Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

From FAIRMormon

Jump to: navigation, search

Note:

  • This page serves as either an index for or a review of claims and/or responses to attacks on LDS Church made by this author's work.
    • The inclusion of an author's work here does not imply that he or she is necessarily "anti-Mormon," or that none of his or her work(s) have value.
    • FAIR has noted particularly bad scholarship related to the research contained in this particular work and/or considers significant elements of this work to be "anti-Mormon" in tone or content.
  • Those who do not wish to examine the claims contained in what some would consider an "anti-Mormon" work are advised to proceed no further.
  • Page numbers may have small letters added to them (e.g., a, b, c, etc.) to make unique labels for cross-linking within the wiki. These small letters do not refer to anything in the original book.

Contents

About this work

Author: Dr. Simon G. Southerton

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

Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion

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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. xv-xvi Over the past decade, there has been a marked shift among these scholars away from the views of the wider LDS community. Most LDS scholars today want to limit the Israelite colonization to the region of Mesoamerica, while a growing subset shrinks the book's claims even further.
  • Dr. Southerton's book was published in 2004. Dr. Sorenson published his limited Mesoamerican geography in a two-part series in the Ensign in 1984. In addition. Dr. Sorenson published his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in 1985.
  • The author fails to acknowledge the most well known source of the limited geography theory, which was published twenty years before his book. He eventually indicates, on page 154, that limited geography theories for the Book of Mormon have been proposed since the 1920's.
  • No source is provided at all for the claim that "a growing subset" wishes to further shrink the geographical area of the Book of Mormon.

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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. xv In Mesoamerica, which is regarded by Mormon scholars to be the setting of the Book of Mormon narrative, research has uncovered cultures where the worship of multiple deities and human sacrifice were not uncommon. These cultures lack any trace of Hebrew or Egyptian writing, metallurgy, or the Old World domesticated animals and plants described in the Book of Mormon. (emphasis added) And they did also march forward against the city Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods.

---

Thus they were a very indolent people, many of whom did worship idols, and the curse of God had fallen upon them because of the traditions of their fathers;

---

And now behold, he had got great hold upon the hearts of the Nephites; yea, insomuch that they had become exceedingly wicked; yea, the more part of them had turned out of the way of righteousness, and did trample under their feet the commandments of God, and did turn unto their own ways, and did build up unto themselves idols of their gold and their silver.

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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 8 They [the Nephites] build a temple similar in splendor to Solomon's. (emphasis added) And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 8 They produce steel and fashion it into swords, breastplates, and arm and head shields to defend against the warring Lamanites. The only references to steel in the Book of Mormon are in:
  • 1 Nephi 4:9 (sword of Laban)
  • 1 Nephi 16:8 (Nephi's bow)
  • 2 Nephi 5:15 (Nephi teaches his people to use steel)
  • Jarom 1:8 (to make tools and weapons of war: arrows, darts and javelins)
  • Ether 7:9 (Jaredite swords of steel).

The author does not provide sources for his claims regarding 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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 12 LDS scripture asserts that those who are "blessed" with a white skin are favored because of what they did as spirits in a pre-earth life. (emphasis added) LDS scripture does not tie skin color with actions performed in the premortal existence. No sources given.

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

∗       ∗       ∗

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

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 14 The Lamanites are apparently still in a degraded state when they clash with the gentile Europeans who, it is known in the Book of Mormon, will arrive eleven centuries later. (emphasis added) The Book of Mormon makes no specification regarding the identity of the gentiles or the exact time that they would arrive in the New World.

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.?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 168Joseph Smith found the book so inspiring, he declared Palenque a Nephite city. Modern scholarship indicates this Mayan center was built after A.D.600, over 200 years after the Lamanites exterminated the Nephites; but dating details aside, Mormon scholars continue to find the remains of Mayan cities to be prime candidates for where Lehi's people might have lived. (emphasis added)
  • A massive period of rebuilding occurred in 600 A.D., however, the earliest recorded ruler was was K'uk Balam (Quetzal Jaguar), who governed Palenque for four years starting in the year 431 A.D.
  • The site is known to have been inhabited since 100 B.C., and pottery shards show that Palenque may have been occupied as early as 300 B.C.
  • No source given by the author.
  • A known reference to Joseph's statement about Palenque is Joseph Smith (editor)," Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America'," Times and Seasons 3/22 (15 September 1842): 915. off-site GospeLink

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 suprisingly 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?

Reference Author's claim... The rest of the story... Use of sources
p. 202, 205 (2004) "Most LDS apologists now accept that Native American are principally descended from Siberian ancestors who migrated across the Bering Strait thousands of years before Lehi and that the descendants of Lehi made up an infinitesimally smaller proportion of the New World populations. However, this change in perspective has not been granted the Church's blessing in any official way. The general membership would not believe that Lehi's descendants could have made such a minimal impact in the Americas."

"Publically, the Church urges members to steer clear of any attempt to link the Book of Mormon with current geographical locations."

(1984) John L. Sorenson said the following in the Sept. 1984 Ensign:

"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." (emphasis added)

  • John L. Sorensen, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture," Ensign (Sept. 1984): 27. (first of a two-part series)

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.
∗       ∗       ∗

Endnotes

  1. [back] 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

  • 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 PDF link

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 PDF 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. off-site PDF link wiki
  • Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site PDF link
  • Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site PDF link
  • John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 6–23. off-site PDF link wiki  (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 PDF link
  • Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 24–35. off-site PDF link wiki  (Key source)


Critical Works


We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.
Retrieved from "http://en.fairmormon.org/Losing_a_Lost_Tribe:_Native_Americans%2C_DNA%2C_and_the_Mormon_Church"
Personal tools