|
Recent
adds to this page - reverse chronological order
-
On May 25, 2004, BYU professor John E. Clark gave a talked entitled Hundreds of BYU students and
faculty attended. A Q&A immediately followed the formal
presentation (the Q&A was attended by a much smaller group). The links
to find information on this talk can be found at http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/50535
. The audio can be found at http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1277&tid=
A transcript of the talk can be found here.
A partial transcript of the Q & A can be found here.
-
Simon Southerton, a PhD anthropologist and well known in DNA and Book of
Mormon field, will have his book published this coming September 2004. A small
blurb on it can be found at http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm
. I have read an advanced readers copy of the book, and it is worth your purchase. An AP newspaper article about Southerton and
the DNA problem can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_2380696
and at http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/weird_news/9272798.htm
. The Signature Book of Mormon news page
is http://www.signaturebooks.com/bomnews.htm
-
The following appeared on the LDS church official website at
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Various media outlets, 11 November 2003
The
Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it
claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient
America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The
strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the
Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its
truthfulness.
Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence
are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into
the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to
DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed
analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.
The following are not official Church positions or
statements. They are simply information resources from authors with
expertise in this area that readers may find helpful:
"Before DNA" (John L. Sorenson and
Matthew Roper, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1,
2003) Download
PDF document (715 KB)
"DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic
Perspective" (Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon
Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download
PDF document (431 KB)
"A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist"
(John M. Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1,
2003) Download
PDF document (169 KB)
"Who Are the Children of Lehi?" (D.
Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,
vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download
PDF document (427 KB)
While the church statement above that "nothing in the Book of Mormon
precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin" is
correct, the wording in the preface of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites
are the "principal ancestors of the
American Indians" does preclude that the overwhelming vast majority of
the Amerinds are of Asiatic origins. As explained elsewhere, the
"principle ancestors" phrase was added to the Book of Mormon in
1981, and is not canonical.
My personal views mirror the Stephens / Meldrum piece, which is the best of
the group.
-
Anthropology News (44.5, May, 2003) has printed two letters critical of the
February article by Simon Southerton and Tom Murphy, "Genetic Research
a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons." One of the letters is an excerpt from
Kevin Barney's review of the news article published in the newsletter for
FAIR. The editor invited Tom to reply to Barney's critique. If you are a
member of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) you may view the
letters and Tom's reply online at the address below.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm
Nonmembers of AAA may request a copy of the correspondence on page 4 of the
May, 2003 (44.5) issue of Anthropology News from Ghita Levine (glevine@aaanet.org).
Kevin Barney's full review can be found at the page below.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html
Finally, you can find a copy of "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for
Mormons" as well as Tom's reply to the excerpted part of Barney's
review linked
to Tom's list of publications on Tom's home page.
http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html
-
Tom's UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS - "Sin,
Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon."
A PDF of his presentation can be found at http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/sinskinseed5.pdf
or here.
March 20, 2003
11:00-1:00 p.m.
Nordic Lounge, Liberal Arts campus
Long Beach City College
Long Beach, CA
April 19, 2003
San Francisco Clarion Airport Hotel
Sunstone Symosium West
Session 72, 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm
San Francisco, CA
April 26, 2003
4:30-5:00 p.m.
Aurora Room, Idaho Commons Building
American Academy of Religion - PNW Region
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID
-
Kevin Barney has
written A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event.
It was written for the February 2003 edition of Anthropology News, and can
be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html
. You will note that he makes many points that I have also made ( see
below ). All in all, this is the best essay on the topic I have found.
-
Living Hope Ministries has released
the full video "DNA vs. the Book of Mormon" online. See http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm
. Brent Metcalfe posted a rather good review of this video. It
can be found at http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm58.showMessage?topicID=309.topic
. His review also expresses my views ( in general ). It bothers
me when either side makes biased statements ( including, at
times, Brent, but not in this case - he begs for a fair middle ground
in this review ). Here is that review:
-
February 23, 2003 - Tom is free
from any more hearings. Stake President Matt Latimer told Tom that he
was no longer under threat of a hearing. A story on it can be found at
http://heraldnet.com/Stories/03/2/24/16557388.cfm?cityid=24
. An article about it, along with a very nice TV video piece from KCPG,
a Seattle TV station, can be found at http://q13.trb.com/kcpq-022403mormon,0,996113.story
Tom sent the following public letter ( Kerrie is Tom's wife ).
Dear Colleagues, Friends, and Family,
Kerrie and I had a very pleasant meeting this evening with President Matthew
Latimer of the Lynnwood, WA stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS). President Latimer had invited us to meet to discuss
my scholarship and status in the church after indefinitely postponing
disciplinary action on December 7th, the day before he had previously
scheduled a disciplinary council to consider the possibility of
excommunication for apostasy.
I am pleased to report that President Latimer has placed a permanent hold on
disciplinary action against me. He invited Kerrie and me to participate in
continued private dialogue with the hope that he can encourage us to return
to full activity and belief in the LDS Church without any threat of
disciplinary action. In response to my inquiry, he assured us that he was
not receiving pressure from his priesthood leaders to take action against
me. He acknowledged consulting them to discuss my case but found them to be
very supportive of his responsibility to make the proper decisions for his
stake. He declined my invitation to co-sponsor open academic forums on
genetics and racism in the Book of Mormon and recommended that I discuss
that option with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at
Brigham Young University. We all agreed that these issues are best addressed
in an academic rather than an ecclesiastical setting.
We are very appreciative of the support that so many of you have shown us
throughout this ordeal. We hope that other stake presidents will follow this
most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the
threat of the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.
Cordially,
Thomas W. Murphy
-
February 19, 2003 - Tom Murphy will meet with his Stake
President again on Sunday, February 23, 2003. This comes from an email
he sent. Some extracts of that email are:
1. I have been called back in for a meeting with President Latimer,
scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 23rd. This is supposed to be a
conversation, not a disciplinary council.
2. KCPQ Fox 13 (Seattle) is running a special news program on my case, also
on Sunday, Feb. 23rd (10:00 p.m.). The program should include interviews
with several Native American ex-Mormons, Dr. Michael Whiting from BYU, and
me.
3. Lavina Fielding Anderson provided me with the following new
statement. Lavina Fielding Anderson has learned of another scholar,
who does not wish to make the details of his or her situation public, being
called in during the same August-December time frame as the earlier cases.
In this situation, Elder Lance Wickman, a Seventy and head of the Church's
Legal Department, played an active role in representing the Strengthening
Church Members Committee to the stake president. This raises the possibility
that Wickman has been involved in other cases as well. "Two other
General Authorities," presumably at a rank superior to Wickman's were
also involved in reviewing the material.
When the existence of the Strengthening Church Members Committee was
revealed in 1993, it was headed by two apostles, then James E. Faust and
Dallin H. Oaks. If the same structure has been maintained, the "two
other General Authorities" would presumably be members of the Quorum of
the Twelve. According to the Deseret News Church Almanac 2003, p. 46,
Wickman is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (meaning that it is a
permanent appointment until age seventy, not a five-year appointment like
the lower quorums. His biographical information reads: "General
counsel, office of Legal Services. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the
Seventy April 2, 1994 [this was also the date or near it that the Office of
Legal Services was created], at age 53; sustained to the First Quorum of the
Seventy April 1, 2000. Served as regional representatives, stake president,
and bishop. Received bachelor's degree from University of California at
Berkeley and juris doctorate from Stanford University. Former partner in the
international law firm of Latham and Watkins in San Diego, California. Born
Nov. 11, 1940, in Seattle, Wash. to Alton C. and Irene Marilyn Carlson
Wickman. Wife, Patricia Farr Wickman; parents of five children.
5. I am preparing for a lecture on my research at Edmonds Community
College. The following announcement went out to campus email this past
week.
The Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee announces the following event,
featuring a talk by one of our own faculty members, Thomas Murphy.
Sin, Skin, and Seed:
Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon
Thomas W. Murphy
Triton Union 202
Tuesday, February 25, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.
A question and answer period and a book signing will follow the
lecture. Copies of American Apocrypha, the anthology containing
Murphy's article, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,"
will be available for purchase. All proceeds will be donated to the Pow Wow
fund for the American Indian Student Association who will also host a bake
sale at the event.
Abstract:
This presentation critically examines the use of folk biology to naturalize
the power and authority of white men in Mormon scripture. It identifies key
challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces in light of
recent advances from the biological sciences. Is the Book of Mormon's
assumption that skin color reflects sinfulness consistent with biological
understandings of human physical variation? Are Biblical and Book of Mormon
images of a patriarchal seed transmitted from fathers to sons consistent
with modern understandings of biogenetic procreation? Is an Israelite
heritage of Nephites and Lamanites reflected in the genes and biology of
American Indians? Research shows that skin color does not reflect sin.
Agricultural models of human procreation do not accurately reflect women's
contribution of half the genes of their children. Genetic data point to a
Northeast Asian origin of Native Americans, not an Israelite one. Each of
these assumptions should be relegated to what the title page of the Book of
Mormon calls "mistakes of men." Furthermore, Mormon scriptural
views of Native American origins and skin color are rooted in colonial and
antebellum biblical hermeneutics, not authentic American Indian traditions.
