Posted on 01/14/2003 12:02:30 AM PST by ppaul
LYNNWOOD -- The unassuming instructor with the soft voice holds a phone to each ear, juggling cell and land lines. The desktop in his office pings with endless incoming e-mails. One may laud him as intellectual dissident, another rip him as religious heretic. He apologizes for the interruptions.
"The phone hasn't stopped ringing," says Thomas Murphy, the cultural anthropologist whose challenge of Mormon doctrine has landed him in hot water with his church and thrown his name into headlines across the country.
Not that it has cramped his style. "I think it's fair to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction," he states, flat as fact.
Murphy, 35-year-old chairman of the Edmonds Community College Anthropology Department, contends DNA analysis contradicts Book of Mormon claims that American Indians are descended from ancient heathen Israelites, an argument he will outline in a 1 1/2-hour talk today at the University of Washington.
He's out to expose what he calls "racism" in scriptural texts. "The Book of Mormon assumes that dark skin is a curse for wickedness. I'm trying to examine where that idea came from," he says.
His stand could make Murphy the first Mormon in church history to face excommunication for publishing conclusions on the basis of genetic research.
In December, the local stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scheduled a disciplinary council and informed Murphy he faced the possibility of excommunication, or expulsion from the church. But the president of the stake -- a district made up of a number of wards -- indefinitely postponed the council after the debate hit the press and supporters staged rallies across the country.
Their signs said, "Proud to be a DNA Mormon," "You can't excommunicate facts" and "No, God didn't curse the Indians."
Murphy says he was shocked at the postponement. "I was convinced I would be excommunicated."
He wants to take the postponement as a positive sign: "My hope is that it means the church will be more willing to tolerate open discussion of the Book of Mormon and the problems associated with it."
But he is also on guard. "I still face expulsion," he says. "They could hold the court at any time."
Church representatives did not answer calls about Murphy's status Friday.
In lab class B212, Murphy measures words as carefully as he measures the dark liquid squeezed into a petri dish. The class, co-taught with biologist Jenny McFarland, is "On Becoming Human." The experiment is DNA extraction. The implications of it could be revelatory for students, who will take their own DNA and compare it with that of other humans in the world, ancient Neanderthals, apes and other animals.
Thomas, who is one dissertation away from getting his doctorate in anthropology at the UW, knows the statistics: Humans and apes share at least 95 percent of their DNA. With chimpanzees, the percentage is more than 98 percent.
He also knows that showing beats telling.
"They don't have to take my word. They can test it for themselves," says the quiet man with the neatly gelled dark hair and boyish good looks.
The importance of evidence hit home with Murphy when he joined the high-school debate team in Pocatello, Idaho. At the time, he was a devout Mormon who had been voted "most spiritual" in his Mormon seminary program.
"That changed when I entered the debate program and had to argue both sides of a position," he says. "All of a sudden the black-and-white world I grew up in started to get really gray.
"Suddenly, I had to test ideas."
As a University of Iowa undergraduate and enlistee in the Army National Guard, he was called into action in the Persian Gulf War, and he began testing rules, too.
Ordered to burn up cases of food his company was abandoning at a Safwan refugee camp, he found himself staring at three hungry children on the other side of the wire boundary. Against regulations, he lifted one case of Campbell's soup and handed it to them, then another and another.
"I couldn't do it. I just couldn't burn the food in front of starving children," he says.
After testing ideas, and testing the rules, testing Scripture -- and the church -- came naturally.
"Sin, Skin and Seed: The Mistakes of Man in the Book of Mormon" is the title of Murphy's talk today at the UW, scheduled for 3:30 p.m. at Denny Hall, Room 401.
The "seed" in the lecture reflects patriarchal Mormon beliefs about procreation -- the idea that a male implants his seed in a woman, whose role is that of an incubator, or "soil." That, says Murphy, implies that the child essentially comes from the father, a biologically flawed premise.
The "sin" and "skin" in his lecture refer to Scripture linking skin color and behavior. The Book of Mormon states ancient Israelites came to the Americas about 600 B.C. and divided into two groups: the light-skinned, civilized Nephites and the dark-skinned, corrupt Lamanites, who eventually defeated the Nephites. These Lamanites, according to the modern introduction to the Book of Mormon, are the principal ancestors of Native Americans.
In fact, says Murphy, DNA data, as well as anthropological studies, indicate American Indians are descended from Northeast Asians who migrated across the Bering Sea between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago.
The stir over his findings began when he published them on a Web site run by Mormon intellectuals and in a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon called "American Apocrypha." The subsequent threat of excommunication catapulted his story into prime-time news.
Murphy was frankly pleased with the publicity and subsequent response. He's received more than 500 e-mails, letters and messages, including missives from Native Americans who say they're happy to finally see someone addressing the issue of racism in Mormon text.
"I think it was important to go public with the story," he says. "The best way to combat what I call ecclesiastical abuse is to expose it."
That didn't sit well with some traditional Mormons. Some questioned his methods -- and his motives. The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, a group that responds to criticism of the church, claimed Murphy was using the media to further his own agenda, and claimed his conclusions were "simplified and flawed."
Critics also questioned how "good" a Mormon Murphy is.
Murphy nods his head when asked. "I'm a Latter-day skeptic," he says. "But I think skepticism is good for Mormon culture. We need critics in any cultural system to help us recognize our strengths and our weaknesses."
With his wife and 16-year-old daughter, he attends The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints irregularly, but is active in the Mormon intellectual community.
A turning point in his relationship with the church occurred when his daughter was young, Murphy says. She had been told in a church class that dark skin was a curse for wickedness.
