A Mormon confronts his myths: faces expulsion for refuting link between Indians and Israelites

Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is said to have discovered a tablet that revealed American Indians were the descendants of ancient Hebrews. The assertion is contrary to historical fact.

A Mormon anthropologist is facing excommunication after finding no genetic link between American Indians and the ancient Hebrews of Israel, questioning one of the central tenets of his church.

Thomas Murphy conducted a review of the existing scientific literature and concluded that the evidence points to the Asian origin of Indians, who scientists say migrated across the Bering Strait millennia ago. "There is no evidence an ancient group of Israelites made it to the Americas as it says in the Book of Mormon," he said.

In response, the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Washington state has convened a hearing for this Sunday "because you are reported to have been in apostasy," as he wrote in a letter asking Mr. Murphy to recant.

Mr. Murphy, 35, who heads the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, Wash., has refused, and faces expulsion from the Church.

"I'm not totally surprised by the reaction," he said. "In the mid-'90s there was an attempt to purge the Church of intellectuals. I'm fully aware that the Church has not always embraced its scholars."

While the official Church spokesman in Salt Lake City will not comment on Mr. Murphy's case, his poking around in the historicity of the Church's founding documents is a long-running sore point for Mormons dating back to their religion's earliest days.

The controversy began with Mormon founder Joseph Smith, who, under direction from the angel Moroni, unearthed golden tablets in the 1820s written in an ancient Egyptian text that revealed American Indians were the descendants of ancient Hebrews who had fled to the New World in 600 BC and that Jesus Christ had ministered to them after his death in Jerusalem.

The Book of Mormon details elaborate cities and societies across the Americas built by those settlers.

The problem is that no archeological evidence has been found to support the idea.

In the early years of the last century, Mormon explorers wandered Mayan ruins of Central America hoping to find some confirmation for the Book of Mormon.

The most famous, Thomas Stewart Ferguson, spent 25 years in the jungles of Central America before concluding, "You can't set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of dirt-archeology."

The Church has tried to meet such criticism by amending some teachings, now holding that perhaps not all Indians descend from Biblical peoples and amending Smith's geography. The orthodox view is strongly defended by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, which sponsors research validating the historicity of Smith's translation.

"Most Latter-day Saints may say that the Bering Strait migration is true for some folks," said John P. Livingstone, associate professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. "I don't think that is theologically worrying."

Mr. Livingstone explained away Mr. Murphy's survey of genetic research by saying that God may have changed Indian DNA "to create different languages," adding, "The Church of Latter-day Saints and science have gotten along well."

But for people such as Mr. Murphy, science and faith are at odds and attempts to gloss over historical problems create a crisis of faith.

The book for which Mr. Murphy wrote his paper, American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, attempts to deal with that disconnect between religion and science.

"Mormon students are confronting this stuff every day and they have no support network. Mormon students capable of thinking critically are finding themselves in turmoil," Mr. Murphy said, comparing their struggle to that of fundamentalist Christian creationists forced to re-examine or defend their beliefs when taught biology and science based on evolution.

Using some of the same techniques pioneered by the Jesus Seminar, a group of liberal theologians who hunt for the historical Jesus discounting everything from the virgin birth to the resurrection as fiction, the Mormon scholars have come to similar conclusions, finding the Book of Mormon is likely a literary construct of Joseph Smith, but one with spiritual weight.

"To acknowledge the obvious fictional quality of the Book of Mormon is not to detract from the beauty and brilliance of the sermons, visions and other imagery," reads the introduction to American Apocrypha.

For Mormons such as Mr. Murphy, denying the literal truth of the Book of Mormon while treating it as useful mythology in much the same way most Christians treat the creation story in Genesis is the only way to hang on to their faith.

"My aspiration is to create a space within Mormonism for the discussion of the Book of Mormon as fiction but still as scripture," he said.

But the Mormon Church is unlikely to see it that way during Sunday's disciplinary hearing, and Mr. Murphy fully expects to be drummed out of the Church.

"I'm a Mormon culturally whether they like it or not," he said. "I will continue to write and publish as a member of the Mormon intellectual community.... This issue is not going to go away."