Biographical Statement:
Thomas Murphy is Chair of the Anthropology Department at Edmonds Community
College where he has been recognized as Club Advisor of the Year 2000-2001
for his work with the Native American Student Association. His publications
have appeared in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory,
Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and elsewhere. His research on the
Persian Gulf War garnered a prize in ethics from the Elie Wiesel Foundation
and his investigation of the sociological uses of writing in the Book of
Mormon earned a literary award from the Dialogue Foundation. A recent
article using genetic data to discredit the Mormon view that Native
Americans came from ancient Israel has been the subject of international
media attention. When the LDS Church initiated an attempt to excommunicate
him in December 2002, supporters generously deemed him the "Galileo of
Mormonism" and organized candle light vigils in ten different U.S.
cities to show their support for his courage. In response to the negative
publicity the LDS Church indefinitely postponed the church disciplinary
action. "Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of
Mormon," is a synthesis of two chapters of his doctoral dissertation in
anthropology, currently in progress, at the University of Washington. This
event is sponsored by the Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee.
best,
twm
-
An excellent article from Time
magazine Feb 17 2003 edition about DNA is found at http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030217/story.html
Thomas Murphy Situation
( chronological order )
Thomas Murphy is an LDS Cultural Anthropologist who has
written several papers on Lamanites and the Book of Mormon, some of which
deal with the implications of DNA research for Mormon views of American
Indians. He is not a molecular anthropologist.
-
Murphy's DNA article that started this
current fuss is Thomas W. Murphy,  "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics;"
part of Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe, Eds., "American Apocrypha:
Essays on the Book of Mormons,"Signature Books, (May 2002). Read
reviews or order this book from Amazon.com online book store
To order the book from the publisher, or to read a long excerpt from the
book, go to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/apocrypha.htm.
For an excellent review of the book by my good friend Jeff Needle, go to http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B200243.html
For excerpts from other reviews, see http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/apocrypha.htm
Murphy's article is a literature review from a cultural anthropological
perspective, not a scientific study. This is the paper that Tom's
Stake President wanted to discuss with him in December 2002.
-
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
This is an earlier version of the article above, and first appeared in
August 2001. However, Murphy's Stake President was not aware of this
article.
Paragraphs 1 - 41 of this work is on solid ground. However, Murphy's conclusions in
the last three paragraphs do not follow from the previous 41
paragraphs. My comments are in red.
¶42 From a
scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th
century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c.
1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native
Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own
history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God.
Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to
remake Native Americans in their own image.
This is Tom Murphy's opinion. He did
not make such a case in his previous 41 paragraphs. He would be safe
to say "There is no DNA evidence of Lamanites prior ...", but he
needs to be cautious in this area. Woodward ( see below ) has the same
evidence, but takes a more professional and cautious tone. Murphy is
correct in that we all need to look inward for spiritual validation -
however, that again is his and my opinion, and is not part of the first 41
paragraphs of this piece.
Another point he brings up here deserves our full attention, and that is his
dark skin comment. He made a further comment in an interview ( see
below ) that bears on this issue. In his doctoral dissertation,
Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American
children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed
as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program.
The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's
words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian
Placement program ] by critics, removed over
70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed
them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians
'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this
claim, nor even a serious attempt to address
it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an
issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.
The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct
anthropological term. Anthropologists distinguish between
"genocide," which implies killing people, from
"ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture. Since
the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a
bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded
word as "genocide." Destruction of a culture may be a
terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass
murder.
The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the
criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but th e Church can't win for
losing on the issue. When it was discontinued, there were also Native
Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and
Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native
Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.
But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about
it did *not* agree about that. This tells me that viewpoints on the
question are "political" rather than "factual." We
hope that Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and
is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over
another.
Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following: "It
would be more appropriate to say that these are the words of the critics
(predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your
preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my
dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term
"ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use
of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently
that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the
example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite
Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "
One more point in this area. Tom is
fighting a fight that does not need to be fought - he is fighting against the notion that
the Book of Mormon is the history of ALL of the Indians on the North and
South American continent. While this is commonly believed by the grass
root Mormons, men such as Apostle Dallin Oaks, John Sorenson and Scott Woodward (
the last two prominent BYU anthropologists )
argue that the Book of Mormon people are just a small part of those who came
to these two continents. I refer the reader to Sorenson's excellent book
"An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." and to Woodward's
work cited elsewhere on this page Thus Tom
Murphy is fighting against that which most Mormon Book of
Mormon educators no
longer teach.
However, it would be unfair of me not to
state that many Mormon leaders, including our current church President,
Gordon B. Hinckley, still state views that all ancient American people are
from Lehi. Examples are:
[Text of dedicatory prayer given by
President Gordon B Hinckley on April 30, 2000.] "We reme mber before
Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. Wilt Thou keep Thine ancient
promises in their behalf. Lift from their shoulders the burdens of poverty
and cause the shackles of darkness to fall from their eyes. May they rise to
the glories of the past. " (May 13, 2000 LDS Church News, Article about
new Cochabamba Bolivia temple)
In an interview with the Church News, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley
commented on the appreciation of the Ecuadorian members for the new
temple….. He noted that "it has been a very interesting thing to see
the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in
the [Guayaquil Ecuador] temple. So very many of these people have the blood
of Lehi in their veins and it is just an intriguing thing to see their
tremendous response and their tremendous interest." [President James E.
Faust – 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency in his interview for the
Church News] said that the "Latin people have a special quality of
softness and graciousness and kindness. They are a great people -- they are
sons and daughters of Father Lehi, and they have believing blood. They are a
beautiful people, inside and out." (Aug 7, 1999 Church News - Guayaquil
Ecuador Temple dedication: 'A wondrous day' for members)
Excerpt of the text of the dedicatory prayer of the Colonia Juaréz
Chihuahua Temple, given March 6, 1999, by President Gordon B. Hinckley.
"May the sons and daughters of father Lehi grow in strength and in
fulfillment of the ancient promises made concerning them. " (Mar 13,
1999 LDS Church News – Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Mexico Temple Dedicatory
Prayer).
Note
that Apostle Dallin Oaks has a slightly different point of
view.
¶43 In 1973, after weighing the
overwhelming archaeological evidence against an ancient origin for the BoMor,
Michael Coe implored Latter-day Saints:
Forget the so-far fruitless quest for Jaredites, Nephites,
Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful; there is no more
chance of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit
described in the book of Revelations. ... Continue the praiseworthy
excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to
the Book of Mormon will ever result from them. And start digging into the
archaeological remains of the Saints themselves.
[86]
Again, this is Coe's opinion. He
would be safe to say that so far no such evidence has yet been found, but
his statement above goes past the evidence. However, in my opinion,
Coe is correct in that we all need to dig into our personal, and our
religion's, archaeological past.
¶44 As we enter the 21st century, I
would like to offer similar advice to Latter-day Saints. Continue our
praiseworthy genealogical endeavors and efforts to preserve ancient history.
Make use of the latest genetic technologies to enhance the precision and
accuracy of genealogical records and historical research. Avoid fruitless
quests for Israelite DNA in ancient America—there is little more chance of
finding genetic proof of Lehite civilization than there is of finding the
BoMor gold plates.
I am glad for such advice, but this again
has nothing to do with the preceding 41 paragraphs. And, while there
is little chance of finding any direct supporting evidence of the Book of
Mormon, at least based on past finds, the chance is not zero. And,
Tom Murphy is very aware that Mormon scriptural records have been found (
Book of Abraham in the Met Museum ). So, the chance is not zero on
finding Book of Mormon plates either.
-
For articles on Murphy's late November 2002 heresy hearing, see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98020_mormon02.shtml and
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/29/mormon.scholar.ap/index.html
and
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/nov/11302002/saturday/7024.htm
and
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134591344_mormon07m.html and
http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20021130/localnews/481793.html and
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00001462.html
and
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon87.html
and
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00001379.html .
For an article on the postponement, see http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Dec/12092002/utah/9535.asp.
For later articles ( mid-January 2003 ) see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml
and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/14.24.html
.
-
Brant Gardner, whose work is well known and appreciated by
me, has written up an analysis of the DNA work and Murphy's
conclusions. It can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html
In Brant's paper, he makes many of the points I made earlier ( see above
). Note that another work by FAIR is given below. Gardner
did the kind of work that was called for here.
-
For an article on the controversy, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm
-
An extremely
thought provoking article about DNA and the Boo  k of Mormon can be found
at http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm
The most thought provoking section states "In his doctoral dissertation,
Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American
children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed
as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program.
The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's
words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian
Placement program ] by critics, removed over
70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed
them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians
'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this
claim, nor even a serious attempt to address
it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an
issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.
The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct
anthropological term. Anthropologists distinguish between
"genocide," which implies killing people, from
"ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture. Since
the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a
bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded
word as "genocide." Destruction of a culture may be a
terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass
murder.
The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the
criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but the Church can't win for
losing on the issue. When it was discontinued, there were also Native
Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and
Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native
Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.
But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about
it did *not* agree about that. This tells me that viewpoints on the
question are "political" rather than "factual." We
hope that Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and
is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over
another.
Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following: "It
would be more appropriate to say that th ese are the words of the critics
(predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your
preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my
dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term
"ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use
of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently
that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the
example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite
Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "
-
Kevin Barney has written a A
Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event. It
was written for the February 2003 edition of Anthropology News, and can be
found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html
. You will note that he makes many points that I have also made ( see
below ). All in all, this is the best essay on the topic I have found.
