Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 12"

Revision as of 22:15, 17 February 2010

Claims made in "Chapter 12: Faith Promoting Science"

168

Claim

• LDS scholars believe that Mayan cities are prime candidates for where Lehi's people lived.

• No source given.

• Amerindians as Lamanites—Maya and Olmec

168

Claim

• The Jaredites are usually identified as the Olmec

• No source given.

• Amerindians as Lamanites—Maya and Olmec

168

Claim

• Joseph Smith declared the city of Palenque was a Nephite city, but modern scholarship indicates this city wasn't built until 600 A.D.

• No source given by the author.
• The statement made by the author about Palenque is incorrect. The earliest recorded ruler was K'uk Balam (Quetzal Jaguar), who governed Palenque for four years starting in the year 431 A.D.
• Pottery shards show that Palenque was occupied as early as 300 B.C.
• 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.).
• 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 no. 22 (15 September 1842), 915. off-site GospeLink

• Book of Mormon geography—Statements—15 Sept. 1842: Speculation that Palenque is a Nephite city

168

Claim

• The history of Book of Mormon archaeology is "littered with apostacy"

• Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:40-48 (1973).

• Book of Mormon geography—Apostacy  ^{[needs work]}

170

Claim

• Thomas Ferguson was one of the better known early "Mormon archaeologists"

• No source given.
• This claim is also made in Becoming Gods, p. 77 368n145-147

• Ferguson was not an archaeologist. He was an amateur, with an unrealistic idea of what constituted archaeological proof, and what help archaeology would be.
• Thomas Stuart Ferguson
• Book of Mormon archaeology

172

{{IndexClaim |claim=

• There is no evidence of iron or steel smelting in the ancient New World

|response=

• Book of Mormon anachronisms—Metals—Iron

The work repeats itself on p. 8, 172., and 199.

|authorsources=

• Michael D. Coe et al., Atlas of Ancient America (1986).

|-

172

Claim

• There were no wheeled vehicles in ancient America

• No source given.

•  The author's claim is false: There is no mention of wheels in the Book of Mormon (save an Isaiah citation).
• Book of Mormon anachronisms—Chariots

172

Claim

• There were no draft animals to pull wheeled vehicles

• No source given.

• There is no mention of the wheel in the Book of Mormon
• Book of Mormon anachronisms—Chariots
• Book of Mormon anachronisms—Animals—Horse

172

Claim

• There are no archaeological remains of wheat or barley in Mesoamerica. The barley found in Arizona doesn't count because it was only in a limited region.

• No source given.

• The fact that barley was unknown in the Americas before the 1980s demonstrates that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Would we want to bet on barley never being found outside that restricted area?
• Book of Mormon anachronisms—Plants—Barley

173

Claim

• the author claims that deer or tapir were never ridden by Native Americans, therefore they could not be the "horses" referred to in the Book of Mormon

• No source given.

• "Horses" are never said to be ridden in the Book of Mormon. They never act like "old world" horses. They are often treated as a foodstuff. This might match some other animal quite well. The author has here proven the Book of Mormon advocates' point.
• Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

The work repeats itself on p. xiv, 7-8., 173., and 199.

173

Claim

• Dee Green said in 1973 that Book of Mormon archaeology does not exist

•  Citation error: Dee F. Green, "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4:71-80 (1973).
• The correct citation is: Dee F. Green, "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 3 (Summer 1969), 72-80.
• This claim is also made in Becoming Gods, p. 66, 362n88

•  Misrepresentation of source: Green argued—in 1969—that the requisite work had not been done (the author also gets the date wrong by four years).
• Dee F. Green on Book of Mormon archaeology
• It is telling that the author must resort to a source that is 35 years old. A more current assessment is available:
  • John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link
• Book of Mormon archaeology

175

Claim

• "Book of Mormon archaeology" has yielded little credible evidence

• John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992).
• Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (1964).
• Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert: The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites, (1988).
• Bruce W. Warren, Review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon: Settlements and Routes in Ancient America, and John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in BYU Studies 30:127 (1990).
• David J. Johnson, "Archaeology" Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992).

• If the author is going to cite these sources, he needs to engage their evidence, not simply declare it not credible.
• Book of Mormon/Archaeology

176

Claim

• The Smithsonian issues a statement that discredits the Book of Mormon

• Smithsonian Institution.

• Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian statement

177

Claim

• LDS apologists claim that the simplification of the Smithsonian statement indicates that the original statement is now inconsistent with the current knowledge of Mesoamerican archaeology

• Sorenson critique, 1995.

• Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian statement

177

Claim

• There is little evidence of a cultural link between Polynesia and the Americas. A linguistic link between a South American variety and Polynesian variety of sweet potato is not yet explained.

• No source given.

• It is not necessarily reasonable to expect much of a cultural link if a small group (e.g., Hagoth) entered the larger Pacific cultural sphere.
• Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Polynesians