The Christians before Constantine knew what the Godhead was, they just never had to define it until Arius began to preach his perverted doctrines. Then they tried to get a good definition of it which they still struggle with today.
In the BIBLE you will find titles and atributes given to the LORD, then the SAME titles and atributes given to Jesus.
The best proof is when Jesus gave the apostles the great commission thelling them to baptize in the NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT, yet later we find them baptising in the name of Jesus. Thomas knew who he was when after the resurection he declared,"my LORD and my GOD."
Now a question for you.
From the days of the apostles men have made the same claim, that the word of GOD has been perverted.
Marcion, Mani, Valentinus, Paul of Samossata, Mohammed, Joseph Smith amd hundereds of others.
Each says "God has told me the real truth so follow me!" Yet each teaches something completely different from each other. So why should we believe any of these so called prophets?

The mormon church has always taught that the Bible has been perverted and not reliable yet this same church gives away free bibles in a "bait and switch" scheme. I would NEVER give away a book that I knew to be perverted, so are you guilty of spreading "false perverted scriptures?" If it is safe to give away why is it not safe for you to read? If it is the Gospel then the book of mormon is ANOTHER gospel that Paul warns against.
Look at it this way. Suppose you had a rich relative who died and left you all of his riches in his will and TESTAMENT. At the reading of the will someone else comes up with ANOTHER TESTAMENT, written in a strange hand, from an unknown source and attempts to claim it is an addition to the origional will, and in it it takes away what you receive in the origional will and gives it to another? IT WOULD NOT STAND UP IN COURT! So it is with your "another testament".

The mormon church has always taught that the Bible has been perverted and not reliable

***

That is a distrotion and a lie!

BTW there is no Mormon church! It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormon was a prophet, name of a book, and a name of a Choir, but never a Church! Just like there is no Bible Church:)

So many like you confused your sacred cows with the what it really says in the Bible! You all know what the so much of the LDS Church from heresay!

I am not interested in this contenious walk with you! If you don't like the LDS Church and want to think it is false that's fine with me, you have religious freedom, as do the LDS!

Don't take this personaly, but do you really think I never read those verses before? Do you really think that grabbing a couple verses out of the Bible and quoting them is going to do anything to cause me to agree with your INTERPETATION of those verses? I shake my head in wonder and saddness that anyone could think a reply like that actually have a chance of winning someone over. A reply like that will play well with those who already agree with you, but does NOTHING to convince anyone else.

I know those verses well, and belive in them as with the rest of the Bible. From my POV there is no conflict between them and my faith, our teachings are what Christ taught, and it is YOU who have been mislead into 'another gospel'.

Yes, Mormonism is founded on fiction. However, virgin birth, walking on water, and bodily ascensions are fact. Hmmm. Be careful of the stones you throw.

Jerusalem exists.
Jesus was a man in the first century.
12 witnesses (disciples) to his wonders and Josephus to His existence.
Killed for the sole purpose of doing wonders in the name of God Himself by those who refused to believe His witness.
Real tomb.
Real Golgatha
Real temple.
Teachings based on fulfilling the Old Testament not on inventing a new one all ogether.

Compared to: Joseph Smith,, the Mormon founder, murdered men, condemned of fraud. Angels gave him golden plates WHICH NO ONE EVER SAW!

He ALONE is the "witness" to his entire theology with no geographical proof to ANYTHING he claimed.

I'll give the Mormons credit, they have to have MUCH more faith than a Christian who sees the truth of the ACTUAL TESTAMENTS proved through science and archeology on a regular basis!!

God Bless, Nate

The mormon church has always taught that the Bible has been perverted and not reliable

*** That is a distrotion and a lie!

What is the distortion? What is the lie? The Mormons do say the Bible is useful only as it is translated accurately. The Mormons do claim that parts have been left out and some parts are perverted. It is reasonable to conclude then that the Bible is perverted and not reliable.

Where did Ruy lie?

The Book of Mormon gives no information on where Moroni hid the plates. It doesn't anywhere name the final location for the plates other than to say they would be hidden in the ground. To say that they were hid up in the same Hill Cumorah as the location of the battle is a speculation and nothing more.

It is perfectly accurate to say the Hill Cuhmorah is in NY, because the hill where the plates were found IS named Cuhmorah. It's also perfectly accurate to say that London is a about an hour's drive west of Toronto, and that Hell is in Michigan (insert joke here).

There is no revelation, no doctrine no scripture, that says the hill in NY is the same as the Cumorah spoken of in the BoM. Naturaly the location of that hill is of interest to us, so members have and will continue to speculate on it's location, but the speculation of individual members is nothing but their own personal speculations no matter how strongly they believe them.