-
Home page - Murphy's up-to-date home page at Edmonds
Community College is at http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy
. Another home page ( not up-to-date ) can be found at http://students.washington.edu/twmurphy/
. His publications
have appeared in Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory,
Journal of Mormon History,
Review of Religious Research, Dialogue,
and Sunstone. He
is the recipient of Dialogue's 1997 Theology and Scripture Writing
Award f
Summaries of the controversy generated by this article are available on
this site, at
-
Tom
Murphy's publications include
2003
"Genetic
Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology
News 44.2 (February): 20.
2002
"An
Other Mormon History," Review of Jorge Iber, Hispanics in the
Mormon Zion, 1912-1919 College Station: Texas A&M University
Press, 2000; Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 35.3 (Summer): 189-191.
Review
of Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture
that Launched a New World Religion New York: Oxford University Press,
2002; Journal
of Mormon History 28.2 (Fall): 192-198.
"Study
Guide for American Muslims," in Asma Hasan, American
Muslims: The New Generation 2d. Ed.New York: Continuum,
2000, 201-204.
"Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and
Genetics," in Vogel, Dan and Brent Metcalfe, eds. American
Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon Salt Lake City: Signature,
47-77.
Reviews
of F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of Faith and
Culture, Los Mormones en México: La Dinámica de la Fe y la Cultura.
Translation by The Museum of Mormon History in Mexico. 2d Ed. Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1997. Fernando R. Gómez Páez. “The States of México
and Morelos: Their Contribution During the Re-Opening Period of Missionary
Work, 1901-1903,” “Margarito Bautista Valencia,” “Francisco
Narciso Sandoval: Lamanite Missionary,” “The Third Convention,”
Provo, UT: Museo de Historia del Mormonism en México, no date; Journal
of Mormon History 28.1 (Spring): 280-289.
2001
"Lamanite
Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," Mormon Scripture Studies
<http://mormonscripturestudies.com>.
2000
"Other
Mormon Histories: Lamanite Subjectivity in Mexico," Journal
of Mormon History 26.2 (Fall): 179-214.
1999
“From
Racist Stereotype to Ethnic Identity: Instrumental Uses of Mormon Racial
Doctrine,” Ethnohistory 46.3
(Summer): 451-480.
Review
of Roderic Ai Camp, Crossing Swords: Politics and Religion in
Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997; Review
of Religious Research 41(Fall): 133-134.
Review
of Raymundo Gómez González and Sergio Pagaza Castillo, "El
Águila Mormón o el Anarquista Cristiano": Plotino Constantino
Rhodakanaty, Primer miembro de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de
los Últimos Días en México. Mexico, D.F.: Museo de Historia del
Mormonismo en México, 1997; Journal
of Mormon History 25.2 (Fall): 210-214.
1998
“‘Stronger
Than Ever’: Remnants of the Third Convention,” Journal of
Latter Day Saint History, 10: 1, 8-11.
1997
“Fifty
Years of United Order in Mexico,”Sunstone
20.3 (October): 69.
“Laban’s
Ghost: On Writing and Transgression,”Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 30.2 (Summer): 105-128.
“Guatemalan
Hot/Cold Medicine and Mormon Words of Wisdom: Intercultural Negotiation of
Meaning,” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 36.2 (June): 297-308.
1996
“Reinventing
Mormonism: Guatemala as a Harbinger of the Future?” Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 29.1 (Spring): 177-192.
1994
“Peyote
and the Word of Wisdom: Part II,”Sacred
Record 15.2 (June): 3-4.
“Peyote
and the Word of Wisdom: Part I,”Sacred
Record15.1 (March): 4-6.
1992
"Justice
For Whom?: Reflections on the Persian Gulf War," unpublished
essay that garnered honorable mention in the 1993
Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics.
-
KUER interview - KUER interview by Doug Fabrizzio featuring
Tom Murphy, Scott Woodward, and Terryl Givens
on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon. This is very much worth
your while to listen to this from three different perspectives (
respectively: non-active LDS, very active LDS, LDS ). It
can be found at http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw121902.mp3
If this happens to not work, you can find it here. For
a transcript of the interview, go to http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html
-
Doug Fabrizzio was incorrect when he said that Terryl
Givens is not LDS. See the news articles below. Dr. Givens book By the
Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion is
quite good, and thought provoking.
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/oct/10132002/Arts/6366.htm
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/handof/021114handof1.html
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/journal/FJ200112.html
-
Tom Murphy has written: The research in Colombia that
Scott Woodward referred to in the KUER interview appears to be the product
of recent admixture, not an ancient source as needed for the Book of Mormon.
While he emphasized that it was not evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, many listeners have
misinterpreted his statement. Bill Bradford, another BYU biologist, also
incorrectly claimed at the 2002 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium, that the
Cohen modal haplotype had been found among "Indians" in Colombia.
I cited the Colombian research in note 70 of my article in American
Apocrypha. The abstract of the article (Luis G. Carvajal-Carmona, et al. "Strong
Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the
Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia" American Journal of
Human Genetics 67:1287-1295, Nov. 2000) reads as follows:
" Historical and genetic evidence suggest that the recently founded
population of Antioquia (Colombia) is potentially useful for the genetic
mapping of complex traits. This population was established in the 16th-17th
centuries through admixture of Amerinds, Europeans, and Africans and grew in
relative isolation until the late 19th century. ... These data indicate that
~94% of the Y chromosomes are European, 5% are African, and 1% are Amerind.
Y-chromosome data are consistent with an origin of founders predominantly in southern Spain but also suggest that a fraction
came from northern Iberia and that some possibly had a Sephardic origin.".
The full article is available online as a PDF file at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtarl/Antioquia.pdf
-
A review of the streaming video can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html
However, according to Tom Murphy, Cooper Johnson misrepresents Scott Woodward on several
points. Woodward's clarifications regarding those errors are included
in the print version of Murphy's article, pp. 65-66. Murphy has talked with
Cooper and others at FAIR about fixing the mistakes but they've apparently
chosen not to do so. Both Cooper Johnson and Tom Murphy have given me direct and
personal permission to post an email which was an exchange between them on
this very point. I have not edited the email at all - all words are
Cooper Johnson's.
Brother Murphy,
Greetings! My name is Cooper Johnson and I'm the author of the FAIR
review article on Woodward's FAIR conference presentation...you referenced
in your paper in American Apocrypha.
You wrote several quick criticisms of the conclusions of the article, which
is fine. They were pretty much all Dr. Woodward's views and
conclusions and I was simply writing a summary-review article, so I saw no
need to defend myself.
But there is one issue that has persisted and continues to pop up in various
places (Message Boards, Discussion Lists, etc). The issue is that I
botched Woodward's conclusions in my article...and the specific conclusion
was in relation to a Woman's mtDNA coming to a "screeching halt,"
when she has no daughters.
While I don't loose any sleep over the issue, it has recently come to my
attention that this claim (my hack job of Woodward's views) has reared it's
head again on a dissident/liberal discussion list. So, I figured I
would provide you with a quote from Woodward's presentation that was the
basis for my statement. You do what you want with it.
Woodward, referring to a chart on his slide, said in the FAIR presentation:
"Mitochondrial inheritance, remember, comes from a mother to her
children. It comes down to both males and females, but it's solely
inherited from the mother. So if we look at individual #2 who is the
mother up here, gave her mitochondrial DNA to individuals #4, #5, and #6,
who gave it to #10, who gave it to #15, who gave it to #17. So you can
see the inheritance of mitochondrial DNA. My mother's mitochondrial
DNA has ended up like #9 over there because my mother didn't have any
daughters. Her mitochondrial DNA, as far as she is concerned, has come
to an evolutionary dead end; it's stopped, it hasn't been transmitted to the
next generation...So you can see that the mitochondrial DNA that I have,
that I inherited from my mother, has not been transmitted to the next
generation through me."
So, perhaps the conclusion is incorrect. I'm not here to debate that
with you. I just thought you might like to see the actual statement
and my basis for making the claim.
There was one other one you mentioned and that was when I questioned, as
Woodward did, Lehi's DNA. You said, in so many words, that Lehi's DNA
would have been irrelevant, with respect to mtDNA...only the women of Lehi's
party would have been relevant.
Understood...however, once again, Woodward makes the same remark.
Here's his statement:
"Have we identified any DNA evidence of Lehites or Mulekites or
Jeredites or any other matter of 'ites' in the Americas that may have
derived from the Middle East. I have a very serious question about
that, that relates to the population structure. What did the genes of
Lehi look like? How do we find out today what the genes of Lehi look
like? I think that's a valid question to ask."
And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that someone of Woodward's
calibur was obviously talking about Lehi's party...not Lehi, specifically.
But, I see your point.
Anyway...just thought I would clear the air on that. I didn't feel
like going to all the various Message Boards and Discussion lists and
defending myself...I don't think that would do any good. But, I felt
like you might want to know where I was coming from.
Take care and God bless,
Cooper Johnson
-
An unprofessional "hatchet" job on Murphy's
character can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/murphy.pdf
It is full of ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, non-sequiturs, factual
mistakes of the first order, and many logical fallacies.
