Simon Southerton On Mormonstories

[CASteinman]

My proposal is that in this thread we take Ryan Parr’s article that you link to, and Southerton’s response to it, plus any directly relevant other technical material, and see which side stands up to scrutiny. If you have access to people who are technically qualified to help out, I would welcome their participation. Are you game?

Hmmm.. Iron Apologist! Whose Apologetics will reign supreme!

But rather than invite the real chefs... its Apologetics about remote Apologists? Is that Apologetics doubled -- or squared?

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[ThePhy]

Why do you think this? Why do you believe that DNA is an issue -- outside of the notion that people just "make" it one? I mean in a real, meaningful way, why is it an issue?

I am not sure what kind of answer you want. Let me approach it this way. Assume Mr. Jones knows nothing about the Mormon Church, but is willing to take a look at it. One of the first things he is going to be handed is a Book of Mormon. He reads it, and perceptively asks what evidence supports the BoM story as being true? If the DNA of the American Indians could be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago, that would be pretty powerful. But if no significant link is seen between Indian DNA and ancient Mideast DNA, is that a valid reason to have doubts?

[CASteinman]

I am not sure what kind of answer you want. Let me approach it this way. Assume Mr. Jones knows nothing about the Mormon Church, but is willing to take a look at it. One of the first things he is going to be handed is a Book of Mormon. He reads it, and perceptively asks what evidence supports the BoM story as being true? If the DNA of the American Indians could be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago, that would be pretty powerful. But if no significant link is seen between Indian DNA and ancient Mideast DNA, is that a valid reason to have doubts?

Hmm. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying it is an issue because we cannot use it as proof of the Book of Mormon? Or are you saying that it is a positive reason to disbelieve?

[Log]

If the DNA of the American Indians could be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago, that would be pretty powerful. But if no significant link is seen between Indian DNA and ancient Mideast DNA, is that a valid reason to have doubts?

It might be a pretty powerful reason to have doubts that all American Indians can be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago.

Simon Southerton, however, apparently feels that it is not a pretty powerful reason to doubt the account of the Book of Mormon: "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."

And that's assuming we even knew what genetic markers to be looking for.

"The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon 'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven." - Hugh Nibley

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[ThePhy]

Hmm. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying it is an issue because we cannot use it as proof of the Book of Mormon? Or are you saying that it is a positive reason to disbelieve?

I'm asking.

Edited May 23, 2012 by ThePhy

[Hamilton Porter]

I am not in the biological sciences, but I have loosely followed the criticisms that have been leveled at Southerton over the past decade, as well as his responses. If his position were as poorly founded as I often hear it portrayed by some in Mormon academia, I would have expected him to have been thoroughly exposed as incompetent by now. Instead I don’t detect much in the way or desperation or fear of being scientifically discredited in his responses. Nor have I seen him dodging the issues that have been raised against his DNA studies.

Are there specific new studies, from either inside Mormon apologetics, or the broader scientific community that you think will finally definitively expose the fallaciousness of his position?

Look dude, I'll show you right now why Southerton's reasoning is circular.

Check out this study on Mesoamerican DNA:

Data Analysis. For mtDNA analysis, all individuals that do not belong to haplogroup AD or X (Table S1) were excluded, because they most likely

represent non-Native American admixture.

If any Hebrew DNA is ever detected among Native Americans, geneticists will chuck it out because they assume it's due to non-natives mixing with natives after Columbus came. Hope that helps.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6759.full.pdf

[ThePhy]

It might be a pretty powerful reason to have doubts that all American Indians can be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago.

Simon Southerton, however, apparently feels that it is not a pretty powerful reason to doubt the account of the Book of Mormon: "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."

And that's assuming we even knew what genetic markers to be looking for.

I think that is a fair statement of the way many LDS see it. As I understand it, Southerton is not as convinced as the LDS faithful are that the Lehite genetic signature should be drowned out by a pre-existing population. Part of his reason is based on genetic factors, but another part is on the apparent plasticity in how easily yesterday’s firm teachings in the LDS church seem to be jettisoned the moment contrary evidence arises.

Simple case in point – my parents served as adult LDS missionaries to the Indians in the region just south of Phoenix and Tempe. After they came back, I often heard them speak of how they were proud to be able to tell the Indians that they were of Lehite descent. That is a claim I have heard (but not recently) from numerous LDS missionaries – that the Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. No mention was made that the Lamanite contribution to their DNA was almost undetectable. They were spoken of as being of Lamanite descent, period. That is exactly the claim that was made in the (now modified) header to the BoM.

