DNA and the Book of Mormon

A number of people have claimed, recently, that DNA evidence disproves the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon, one of the Mormon books of scripture, claims Native Americans are descended from the House of Israel.  The DNA evidence asserts an Asian origin for the natives of the American continents. 

Geneticists have performed about 100 genetic studies on 75 of the known 500 Native American groups.  The results of these studies show genetic signatures on these populations that resemble those of modern day Asians.

Does this prove the Book of Mormon false?  No.  This would assume that Mormons believe that the only ancestors of the Native Americans were from the House of Israel.  Even prophet and founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith Jr., didn’t deny that other peoples might have lived alongside those groups described in the Book of Mormon.  And, especially after the fall of the Nephite civilization (the major civilization spoken of in the Book of Mormon), intermarriage would have been a real possibility.  We don’t know the size of the Book of Mormon populations, even to begin with, and wars often depleted them.  By the end of the history, there may not have been many left at all.  Other populations could have assimilated them easily and the Middle-Eastern, Jewish DNA may have almost disappeared entirely in the following centuries.  The DNA of modern Native Americans could be more Asiatic than Middle-Eastern and still do nothing to disprove the Book of Mormon.

Additionally, other geneticists have stated that to discover ancestry through DNA is not yet an exact science.

Official Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"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…"1

Latter-day Saints See the Possibility of Other Groups

Although critics of the Book of Mormon have fixated on the idea that Joseph Smith believed Abraham to be the ancestor of the Native Americans, nothing Joseph said would exclude other ancestors.  No one has only one ancestor. 

"In a statement made in 1835, Joseph Smith described the visit of an angel to him twelve years earlier: ‘He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold. I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited. He said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.’

Matthew Roper, a sociologist at BYU, had this to say in response to the prophet’s comment: "My great-great-grandfather is John Whetten, but it would not be reasonable to assume that in making this statement I am declaring that I have no other ancestors. Joseph Smith’s statement plainly allows for Abraham to be one ancestor among many others." 2 

The following was reported in a Mormon publication, but does present a possibility that Mormons weren’t alone in seeing a connection between the Native American peoples and Israel.  Times and Seasons, which was edited by Joseph Smith and John Taylor, cited an account written by Don Juan Torres, grandson of the Mayans’ last king.  Don Juan stated that "the Toltecas themselves descended from the house of Israel, who were released by Moses from the tyranny of Pharaoh, and after crossing the Red Sea, fell into Idolatry. To avoid the reproofs of Moses, or from fear of his inflicting upon them some chastisement, they separated from him and his brethren… passed from one continent to the other, to a place which they called the seven caverns, a part of the kingdom of Mexico." 3 

The well-known LDS historian, Hugh Nibley, considered this account very significant.  Although Don Juan claims Israelite ancestry, similar to the Book of Mormon, the group he mentions is completely different from those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  The Israelites in this account would have departed at a completely different time, by a completely different route.  Joseph Smith and John Taylor apparently had no problem with this idea, as they published it in Times and Seasons. 

In 1909, B.H. Roberts, a member of the Seventy, noted that the American coast could have been visited by Norsemen and that he considered a migration of Asian groups over the Bering Straight very probable.  He further said, "The records now in hand, especially that of the Jaredites, are but very limited histories of these people. Thus, even in Jaredite and Nephite times voyages could have been made from America to the shores of Europe, and yet no mention of it be made in Nephite and Jaredite records now known." 4

Hugh Nibley held the belief that God brought other peoples to the American continents. He said, "Now there is a great deal said in the Book of Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it described as an empty land. The descendants of Lehi were never the only people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be." 5

And other scholars note one of the similarities of the Book of Mormon to the Bible: both books are records of a relatively small group of people in a specific area.  The Book of Mormon never claims to be the history of all American peoples, any more than the Bible is the history of the Middle-Eastern world.  The Bible’s focus is the Israelites and the nations the Israelites were concerned with—their neighbors, friends, and enemies.  Any group that existed outside their immediately knowledge or interest doesn’t appear.  The Book of Mormon’s focus is likewise tight. 

The Book of Mormon scholar Ariel Crowley stated in 1961 that, "The Book of Mormon is no more the history of all peoples and doings of past ages on the American continents than the Bible is a history of all the peoples and nations of the East. Each covers its own time and provenance and makes no pretense beyond that… The Book of Mormon attests the presence of the blood of Israel. It is not in the least impugned by extraneous proof that other blood, by other migrations, found this land and mingled with the peoples there."6

Also like the Bible, the Book of Mormon does not stand as a complete historical record, even of the people it’s concerned with.  Any history spanning centuries must necessarily be abridged and the Book of Mormon is quite abridged indeed.  It was compiled by a man called Mormon, living in the last and waning years of his civilization.  He had access to many different records, but had to distill only the essential information into his abridgement—and that essential information was largely religious.  In the many records Mormon had at hand, there may have been records about other groups.  We don’t know—we don’t have access to the same material he did. 

