

1984: One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it.

—Dr. John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture," Ensign, September, 1984 (The presentation of the limited geography theory in the official Church magazine) (emphasis added)

Losing a Lost Tribe was published some twenty years after Dr. Sorenson made the statement above. Dr. Sorenson's warning about the critics responding to the "traditional interpretation" of the Book of Mormon, rather than to the text itself, appears to have been fulfilled in this work. Ironically, out of the eight works authored by Dr. Sorenson that Dr. Southerton quotes as references on pages 249–250, the Ensign article quoted above is not included among them. The author clarified in September 2008 that the focus of the debate is not about the genetic origin of Native Americans, but the LDS theology associated with it. Indeed, a full third of Losing a Lost Tribe is devoted to a discussion of what the author calls The Troubled Interface Between Mormonism and Science, and the role of FAIR, the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) and LDS apologists.

Quotes by the Author

2004

My wish is not to offend or to offer advice in matters of faith.

—Dr. Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, p. viii.

2008

Here are some of the stars in the current apologetic circus juggling dubious claims in support of the Book of Mormon's historicity.

—Dr. Simon Southerton, "Cirque Du Apologetique - starring Sasquatch and UFOs", posted to anti-Mormon discussion board, July 11, 2008.

2004

...most Native American Latter-day Saints throughout the Americas regard the Israelite Lehi to be a blood relative.

—Dr. Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, p. 37.

2005

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!

—Dr. Simon Southerton, posting to an anti-Mormon discussion board, Feb. 15, 2005 (emphasis added)

2008

They also set up the straw man that I am arguing that according to the Book of Mormon all American Indians are descended from Hebrews. I have never claimed this. The vanishing geography theory is utter desperation.

—Dr. Simon Southerton, posting to an anti-Mormon discussion board, July 5, 2008. (emphasis added)

2008

In case anyone from FAIR is unclear I will repeat what I wrote four years ago…“IF A SMALL GROUP OF ISRAELITES ENTERED SUCH A MASSIVE NATIVE POPULATION (SEVERAL MILLIONS) IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD TO DETECT THEIR GENES.” Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology.

—Dr. Simon Southerton, "Finally, I agree with LDS scientists-apologists," posting to an anti-Mormon discussion board, Sept. 6, 2008. (emphasis in original)

Claims made in this work

• Index to claims made in Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church.

Quote manipulation

Many critics who write about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not content to portray the Church and its doctrines fairly. Some critics mine their sources by extracting quotes from their context in order to make the statement imply something other that what it was originally intended to mean. Other critics make statements that are self-contradictions—instances in which a critic says or writes one thing, and then makes another statement elsewhere that flatly contradicts their first statement.

These examples do not prove that these critics' arguments are without merit; they do suggest caution is warranted before accepting these authors or their works as reliable witnesses when they speak of their own experiences connected with "Mormonism." In particular, one should also be cautious about accepting their interpretation of primary sources without double-checking the original sources themselves.

LDS Scholars only recently reacting to genetic claims?

Commentary

• The author, who likes to mockingly refer to this as the "vanishing geography theory," ^[1] would like to make it appear as if LDS scholars are reacting to recent genetic claims. In reality, Book of Mormon limited geography theories have been proposed as early as 1927 (Sjödahl), with LDS scholar Hugh Nibley arguing for such a geography as early as 1952. The author simply ignores this in order to bolster his argument that LDS scholars are reacting to a recent challenge.

Worship of multiple deities and human sacrifice not Book of Mormon cultural characteristics?

Commentary

• In an attempt to contrast ancient Mesoamerican culture with that of the Book of Mormon, the author chooses cultural characteristics that actually appear in Book of Mormon. He overlooks the fact that whenever the people fell into wickedness, they demonstrated those very same characteristics that he attributes only to ancient Mesoamerican culture.

A temple "similar in splendor" to Solomon's?

Commentary

• The author flatly contradicts what Nephi states about the temple that was built. The implication is that the temple built by Nephi was on a similar scale to that of Solomon, thereby raising a standard criticism of how such a spectacular edifice similar to Solomon's Temple could have been constructed by such a small group of people.

Steel breastplates, arm and head shields?

Commentary

• The author once again shows his imprecise interpretation of Book of Mormon text by stating that steel was used to construct breastplates, arm and head shields. Of the items mentioned, only swords are confirmed by the text itself. The remaining assumptions that the breastplates and shields are made of steel is something that a modern reader would naturally infer, similar to the assumption that the Book of Mormon occurred on a continental scale rather than in a limited region.

LDS scripture asserts that being born with white skin was the result of actions in pre-earth life?

Commentary

• The author uses a common argument that can be found in anti-Mormon sources, but does not back it up with a source.

Further reading

• Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence
• Lamanite curse

The Book of Mormon predicts the arrival of the Gentiles "eleven centuries later?"

Commentary

• Once again, the author demonstrates either a lack of precision or a lack of knowledge regarding what the Book of Mormon actually says.

Mesoamerican city of Palenque was built after 600 A.D.?

Commentary

• The statement made by the author about Palenque is incorrect, and demonstrates a superficial knowledge of what he terms "modern scholarship" regarding this city. The author simply wants to show how "Mormon scholars" are willing to ignore obvious dating anomalies. In attempting to do so, however, he simply demonstrates his surprisingly poor research skills in an age in which typing the name "Palenque" into a web search engine can easily bring the correct information to light.
• If one assumes, as Joseph apparently did, that Palenque was indeed a Nephite city, and knowing as we do now the tendency for Mesoamerican conquering rulers to destroy the monuments or records of previous ones, it would not at all be surprising to see the record go back only to the time that the Lamanites conquered the Nephites (approximately 400 - 420 A.D.).
• See also: Book of Mormon geography—Statements—15 Sept. 1842: Speculation that Palenque is a Nephite city

Limited geography not granted the Church's blessing in any official way?

Commentary

• The author would like us to believe that the proposal of a limited Book of Mormon geography is a recent reaction to the genetic challenge, and that the general Church membership "would not believe" it. He even says that the Church discourages members from attempting to determine where the Book of Mormon occurred. Yet, a full twenty years before the author makes this claim, the Church, through its official magazine the Ensign, devoted a two-part series of articles to this very subject: the limited geography model. This is the very same model about which the author recently stated: "The vanishing geography theory is utter desperation." The Ensign, of course, is the very same magazine in which the General Authorities talks are distributed to the Church, which on page 52 the author states are treated like scripture.

== Notes ==

1. [note] Term used in a post to an anti-Mormon discussion board on July 5, 2008. See quote at the beginning of this article.

Reviews of this work

• Kevin L. Barney, "A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's 'Galileo Event'," FAIR off-site
• Ryan Parr, "Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat (Review of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 83–106. off-site

Further reading

DNA and the Book of Mormon

• David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
• D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link
• Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site
• Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
• John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link  (Key source)
• John A. Tvedtnes, "Reinventing the Book of Mormon (Review of: “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Sunstone, March 2004, 20–25)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 91–106. off-site
• Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link  (Key source)