Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 10

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 10: The Lord's University"

Chapter 9

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

Chapter 11

Claim

• Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.

Author's source(s)

• Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), no page number given. GL direct link
• Note: this reference is useless for establishing what statement of Elder McConkie's is being referenced.

Response

• Some Mormons may believe this. Many others believe that there is no true conflict between science and religion, but realize that scientific ideas may be inaccurate based on limited data, or that religious understandings or preconceptions may need to be modified. The Church believes that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (A+of+F 1꞉9), which presupposes that previous ideas may be inadequate.
• Mormonism and science

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?

Claim

• Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.

Author's source(s)

• No sources provided.

Response

•  Absurd claim: the author presents no evidence of this assertion.
• Mormonism and science

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?

Claim

• Mormonism declares that it "corners the market" on religious truth.

Author's source(s)

• JS-History 1꞉19

Response

•  The author's claim is false: Latter-day Saints recognize that there is truth and good in all religions, and that God works through men of science to reveal truth as well.
• Plan of salvation/Salvation of non-members

Claim

• Joseph Smith declared that all other religions were false.

Author's source(s)

• JS-History 1꞉19

Response

• "Joseph Smith said that all churches were wrong, and that they were an 'abomination' in God's sight. Doesn't that sound bigoted?"
• Joseph also said:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

Response to claim: 136 - The author states that Mormons think that all other religions are the "whore of the earth" and "church of the devil"

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

The author states that Mormons think that all other religions are the "whore of the earth" and "church of the devil."

Author's sources: 1 Nephi 14꞉10

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

This claim by the author is utter nonsense.

Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptural terms "church of the devil," the "great and abominable church," and the "whore of all the earth" refer to a specific religion?

According to the Book of Mormon, the "great and abominable church" and "whore of all the earth" refers to any organization that opposes the true Church of Jesus Christ

The Church does not teach or endorse the idea that these terms refer to any specific religion or organization. It is clear that in cases where past church authorities have modified this definition through speculation, that the First Presidency has firmly declared those speculations to be in error.

The criticism is based upon references in the Book of Mormon to the "church of the devil," which is referred to as the "whore of all the earth." For example:

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14꞉10)

George Q. Cannon publicly associated the "whore of all the earth" with those that persecuted the Church

Although the scriptures do not associate this "church" with a specific organization or religion, several early 19th century church leaders stated their opinions regarding who they considered the "whore of all the earth." For example, George Q. Cannon publicly associated the "whore of all the earth" with those that persecuted the Church:

And to-day, those who are inciting mobs against this people; those who go to Congress, and incite persecutions against us; those who fulminate threats and frame petitions; those who meet together in conventions; those who gather together in conferences, are those who belong to this "mother of abominations," this "whore of all the earth," and it is through the influence of that accursed whore, that they gather together and marshal their forces in every land against the Latter-day Saints, the Church of the living God.

Heber C. Kimball associated the "whore of all the earth" with the national government

Heber C. Kimball associated the "whore of all the earth" with the national government that failed to help the Saints during their times of persecution:

It is very easy to be seen that the nation that has oppressed us is going down. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith something about the judgments that await the inhabitants of the earth, and he said in the revelations that the judgments should commence at the house of God. I will read to you parts of the revelations which speak of these things....and that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the Prophet....

Orson Pratt claimed that it was the founder of the Catholic Church in a publication that was later repudiated by the Church

Orson Pratt, in his 1853-1854 periodical The Seer, claimed that the founder of the Roman Catholic Church was “the Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God” and that they derived their “authority from the Devil....” The Seer, however, never achieved sufficient circulation to propagate this idea through the general Church membership. In fact, The Seer was disowned by the First Presidency in 1865 for containing "doctrines which we cannot sanction."

Bruce R. McConkie's first edition of Mormon Doctrine associated it with the Catholic Church, before that edition was refuted by the First Presidency

Bruce R. McConkie is credited with promoting the idea within the modern church that the "great and abominable church" was in fact the Roman Catholic Church. The first edition of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, a book which contained sufficient errors that the First Presidency declared that the book was "not approved as an authoritative book" and that it should not be re-published, contained this rather direct statement:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.