Whether you like Tom Murphy, or his work, or do not like it, you should
deplore Wyatt's hatchet job on him. It my opinion, it is the exact opposite of
how we should treat our fellow human beings. Tom's reply is found at the
bottom of this page.
Note the difference in tone. I have personally asked that FAIR
rewrite the piece,
to take out the invectives, to accept Tom's corrections. So far, they
have refused. If they do reissue the piece, I will post it also.
-
Dr. Michael Whiting, a well known DNA researcher, has
stated "It's an inappropriate comparison [ Murphy to Galileo ].
The difference is Galileo got the science right. I don't think Murphy
has." Dr. Whiting, who is cited in my evolution section ( he is
an ardent evolutionist ) was featured on the January 16, 2003 edition of the
journal Nature. His article can be found at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/nature01313_fs.html
or on this site. Whiting's BYU lecture,
however, came to a different conclusion.
-
Tom Murphy will meet with his Stake
President again on Sunday, February 23, 2003. This comes from an email
he sent. Some extracts of that email are:
1. I have been called back in for a meeting with President Latimer,
scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 23rd. This is supposed to be a
conversation, not a disciplinary council.
2. KCPQ Fox 13 (Seattle) is running a special news program on my case, also
on Sunday, Feb. 23rd (10:00 p.m.). The program should include interviews
with several Native American ex-Mormons, Dr. Michael Whiting from BYU, and
me.
3. Lavina Fielding Anderson provided me with the following new
statement. Lavina Fielding Anderson has learned of another scholar,
who does not wish to make the details of his or her situation public, being
called in during the same August-December time frame as the earlier cases.
In this situation, Elder Lance Wickman, a Seventy and head of the Church's
Legal Department, played an active role in representing the Strengthening
Church Members Committee to the stake president. This raises the possibility
that Wickman has been involved in other cases as well. "Two other
General Authorities," presumably at a rank superior to Wickman's were
also involved in reviewing the material.
When the existence of the Strengthening Church Members Committee was
revealed in 1993, it was headed by two apostles, then James E. Faust and
Dallin H. Oaks. If the same structure has been maintained, the "two
other General Authorities" would presumably be members of the Quorum of
the Twelve. According to the Deseret News Church Almanac 2003, p. 46,
Wickman is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (meaning that it is a
permanent appointment until age seventy, not a five-year appointment like
the lower quorums. His biographical information reads: "General
counsel, office of Legal Services. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the
Seventy April 2, 1994 [this was also the date or near it that the Office of
Legal Services was created], at age 53; sustained to the First Quorum of the
Seventy April 1, 2000. Served as regional representatives, stake president,
and bishop. Received bachelor's degree from University of California at
Berkeley and juris doctorate from Stanford University. Former partner in the
international law firm of Latham and Watkins in San Diego, California. Born
Nov. 11, 1940, in Seattle, Wash. to Alton C. and Irene Marilyn Carlson
Wickman. Wife, Patricia Farr Wickman; parents of five children.
5. I am preparing for a lecture on my research at Edmonds Community
College. The following announcement went out to campus email this past
week.
The Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee announces the following event,
featuring a talk by one of our own faculty members, Thomas Murphy.
Sin, Skin, and Seed:
Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon
Thomas W. Murphy
Triton Union 202
Tuesday, February 25, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.
A question and answer period and a book signing will follow the
lecture. Copies of American Apocrypha, the anthology containing
Murphy's article, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,"
will be available for purchase. All proceeds will be donated to the Pow Wow
fund for the American Indian Student Association who will also host a bake
sale at the event.
Abstract:
This presentation critically examines the use of folk biology to naturalize
the power and authority of white men in Mormon scripture. It identifies key
challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces in light of
recent advances from the biological sciences. Is the Book of Mormon's
assumption that skin color reflects sinfulness consistent with biological
understandings of human physical variation? Are Biblical and Book of Mormon
images of a patriarchal seed transmitted from fathers to sons consistent
with modern understandings of biogenetic procreation? Is an Israelite
heritage of Nephites and Lamanites reflected in the genes and biology of
American Indians? Research shows that skin color does not reflect sin.
Agricultural models of human procreation do not accurately reflect women's
contribution of half the genes of their children. Genetic data point to a
Northeast Asian origin of Native Americans, not an Israelite one. Each of
these assumptions should be relegated to what the title page of the Book of
Mormon calls "mistakes of men." Furthermore, Mormon scriptural
views of Native American origins and skin color are rooted in colonial and
antebellum biblical hermeneutics, not authentic American Indian traditions.
Biographical Statement:
Thomas Murphy is Chair of the Anthropology Department at Edmonds Community
College where he has been recognized as Club Advisor of the Year 2000-2001
for his work with the Native American Student Association. His publications
have appeared in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory,
Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and elsewhere. His research on the
Persian Gulf War garnered a prize in ethics from the Elie Wiesel Foundation
and his investigation of the sociological uses of writing in the Book of
Mormon earned a literary award from the Dialogue Foundation. A recent
article using genetic data to discredit the Mormon view that Native
Americans came from ancient Israel has been the subject of international
media attention. When the LDS Church initiated an attempt to excommunicate
him in December 2002, supporters generously deemed him the "Galileo of
Mormonism" and organized candle light vigils in ten different U.S.
cities to show their support for his courage. In response to the negative
publicity the LDS Church indefinitely postponed the church disciplinary
action. "Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of
Mormon," is a synthesis of two chapters of his doctoral dissertation in
anthropology, currently in progress, at the University of Washington. This
event is sponsored by the Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee.
best,
twm
-
February 23, 2003 - Tom is free
from any more hearings. Stake President Matt Latimer told Tom that he
was no longer under threat of a hearing. A story on it can be found at
http://heraldnet.com/Stories/03/2/24/16557388.cfm?cityid=24
. An article about it, along with a very nice TV video piece from KCPG,
a Seattle TV station, can be found at http://q13.trb.com/kcpq-022403mormon,0,996113.story
. Tom sent the following public letter ( Kerrie is Tom's wife ).
Dear Colleagues, Friends, and Family,
Kerrie and I had a very pleasant meeting this evening with President Matthew
Latimer of the Lynnwood, WA stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS). President Latimer had invited us to meet to discuss
my scholarship and status in the church after indefinitely postponing
disciplinary action on December 7th, the day before he had previously
scheduled a disciplinary council to consider the possibility of
excommunication for apostasy.
I am pleased to report that President Latimer has placed a permanent hold on
disciplinary action against me. He invited Kerrie and me to participate in
continued private dialogue with the hope that he can encourage us to return
to full activity and belief in the LDS Church without any threat of
disciplinary action. In response to my inquiry, he assured us that he was
not receiving pressure from his priesthood leaders to take action against
me. He acknowledged consulting them to discuss my case but found them to be
very supportive of his responsibility to make the proper decisions for his
stake. He declined my invitation to co-sponsor open academic forums on
genetics and racism in the Book of Mormon and recommended that I discuss
that option with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at
Brigham Young University. We all agreed that these issues are best addressed
in an academic rather than an ecclesiastical setting.
We are very appreciative of the support that so many of you have shown us
throughout this ordeal. We hope that other stake presidents will follow this
most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the
threat of the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.
Cordially,
Thomas W. Murphy
-
Meridian Magazine published an article on
Murphy. It is not good in that it too engages in ad hominems of the
worst sort, but disguised in polite language. It can be found at http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/030128anti.html
Tom Murphy has his students
extract their DNA in his class, and then find out their ( long term )
ancestry. An article that describes this is found at http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/1/23/16398186.cfm .
To see the results of the students DNA samples, go to http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/3/17/16658978.cfm
.
-
Anthropology News (44.5, May, 2003)
has printed two letters critical of the February article by Simon Southerton
and Tom Murphy, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons."
One of the letters is an excerpt from Kevin Barney's review of the news
article published in the newsletter for FAIR. The editor invited Tom to
reply to Barney's critique. If you are a member of the American
Anthropological Association (AAA) you may view the letters and Tom's reply
online at the address below.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm
Nonmembers of AAA may request a copy of the correspondence on page 4 of the
May, 2003 (44.5) issue of Anthropology News from Ghita Levine (glevine@aaanet.org).
Kevin Barney's full review can be found at the page below.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html
Finally, you can find a copy of "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for
Mormons" as well as Tom's reply to the excerpted part of Barney's
review linked
to Tom's list of publications on Tom's home page.
http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html
-
The following statement regarding Thomas Murphy and the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints was issued by Janice Merrill Allred, a Trustee
of the Mormon Alliance. This was issued when Brother Murphy's Stake President
had asked him to appear for a hearing on his membership.
The Mormon
Alliance is disturbed and saddened to learn of the impending excommunication
of Thomas Murphy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for
his scholarly writings on the Book of Mormon. This appears to be part of an
ongoing policy to discipline scholars who publish material which challenges
the doctrines or history of the LDS church.
While it is understandable that it is disturbing for church leaders (and
members) to be confronted by scholarly studies that challenge basic church
teachings, it is not right to respond to this challenge by threats,
punishment, or excommunication. A church that professes to be the Church of
Jesus Christ ought to follow the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ
and respond with love and respect for truth and all the paths that lead to
it.
An institution that punishes those who challenge its doctrines or history
discourages its members in their pursuit of truth and reveals a lack of
faith in its own doctrine. Instead of punishing scholars, the church should
encourage more and better scholarship and support its members in coming to
their own understanding of truth.
