A brief history of the lies of Ugo Perego: the author of the Church’s Book of Mormon and DNA Studies essay.

[Gadianton]

Mr. The Before,

can you provide an example of a situation where somebody anywhere in the world ever was lying? Since it's impossible to read somebody's thoughts (excluding remote viewers who can do it per Dan), there's no way to ever say for sure somebody was lying. Even if somebody admitted to it, you still don't know, because they could be lying about that -- admitting under duress or for reasons other than believing they had lied.

[Gabriel]

1. Perego says P in his scientific work.
2. Perego says Q in an apologetic context.
3. P and Q actually contradict one another, rather than addressing different questions or using terms differently.
4. Perego knew that Q was false or incompatible with what he knew to be true when he represented Q as true.

If Southerton establishes all of that, then the accusation of dishonesty has real force. But steps 3 and 4 can’t simply be inferred from the fact that Southerton, even as an expert in the field, says there is a contradiction.

So I agree that the useful next step is to get specific. What do you regard as the clearest example where Perego’s secular publication says one thing and his apologetic publication says something technically incompatible with it? Let’s compare the actual statements in context. If the contradiction is really there, I’m happy to acknowledge it.

On a FAIR blog created in 2009, Ugo Perego, who worked with Woodward at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (now closed), made the following false claim.
“Woodward’s emails from 1998 were eventually edited by Southerton and forwarded to LDS Church leaders in Utah, with the objective of hurting Woodward’s teaching position at BYU. This event greatly upset Woodward.”[15]

El ('El' means 'The' in Spanish)

Do you believe that Perego sufficiently established that Woodward lost his teaching position in 2003 due to Southerton's intentional machinations beginning in 1998? That is a very serious accusation. Do you trust Perego's word on this matter?

I apologise if it seems like I'm engaging in burden shifting but if the issue is integrity, I don't think Perego's accusation can be lightly set aside as a matter of apples and oranges.

[Kishkumen]

I have long been amazed at Brother Perego's predicament. On the one hand, he knows the DNA science really well. No doubt. On the other hand, he is taking a scientific position on the Book of Mormon that seems to be untenable. How could he not know? How does he square the circle?

It seems bizarre.

And yet, we see this kind of compartmentalization and blindness to inconsistency wherever we go. People who want to believe something make it work. It is usually not the logical inconsistency that brings the whole thing tumbling down. It is almost always other factors. That goes for all of us. Rationality is not what makes us tick. Emotion is always part of our cognitive process. Everyone engages in motivated reasoning because without motivation, there is no reasoning.

I wish it Book of Mormon historicity were not so important to Mormonism, but I don't see how to escape it. History is a discourse, not reality itself. Even when we have some inkling of what happened in the past, we don't really know what happened. History is also a game of probabilities. We know what is more or less likely to have happened when we are lucky to have evidence of anything that may have happened.

[Marcus]

That’s true, but Southerton is not just showing “tension” or assuming bad faith. He’s pointing out contradictions between Perego’s Mormon and secular publications. He’s claiming to have made that harder case.

Are the contradictions somehow not really there? This is a technical point in Southerton’s professional field. Conceivably he could be wrong, but his accusations can’t be dismissed with generalities about assuming good faith and allowing tension. Perego either contradicted himself or did not. The only defense is to show that Perego’s technical statements don’t actually contradict each other as Southerton says they do.

I think that’s fair. If Southerton can demonstrate genuine contradictions between Perego’s secular scientific publications and his apologetic statements, then those contradictions need to be addressed on their technical merits. I don’t think an appeal to charity or good faith makes a contradiction disappear.

My point is narrower: establishing a contradiction still isn’t identical to establishing a lie. The sequence would have to be something like:

1. Perego says P in his scientific work.
2. Perego says Q in an apologetic context.
3. P and Q actually contradict one another, rather than addressing different questions or using terms differently.
4. Perego knew that Q was false or incompatible with what he knew to be true when he represented Q as true.

If Southerton establishes all of that, then the accusation of dishonesty has real force. But steps 3 and 4 can’t simply be inferred from the fact that Southerton, even as an expert in the field, says there is a contradiction.

So I agree that the useful next step is to get specific. What do you regard as the clearest example where Perego’s secular publication says one thing and his apologetic publication says something technically incompatible with it? Let’s compare the actual statements in context. If the contradiction is really there, I’m happy to acknowledge it.

The OP already gave specific examples and made specific comparisons, and gave specific references for each as they presented their case. If you feel the contradictions aren't "really there", then present your specifics in response. Please include references for your quotes.

[The Before]

Mr. The Before,

can you provide an example of a situation where somebody anywhere in the world ever was lying? Since it's impossible to read somebody's thoughts (excluding remote viewers who can do it per Dan), there's no way to ever say for sure somebody was lying. Even if somebody admitted to it, you still don't know, because they could be lying about that -- admitting under duress or for reasons other than believing they had lied.

I don’t think we need mind-reading or absolute certainty to conclude that someone lied. Knowledge and intent are routinely inferred from circumstantial evidence, just as we infer other mental states.

Suppose someone writes privately, “I know X is true, but tomorrow I’m going to tell TB that X is false because I need him to believe it,” and the next day we have a recording of him telling me, “X is false.” That seems like exceptionally strong evidence of a lie. We could invent alternative possibilities forever: perhaps he forgot overnight, perhaps the diary was itself deceptive, perhaps he was under duress, etc. But the mere logical possibility of those explanations doesn’t make them reasonable explanations of the evidence.

So perhaps I stated my standard too strongly if I gave the impression that Southerton needs direct evidence of Perego’s thoughts. He doesn’t. Circumstantial evidence can establish knowledge and intent.