Book of Mormon May Reference Other Groups

Even so, the Book of Mormon, as stands, may have evidence that the Book of Mormon groups did not exist alone in the Americas.  The story which the Book of Mormon follows is that of Lehi’s family and their descendants, but tight as this story is, it may indicate their contact with other peoples, even from the beginning.  Early on in the Book of Mormon, Nephi, son of Lehi, flees into the wilderness to escape his older brothers’ murderous plots.  The text states, "I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words." 7

It’s interesting that Nephi is so careful to specify who of his immediate and extended family decides to flee with him—he’s so specific that the identity of “all those who would go with me” must be ambiguous.  Who is included in that statement?  Who of the faithful part of the family is left (for, at this point, Lehi’s family splits into two distinct groups)?  It may be that people who lived on the continent prior to the arrival of Lehi’s family also followed Nephi.  Nephi refers to his group as the "people of Nephi," 8 "a term that may be suggestive of a larger society including more than his immediate family."9

Later, the Lord tells Nephi, "Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God." 10

Again, “them who shall be numbered among thy seed,” is a somewhat incongruous statement.  If Nephi’s descendents were the only people of Nephi, there would be no need to include anyone else.  Why hint at others if there were no others?  Regardless, the scripture quite specifically states that the land is blessed for people beyond Nephi’s direct descendants. 

Matthew Roper shares other Book of Mormon evidences in his review of Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations.

DNA Testing Not Completely Accurate

To discover a modern population’s ancestors through DNA testing is still a rather new science, which is still developing, still changing.  John Relethford, geneticist, said, "Although working in such a young and developing field is exciting, it is also frightening because the knowledge base changes so rapidly".11

Thus far, a DNA test can’t actually determine every aspect of a genetic lineage.  In fact, the current procedure can track only quite a small fraction of someone’s ancestry.  This current procedure tests two things—the Y-chromosome, which is passed on by men, and the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on by the women. 

Geneticists performed many DNA tests in Iceland, which "traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1798 and 1742." 12 The study admitted that these findings were badly skewed, "with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants."13

The ancestry of this population of Icelanders was impossible to trace accurately after only 150 years.   It was, after all, impossible that every one was truly a descendant of one or two common ancestors.  DNA testing is a complex matter.  It’s far from impossible that the DNA introduced into the American continental population by Lehi’s family wouldn’t be detectable today.

Another geneticist explains the limitations of using mitochondrial DNA (MDNA) to identify the origins of any population:

• MDNA passes from mother to child. However, it only passes if a woman has a daughter—if she has only sons, she will not pass on her MDNA.  MDNA moves purely along the maternal line.  So, without daughters, the woman’s later descendants would bear no genetic markers from their maternal ancestor at all.
• Regular DNA combines the maternal and paternal DNA.  MDNA, by itself, is only a small part of the genetic signature.  It’s useful for genetic testing purposes, because it doesn’t change from generation to generation, but, because it’s so small, it can only give us a very limited view of any person or group’s genetic make up.   
• If a woman marries into a new group, her MDNA is introduced into the population and the gene structure and markers of future generations change accordingly. 

"With this in mind, let’s imagine we have ten generations of a family tree in front of us, beginning from the top down to the bottom, over the ten generations. If we are only considering MDNA, as we look at any individual in the 10th generation at the bottom of the chart (which, let’s say, represents the current generation), because of the above limitations, we, by no means, have an accurate understanding of the original genetics of this population." 14

The issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon is far from closed—and the Book of Mormon is far from disproved by it.

(1) DNA and the Book of Mormon Los Angeles Times, 16 February 2006
(2) Roper, MatthewReview of Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations. Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003. Pp. 91–128
(3) "Facts Are Stubborn Things," Times and Seasons 3 (15 September 1842): 922.
(4) B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God. 2:356-57
(5) Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 218–19.
(6) Ibid., 145.
(7) 2 Nephi 5:5–6
(8) 2 Nephi 5:9
(9) Roper, MatthewReview of Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations. Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003. Pp. 91–128
(10) 2 Nephi 10:18–19
(11) Relethford, J.H. Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins. Wiley-Liss: New York (2001); quotation from p. 205.
(12) Butler, John. “Addressing Questions Surrounding The Book of Mormon and DNA Research”. FARMS. February 2006.
(13) Helgason, A., Hrafnkelsson, B., Gulcher, J.R., Ward, R., Stefansson, K. "A population-wide coalescent analysis of Icelandic matrilineal and patrilineal genealogies: evidence for a faster evolutionary rate of mtDNA lineages than Y chromosomes." American Journal of Human Genetics 72: 1370-1388 (2003).

(14) Johnson, Cooper. DNA and the Book of Mormon. FAIR – Defending Mormonism.