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

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 14: Moving the Spirit"

Chapter 13

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

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

No Semitic languages have been found in the New World.

Author's sources: No source given.

Question: Is finding links between Hebrew and ancient American languages realistic?

The Lehite’s mother tongue all-but-disappeared shortly after their arrival in the New World

It is important to note that we may never find traces of Hebrew language among American languages for the simple fact that the Lehite’s mother tongue all-but-disappeared shortly after their arrival in the New World. When Moroni writes about reformed Egyptian, he also explains that the “Hebrew hath been altered by us also” (Mormon 9꞉33).

Like other ancient civilizations (such as Egypt) most New World inhabitants would not have been literate. While ancient Americans had a sophisticated writing system, it is likely that knowledge of this system was limited to the civic officials or the priestly class. In the Book of Mormon we infer that training and devotion were necessary to competently master their difficult writing system. King Benjamin, for example, “caused that [his princely sons] should be taught all the languages of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding” (Mosiah 1꞉3). Moroni, who had mastered the art himself, lamented that the Lord had not made the Nephites “mighty in writing” (Ether 12꞉23).

The most likely scenario is that the Lehites—who were a small incursion into a larger existing native populace—embraced the habits, culture, and language of their neighbors within a very short period after their arrival in the New World

The most likely scenario is that the Lehites—who were a small incursion into a larger existing native populace—embraced the habits, culture, and language of their neighbors within a very short period after their arrival in the New World. This is what we generally find when a small group melds with a larger group. The smaller group usually takes on the traits of the larger (or, at least, the more powerful) group—not the other way around. It is not unusual, however, for at least some of the characteristics of the smaller group to show up in the larger group’s culture. Typically, however, the smaller group becomes part of the larger group with which they merge. Thus, the Lehites would have become Mesoamericans. We see, therefore, the necessity to teach the Old World language to a few elite in order to preserve, not only the traditions, but also to maintain a continuation of scribes who could read the writings of past generations.

Even with such instruction, however, the script was most likely an altered form of Egyptian—perhaps adapted to Mesoamerican scripts—and altered according to their language. This suggests that ideas and motifs that originated in the Old World were adapted to a script that could be conveyed with New World motifs, or at least New World glyphs. Under such conditions, would there be any reason to expect that we’d find “Hebrew” among the Native Americans?

Question: Have any relationships been found between New World languages and Hebrew?

Recent scholarly research suggests a possible link between Uto-Aztecan (a family of about 30 Native American languages) and Hebrew

The Book of Mormon text suggests that Lehite language had a relatively minor impact on the speech of the Americas. It may be that Old World languages formed a type of "elite" language, used only by a few for religious purposes.

If, however, one is persuaded that the Book of Mormon text implies that some Hebrew links should still exist, preliminary linguistic data suggest that there are some intriguing links.

For example, Dr. Brian Stubbs argues for numerous parallels between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. As a professional linguist, Dr. Stubbs avoids the pitfalls of amateurs who simply point at similar words between two different languages. As he points out,

Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.

Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.

Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.

When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.

A few of Stubbs' many examples are:

Hebrew/Semitic	Uto-Aztecan
kilyah/kolyah 'kidney'	kali 'kidney'
baraq 'lightning'	berok (derived from *pïrok) 'lightning'
sekem/sikm- 'shoulder'	sikum/sïka 'shoulder'
mayim/meem 'water'	meme-t 'ocean'

Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, has made positive comments about Dr. Stubbs' research:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Atlantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)....

Lest skeptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.

While the conclusions remain tentative, some of the details of this on-going research look promising. Certainly, nothing in the linguistic evidence provides plausible arguments against the Book of Mormon narrative.

Question: Have any relationships been found between New World languages and Hebrew?

Recent scholarly research suggests a possible link between Uto-Aztecan (a family of about 30 Native American languages) and Hebrew

The Book of Mormon text suggests that Lehite language had a relatively minor impact on the speech of the Americas. It may be that Old World languages formed a type of "elite" language, used only by a few for religious purposes.

If, however, one is persuaded that the Book of Mormon text implies that some Hebrew links should still exist, preliminary linguistic data suggest that there are some intriguing links.