The offending language was removed in the second edition of Mormon Doctrine and replaced with language more consistent with the Book of Mormon

When the first edition of Mormon Doctrine went into circulation, the idea that the "great and abominable church" was the Catholic Church became embedded in popular belief, despite the fact that this idea was never sanctioned or preached over the pulpit. A second edition of Mormon Doctrine was eventually released with the offending language regarding the Roman Catholic Church removed. In the second edition, McConkie states:

The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.

This statement more closely aligns with what the scriptures themselves say, without any additional interpretation. Modern church leaders have stayed close to the definition in the Book of Mormon, by identifying the "great and abominable" church as any organization the leads people away from the Church of Jesus Christ.

Claim

• The current generation of Mormons is taught a selective view of Church history

Author's source(s)

• Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect," BYU Studies, 21:259 (1981)

Response

• All teaching is selective, in any domain or field.
•  Misrepresentation of source: Boyd K. Packer — Mantle and Intellect
• Church history/Censorship and revision

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?

Claim

• Many church members are "blissfully unaware" of Brigham Young's practice of polygamy

Author's source(s)

• Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997

Response

•  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: how does the author know what members know? Brigham Young's polygamy is well known out of the Church. How likely is it that members remain unaware?
• Brigham Young/Polygamy

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?

Claim

• Senior church leaders prefer that members not question changes in temple ordinances.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Church leaders "prefer" that members keep their covenants and not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temple.
•  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: members may discuss the endowment only in the temple; they may ask any question they like there of the temple president.
• Temples/Endowment/Changes

Claim

• LDS ecclesiastical leaders expect "unquestioning obedience" of church members.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not incredible.
• The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.
• Authoritarianism and Church leaders
• Dallin H. Oaks, "Unselfish Service," Ensign (May 2009): 93–96. off-site

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?

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

The Church "unofficially" discourages prayer to "Mother in Heaven"

Author's sources: AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1998. "Report of Committee A," Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. Sept./Oct.: 71-4.

Question: Are we allowed to pray to our "Heavenly Mother"?

It is not considered proper for members to pray to Mother in Heaven since there are no scriptural examples supporting such a practice

Despite these beliefs, Mother in Heaven plays virtually no role in LDS worship or teaching beyond that outlined above. It is not considered proper for members to pray to Mother in Heaven, since there are no prophetic or scriptural examples encouraging such a practice. Members of the Church pray as taught by the Savior, "Our Father, who art in heaven...." (Matthew 6:9, 3 Nephi 13꞉9, 3 Nephi 17꞉15, 3 Nephi 18꞉21, 3 Nephi 19꞉19-21, (italics added).)

Christ specifically says "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father" in Matthew 6:9 and 3 Nephi 13:9. God condemns worship of Asherah (thought by many to perhaps be Heavenly Mother) in the Old Testament.

As President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:

Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her...none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Romans 8:16-18; cf. Malachi 2:10).

Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Numbers 16:22; Hebrews 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.

For Latter-day Saints, the concept of eternal family is more than a firm belief; it governs their way of life. It is the eternal plan of life, stretching from life before through life beyond mortality.

As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).

Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.

Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

We do not know the exact reason by which God has commanded us to only pray unto him and not Heavenly Mother. Whatever the reason, there are two things we can definitely rule out:

1. Heavenly Mother being muzzled by a sexist, patriarchal Heavenly Father or not being in total unity with the Father in their decision to have her be more silent—seeing as she has to be in unity with Heavenly Father to be a goddess (3 Nephi 11:27).
2. Heavenly Mother being muzzled by a sexist, patriarchal prophet.
3. Heavenly Mother "needs protection" from the blasphemy of her name among us mortals.

She's a mother and a goddess. If she felt that she needed to speak to her children more directly, her power and glory, much greater than any of ours as mortals, could and would be wielded to speak to us.

You are not going to get different answers by praying to Heavenly Mother than you are to Heavenly Father. Again, she is one with God and would answer the same as him. As a goddess herself, she knows that the Godhead works in complete unity one with another. She would do the same.

Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:

Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application. Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation. Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed. For example, the Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.” We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother.