[Log]

I think that is a fair statement of the way many LDS see it. As I understand it, Southerton is not as convinced as the LDS faithful are that the Lehite genetic signature should be drowned out by a pre-existing population.

The only issue I have with that is - get this - this quote, "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," is from Southerton himself.

That is exactly the claim that was made in the (now modified) header to the BoM.

The header was never part of the text of the Book of Mormon, and is therefore evidence of nothing but the views of the guy who wrote it.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

I'm asking.

I do not believe it should be considered an issue as far as "Proving" the Book of Mormon because we do not teach that any science should be used to prove it. I believe, in fact, we would be in a kind of a pickle if there were to be some sort of convincing evidence based in science -- because then people would join without testimony.

I also do not believe it should be considered an issue as far as giving it a reason to disbelieve for multiple reasons. First of all, its actually a logical error -- the lack of evidence is not the same thing as proof of falsehood. This is particularly true with DNA lineages which definitely can die out. My own family is an example of this. My mother's father's father (born ca 1870) has zero living male descendants. I *think* that is also true for the father one step back -- which is as far as I can go. My wife's brother, is the only male of an only male, of an only male of an only male. He has no sons. DNA lineages do die out -- and I think fairly often. In addition, it can be now, pretty well proven, that a group of people can be literally blood descendants of, say, a tribe of Cohen's and yet utterly indistinguishable from members of the general population except for a unique marker -- that is only found in Cohens. Had that group of people been the literal blood descendants of Israelites who did not have that maker -- they would be invisible in the general population.

So lack of DNA evidence should not be an issue in terms of being a reason to doubt.

I would say the only way it is an issue is when people make it one -- falsely.

[CASteinman]

Simple case in point – my parents served as adult LDS missionaries to the Indians in the region just south of Phoenix and Tempe. After they came back, I often heard them speak of how they were proud to be able to tell the Indians that they were of Lehite descent. That is a claim I have heard (but not recently) from numerous LDS missionaries – that the Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. No mention was made that the Lamanite contribution to their DNA was almost undetectable. They were spoken of as being of Lamanite descent, period. That is exactly the claim that was made in the (now modified) header to the BoM.

You do know, don't you -- that Lamanites were not necessarily a genetically pure group of people? That it was a cultural designation?

These Indians may well be Lamanites.

Just as I well may be Israelite. I have not proven that through Genealogy but I am adopted into the House of Israel if it is not literally true.

I think the Hang up on DNA would be very sad because it is not really valid.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[LoudmouthMormon]

I can't believe an old list I wrote five years ago is still relevant.

(Cue David Letterman "top 10" music)

Top 8 Ways You know you're a Lamanite.

8 ) If you live somewhere around 554 BC, and you seek to destroy the people of Nephi

(Jacob 1:14) But I, Jacob … shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

7) You rejected the gospel as personally given by Jesus Christ

(4 Nephi 1:38 ) And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites

6) You are a Nephite that decides to call yourself a Lamanite around 84 A.D.

(4 Nephi 1:20) "And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land."

5) You are a direct descendant of Laman (Regardless of which "side" you are on)

(Alma 55:4-5)"And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them. And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was one of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah."

4) You are a descendant of Zoram

(Alma 54:23-24) "I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem. And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite;..."

(Alma 43:4) "For behold, it came to pass that the Zoramites became Lamanites;"

3) You are a Nephite Defector

(Moroni 9:24) "And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee."

2) You are not a Lamanite, but become one due to your certain "dissentions"

(D&C 10:48 ) "Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions."

And the number one way to know you're a Lamanite:

1) According to a prophecy given around 73 B.C., you are a Lamanite if you wake up in the Americas one day around 400 A.D. to discover you are still breathing:

(Alma 45:14) "But whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them, all, save it be a few who shall be called the disciples of the Lord; and them shall the Lamanites pursue even until they shall become extinct. And now, because of iniquity, this prophecy shall be fulfilled."

------------

From what I can tell, the BoM is pretty clear on the issue - being a Lamanite is more like being a democrat than it is like being Jewish. It hasn't been about bloodlines and relation since 73 B.C.

Edited May 23, 2012 by LoudmouthMormon

[jwhitlock]

Substantive responses ; "pretty well debunked", "DNA studies in no way cast doubt on the Book of Mormon", "lost the spirit, lost his integrity" lost his salvation', "Southerton's propaganda"

hmmmmm nothing changes

The posts were removed. Move on.

I'm curious, noel, why you included my responses addressing Southerton's claims with these other quotes.

As I indicated specifically, there are serious flaws in his assumptions - and I said why - and apparently all you can do is dismiss my comments without addressing them.