For example, Dr. Brian Stubbs argues for numerous parallels between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. As a professional linguist, Dr. Stubbs avoids the pitfalls of amateurs who simply point at similar words between two different languages. As he points out,

Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.

Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.

Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.

When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.

A few of Stubbs' many examples are:

Hebrew/Semitic	Uto-Aztecan
kilyah/kolyah 'kidney'	kali 'kidney'
baraq 'lightning'	berok (derived from *pïrok) 'lightning'
sekem/sikm- 'shoulder'	sikum/sïka 'shoulder'
mayim/meem 'water'	meme-t 'ocean'

Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, has made positive comments about Dr. Stubbs' research:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Atlantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)....

Lest skeptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.

While the conclusions remain tentative, some of the details of this on-going research look promising. Certainly, nothing in the linguistic evidence provides plausible arguments against the Book of Mormon narrative.

Claim

• No wheeled chariots or horses to pull them have been found in the New World

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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

Claim

• No swords or steel have been found in the New World

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

•  The author's claim is false: swords are well-known in the New World, just not European-style swords.
• Swords
• Steel in the Book of Mormon

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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?

Claim

• Many LDS are disquieted by "how far the apologists have strayed from traditional Mormon beliefs"

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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.

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• 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).

Response

• This is pure speculation.
• Book of Mormon/Historicity

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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.

• 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.
• No official geography
• Statements by Church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography

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.

Claim

• The general membership would not believe a limited Book of Mormon geography

Author's source(s)

• Author's opinion.

Response

•  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?

Claim

• Millions of Mormons believe that Lehi stands at the head of their own family pedigrees.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• "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.

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response
 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.

Claim

• The genetic support for an Israelite presence in the New World is "slim to none"

Author's source(s)

• Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

Response

• LDS scientists do not expect that such evidence would exist.
• Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Claim

• Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in the islands of the Pacific

Author's source(s)

• Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

Response

• LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exist.
• Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Claim

• Apologists are unable to find an Israelite genetic signature in Central America

Author's source(s)

• Author's conclusion based upon preceding chapters.

Response

• LDS scientists would not expect that such a signature exist.
• Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Claim

• Apologists have chosen to reinterpret the statements of modern prophets regarding Book of Mormon geography

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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.

Claim

• Most Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth 6000 years ago.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Some Mormons do, but the Church has no official position on such matters.
• Mormonism and science/Evolution

Claim

• Most Mormons believe that the Earth was re-colonized after the Flood

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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.

Claim

• 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

Author's source(s)

• Author's opinion.

Response

• 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.
• Mormonism and science/Global or local Flood

Claim

• BYU professors have been "compelled to shrink the scale of the assumed Israelite incursion into the Americas"

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Book of Mormon limited geography theory

Claim

• In 1938 Joseph Fielding Smith opposed a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.

Author's source(s)

• Unspecified statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1938.

Response

• Why is this supposed to be significant? In 1984, the Ensign actually published the Limited Geography theory.
• Statements by Church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography

Claim

• The youth of the Church have been assured that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Any youth being told this is being misled. Where is the author's evidence?
• Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian statement

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

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.

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• Author's conclusion based on preceding chapters.

Response

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.

Claim

• The Church disregards people's own cultural history and local mythologies.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Latter-day Saint culture/Preserving diverse cultural traditions

Claim

• The Church does not officially endorse apologetic scholarship

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

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.

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

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.

• Is there an "official" or revealed geography?

Claim

• There is no evidence of a Hebrew influence in Mesoamerica.

Author's source(s)

• Author's conclusion.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Hebrew and Native American languages

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Claim

• LDS apologists are cut off from the larger church community because of differences in their beliefs.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

•  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.

Claim

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

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• Conversion and the Book of Mormon  ^{[needs work]}
• If members felt a spiritual witness of their connection to Lehi, this witness is confirmed by the findings of population genetics.

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.

Claim

• The General Authorities have not found a way to detach or reinterpret the Book of Mormon from real history

Author's source(s)

• Author's opinion.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Historicity

Claim

• The Church takes a "dim view" of scientists and intellectuals.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.

Response

• 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

Notes