-
Tom Murphy has written the following ( January 25,
2003 ) and have given me permission to post it. It deals specifically
with the Whiting material posted immediately above
, but before Whiting's presentation.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
A few minutes ago I sent the following open letter to Michael Whiting and
all those listed on the Cc line below. You are free to forward this letter
to interested parties and to encourage an appropriate response from Dr.
Whiting.
January 25, 2003
Dear Dr. Michael Whiting:
I would like to congratulate you on your recent publication in Nature. It
appears that your research, if validated by similar studies, will make a
valuable contribution to our understanding of the processes of evolution. I
am concerned, however, with an abstract of an upcoming BYU campus lecture
"Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"
that
appears at the URL addresses below.
http://farms.byu.edu/extended.php?id=150
http://www.dcomp.com/dna-flyer.gif
The abstract includes gross misrepresentations of researchers, including me,
who have argued that genetic evidence collected to date fails to support the
Mormon claim of an Israelite ancestry for Native Americans, in part or in
whole. I outline the misrepresentations below and request that you correct
these errors in the abstract and the presentation or that you facilitate a
response from those of us that you have maligned.
The critics of the Mormon claim of an Israelite ancestry for some or all
Native Americans include many prominent scholars and scientists. In addition
to my presentations at Sunstone, various radio shows, and publications at http://mormonscripturestudies.com
and in American Apocrypha, the following individuals have made statements to
the press critical of the Mormon claims about Native American ancestry.
Michael Crawford U. of Kansas
Bryan
Sykes Oxford University
Miroslava Derenko Russian Academy of Sciences
Neil Bradman
Center for Genetic Anthropology
The conclusions of these scholars have been substantiated in interviews with
the following individuals for a forthcoming video, from which selections are
available on the web at http://www.mormonchallenge.com.
Stephen Whittington, U. of Maine
David Glenn Smith, U. of California at Davis
Dennis O'Rourke, U. of Utah
Randall Shortridge, SUNY-Buffalo
Simon Southerton, Australian Commonwealth Scientific &
Industrial Research Organisation
Simon Southerton, a plant geneticist and former Mormon bishop, has also made
a presentation criticizing Mormon claims about Native American and
Polynesian ancestry at the Ex-Mormon General Conference, online, and on
radio shows in Salt Lake City. Likewise, both Simon's presentations and mine
have included dozens of citations from peer-reviewed research in leading
scientific journals. You may have other critics in mind but these are the
primary ones that I am aware of.
Your abstract claims that our statements and the research that we base them
on is "scientifically flawed." After you made similar statements
to the press about my article in American Apocrypha I asked you to identify
specific studies that you thought were scientifically flawed. While you
shared some general hesitations about genetic traces of what you assumed
were tiny Book of Mormon migrations, you failed to identify those scholars
whose work you think is scientifically flawed. Could you please identify
those scholars and their research so that they have an opportunity to reply
to such accusations?
As you must surely know, your assumption that the Book of Mormon migrations
were small and engulfed by larger populations is plagued with its own set of
difficulties. Would you consider acknowledging that the current introduction
to the Book of Mormon still claims Lamanites "are the principal
ancestors of the American Indians"? What about the claim that the
Jaredite migration from the Middle East was to "that quarter where
never had man been" (Ether 2:5)? Or, Lehi's claim between 588 and
570 BC that "it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations" (2 Ne. 1:8)? What about the multitude of
statements from every church president from Joseph Smith to Gordon B.
Hinckley that claim a broad Lamanite and Lehite ancestry for Native
Americans?
Your abstract claims that our statements and research "represent a
basic misunderstanding of the modern methods of DNA analysis." Do you
seriously mean to suggest leading researchers like Michael Crawford,
Miroslava Derenko, Bryan Sykes, Neil Bradman, Stephen Whittington, David
Glenn Smith, and Dennis O'Rourke do not have a basic understanding of the
current methods of genetic analysis? Could you specifically identify this
"basic misunderstanding" so that they have an opportunity to
respond to such a wild assertion?
Your abstract claims that our statements and research "ignore modern
historical research in the Book of Mormon studies." How then do you
explain my discussion of proposals of a limited Central American geography
for Book of Mormon events, commentaries by FARMS, FAIR, and Scott Woodward
that appear on pages 60-66 of my article in American Apocrypha? What about
my statements to the press, on radio shows, and at Sunstone that take note
of the possibility that the Book of Mormon may not require that all Native
American have a Middle Eastern origin but that it does require that some
do? Of course, you know that the genetic research to date fails to
support either the hemispheric or the regional models of the Book of Mormon.
Thus, the statements and research of the non-Mormon scholars are valid
regardless of whether or not they are familiar with the field of Book of
Mormon studies.
Your abstract claims that our statements and research "entirely gloss
over fundamental issues in reconstructing historical events via DNA
inference." What are those fundamental issues that we gloss
over? How were all these non-Mormon scholars able to publish their
research in peer-reviewed journals if they ignored such fundamental issues?
If I'm guilty of glossing over fundamental issues then how do you explain my
acknowledgement of the limitations of genetic research and discussion of
various disputes about the genetic evidence that appear on pages 50-51, 53,
55-57 of my article in American Apocrypha? What about the significant
attention I devote on pages 64-66 to the limitations noted in publications
by FARMS and FAIR?
I am deeply disappointed that someone of your stature in the field would
resort to such blatant misrepresentations of my research and that of other
leading non-Mormons scholars just to advance a religious agenda. I would
like to request that you do one or more of the following things to rectify
this problem.
1. The most appropriate thing for you to do at this point is to correct the
distortions in your abstract and forthcoming
presentation.
2. If you are unwilling to do this then perhaps you would consider inviting
one or more of the scholars you are criticizing to
join in the panel that will follow your presentation.
3. Finally, you could provide each of the scholars I have listed above and
Cc'ed this letter to with a copy of your prepared statements and an oral or
audio recording of the presentation and panel so that we may respond in
another forum or publication.
As Mormons we face a very disconcerting lack of any substantiating genetic
or archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon's representations of
ancient America. I realize that there are legitimate grounds for differing
interpretations of the evidence. I also recognize the dilemma that you face
as an employee of Brigham Young University. Yet, when Scott Woodward and
Bill Bradshaw, also from BYU, have appeared in forums at Sunstone and on
Radio West they have shown much more candor about the problems and much more
accurately represented the research of other scholars. You do not need to
resort to such unprofessional tactics to make your point. I would encourage
you to follow the example of your colleagues and resist the intense pressure
you must feel to conform to religious dogma.
Cordially,
Thomas W. Murphy
http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy
Cc: NBradman@compuserve.com
ibpn@online.magadan.su
bryan.sykes@imm.ox.ac.uk
CRAWFORD@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
Steve.Whittington@umit.maine.edu
dgsmith@ucdavis.edu
dennis.orourke@anthro.utah.edu
rds@acsu.buffalo.edu
Simon.Southerton@ffp.csiro.au
Keith_Crandall@byu.edu
David A. McClellan@byu.edu
heath_ogden@byu.edu
dcp6@email.byu.edu
Scott_Woodward@byu.edu
william_bradshaw@byu.edu
-
In
response to Wyatt's attack piece, Tom Murphy wrote the
following open letter
9 January 2003
I am saddened that Allen Wyatt and FAIR would avoid dealing with the real issues
by trying to discredit me as a person. On the other hand, I am pleased
that Wyatt uncovered some issues that I have been trying to get reporters to
cover more accurately. My limited success in that endeavor certainly
helped make his reporting job much easier. Unfortunately, Wyatt did get
some key facts wrong.
What did he get right?
1. I am not an active member of my local ward. I have not attended church
on a regular basis for nearly a decade. The only exceptions have been while
conducting ethnographic research with Latter-day Saints in Mexico and Guatemala.
In fact, I prefer to call myself a Latter-day Skeptic. I do not profess to
be much of a Saint.
2. It would be within the rights of the LDS Church to excommunicate someone
who believes like I do, but I feel it would be a stronger church if they allowed
and considered the scientific evidence that I outline in my essay. I have
publicly challenged the central doctrine that the Book of Mormon is an accurate
historical document. I understand why some people might think it would be good
for the church to maintain tight boundaries by excommunicating me. Simplistic
black and white versions of religion are much more marketable than complex ones.
They are really good for attracting new members. Unfortunately, there are also
costs that go along with excommunication. Many Mormons, especially those with
multi-generation membership in the church, prefer a more tolerant atmosphere
that provides space for a freer search for truth. Ultimately, the church needs
to decide which path it wants to pursue.
3. I consider members of the Mormon intellectual community to be my
philosophical peers. I admire the work of Mormon scholars like D. Michael Quinn,
Lavina Fielding Anderson, Maxine Hanks, Janice Allred, Brent Lee Metcalfe, and
others who have been excommunicated for their research. I also appreciate the
scholarship of active Latter-day Saints like Armand Mauss, Sergio Pagaza,
Raymundo and Fernando Gomez, Duane Jeffries, Trent Stephens, and many others. I
consider them some of the most important contributors to Mormon cultural thought
in the twentieth century. I am proud to be associated with them and see that
association as an expression of my loyalty to Mormon culture.