What I’m asking is what evidence gets us from “Perego made contradictory statements” to “Perego knowingly represented something he believed to be false.” His expertise, the nature of the contradiction, how unambiguous it is, its timing, whether the issue had been brought to his attention, and his subsequent behavior could all contribute to that inference.

If Southerton’s evidence makes knowing deception the best-supported explanation, I’m willing to call it lying. I just don’t think contradiction by itself necessarily gets us there.

The OP already gave specific examples and made specific comparisons, and gave specific references for each as they presented their case. If you feel the contradictions aren't "really there", then present your specifics in response. Please include references for your quotes.

Insufficient. You’re right that Southerton supplied specific examples and references.

But I don’t think I’ve simply asserted that the contradictions “aren’t really there.” I addressed some of the examples and questioned whether the cited statements actually contradict one another in the way Southerton claims.

For instance, the fact that Native American haplogroups existed thousands of years before Lehi does not contradict the proposition that a hypothetical Lehi could have belonged to one of those already-existing haplogroups. Likewise, Southerton acknowledges that the Church essay explicitly dates the West Eurasian contribution to millennia before Book of Mormon events.

So the citations establish things we can examine, which is good. My question is whether they establish Southerton’s further claims that Perego “knew” particular statements were false, deliberately misled readers, or selected wording specifically to prop up faith.

Those conclusions may ultimately be defensible from circumstantial evidence, but they still have to be argued. The existence of citations doesn’t by itself establish every inference Southerton draws from them.

[canpakes]

For example, saying that Lehi’s lineage could theoretically fall within a lineage already present in the Americas is not the same as claiming that one of the founding Native American haplogroups originated with Lehi. If a lineage existed thousands of years before Lehi, that obviously means the lineage itself cannot be evidence for Lehi. But a later immigrant could still possess that same broad haplogroup. Whether that possibility is useful apologetically is another question.

I interpreted this first point similarly. I don’t see the statement as a lie.

That said - and as others have pointed out - if there’s a question of either ‘A’ or ‘B’ being the hypothesis for something, where ‘A’ tends to support the Book of Mormon’s claims and ‘B’ does not, Perego seems invested in presenting only the ‘A’ argument to faithful audiences. The lie may not be in the use of any individual scientific analysis, rather it is in the weighting, suggested implication and subsequent presentation of them as an ongoing dialog with specific groups.

[The Before]

I interpreted this first point similarly. I don’t see the statement as a lie.

That said - and as others have pointed out - if there’s a question of either ‘A’ or ‘B’ being the hypothesis for something, where ‘A’ tends to support the Book of Mormon’s claims and ‘B’ does not, Perego seems invested in presenting only the ‘A’ argument to faithful audiences. The lie may not be in the use of any individual scientific analysis, rather it is in the weighting, suggested implication and subsequent presentation of them as an ongoing dialog with specific groups.

And Southerton, B. So where does that leave us, at an impasse? Moving closely to Agrippa’s trilema?

[Marcus]

...Those conclusions may ultimately be defensible from circumstantial evidence, but they still have to be argued. The existence of citations doesn’t by itself establish every inference Southerton draws from them.

Lol, please tell that to the Interpreter editors!!

Southerton didn't use the existence of citations to make his argument, he made his argument with quotes from specific sources, which he cited.

...So the citations establish things we can examine, which is good. My question is whether...

Setting up hypotheticals is interesting but please, just go ahead and make your arguments, using citations so people can see the context of your argument.

[drumdude]

What I’m curious about is how anti-heartland model apologists like DCP determined that the heartland hypothesis was untenable. Why was the scientific evidence there convincing enough to not warrant the typical apologist hand waving?

In other words, how do they pick and choose which scientific facts to accept and which to ignore?

Do they have an internal subjective sense of the limits of Mormon credulity?

[Gadianton]

I don’t think we need mind-reading or absolute certainty to conclude that someone lied. Knowledge and intent are routinely inferred from circumstantial evidence, just as we infer other mental states.

Suppose someone writes privately, “I know X is true, but tomorrow I’m going to tell TB that X is false because I need him to believe it,” and the next day we have a recording of him telling me, “X is false.” That seems like exceptionally strong evidence of a lie. We could invent alternative possibilities forever: perhaps he forgot overnight, perhaps the diary was itself deceptive, perhaps he was under duress, etc. But the mere logical possibility of those explanations doesn’t make them reasonable explanations of the evidence.

Your example is loose, however, my point stands as you failed to provide an example where anybody in the world in all of history has ever lied.

So perhaps I stated my standard too strongly if I gave the impression that Southerton needs direct evidence of Perego’s thoughts. He doesn’t. Circumstantial evidence can establish knowledge and intent.

Simon has made a reasonable case. I might not personally go so far to say it's a lie without further review of the material and I have no such plans in the works. Oh, with the exception of the accusation that Simon intentionally tried to get that professor in trouble by editing his emails and forwarding to SLC.

What I’m asking is what evidence gets us from “Perego made contradictory statements” to “Perego knowingly represented something he believed to be false.” His expertise, the nature of the contradiction, how unambiguous it is, its timing, whether the issue had been brought to his attention, and his subsequent behavior could all contribute to that inference

.

I can't tell you exactly where the cutoff line is but I can give you examples of BYU professors doing similar things. A math teacher, in discussing a spanning set, invoked a Book of Mormon verse that says the Lords hand spanned the heavens. He must have known this is sort of ridiculous, but I grant full poetic license to make abstract and nutty observations in an attempt at spirituality.

In another example, in a Chemistry class, we were getting into radio-carbon dating. This brought concerns about the age of the earth. The professor waved it off saying that radio carbon dating isn't perfect. Was this a lie? Absolutely. Was it a big deal? I'm not going to say yes or no, perhaps he just wanted to wave away the problem so he could continue with his lecture. But yeah, that was a lie.