Simon Southerton On Mormonstories

[cinepro]

Conversations like this make me suspect that the day will come, years from now, when apologists will realize they have successfully defended the Book of Mormon into plausible irrelevance.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I think I speak for someone when I say you need to quit smoking that stuff.

Yep.

Kevin C.

[jwhitlock]

Since the destination audience for the Book of Mormon is the average guy on the street, for them the inclusion of that word “principle” was not a casual irrelevant inclusion. To the average reader the old BoM header sounded pretty definitive in what it was saying about Indian genetic ancestry.

Never said nor intimated it was a "casual irrelevant inclusion". However, the introduction was an explanatory piece written according to the understanding of the person who wrote it. As newer evidence came to light concerning what was written, I would expect clarification / revision to be made. That's what was done, and since the introduction is not given the same authority as the scripture itself, it's really a non-issue.

Aside from that, I'm not sure that either of us possesses the omniscience to know what was definitive to the "average reader" (how can one define that!), so your last statement is irrelevant.

[jwhitlock]

The population numbers of wars is an issue which seems only addressed if one wants to assume that a few nephites and lamanites are part of a larger population where the se two groups feel comfortable labeling the outsiders as part of their numbers.

The biggest issue for me is we have to accept that while perhaps their intentions were sincere LDS leaders have said a lot of wrong things when it comes to what they believed about the BOM. Hill Cumorah, Hemispheric population, mode of translation, ect....

Once we can handle that paradigm then it becomes much easier to have room for faith

Members of the church, like anyone else, tend to hold opinions about things based on what they perceive. Many of them are not shy about expressing those opinions. The early members of the church were inundated with an avalanche of new revelation and scripture, and tried to make sense of it in the context of their culture, their times, and their religious beliefs. That they got some things wrong is not surprising. That they got as much right as they did is what is actually surprising.

In my opinion, it's important for people to figure out the difference between speculative opinion and revealed truth in the writings of church leaders. That's why we're given the gift of the Spirit. Brigham Young especially had quite a few homespun sayings and opinions about things. Unfortunately, too many people want to give those opinions the force of revealed truth. That only leads to problems.

[mathilde]

That the wording of the introduction of the Book of Mormon was changed to "among the ancestors of the American Indians" is a non-issue for many people does NOT mean that this is a non-issue for everyone. Simon Southerton was criticized for his statements and yet, research exactly like his led directly to this change. That suggests to me that people like Simon Southerton are making credible points.

[jwhitlock]

Ahhhh....actually every claim Simon has made is confirmed and backed up by scientific studies...what claim of his exactly has been debunked?

Really.

In the first place, quoting a scientific study in the context of a claim is not the same as backing up the claim - especially when other evidence is ignored.

Second, if you've been reading the thread, the basic assumption that Southerton makes is that it is revealed church doctrine that Lehi and his group were the only people on the continent. Since that's clearly false, the rest of his claims relating to DNA evidence and the historicity of the Book of Mormon are irrelevant - and thus debunked.

[Rinaldo]

Actually Professor Southerton wrote a response to the Parr hit piece, demonstrating that it is Southerton who has science on his side:

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2012/05/apologetic-response-to-losing-lost.html

[jwhitlock]

Actually Professor Southerton wrote a response to the Parr hit piece, demonstrating that it is Southerton who has science on his side:

http://simonsouthert...osing-lost.html

And how is that scientific evidence supporting his flawed foundational claim that the church teaches that Lehi and his group were alone?

[CASteinman]

Actually Professor Southerton wrote a response to the Parr hit piece, demonstrating that it is Southerton who has science on his side:

http://simonsouthert...osing-lost.html

You can't claim Science is on your side when you present strawmen for your opponents' position. It becomes a Red Herring at that point.

[ThePhy]

… the basic assumption that Southerton makes is that it is revealed church doctrine that Lehi and his group were the only people on the continent. …

That statement is wildly at variance with what I have seen Southerton say. Can you provide a specific place where Southerton makes such a claim?

[Craig Paxton]

And how is that scientific evidence supporting his flawed foundational claim that the church teaches that Lehi and his group were alone?

Ummmm...so you're claiming that the institutional church never taught nor is currently teaching that Lehi and his group arrived to an America devoid of a preexisting indiginous population?

Edited May 23, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually Professor Southerton wrote a response to the Parr hit piece, demonstrating that it is Southerton who has science on his side:

http://simonsouthert...osing-lost.html

I thought his concluding paragraph quite revealing:

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. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans. In the final analysis, this really has very little or nothing to do with the larger question of religious faith and much to do with conservatism, literalism and theological calcification.