4. I initiated contact with Joel Kramer. However, I did not realize he was
associated with Living Hope Ministries at the time. David Glenn Smith, molecular
anthropologist at UC Davis, told me that Kramer was
producing a video on DNA and the Book of Mormon. I contacted him to share a copy
of my essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics." He
invited me to do the interview. Yet, he did tell me about his association with
Living Hope Ministries on the day of the interview. I take full responsibility
for still agreeing to do the interview for reasons explained below.
5. I spoke with Steven Clark and many other people before my interview with
my stake president. Steven Clark played a role in organizing the candle light
vigils in Salt Lake City and elsewhere but Kathy Worthington, who I've never
met, played an even larger role. My students at Edmonds Community College,
though, were the first to suggest a candle light vigil. When Steven Clark
suggested the idea to me later I put him in contact with my students. I played a
minimal role in the vigils beyond expressing my support and desire that they be
peaceful and legal.
6. I obtained some funding for my research from Mormon Scripture Studies (http://mormonscripturestudies.com).
I wrote the essay "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics" at their
request. However, they never attempted to impose any particular interpretation
on the data.
What did he get wrong?
1. Wyatt claimed that racism, sexism, and homophobia in the church are far
afield from my area of specialty. I am a cultural anthropologist specializing in
ethnicity, folk biology, and religion. Racism and sexism in the church have been
a central concern of my research for the past decade. I have been publishing
articles on the subject in peer reviewed journals since 1996. See a list of my
publications at the page below.
http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html
2. Wyatt suggests that my approach is "akin to anti-Semitism" and by
implication that I am an anti-Mormon. It is precisely this dichotomous view of
the world, one as simply black and white, that I hoped to challenge by agreeing
to be interviewed by Living Hope Ministries. I hope to show viewers that one
could be a Mormon and still think critically. One of the most empowering moments
for me as a college student was when a member of my bishopric told me that he
believed the Book of Mormon was a nineteenth century document. Finally, I felt
that I could be a Mormon and a critical thinker at the same time. By challenging
such simplistic views of the world I hope to provide similar inspiration for
young Mormons wrestling with the same sorts of
questions, ones that are inevitable in today's college classrooms.
3. Wyatt claims that I am seeking alliances with people who want to destroy the
church. A more accurate statement would be that I seek alliances with everyone
who is willing to pursue the truth.
Wyatt did not tell his readers that last August, when I was interviewed by
Living Hope Ministries, that I also sought alliances with FAIR. I asked Scott
Gordon, President of FAIR, if he would be willing to host a panel of
scholars to discuss the DNA evidence no matter where the evidence might lead. He
said, no, that only those who began and ended with the assumption the Book of
Mormon was an ancient document would be welcome at FAIR. The difference between
FAIR and Living Hope Ministries is that the latter group sought all perspectives
on the issue, thus I was included in their presentation but have not been
included at FAIR. Incidentally, Trent Stephens, an LDS biologist at Idaho State University, is
also interviewed by Living Hope Ministries in the same video.
Wyatt is also likely unaware of other alliances I have sought. Well before my
association with Living Hope Ministries I invited Scott Woodward or another
representative of the Molecular Genealogy Research Group to come to Edmonds
Community College, at our expense, to give a presentation about their project.
He never replied to the invitation. Alternatively, we invited Pearl Duncan, the
first African American to trace her genealogy back to Africa, to speak on our
campus.
I have offered to co-sponsor a forum with FARMS on DNA and the Book of
Mormon. This offer has included raising at least half the money to bring leading
genetic researchers in the field, Book of Mormon, and Native
American scholars to the Edmonds Community College campus for the forum.
Bill Hamblin expressed no interest but said he would forward the offer to other
researchers associated with FARMS. So far, they have not replied to the offer.
4. Wyatt claimed that my actions were the "the moral equivalent of a Jewish
person aiding and abetting anti-Semitic groups." I see them quite
differently. I see them as the moral equivalent of loving your enemies. By
showing an openness and willingness to confront the most difficult questions
from within Mormonism, we can show people that they have nothing to fear from
Mormons.
5. The small stipend I received from Mormon Scripture Studies did not come from
critics of the LDS Church. It came ultimately from an active LDS member who
prefers to remain anonymous. Using Mormon Scripture
Studies as a medium of exchange allowed him or her to preserve anonymity.
6. Steven Clark did not leak my story to the press. After I had expressed my
intention to go public, Ron Priddis of Signature Books forwarded my letter to
Richard Ostling of the Associated Press who forwarded it to Patty Henetz.
Ultimately, I must take full responsibility for my desire to go public and for
agreeing to the
interview. I did so because I believe that the best way to deal with
ecclesiastical abuse is to expose it.
7. Wyatt claims that the LDS Church would not respond to my statements through
the media. Actually, they did so twice that I am aware of. From Salt Lake City,
the church issued a statement noting that I had written a number of other
articles that were critical of the church besides the one in American Apocrypha.
While that is true my stake president appeared to be unaware of those other
publications when he called me in for an interview. Matt Latimer, my stake
president, also sent a letter to the press expressing his concern for my
emotional well-being and a desire to avoid publicity as a reason for
indefinitely postponing the disciplinary council.
I hope that these statements help clear the air. I appreciate Wyatt taking the
time to investigate my case but wish he would correct his factual errors and
avoid trying to demonize me. As Mormons we should aspire to a higher standard.
FAIR would provide a much greater service to the LDS community if it would
sponsor and encourage honest and open exploration of the most difficult issues
facing Mormons today. It could start doing so by actually dealing truthfully
with the serious problems that the genetic data pose for both hemispheric and
limited geographic models of the Book of Mormon.
My best,
twm
http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy
DNA
and the Book of Mormon
-
The following appeared on the LDS church official website at
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Various media outlets, 11 November 2003
The
Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it
claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient
America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The
strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the
Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its
truthfulness.
Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence
are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into
the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to
DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed
analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.
The following are not official Church positions or statements. They are
simply information resources from authors with expertise in this area that
readers may find helpful:
"Before DNA" (John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, Journal
of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download
PDF document (715 KB)
"DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective"
(Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no.
1, 2003) Download
PDF document (431 KB)
"A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist" (John M.
Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download
PDF document (169 KB)
"Who Are the Children of Lehi?" (D. Jeffrey Meldrum and
Trent D. Stephens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1,
2003) Download
PDF document (427 KB)
While the church statement above that "nothing in the Book of Mormon
precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin" is
correct, the wording in the preface of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites
are the "principal ancestors of the
American Indians" does preclude that the overwhelming vast majority of
the Amerinds are of Asiatic origins. As explained elsewhere, the
"principle ancestors" phrase was added to the Book of Mormon in
1981, and is not canonical.
-
An excellent article from Time
magazine about DNA is found at http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030217/story.html
-
Apostle Dallin
Oaks, a first class intellectual, has written about the historicity of the
Book of Mormon. It is found at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Oaks_Historicity.htm
. In the article, he writes the following, in support of what is now
known as the Sorenson limited Book of Mormon geography model:
"For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years
to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was
titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon."
In retrospect, I think it should have been labeled something like "An
Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of
Mormon." 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. You do not prevail on that proposition by
proving that a particular Eskimo 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"
I will not attempt to reconcile what
Oaks writes in his article, and what Gordon B. Hinckley
said above. Please note that this implies that the limited
geography model was taught at BYU as early as the 1950s. John Sorenson
credits Louis E. Hills (an RLDS scholar), writing in 1917, with the first
formulation of a limited geography. See the chart on page 32 of Sorenson's Source
Book. The idea has clearly been around for a very long time. It has yet,
however, to capture the imagination of most Mormons, let alone the
church hierarchy. Perhaps, that is changing. In fostering that change I see
Signature Books and FARMS as heading in the same direction, but one group is
moving a little faster than the other.
A few other General Authorities have supported a limited geography model,
but not many. The only ones I know of are Anthony W. Ivins, then first
counselor in the First Presidency in the April 1929 conference: "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. (Ivins,
1929, p. 15)"
Other scholars between Sorenson and Hills have maintained a limited
geography model for the book of Mormon. Sjodahl
wrote "students should be cautioned against the error of
supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek,
and their companions" and "not improbably that America has
received other immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe". In
1938, A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon by William Berrett and
Milton Hunteras ( a LDS Department of Education publication). It said
"the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three
small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the
possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its
writers" (Berrett et al., 1938, p. 48).
The phrase "principal ancestors of the
American Indians" was inserted in to the Book of Mormon preface in 1981
( See below for more on this preface ). It has
long been known that the person who inserted it was Bruce R. McConkie. Brother McConkie was part of a three man steering committee who
reworked the information surrounding the Mormon scriptures. The other
two members of that steering committee were Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K.
Packer.
-
Brant Gardner, whose work is well known and appreciated by
me, has written up an analysis of the DNA work and Murphy's
conclusions. It can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html
In Brant's paper, he makes many of the points I made earlier ( see above
). Note that another work by FAIR is given below. Gardner
did the kind of work that was called for here.
-
An extremely
thought provoking article about DNA and the Book of Mormon can be found
at
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm
The most thought provoking section states "In his doctoral dissertation,
Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American
children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed
as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program.
The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's
words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian
Placement program ] by critics, removed over
70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed
them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians
'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this
claim, nor even a serious attempt to address
it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an
issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.
