Author: Kevin
Date: 02-16-04 06:32
First of all, Murphy was not suggesting that Native Americans ought to have the exact same haplotype as the Lemba population. While he may have "mentioned 'Lemba' ten times in the text of his article", it was because he used this particular group of people as an example of how DNA markers can identify Jewish ancestry, even when the population's genes have been significantly diluted through the centuries due to interbreeding.
Also, he only mentioned the Cohen signature as a possible marker that we can look for in Native Americans -- not the only one!
However, the other side of the problem is this:
It is not as if Native Americans have ambiguous DNA. While we cannot trace them to any known Hebrew origins, we can identify them with Mongolian origins. They do have those particular markers.
This is, of course, in addition to the many physical attributes that scientists have identified as "Mongolian" for over a century. It is very well-known that American Indians are Mongolian -- for example, if a "Mongolian" hair is found in the hands of a murder victim (i.e. in his/her struggle with their murderer), law enforcement can rule out Hebrews, as well as many other nationalities. But, they can't rule out Native Americans. Native Americans simply have Mongolian hair.
Of course most apologists today spout off the currently popular garbage that the BofM people were so small and limited in number that they simply became absorbed into the "indigenous" Native American population which were Mongals. However, such statements are egregious heresies.
The church has made clear and official statements regarding who is to be considered genetic Lamanites, and according to these statements the genetic sons and daughters of Lehi are none other than the entire Native American population in both North and South America. And, not only are there official statements from the Church to this effect, but revelations from Joseph Smith make it very clear -- not his "opinion", as the apologists like to claim, but unambiguous divine revelations make the Limited Geography Theory an impossibility.
Today's Latter-day Saints have a choice -- they can either subscribe to the Limited Geography Theory and reject modern revelation, or they can embrace modern revelation and reject the Limited Geography Theory. Latter-day Saints cannot embrace both. The two are mutually exclusive in this case.
In addition to the DNA evidence, you must also take into consideration the myriad of other relevant data: physical attributes of Native Americans, the language of Native Americans, the history of Native Americans as told through archeology, the plants/animals mentioned in the BofM that are not native to the Americas, the complete lack of plants/animals mentioned in the BofM that are native to the Americas, the social climate of the late 1820's that influenced Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith's upbringing and its influences on him, etc., etc. A few pieces of evidence that seem to have a superficial similarity to the Book of Mormon simply cannot stand up to the mountain of evidence that is diametrically opposed to the Book of Mormon.
When you look at the big picture (as Hugh Nibley is always telling us to do), it paints a distinct picture of the BofM being a fictional account (whether inspired or not) written by Joseph Smith. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, simply doesn't allow the Book of Mormon to be a real historical document.
DNA is only a small part of this equation. However, the DNA evidence to date runs contrary to the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon (which is the official model of the Church). The primary reason we cannot find a Hebrew match with Native Americans is because we have already found a DNA match with the Mongals.
------------------------------
As man is
So is his God;
And thus is God
Oft strangely odd.
-- Goethe
|
|