That Professor Southerton managed for 30 years to "accept without questions widespread urban legends" as the bedrock of his faith explains a great deal about how fatally and abruptly his faith could shatter. I remember reading his account of how he read Parry's infamous 1998 Ensign article on the Flood, went to bed, and woke up an atheist. That takes a special kind of rigidity.

it seems to me that a working Professor ought to have gotten around a bit more, to have explored some of the other LDS voices, for instance, the many iterations of Sorenson's response to the various urban legends about the Smithsonian, or NIbley's "Before Adam" talk, or David Bailey on Science and Mormonism. etc.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[CASteinman]

Ummmm...so you're claiming that the institutional church never taught nor is currently teaching that Lehi and his group arrived to an America devoid of a preexisting indiginous population?

I have never seen the Church teach this.

[Log]

That the wording of the introduction of the Book of Mormon was changed to "among the ancestors of the American Indians" is a non-issue for many people does NOT mean that this is a non-issue for everyone. Simon Southerton was criticized for his statements and yet, research exactly like his led directly to this change.

I wish to peruse your sources which establish this causal relationship, good sir.

CFR.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[mathilde]

I thought his concluding paragraph quite revealing:

That Professor Southerton managed for 30 years to "accept without questions widespread urban legends" as the bedrock of his faith explains a great deal about how fatally and abruptly his faith could shatter. I remember reading his account of how he read Parry's infamous 1998 Ensign article on the Flood, went to bed, and woke up an atheist. That takes a special kind of rigidity.

it seems to me that a working Professor ought to have gotten around a bit more, to have explored some of the other LDS voices, for instance, the many iterations of Sorenson's response to the various urban legends about the Smithsonian, or NIbley's "Before Adam" talk, or David Bailey on Science and Mormonism. etc.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, P

The above seems like an unfair characterization of Southerton's loss of faith in the church. He didn't just read one article, go to sleep, and wake up an atheist. He had been studying for some time and sharing articles with his wife, corresponding with people, going through a process. The other point is that the particular details of his life or his personal loss of faith do not mean his research or his conclusions are incorrect.

[mathilde]

Okay. What led to the change of the wording? Why did it need to be changed?

[Log]

Okay. What led to the change of the wording? Why did it need to be changed?

So, is this an oblique admission that your claim was simply a matter of your opinion, while not being expressed as such?

And, please bear in mind, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

[CASteinman]

The above seems like an unfair characterization of Southerton's loss of faith in the church. He didn't just read one article, go to sleep, and wake up an atheist. He had been studying for some time and sharing articles with his wife, corresponding with people, going through a process. The other point is that the particular details of his life or his personal loss of faith do not mean his research or his conclusions are incorrect.

Not for very much time. I think he said 2 weeks? And he did say, he went to bed and woke up, over night an unbeliever

You are right that this has nothing to do with his research or conclusions. But when you research a position not taken by the Church, you can't then say "Oh see.. how wrong they were".

[Jaybear]

To request a source for one's opinion is rather silly, don't you think? But here goes: It is my opinion, so I have to quote myself as the reference.

Yes that would be silly.

But, you said the introduction "was changed to accommodate the yokels who don't know their own language."

That is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion.

But I take it from your response, that you acknowledge that you simply made up the fact, and have no credible basis to know why the change was made.

Do you do that all the time?

[Jaybear]

This is a common error. "If they are not mentioned in the text, they did not exist."

That "common error" is a reasonable IF you are taught and believe that there was a global flood.

That is still LDS doctrine, is it not?

[Scott Lloyd]

So, is this an oblique admission that your claim was simply a matter of your opinion, while not being expressed as such?

And, please bear in mind, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

So is trying to shift the burden of proof, of which mathilde is also guilty here.

There's a CFR on the table, mathilde. Under board guidelines, you are obliged to comply with it, unless you can't, in which case you must admit as much.

[mathilde]

So, is this an oblique admission that your claim was simply a matter of your opinion, while not being expressed as such?

And, please bear in mind, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

Yes, true enough, what I write here tends to be my opinion. I did have to look up the latin, and yes, thanks for the reminder.

This article is a bit dated yet sheds some interesting light on the current discussion.

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7403990

[Scott Lloyd]

Ummmm...so you're claiming that the institutional church never taught nor is currently teaching that Lehi and his group arrived to an America devoid of a preexisting indiginous population?

Are you claiming that the Church does teach that?

CFR.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, true enough, what I write here tends to be my opinion. I did have to look up the latin, and yes, thanks for the reminder.

This article is a bit dated yet sheds some interesting light on the current discussion.

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7403990

While the article seems generally accurate and does quote Southerton, it falls short of demonstrating a causal relationship between Southerton's adversarial criticism and the word change.

[Log]

While the article seems generally accurate and does quote Southerton, it falls short of demonstrating a causal relationship between Southerton's adversarial criticism and the word change.

Why, Scott, are you saying this article only rehashes the positions already laid out in this thread, and sheds no interesting light at all upon the discussion?

Heavens to Betsy. What a dreadful idea.