"She said her best friend from Venezuela was not wicked," Murphy says.
"We told her that we did not believe those things.
"She said, 'If you don't believe it, then why do you attend?' "
But Murphy still considers himself a Mormon.
"It's my family," he says. "It's my community."
Thomas Murphy will speak on "Sin, Skin and Seed: The Mistakes of Man in the Book of Mormon" at 3:30 p.m. today at Denny Hall, Room 401, at the University of Washington.
P-I reporter M.L. Lyke can be reached at 425-252-2215 or m.l.lyke@seattlepi.com
Link to article HERE.
This guy isn't getting the attention because he says the Book of Mormon is racist, it is because he says it is a work of fiction. Sorry, Mr Murphy, that is apostacy. The Book of Mormon is one of the cornerstones of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days, and to deny it and call it fiction, well, why does he want to stay in a church that he thinks is so awful (except for the attention, of course.)
Mr Murphy also admits to not living the tenets of the gospel, and doesn't go to church at all. He just wants to be known in Mormon intellectual circles, and keep his membership so that his relationship with his family isn't hurt more...
That is utter nonsense. I'm starting to get tired of LDS women being referred to as 'breeders', and this idea from Murphy is along those same lines. It is an honor and a privilege to have children.
That is utter nonsense. I'm starting to get tired of LDS women being referred to as 'breeders', and this idea from Murphy is along those same lines. It is an honor and a privilege to have children. I'm LDS and have NEVER heard this line from the "Mormon patriarchy" about women being incubators or soil.
That is utter nonsense.
Yeah, I know. I'm amazed that people repeat stuff like that and even more amazed that some still believe it. And the idiotreporter (one word, redundant) printed it, too.
I have been a Mormon all of my life and served a full time mission in California and have lived in Utah for half of my life and I have never heard "seed" interpreted this way.
Me neither! I was just wondering if I missed an RS lesson somewhere along the way... ;)
Can't answer for Utah Girl but in my experience those who style themselves "mormon intellectuals" are MINOs.
I agree.
Man, to the vast majority of the media "we report, you decide" is a foreign concept.
And to be a good sister wife
You're assuming--as I do not--that our "methods of scientific inquiry" are infallible. What a foolish notion.
These same "methods of scientific inquiry" tell us that global warming--caused of course by human activity--is causing the ice-caps to melt and will soon result in a cataclysm the likes of which the world has never seen.
Only problem is, there really isn't any proof of any of this, just conjecture.
I have a suspicion that a few years from now, the DNA tests we have now are going to be found to be flawed. I began to suspect this when I started reading all the accounts of "falsely imprisoned" rapists being freed. It just doesn't make sense that all these people could have been innocent, but "the DNA tests said so," so we take it as gospel.
I'm going to laugh raucously when we discover we actually set free a bunch of guilty rapists.
The same can be said of the Book of Mormon people. Those with dark skin often were more righteous and blessed than the lighter skinned people. There were dark skinned Prophets. In fact, the lighter skinned people were eventually all killed off because of their wickedness. To say that the Book of Mormon is racist because of a few passages and ignoring the rest of the passages that condtradict this guy's premise is intellectually dishonest.DNA analysis contradicts Book of Mormon claims that American Indians are descended from ancient heathen Israelites
The book of Mormon claims that a group of Isrealites settled in the Americas. There are no exact locations given but most beleive that it took place around Central America. The Book of Mormon also says that there were other groups of people in the Americas. At least two others are specifically talked about.
Now, the main group of people in the Book of Mormon are said to be decendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Now, Joseph had two sons named Ephraim and Menasseh who are the fathers of two of the 12 tribes. Joshua 14:4 reads, "For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim"
So, now the question becomes, which groups of people do you use to compare DNA? For the control group, would you use an Israeli's DNA? Well which tribe is he from? Probably the tribe of Judah. Well, Ephraim and Menasseh were part of the lost 10 tribes. So, to begin with, to get a direct decendant of Ephraim and Menasseh may be difficult in the first place.
But who would he use for the test group? Any American Indian? Should he use Cherokee or Navaho? I bet their DNA is different. Why not an Eskimo? And in Central and South America we have the Mayans, the Incans, and a few others. I don't know if there are many Aztecs or Olmecs left to test.
To say there is no DNA evidence just because he hasn't found any yet is a pretty arrogant statement. As I have shown, it is much more complex than what is said in this article.
Does the fact that DNA evidence shows that Apes and Chimpanzees and humans are related shake your faith at all? Do you need Science to confirm your faith in the Bible? How many times has science supposedly "proven" the Bible wrong? Christians routinely reject Scientists theories that contradict the Bible. Why would Christians all of a sudden support these same scientists when they attack other religions including attacks on the Book of Mormon?
There is NO "scientific" evidence that there ever was an exodus from Egypt. No historical records whatsoever that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt, that they were enslaved, that they were let go. None.
Ergo, since so much of the Bible proceeds from the notion of the birth of the nation of ancient Israel after the Exodus, the Bible is FALSE.
You said so yourself.
But there's a huge problem: There is no record that there ever was a "Moses," nor Hebrews living in Egypt, nor any such "exodus" from Egypt.
Egypt, which is unique in having a nearly-unbroken civilization stretching back to pre-history, and which was meticulous in keeping historical records such that we know the details of everything from the ruling dynasties to daily life among the lowborn, has NO HISTORICAL RECORD of the Exodus, NONE AT ALL.
Therefore, the Bible is a fiction, isn't it? And anyone, Jew or Christian, who uses it as a basis of faith is deluded, right?
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.