Did I make an attack on Southerton's character, as you seem to want to imply here? Evidently not; you'll note that my posts were NOT removed. Are you and other Southerton supporters on this thread willing to actually take a look at the problems with what he claims, or are you already so settled in your rationalizations that you're going to dismiss anything that refutes his claims as a personal attack?

As Pahoran has noted, Southerton's claims are flawed enough that they have been pretty much debunked. The rebuttals done (check the FAIR website, for one) point out the assumptions one must make if they are to claim that there is no possibility that there was ever any migration of anyone of Jewish descent to the Americas around 600BC. Those assumptions are flawed. Are you willing to take a look at the rebuttals, or like ThePhy, are you just going to dismiss them out of hand because they successfully refute Southerton?

[jwhitlock]

Simple case in point – my parents served as adult LDS missionaries to the Indians in the region just south of Phoenix and Tempe. After they came back, I often heard them speak of how they were proud to be able to tell the Indians that they were of Lehite descent. That is a claim I have heard (but not recently) from numerous LDS missionaries – that the Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. No mention was made that the Lamanite contribution to their DNA was almost undetectable. They were spoken of as being of Lamanite descent, period. That is exactly the claim that was made in the (now modified) header to the BoM.

Ever looked at the mathematical studies done of the likelihood of common ancestries over time? Given the lapse of 2500 years, the probability is fairly high that a large number of native people living in the Americas today would be able (if the records were available) to claim Lehi - along with other people living at that time - as an ancestor. The DNA markers are irrelevant in this case.

The only speculative portion of the header in the Book of Mormon was the inclusion of the word "principle". Though we could go through a semantic argument about what the word was intended to mean, it can convey a false impression and thus was appropriately (in my view ) removed.

[Robert F. Smith]

Posted Today, 01:02 AM

Log, on 22 May 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

It might be a pretty powerful reason to have doubts that all American Indians can be shown to be genetically descended from a small population that lived in the Jerusalem area a couple millennia ago.

Simon Southerton, however, apparently feels that it is not a pretty powerful reason to doubt the account of the Book of Mormon: "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."

And that's assuming we even knew what genetic markers to be looking for.

I think that is a fair statement of the way many LDS see it. As I understand it, Southerton is not as convinced as the LDS faithful are that the Lehite genetic signature should be drowned out by a pre-existing population. Part of his reason is based on genetic factors, but another part is on the apparent plasticity in how easily yesterday’s firm teachings in the LDS church seem to be jettisoned the moment contrary evidence arises.

Simple case in point – my parents served as adult LDS missionaries to the Indians in the region just south of Phoenix and Tempe. After they came back, I often heard them speak of how they were proud to be able to tell the Indians that they were of Lehite descent. That is a claim I have heard (but not recently) from numerous LDS missionaries – that the Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. No mention was made that the Lamanite contribution to their DNA was almost undetectable. They were spoken of as being of Lamanite descent, period. That is exactly the claim that was made in the (now modified) header to the BoM.

Basing the debate on the nature of Mormon folklore doesn't seem very scientific to me, as well intentioned as the above comments might have been.

It is equally absurd to incorrectly claim that the scientific issues should be considered in light of "the apparent plasticity in how easily yesterday’s firm teachings in the LDS church seem to be jettisoned the moment contrary evidence arises." Are folklore and "teachings" to be equated? Is it true that vox populi = vox Dei?

Southerton may prefer the folkloric straw-man version of the issue so as to make his claims more stark, but it is equally improper to suggest that the pretended "firm teachings" of folklore were "jettisoned" only because Southerton came along. Mormon archeologists and anthropologists were already arguing for a limited Mesoamerican geography in the 40's and 50's of the last century solely for scholarly reasons and in complete ignorance of genetics.

What to my mind would be far more interesting as a matter of serious scientific research would be to examine DNA in ancient skeletal remains from the relevant Mesoamerican areas, as is done for the ancient Near East. And let the chips fall where they may.

[ThePhy]

Look dude, I'll show you right now why Southerton's reasoning is circular.

Check out this study on Mesoamerican DNA:

If any Hebrew DNA is ever detected among Native Americans, geneticists will chuck it out because they assume it's due to non-natives mixing with natives after Columbus came. Hope that helps.

http://www.pnas.org/...5/6759.full.pdf

I appreciate the link and comments. The PNAS article you link to may well be significant in indicting Southerton’s ideas, but it is technical enough that I, and I suspect most of us, are not qualified to understand much of what it is saying. If you are technically competent in that field I would welcome your ideas on what the article says in more of a layman’s language. And again, to be fair, I would (maybe will) solicit Southerton’s take on the article.