Claim

• Church leaders are "loath" to make unequivocal statements of doctrine.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

•  Absurd claim: a review of any general conference demonstrates that leaders are quite happy to make unequivocal statements.
• If an area has no unequivocal statements, this is probably because it is not "doctrine," and the Church has no official position. Leaders are rightly wary of being misconstrued in such areas.
• Church doctrine/Changing

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?

Claim

• BYU's emphasis is on conformity rather than personal freedom.

Author's source(s)

• Student Honor Code, Brigham Young University

Response

•  Absurd claim: the only source is the student honor code. How does this erode personal freedom? Every prospective student is aware of it, and agrees to abide by it. If he/she wants to do otherwise, he/she can easily choose to go elsewhere.
• Authoritarianism and Church leaders

Claim

• CES insists that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning.

Author's source(s)

• The only sources referred to are "parents."

Response

•  Absurd claim: Why is it strange that a group hired for religious instruction to supplement college or university work should want religion taught?
• Mormonism and education  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• CES instructs students not to attempt to locate Book of Mormon geographical locations

Author's source(s)

• No source provided.

Response

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.

Claim

• Limited geography theories advanced by FARMS are "much too controversial" for CES students

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

•  Prejudicial or loaded language: where is the evidence for this claim?
• Book of Mormon/Geography/New World/Limited Geography Theory

Claim

• Spencer W. Kimball believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography

Author's source(s)

• A talk by President Kimball given in 1977 (not listed in "Works Cited" section)

Response

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?

Claim

• Church members are shocked at the "limited archaeological evidence" for the Book of Mormon

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Archaeology

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?

Claim

• LDS apologists continue to tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong."

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

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.

•  Absurd claim: Some LDS DNA apologists, for example, are world-class experts in their field. These authors object to the misappropriate and misapplication of science, including that found in the work here under review:
• Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link
• John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
• John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
• 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
• Note that the author merely dismisses these experts, he does not engage their evidence or arguments.

Claim

• Most members follow their leaders without question.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not unbelievable.
• The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.

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?

• Authoritarianism and Church leaders
• Dallin H. Oaks, "Unselfish Service," Ensign (May 2009): 93–96. off-site

Claim

• LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the creation of man.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Mormonism and science
• Mormonism and science/Evolution

Claim

• LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the tower of Babel.

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Mormonism and science  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the Flood

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

• Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood

Claim

• The perception is that the Church has officially denounced evolution.

Author's source(s)

• McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1979.
• Boyd K. Packer, "Our Moral Environment," Ensign, May 1992, p. 66. (This talk does not specifically mention the theory of evolution - Packer is stating that we are not simply "advanced animals," which the author includes in his quote.)

Response

• This perception, however, is false.
• Mormonism and science/Evolution: all official statements.

Claim

• Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring) indicated that he could accept evolution.

Author's source(s)

• Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.

Response

• If a well-known scientist could publicly express support for evolution and differ with some Church leaders, how does this contribute to the "perception" that the Church has "officially denounced evolution"?
• The book cited was published and distributed to LDS youth—hardly the act of a Church trying to stamp out any support for evolution.

Claim

• Eyring "avoided singling out senior leaders of the church for the bad press that evolution has received in LDS circles."

Author's source(s)

• Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.

Response

• Eyring was not shy about demonstrating where he and (say) President Joseph Fielding Smith differed on this subject.

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

The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri

Author's sources:

• DC 116
• DC 117꞉8-11

Question: Is it true that Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri?

There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith taught this

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center

As the official Church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."

LDS concepts and perspectives

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradisiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

Claim

• Mormons believe that the continents separated only after a global flood.

Author's source(s)

• DC 133꞉23-24

Response

• Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.
• Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood

Claim

• Mormons are "compelled" to believe in a global flood as symbolizing the "baptism of the earth"

Author's source(s)

• No sources given.

Response

•  Absurd claim: how can Mormons be "compelled" to believe in anything?
• Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.
• Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood

Claim

• FARMS' goal is to deter members from reading any book that challenges their faith

Author's source(s)

• The author states that this is an "obvious" conclusion.

Response

•  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.
• Mormonism and education/Church position on reading critical material

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.

Notes