The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct
anthropological term. Anthropologists distinguish between
"genocide," which implies killing people, from
"ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture. Since
the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a
bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded
word as "genocide." Destruction of a culture may be a
terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass
murder.
The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the
criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but the Church can't win for
losing on the issue. When it was discontinued, there were also Native
Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and
Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native
Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.
But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about
it did *not* agree about that. This tells me that viewpoints on the
question are "political" rather than "factual." We
hope that Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and
is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over
another.
Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following: "It
would be more appropriate to say that these are the words of the critics
(predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your
preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my
dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term
"ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use
of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently
that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the
example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite
Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "
-
KUER interview - KUER interview by Doug Fabrizzio featuring
Tom Murphy, Scott Woodward, and Terryl Givens
on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon. This is very much worth
your while to listen to this from three different perspectives (
respectively: non-active LDS, very active LDS, LDS ). It
can be found at http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw121902.mp3
If this happens to not work, you can find it here. For
a transcript of the interview, go to http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html
-
Doug Fabrizzio was incorrect when he said that Terryl
Givens is not LDS. See the news articles below. Dr. Givens book By the
Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion is
quite good, and thought provoking.
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/oct/10132002/Arts/6366.htm
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/handof/021114handof1.html
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/journal/FJ200112.html
-
Tom Murphy has written: The research in Colombia that
Scott Woodward referred to in the KUER interview appears to be the product
of recent admixture, not an ancient source as needed for the Book of Mormon.
While he emphasized that it was not evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, many listeners have
misinterpreted his statement. Bill Bradford, another BYU biologist, also
incorrectly claimed at the 2002 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium, that the
Cohen modal haplotype had been found among "Indians" in Colombia.
I cited the Colombian research in note 70 of my article in American
Apocrypha. The abstract of the article (Luis G. Carvajal-Carmona, et al. "Strong
Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the
Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia" American Journal of
Human Genetics 67:1287-1295, Nov. 2000) reads as follows:
" Historical and genetic evidence suggest that the recently founded
population of Antioquia (Colombia) is potentially useful for the genetic
mapping of complex traits. This population was established in the 16th-17th
centuries through admixture of Amerinds, Europeans, and Africans and grew in
relative isolation until the late 19th century. ... These data indicate that
~94% of the Y chromosomes are European, 5% are African, and 1% are Amerind.
Y-chromosome data are consistent with an origin of founders predominantly in southern Spain but also suggest that a fraction
came from northern Iberia and that some possibly had a Sephardic origin.".
The full article is available online as a PDF file at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtarl/Antioquia.pdf
-
A short clip of Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley
discussing DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon can be found at http://www.livinghopeministries.info/DNA%20Evidence/DNA%20Evidence.htm
Since the piece is very short, the transcript is as follows. The
interviewer is from a German media outlet, and speaks broken but excellent
English. I have preserved his grammar and words
Interviewer: What do be your position when DNA
analysis will show that history never have an immigration from Israel to
North America?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It hasn't happened. That hasn't been
determined yet. All I can say is that's speculating. No one
really knows the answer to that. Not at this point.
Now, my comments. I agree with
Hinckley, but only to the extent that Scott Woodward makes the point ( see
the KUER interview above ). President Hinckley is not a
scientist. His answer, for a lay answer, is about where truth lies.
-
An earlier show on Radio West that included Brent Metcalfe,
Dan Vogel, and Trent Stephens. Trent Stephens is an LDS biologist at
Idaho State U. who co-wrote the excellent book Evolution and Mormonism, A
Quest for Understanding, and is working on a book on DNA and the Book of
Mormon. Dan Vogel is a researcher in early Mormon documents, and has
written several books. Brent Metcalfe is a writer, and has edited /
written several books on the 19th century origins of the Book of
Mormon. Vogel and Metcalfe edited the book noted in #1
above.
The Radio West broadcast can be found at
http://audio.kuer.org:8000/playlist.pls?mount=/file/rw082602.mp3&file=dummy.pls
-
FAIR, a Mormon apologetic site, has a nice streaming video on DNA and the Book of
Mormon at RealMedia
for modem connections , RealMedia
for fast (DSL or better) connections or Windows
Media for modem connections
-
A review of the streaming video can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html
However, according to Tom Murphy, Cooper Johnson misrepresents Scott Woodward on several
points. Woodward's clarifications regarding those errors are included
in the print version of Murphy's article, pp. 65-66. Murphy has talked with
Cooper and others at FAIR about fixing the mistakes but they've apparently
chosen not to do so. Both Cooper Johnson and Tom Murphy have given me direct and
personal permission to post an email which was an exchange between them on
this very point. I have not edited the email at all - all words are
Cooper Johnson's.
Brother Murphy,
Greetings! My name is Cooper Johnson and I'm the author of the FAIR
review article on Woodward's FAIR conference presentation...you referenced
in your paper in American Apocrypha.
You wrote several quick criticisms of the conclusions of the article, which
is fine. They were pretty much all Dr. Woodward's views and
conclusions and I was simply writing a summary-review article, so I saw no
need to defend myself.
But there is one issue that has persisted and continues to pop up in various
places (Message Boards, Discussion Lists, etc). The issue is that I
botched Woodward's conclusions in my article...and the specific conclusion
was in relation to a Woman's mtDNA coming to a "screeching halt,"
when she has no daughters.
While I don't loose any sleep over the issue, it has recently come to my
attention that this claim (my hack job of Woodward's views) has reared it's
head again on a dissident/liberal discussion list. So, I figured I
would provide you with a quote from Woodward's presentation that was the
basis for my statement. You do what you want with it.
Woodward, referring to a chart on his slide, said in the FAIR presentation:
"Mitochondrial inheritance, remember, comes from a mother to her
children. It comes down to both males and females, but it's solely
inherited from the mother. So if we look at individual #2 who is the
mother up here, gave her mitochondrial DNA to individuals #4, #5, and #6,
who gave it to #10, who gave it to #15, who gave it to #17. So you can
see the inheritance of mitochondrial DNA. My mother's mitochondrial
DNA has ended up like #9 over there because my mother didn't have any
daughters. Her mitochondrial DNA, as far as she is concerned, has come
to an evolutionary dead end; it's stopped, it hasn't been transmitted to the
next generation...So you can see that the mitochondrial DNA that I have,
that I inherited from my mother, has not been transmitted to the next
generation through me."
So, perhaps the conclusion is incorrect. I'm not here to debate that
with you. I just thought you might like to see the actual statement
and my basis for making the claim.
There was one other one you mentioned and that was when I questioned, as
Woodward did, Lehi's DNA. You said, in so many words, that Lehi's DNA
would have been irrelevant, with respect to mtDNA...only the women of Lehi's
party would have been relevant.
Understood...however, once again, Woodward makes the same remark.
Here's his statement:
"Have we identified any DNA evidence of Lehites or Mulekites or
Jeredites or any other matter of 'ites' in the Americas that may have
derived from the Middle East. I have a very serious question about
that, that relates to the population structure. What did the genes of
Lehi look like? How do we find out today what the genes of Lehi look
like? I think that's a valid question to ask."
And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that someone of Woodward's
calibur was obviously talking about Lehi's party...not Lehi, specifically.
But, I see your point.
Anyway...just thought I would clear the air on that. I didn't feel
like going to all the various Message Boards and Discussion lists and
defending myself...I don't think that would do any good. But, I felt
like you might want to know where I was coming from.
Take care and God bless,
Cooper Johnson
-
Dr. Michael Whiting, a well known DNA researcher, has
stated "It's an inappropriate comparison [ Murphy to Galileo ].
The difference is Galileo got the science right. I don't think Murphy
has." Dr. Whiting, who is cited in my evolution section ( he is
an ardent evolutionist ) was featured on the January 16, 2003 edition of the
journal Nature. His article can be found at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/nature01313_fs.html
or on this site. Whiting's BYU lecture,
however, came to a different conclusion.
-
Dr. Michael Whiting ( see
above, and the evolution page ) gave a
lecture at BYU on January 29, 2003 at BYU. A flyer for that event is found
here
. An abstract of what he was to present is found at http://farms.byu.edu/extended.php?id=150
along with a copy of the flyer which is also found at http://www.dcomp.com/dna-flyer.gif
.
-
A newspaper report
of Dr. Whiting's January 29, 2003 remarks can be found at http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/41852/
This report portrays Dr. Whiting's treatment as very light. A
video of the presentation, but not the panel discussion, can be found at http://farms.byu.edu/multimedia/viewmovie.php?id=1
A transcript of the panel discussion can be found here,
or at http://www.salamandersociety.org/news/.
The video is a very large file, and running it might need a rather high speed
modem. I understand from some people at FARMS that there will, in fact, be a
transcript, although probably only of Dr. Whiting's presentation. The
panel discussion, from those there and from the transcript above, did not go well. One of the
issues might have been that the panel members felt
they were there to discuss the DNA issue only, but were asked other
questions, such as whether native American people are all descended from
"Lamanites." That could account for the attitude some of them seemed to exhibit -- they weren't prepared for those
questions.
His opening "We are the modern Galileo, hear us roar" was a
direct not-so-kind reference to Tom Murphy, and Maxine Hanks' description
of Tom. His comment "I find it extraordinary ironic,
delightfully so, that evolutionary biology is coming to the defense of the
Book of Mormon". I agree with him completely.