[ThePhy]

The only issue I have with that is - get this - this quote, "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," is from Southerton himself.

Do you have a link to where that comes from? I would like to see it in context.

The header (of the BoM) was never part of the text of the Book of Mormon, and is therefore evidence of nothing but the views of the guy who wrote it.

I am hard-pressed to think that the “guy who wrote it” was some unqualified yokel from off the street. I recall hearing that McConkie penned that heading, and it underwent some formal approval by church authorities. At a minimum, I would expect that heading, that was in place for years, would be reliable as reflecting what the church believed about the Indians during that period. I am not aware that the now-defunct heading caused any significant consternation in Mormon academia for the years it was printed, and it certainly looks like it got changed specifically because Southerton-type studies started making it untenable. Why did not the inspiration at the highest echelons of Mormonism recognize and correct the factually wrong header to one of the most important books without the error first being made obvious from secular sources?

[CASteinman]

I am hard-pressed to think that the “guy who wrote it” was some unqualified yokel from off the street. I recall hearing that McConkie penned that heading, and it underwent some formal approval by church authorities. At a minimum, I would expect that heading, that was in place for years, would be reliable as reflecting what the church believed about the Indians during that period. I am not aware that the now-defunct heading caused any significant consternation in Mormon academia for the years it was printed, and it certainly looks like it got changed specifically because Southerton-type studies started making it untenable. Why did not the inspiration at the highest echelons of Mormonism recognize and correct the factually wrong header to one of the most important books without the error first being made obvious from secular sources?

I am a bit confused. Are you talking about the "header" to some passage or are you talking about the Introduction?

[Gohan]

Believe that he's talking about the Introduction to the Book of Mormon there.

I believe that the Maxwell Institute published a book in regards to DNA and the Book of Mormon in 2008. I know I've got it at home, but I've never done more than thumb through it a bit. To technical for me haha. But it might be worth a look in regards to this subject.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Gohan

[ThePhy]

I do not believe it should be considered an issue as far as "Proving" the Book of Mormon because we do not teach that any science should be used to prove it. I believe, in fact, we would be in a kind of a pickle if there were to be some sort of convincing evidence based in science -- because then people would join without testimony.

Relying on a testimony from the spirit instead of seeking physical evidence is typically said to be the way to go. Except, along comes Nibley and FARMS and a few Ferguson and others who publish what they see as secular evidences supporting the BoM claims, and Deseret Book can’t publish enough of these books to fill the demand. If you really believe the above, then what would the church do if dramatically confirming evidence were found in ancient America for the BoM? Would the church hide the evidence, so as to not deny the members the blessings of relying on a spiritual witness (as you say, doing something about that pickle you mention?)

I also do not believe it should be considered an issue as far as giving it a reason to disbelieve for multiple reasons. First of all, its actually a logical error -- the lack of evidence is not the same thing as proof of falsehood. This is particularly true with DNA lineages which definitely can die out. My own family is an example of this. My mother's father's father (born ca 1870) has zero living male descendants. I *think* that is also true for the father one step back -- which is as far as I can go. My wife's brother, is the only male of an only male, of an only male of an only male. He has no sons. DNA lineages do die out -- and I think fairly often. In addition, it can be now, pretty well proven, that a group of people can be literally blood descendants of, say, a tribe of Cohen's and yet utterly indistinguishable from members of the general population except for a unique marker -- that is only found in Cohens. Had that group of people been the literal blood descendants of Israelites who did not have that maker -- they would be invisible in the general population.

I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that the Lehite genetic markers could not have been lost over the centuries. If that had been the norm in what Mormons had said during the 1830 to 1980s time fame when teaching about the Indians being descendants of Lehi, then a substantial part of the argument would be gone. But if one were to collate all the statements emanating from Mormonism in that period on the subject (and especially the statements that came from those leaders most looked up to as speaking for the Lord), what message would be the prevailing one about Indian ancestry? Maybe a good project for a grad student in religious studies at BYU?

I find it significant that in regards to several important issues a change of direction in the LDS story came only when outside pressure necessitated it. Divine inspiration seems to be just a tad missing.

Anyway, back to the question of whether DNA lineages die out. In my reading of Southerton’s material that is something he is well aware of, and he asks if the BoM situation is likely to have been one in which no residual genetic markers are likely to have survived.

[ThePhy]

Believe that he's talking about the Introduction to the Book of Mormon there.

I believe that the Maxwell Institute published a book in regards to DNA and the Book of Mormon in 2008. I know I've got it at home, but I've never done more than thumb through it a bit. To technical for me haha. But it might be worth a look in regards to this subject.

Much appreciate it if you could come up with some primary data on the subject.

