Posts
Simon Southerton Responds
Simon Southerton, the author of Losing a Lost Tribe, has responded to several apologetic arguments. He'll have to excuse us (the believing LDS intellectual community) for not rolling over easy, but he is giving us an intellectual workout.
This criticism and response deserves highlighting:
Continue Reading7. The bottleneck effect, genetic drift, and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes.
In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.
His answer confirms that this is a legitimate issue. At the same time, however, he tries to make us carry the weight of past commentary by church leaders and superficial interpretation of scripture. This is a critical point. It is like anti-Mormons who try to make us defend controversial statements by past prophets and apostles. I do not feel obligated to do so. I have no problem with most Native Americans being "adopted" Lamanites, if not literal descendants (see Stephens and Meldrum's article at FARMS).
I have not read Southerton's book and at this point am not inclined to, simply because I think I have a pretty good idea of the issues involved. His recent response seems like a pretty good summary to me. If anybody can give me good reasons to read it I might change my mind.
2 comments:
I agree. This common approach by critics really bugs me. The problem is that they are criticizing the lay belief. But I think most lay members recognize limited knowledge, as do the prophets. That's the whole point of continuing revelation, after all. So there is this divide between what is commonly believed and what is entailed in the texts. Typically the only way the critics charges would be relevant is if we held to a doctrine of innerancy. But we most emphatically don't.
If one adopts a realist view of the Book of Mormon, then we have a bunch of primitive, but inspired people speaking from their perspective. Yet this is what the critic typically neglects. (Or prefers not to engage)
Now there are some stronger charges, such as where critics attack statements attributed to God. (i.e. revelations using the term Lamanite) But even there the same problems pop up.
I don't mind discussions about what lay people believe. But I think one has to include in such criticisms the very nature of lay belief.
I completely agree. I posted about this back last year sometime and basically stated the same things as you assert.
I think it is just sad that Southerton left the Church over something like this; that he turned this into such a critical issue without even thinking about it.
Post a Comment