Southerton Responds to FARMS Review

Simon Southerton has responded to Ryan Parr's review of Losing a Lost Tribe in the latest FARMS Review. (hat-tip to Justin B.) I've read both documents, but I am somewhat hampered by the fact that I lack any specialized training in genetics or anthropology, nor have I been able to delve into most of the references contained in each document. I also have not read Southerton's book. So I'll just provide my impression.

Continue Reading

As far as the issues of science go, I think Southerton probably has the upper hand. Parr himself says that Southerton has presented the genetic picture accurately, and I'm not aware of any other LDS scientists who have disputed this. Like Southerton, I too wondered what the paper on fish had to do with Parr's point, and as I expressed previously, I was concerned about Parr's use of the word "coalescence." I did find a source that seemded to vindicate Parr, but clearly Southerton thinks that Parr used the wrong word. Perhaps who is right on this point is not significant.

If Southerton presents the main science correctly, then the argument is really about whether the Book of Mormon scenario is feasible given different assumptions (i.e. limited geography) and finding analogous situations elsewhere. Another secondary point of contention is whether Mormon theology is flexible enough to accommodate those assumptions.

My initial impression is that Southerton is strong on the science but weak on theology. That is, I think he underestimates the ability of the church members to adjust to demonstrated facts. It is a little ironic that elsewhere he has said that he went public on this issue to force the Church to change, but then argues that it cannot change. I think this passage is a manifestation of this kind of thinking:

During his undergraduate and graduate studies, Parr would have become aware of the considerable archaeological, anthropological, and now molecular evidence that the North American continent was widely populated at least 13,500 years ago and that the original Asian ancestors arrived in the continent in excess of 15,000 years ago. Because of Parr's church experience, he will also be aware that many readers of the FARMS Review are unprepared to accept such early dates for the colonization of the Americas...Parr deftly avoids mentioning the presence of people in the Americas as long as 13,500 years ago, an admission that would only raise further questions among many Latter-day Saint readers.

My guess is that he underestimates readers of FARMS. After all, it has been pointed out in a previous FARMS publication that the very fact that the model of colonization involves such ancient dates undercuts the criticism of fundamentalist anti-Mormons.

I must say I was surprised by this statement:

In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America's past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research.

How is it that Southerton only relatively recently arrived at his new-found skepticism? Either Southerton is not quite honest or his was the faith of a sweet innocent boy. I've known since at least I was a teenager that the Smithsonian does not use the Book of Mormon as a research guide--a fact not infrequently pointed out in anti-Mormon literature, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone affirm otherwise. Regarding archaeological evidence--well that is probably a nuanced issue that cannot be dealt with here.

Taking him at his word, I think he does raise a legitimate point--and that is that both apologists and members must be careful. Apologists should make their best case, but be careful not to over-reach. Members need to build their faith on the right foundation and maintain an element of skepticism--even regarding the apologists.

Whether Southerton, Murphy, FARMS, or FAIR, we need to make sure each stays honest in this debate.