Book of Mormon/DNA evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:08, 15 October 2006

Criticism

DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed.

Sources of the Criticism

Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).
Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News 44/2 (February 2003): 20
Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe : Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

Response

Few criticisms of the Church have received as much media attention as this criticism, with so little thought and science being applied to the question. DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds.

Initial considerations

It is important to first realize that no genetic studies have been designed and performed specifically to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.

All the work has used data gathered for other purposes to argue against the Book of Mormon.

DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available). A number of excellent articles are available on this topic.

For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:

This article provides a basic overview by an LDS bishop who is also a world expert on the use of genetic testing. It is quite short, simple, and straight-forward: John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
This article provides more detail, but is still accessible to the non-specialist: David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site

These articles discuss the feasability of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:

Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link (Key source)

Geography

A variety of geographic models have been suggested for the Book of Mormon. Some geographic models introduce other difficulties for the DNA attacks. These issues are discussed in separate pages:

Criticism

DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed.

Sources of the Criticism

Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).
Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News 44/2 (February 2003): 20
Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe : Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

Response

Few criticisms of the Church have received as much media attention as this criticism, with so little thought and science being applied to the question. DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds.

Initial considerations

It is important to first realize that no genetic studies have been designed and performed specifically to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.

All the work has used data gathered for other purposes to argue against the Book of Mormon.

DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available). A number of excellent articles are available on this topic.

For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:

This article provides a basic overview by an LDS bishop who is also a world expert on the use of genetic testing. It is quite short, simple, and straight-forward: John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
This article provides more detail, but is still accessible to the non-specialist: David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site

These articles discuss the feasability of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:

Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link (Key source)

Geography

A variety of geographic models have been suggested for the Book of Mormon. Some geographic models introduce other difficulties for the DNA attacks. These issues are discussed in separate pages:

Template loop detected: Template:DNAWiki

General genetics issues

Regardless of the geographical model used, efforts to date at "testing" the Book of Mormon through the use of genetic data encounter a number of problems and issues that should be considered. The remainder of this page discusses issues which must be considered regardless of the geographical model being used.

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

Newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them. Critics have also insisted that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas are "wrong."

Regardless of the population model which one uses, or the geographical model, this claim is demonstrably false.

The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics^[1]) wrote:

If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA. But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.^[2]

If Lehi existed, and if he left any descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually all modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors. (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to that time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.) In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically or a mere drop in a genetic sea.

And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in hemisphere model, type 3) Lehi is literally the only source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.

Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:

Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.^[3]

Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:

John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the current population might be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor? President Spencer W. Kimball is known as a powerful advocate for the Native Americans, on the basis of their status as "Lamanites." He said:

we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, which includes the Indians and the mixtures of Indians with other races. Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes and have been given Indian names...

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people. The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.^[4]

Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected—the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention. The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite genes, but rather about their eligibility for the promises made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people. Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.

This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel. Genetically, it is probable that all people alive today share all of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors. Yet, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings. Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe. It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.

Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church. President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that

There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous.^[5]

We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.

Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:

D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link (Key source)
John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link

What Jewish DNA?

Identifying DNA criteria for Manasseh and Ephraim may always be beyond our reach. But, even identifying markers for Jews—a group that has remained relatively cohesive and refrained from intermarriage with others more than most groups—is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

One author cautioned:

Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. . . . Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side—the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities—so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on. . . . Geneticists—like preachers and philosophers before them—need to avoid promising more than they can deliver.^[6]

Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Ryan Parr, "Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat (Review of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 83–106. off-site
Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children. It has been used in attacks on the Book of Mormon, and yet even known Jewish populations do not share mtDNA.

A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia . . . to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. . . . The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because . . . their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.^[7]

So, known Jewish groups cannot be linked at all by mtDNA studies, and yet the critics would have us believe that two of the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh—from whom we have no 'control' or 'reference' samples to compare to) can be ruled out as ancestors of the Amerindians via mtDNA testing?

Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Y-Chromosome DNA

Y-chromosomes are only spread from father to son; the female line does not carry them at all. These markers have also been used by critics to "prove" that the Amerindians cannot be descended from Lehi.

Despite claims that Y-chromosome data do not support Book of Mormon claims, there are some markers which should be considered in another light:

Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.^[8]

Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

Murphy uses the "Lemba" as an example of a group proven to be Jewish via DNA testing. But, this example is misleading. The Lemba were identified as Jewish because of a marker called the "Cohen modal haplotype." This marker is carried by about half of those who claim descent from Aaron, Moses' brother, and only 2-3% of other Jews.