The letter from a Secretary to the First Presidency on that web page (if real) is also irrelevant to the issue, secretaries don't get to declare doctrine, they are not church authorities, and they are as error-prone as any man. He is quite mistaken about the doctrine of the church on this point. The position of the church has always been that the location of the hill Cuhmorah talked about in the BoM is unknown.

If the church doctrine was that they are the same hill, it would be very easy to demonstrate that from cannonical sources. The fact that they must dig up personal opinions and trick you into thinking they are official statements of doctrine only underscores their lack of character, and their lack of evidence.

"From the days of the apostles men have made the same claim, that the word of GOD has been perverted.
Marcion, Mani, Valentinus, Paul of Samossata, Mohammed, Joseph Smith amd hundereds of others.
Each says "God has told me the real truth so follow me!" Yet each teaches something completely different from each other. So why should we believe any of these so called prophets?"

Why should you discount all such claims simply because they do not agree with eachother? That kind of logic is extreemly sloppy. One could easily use this same logical falicy to ask why should they bother believing the claims of any church. Do you really think that Satan is too stupid to try and mislead people away from a true prophet (ie: Joseph Smith) by using several false ones?

"The mormon church has always taught that the Bible has been perverted and not reliable "

We belive it is the word of God and it is the first book or our cannon of scriptures. We spent all our Sunday School classes this year on the OT, next year is the NT. We don't belive it is a prefect match for what the orginial authors wrote, but we don't believe any book is perfect as men are not perfect. Errors have been made in transcription and translation over the ages, and parts have become lost, but that doesn't make it non-scripture to us. BTW, the current KJV is not the same as the original KJV. If men can't keep the Bible unchanged over so short a time when in their own language, and with the technology of printing presses and computers, how can anyone suggest it remained unchanged for the 1000's of years before then?

"If it is safe to give away why is it not safe for you to read?"

As I said before, we do read it, we study it, it is scripture to us.

"If it is the Gospel then the book of mormon is ANOTHER gospel that Paul warns against. "

No the BoM is another TESTAMENT of the SAME gospel.

"Look at it this way."

False analogy. We don't ask anyone to blindly accept the BoM, we ask them to find out directly from God if it's true or not. God is not some dead relative who can not be reached for confirmation.

No, we don't belive it is perfect, we don't belive any book is because men are not perfect.

You know Wrigely you read everything that the LDS post and you pick and choose faultfinder should it messes up your AGENDA you just ignore it! Should you have to confront it, you look for some loopehole!

"Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth. He also said that the Bible was true and correct and the Word of God as it came from the pen of the inspired writers. So if we had the originals of the books of the Bible, and a correct translation into English of each, they would also be the most correct books on earth." ~ WM

"So if we had the originals of the books of the Bible, and a correct translation into English of each, they would also be the most correct books on earth."

Show just one manuscript out of thousands of extant manuscripts of Romans that Joseph Smith, SBUHN's "translation" of Romans 8:30 is accurate.

You can not do it. So you manufacture a theory that says Joseph knew what the original said made a correction of the pronouns and nouns in the verse.

It just so happens that if this hypothesis is wrong Mormonism falls to the ground like a house of cards.

Tell me restoru, do you know greek? Have you ever looked at the manuscript evidence on this passage? Why not admit you follow Joseph Smith, SBUHN blindly despite all evidence to the contrary?

White Mountain, same questions to you.

"Compared to: Joseph Smith,, the Mormon founder, murdered men"

So did Moses, and how many prophets commanded the utter destruction and murder of whole cities?

"condemned of fraud"

Only your opinion.

"Angels gave him golden plates WHICH NO ONE EVER SAW!"

Wrong. Three men were shown the plates by an angel of God and never denied their testemony of it even after they left the church over personal disagreement with Joseph. Eight other men also saw and handled them. http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns

You realy should know more about us than my 5 year old does before you go on the attack.

"He ALONE is the "witness" to his entire theology with no geographical proof to ANYTHING he claimed."

Would the Bible be any less true if nothing was found to support it?

You seem to think a civilization that existed for only a thousand years, was utterly destroyed and lost for 1400 years should have the same kind of geographical proof as a civilization that existed far longer and was never totaly destroyed or lost. I don't see any logic in that. Every week on TLC you see one show or another on some long-lost, only now discovered civilization.

To say that there is no evidences of the BoM only just shows that you have only been exposed, or only listened to, one side of things and have never bothered to examine the validity of any of the claims. Here is a chance for you to correct that somewhat: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.