[ThePhy]

The only speculative portion of the header in the Book of Mormon was the inclusion of the word "principle". Though we could go through a semantic argument about what the word was intended to mean, it can convey a false impression and thus was appropriately (in my view ) removed.

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.

[cdowis]

Posted Today, 01:02 AM

What to my mind would be far more interesting as a matter of serious scientific research would be to examine DNA in ancient skeletal remains from the relevant Mesoamerican areas, as is done for the ancient Near East. And let the chips fall where they may.

And what samples would they be compared to? Scientists are focused on European not pre-Diaspora "Jewish" DNA.

They alredy have haplogroup X and have been unable to exactly match it to the Siberians. The study on this concluded that there were significant differences, and sugggested that further research was required.

Of course they did not bother to look at the Druze. According to Wiki, "the greatest frequency of haplogroup X is observed in the Druze, a minority population in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria". I don't know if there were subsequent studies on the Druze but, since they are in the Middle East, it is unlikely.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you have a link to where that comes from? I would like to see it in context.

I am hard-pressed to think that the “guy who wrote it” was some unqualified yokel from off the street. I recall hearing that McConkie penned that heading, and it underwent some formal approval by church authorities. At a minimum, I would expect that heading, that was in place for years, would be reliable as reflecting what the church believed about the Indians during that period. I am not aware that the now-defunct heading caused any significant consternation in Mormon academia for the years it was printed, and it certainly looks like it got changed specifically because Southerton-type studies started making it untenable. Why did not the inspiration at the highest echelons of Mormonism recognize and correct the factually wrong header to one of the most important books without the error first being made obvious from secular sources?

I ask again, is folklore going to be allowed to dominate a scientific inquiry and discussion? Moreover, are we to attribute infallible, godlike powers to "the highest echelons of Mormonism" -- a claim which might make sense in discussing the infallibility of the Pope, but is just plain silly in describing the very human characteristics of LDS General Authorities. LDS theology makes no claims of infallibility, and it may in fact have been some well-meaning "yokel" off the street who wrote an introductory comment for the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. Who's to say?

[cdowis]

LDS theology makes no claims of infallibility, and it may in fact have been some well-meaning "yokel" off the street who wrote an introductory comment for the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.

Look up "principal" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you think it does.

There was nothing wrong with the statement in the Introduction, but was changed to accommodate the yokels who don't know their own language.

[Kevin Christensen]

Do you have a link to where that comes from? I would like to see it in context.

It was originally published on the Signature Books website, but has been removed by Signature, apparently because people noticed the crucial implications for Southerton's case. Blake Ostler quoted more from Southerton in a letter to Sunstone November 2005:

[Apologists for the Book of

Mormon claim that] 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 (http://

www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/

Losing2.htm, emphasis added)

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/139-02-08.pdf

I am hard-pressed to think that the “guy who wrote it” was some unqualified yokel from off the street. I recall hearing that McConkie penned that heading, and it underwent some formal approval by church authorities. At a minimum, I would expect that heading, that was in place for years, would be reliable as reflecting what the church believed about the Indians during that period. I am not aware that the now-defunct heading caused any significant consternation in Mormon academia for the years it was printed, and it certainly looks like it got changed specifically because Southerton-type studies started making it untenable. Why did not the inspiration at the highest echelons of Mormonism recognize and correct the factually wrong header to one of the most important books without the error first being made obvious from secular sources?

Regardless of the opinions of the guy who wrote it, the Book of Mormon text still needs to be accounted for. As Brigham Young said, "No man's opinion is worth straw." As D&C 1 says specifically regarding LDS church leaders, "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." Interpretation is not canon. Particularly disputed interpretation. The non-exclusive population reading has a much longer history and much more textual support than Southerton allows.

For instance, Matt Roper cites Apostle Dallin Oaks in 1993:

In 1993, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made the following statement:

Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You do not prove a negative by prevailing on one debater's point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments.

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at Brigham Young University. . . . Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. One does not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular . . . culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

5

Among others, Roper cites Anthony Ivins:

In the April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, who had become a counselor in the First Presidency, admonished the Saints, "We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent."³²

It is essential for Southerton to argue against an exclusivist reading of the Book of Mormon because only that assumption supports his conclusion. The need to lean so hard on the "principal ancestors" passage, rather than a close analysis of the text itself, along with a neglect of other opinions by other LDS leaders and readers, is a critical weakness.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

Long before DNA, I noticed things like this:

Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (2 Nephi 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise;

and I beheld multitudes of people

, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. (1 Nephi 12:1)

Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi's remarks about "other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Nephi 2:13), and if the "other nations" referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus's voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA