Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 11


Chapter 10
A FAIR Analysis of:
Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church
A work by author: Simon G. Southerton
 Chapter 12

Claims made in "Chapter 11: Plausible Geography"

Page Claim Response Use of sources

153
  • B.H. Roberts' manuscripts "Book of Mormon Difficulties" and "A Book of Mormon Study" were "clearly intended for publication."
  • Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.

153
  • Roberts' concluded that a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon was "entirely plausible"
  • Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.

154
  • LDS scholars have made a "steady retraction" of claims regarding the scale of the Nephite/Lamanite presence since the 1920's.
  • No source given.

156
  • All Church presidents, General Authorities and "most church members" have believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography
  •  The author's claim is false: leaders and members have differed on a point about which the Church has no official doctrine.
  •  Author(s) impose(s) own fundamentalism on the Saints

Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.

The author consistently argues that LDS scholars or apologists are "adjusting" their view on the Book of Mormon because they are being driven back in a rear-guard action by science. But, in fact, some LDS leaders and scholars have argued for a restricted geography and small numeric contribution of Lehites for over one hundred years.These beliefs were not held because of scientific "pressure," but because of their reading of the Book of Mormon text. In fact, the author admits that this has occurred since at least the 1920s (see p. 154)—long before any pressure from genetics issues. Yet, he continues to make the contradictory claim that the Church's defenders are now "on the ropes" and desperate for a solution.

156
  • The Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
  • 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon.

156
  • A hemispheric geography most closely aligns with an "uncontrived" reading of the Book of Mormon.
  • Author's opinion.

159
  • Moroni makes no mention of traveling from Central America to New York in the Book of Mormon.
  •  Misrepresentation of source: the author cites Sorenson, but does not explain how Sorenson responds to this very issue.
  • The final battle of the Jaredites makes it clear that they did not migrate a long way from the starting point (e.g., Ether was able to observe matters from a cave and return easily to hide.)
  • Plates to New York
  • John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.

160
  • There is no indication that the Book of Mormon people came in contact with others in the land.
  • The author cites Sorenson's work, but does nothing to engage his arguments for just such indications.

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.
  • Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, 1992.
  • John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.

163
  • The shrinking of Book of Mormon geographical models corresponds with the growing research showing that ancient Americans came from Asia.

Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.

The author consistently argues that LDS scholars or apologists are "adjusting" their view on the Book of Mormon because they are being driven back in a rear-guard action by science. But, in fact, some LDS leaders and scholars have argued for a restricted geography and small numeric contribution of Lehites for over one hundred years.These beliefs were not held because of scientific "pressure," but because of their reading of the Book of Mormon text. In fact, the author admits that this has occurred since at least the 1920s (see p. 154)—long before any pressure from genetics issues. Yet, he continues to make the contradictory claim that the Church's defenders are now "on the ropes" and desperate for a solution.
  •  Double standard: Even if the author's claim was true, why complain? He has argued that Mormons always make their religious beliefs trump science. But, if Mormons respond to science in changing their perceptions, this is seen as a bad thing!
  • Limited geography theory
  • No source given.

164
  • A limited Book of Mormon setting is at odds with "a straightforward reading" of the Book of Mormon.
  • Others have disagreed. The limited model came out of a reading of the text, not out of scientific pressure or apologetic need.
  • Limited geography theory
  • Author's opinion.

164
  • The limited Book of Mormon setting contradicts D&C 54:8
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_11&oldid=58731"