Whiting states, in direct words, that what I have referred to as the Sorenson limited
geography model is the only possible way to interpret the area where the
Nephites and Lamanites supposedly lived. He says that "the
Global Colonization Hypothesis is incorrect." He openly says that the ancestry of
most of the native population of
North and South America can most likely be found in Asia. He calls the Lehite
colonizers a "small genetic blip". Whiting says that we
should work with the
Local Colonization Hypothesis. He says this has been taught by Book of
Mormon scholars for 20 years. ( He is off by at least 30 years - it
was taught at least as early as the early 1950s ). He blithely dismisses the Global Colonization Hypothesis ( the
traditional teaching of the church about the Book of Mormon ), and says he
does not want to get into this. In essence, he and Tom Murphy are in
complete agreement as to the ancestry of the bulk of the native population of North and
South America.
He shows, somewhat convincingly, that the Local Colonization Hypothesis
cannot be tested. His gumball machine examples are a good way to teach DNA and population
genetics, though his teaching method came across to me cute, and maybe even
flip - however, it was entertaining. He points out that we do not the
genetic makeup of the Lehite party, nor of the middle eastern population
at the time. He points out that the "founder effect" (
the founder effect in this case refers to the probability that Lehi's very
small party carried genes not representative of their source population -
in effect, they are too small of a subset ) made the problem untestable.
In addition, genetic swamping would have ruined the genetic blip (
swamping - those here before the Lehites intermarried with the Lehites,
and there were so many non-Lehites that there is in effect no Lehite DNA
left ). In effect, the fundamental question left if you follow
Whiting is whether the church will abandon the Global
Colonization Model. This is exactly where Murphy leads you in his DNA
section. Murphy goes beyond this, however, in some of his other conclusions.
Whiting states at the beginning that the truth of the Book of Mormon could
not be obtained or ascertained by scientific means. A
few weeks before his talk, he criticized Murphy for not getting the
science right, but in this presentation he in effect said "Murphy is
right in his DNA science. He is not right in his other
hypotheses."
My first analysis is that Dr. Whiting's talk is good in that it puts him on
the same side as almost all scientists who have studied the historic roots
of the American Indians. He is on the same side as Tom Murphy in this
area.
In his talk, he did not address the hard issues ( nor did he intend to ) - the abandonment
of the church's traditional teachings of the ancestry of the Amerinds ( of the Book of
Mormon ), and the
influence of the 19th century Joseph Smith on the translated book.
Whiting correctly states that the abandonment of the Global Colonization Hypothesis does
not mean abandoning the Book of Mormon. There could easily be such a group of Lehites
somewhere in the Americas ( north, central, or south ), or they could have
easily been wiped out in battles post 400 CE ( AD ). For examples of
the local colonization model at work, see the
note below about the Salutrean descendents in the upper Midwest of the
United States.
-
In his January 29, 2003
presentation, Whiting stated that the preface phrase "principle ancestors of the
American Indians" was placed in the Book of Mormon in 1950. His
date is
not correct - it was inserted in 1981, as stated elsewhere on this page. There was no significant change in the Book of Mormon
from 1920 to 1981. While various small editorial alterations in the
body of the book did creep in during that time, there was no change in the
introductory matter, which remained the same as James E. Talmage produced
for the 1920 edition.
Talmage's 1920 introductory material included a one-page analysis of the
relationship of the text of the book to the various sets of plates described
in the book and an excerpt from the Documentary History of the Church /
Pearl of Great Price story of
Joseph Smith's receiving the plates. None of this material contained
the sort of interpretive text ( "principle ancestors" ) that
McConkie (& company) added to the 1981 edition.
A Book of Mormon transmission scholar looked specifically at a 1950 printing
and found that it looks just like the other derivations of the 1920 edition;
no newly inserted language.
He is correct in that the introduction to the Book of Mormon is a
commentary, and is not scripture.
-
John Tvedtnes covered several issues, including DNA
and the Book of Mormon, at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/10Points_for_Disbelief.htm
-
Simon G Southerton (simon.southerton@csiro.au),
PhD U of Sydney, Australia, is a senior research scientist with CSIRO
Forestry and Forest Products, a specialist division of the Australian
Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation. His essay
"DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon"
appears at www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm.
The data presented came from his address "DNA Genealogies of
Native Americans and Polynesians," presented at a Oct 2002 conference
in Salt Lake City. Southerton was an LDS Bishop when he left the
church over this issue - one wonders why such a drastic action had to be
taken when many others quoted here, such as Apostle Oaks, are still very
much part of this church yet understand Southerton's data. His article is thought provoking.
He has completed a book length manuscript on this topic, and will have his
book published this coming March 2004. A small blurb on it can be
found at http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm
.
-
Living Hope Ministries has released the full video
"DNA vs. the Book of Mormon" online. See http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm
. Brent Metcalfe posted a rather good review of this video. It
can be found at http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm58.showMessage?topicID=309.topic
. His review also expresses my views ( in general ). It bothers
me when either side ( including, at times, Brent, but not in this case - he
begs for a fair middle ground in this review ) makes biased
statements. Here is that review:
-
It was 100% clear from Dr. Whiting's presentation
that he did not believe that the Global Colonization Hypothesis ( that the
principle ancestors of the Amerinds were from Lehi ) could be sustained
because of the DNA evidence. It is also clear that the hypothesis that
there were only Siberian overland migrations cannot be sustained because of archaeological
evidence.
For instance, there are a group of Amerinds in the
Great Lakes area whose ancestry most likely goes back to France and
Spain. This Great Lakes / southern Europe link might soon be confirmed
- there is a proposal to test the DNA connection on the Morrison Island
find. This is not the first time that Great Lakes First Nations ( Amerind )
remains have been DNA-tested and found to contain X-haplotype in the mtDNA. As well, here are some links to online items about European-North American
links for those who are interested in learning more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml
. This talks about the same Clovis point ( Salutrean ) evidence as the
Morrison Island article above.
http://www.runestone.org/kmcnnct.html
This is mostly about Kennewick Man ( northwestern United States, with
features that appear much more European than Asian ), but also talks about
Salutrean links.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/03/oldest.skull/
is very interesting. It shows that non-Siberians were here 12,700
years ago ( in this case, possibly Japanese ), and were here long before the
Siberian-rooted Amerinds. There is another write-up on
this discovery in Discover March 2003 issue. I will post the link when
it is put online ( usually, about a week after the issue is mailed ).
The ending quote from geologist Silvia Gonzalez says "We need to
discard the hypothesis that it was just one massive migration into
America. The picture is much more complicated." She is
right. This should give great solace to those who support the Limited
Geography Model. The skull talked about here is dated earlier than any
other human remains found in the Americas.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/EntryDate.html
This is a very well done link from UCLA. It covers many topics.
Among the most interesting is scientific information that shows that the
migration link might have been by sea, and not overland. That exact
link can be found at http://www.sciencenews.org/20000205/fob2.asp
http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/unicomm/news/Stmary/spearhead.htm
The first evidence of man hunting horses, although too early for Book of
Mormon chronology, was discovered by a Latter-day Saint elementary school
teacher, Shayne Tolman, in Cardston, Alberta, at St. Mary's Reservoir, in a
corridor that Bering peoples took, called the Mackenzie-Alberta
Corridor.
http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/anthropology/anthropology-millerprint060901.html
More background, this time on some DNA testing of Ojibway First Nations (
Amerind ) peoples, who are closely related to the First Nations Algonquins
of the Ottawa Valley (in fact, linguistically, Ojibway is part of the Algonquian
language family, which in turn is part of the Algic Amerindian
super-family).
The new world has had many groups come here, and stay, as shown
above. For another group's migration, the Chinese in this case, see http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_907602.html
An interesting link on First Nations ( Amerind ) view of DNA studies can be
found at http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html
. This site does more to talk about the limitations of putting
Amerinds in certain families than Whiting did. A very well done paper.
For the best article on the topic of Amerinds, The Atlantic Monthly
introduced the non-dispersion theory to the general public. See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm
and a follow-on discussion with the author at http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-03-07.htm
. From the same source is the best article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001stengel.htm
on the diffusion of Amerinds.
An excellent video on the topic
of DNA is called The Real Eve,
from the Discovery Channel. A good discussion of DNA and ancestral
migration on that site is found at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/ask/ask.html
Other sites of interest in
the area of DNA and Amerinds are
Jeff Lindsay has a large write-up on DNA
and the Book of Mormon at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml.
He is all apologetic all the time. In areas of my expertise ( 1838
Missouri, Blacks and the Priesthood ), he is wrong more often than
right. I'll leave it to the DNA experts to comment on this DNA
section.
To see the reverse of Lindsay's page above,
an anti-Mormon site about this topic is found at http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm
Another site, but not nearly as strident, can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9636/tract/dna_additional.htm .
There are many anti-Mormon sites on this topic. I will not list them
all - my general policy is to not list polemic sites from either side on any
issue, except as absolutely needed. The ones above are representative. Please note that a
paper that comes to a conclusion that the Mormon church might not like is
not per se anti-Mormon. A paper whose purpose is to attack the church
or its works, is anti-Mormon. Many Mormons do not understand the
difference, in my opinion
|