But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest—and in fact seems to exclude—the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party. Without priestly families, one would not expect to find the Cohen modal haplotype! Yet, only 2-3% of modern Jews from non-priestly families (to say nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh—remember, Lehi and company are not "Jews") can be identified by this test.^[9] Are these 97-98% of modern Jews then not Jews because the genetic test is negative for them? Excluding the Nephites on the basis of such a poor test that we would not even expect them to pass (since they do not include Levitical families) shows how far the critics will twist the evidence to find fault.

Articles which discuss Cohen modal haplotype issues:

Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)

90% death rate with European contact

Approximatley ninety perecent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense.^{[citation needed]}

Since different genes likely provide different resistances to infectious disease, it may be that eliminating 90% of the pre-contact gene pool has significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants.

What about the Jaredites?

Critics often over-look the Jaredites, and assume (as in the hemispheric models type 2 and type 3) that the Jaredites can have contributed nothing of consequence to the Lehite DNA picture.

But, it is not clear that this must be the case. Some LDS have believed in a total eradication of the Jaredites, others have argued that Jaredite remnants survived and mixed with the Lehites. Bruce R. McConkie, while believing that the majority of Amerindian descent was from Israel (i.e. Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek) nevertheless wrote:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century.^[10]

The Jaredites are complete genetic unknowns. They cannot be Israelites, since they pre-date Israel. Some authors, such as Hugh Nibley, long ago argued that they were of Asian origin.^[11]

Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.^[12] The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

evolutionary change in species
human descent from other primates

And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

the earth being only 6,000 years old
a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago

The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

Discussions of this ironic twist are found in:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Conclusion

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised. Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics' poorly-considered caricatures.

Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid.

The Church's statement on the matter of DNA is succinct and accurate:

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.^[13]

In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaelogical data—at present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history.

But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help non-specialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics.

Endnotes

[note] Olson is co-author of a letter to Nature, in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 Nature (30 September 2004): 562–566. off-site Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings here.
[note] Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," slate.com (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). off-site
[note] John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," slate.com (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 7. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 10. off-site
[note] "The Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis..." - Erastus Snow, "Ephraim And Manassah, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (6 May 1882), Vol. 23 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1883), 184.off-site
[note] Martin Richards, "Beware the Gene Genies," Guardian (21 February 2003), accessed 7 July 2006. off-site; cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Nicholas Wade, "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots," New York Times (14 May 2002): F1 (col. 1); cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] See "Cohen Modal Haplotype," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link
[note] See "Y-Chromosome Data," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Citations omitted)
[note] Bruce R. McConkie, "American Indians," in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 33. GL direct linkGL direct link
[note] See, for example, Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, the World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch with Darrell L. Matthew and Stephen R. Callister, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),153–following. GL direct link
[note] The expression "suicide bombing" in this context comes from Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Press Release, "Mistakes in the News: DNA and the Book of Mormon" (11 November 2003) off-site

General genetics issues

Regardless of the geographical model used, efforts to date at "testing" the Book of Mormon through the use of genetic data encounter a number of problems and issues that should be considered. The remainder of this page discusses issues which must be considered regardless of the geographical model being used.

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

Newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them. Critics have also insisted that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas are "wrong."

Regardless of the population model which one uses, or the geographical model, this claim is demonstrably false.

The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics^[14]) wrote:

If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA. But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.^[15]

If Lehi existed, and if he left any descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually all modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors. (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to that time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.) In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically or a mere drop in a genetic sea.

And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in hemisphere model, type 3) Lehi is literally the only source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.

Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:

Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.^[16]

Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:

John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the current population might be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor? President Spencer W. Kimball is known as a powerful advocate for the Native Americans, on the basis of their status as "Lamanites." He said:

we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, which includes the Indians and the mixtures of Indians with other races. Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes and have been given Indian names...

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people. The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.^[17]

Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected—the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention. The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite genes, but rather about their eligibility for the promises made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people. Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.

This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel. Genetically, it is probable that all people alive today share all of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors. Yet, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings. Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe. It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.

Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church. President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that

There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous.^[18]

We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.

Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:

D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link (Key source)
John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link

What Jewish DNA?

Identifying DNA criteria for Manasseh and Ephraim may always be beyond our reach. But, even identifying markers for Jews—a group that has remained relatively cohesive and refrained from intermarriage with others more than most groups—is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

One author cautioned:

Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. . . . Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side—the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities—so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on. . . . Geneticists—like preachers and philosophers before them—need to avoid promising more than they can deliver.^[19]

Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Ryan Parr, "Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat (Review of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 83–106. off-site
Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children. It has been used in attacks on the Book of Mormon, and yet even known Jewish populations do not share mtDNA.

A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia . . . to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. . . . The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because . . . their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.^[20]

So, known Jewish groups cannot be linked at all by mtDNA studies, and yet the critics would have us believe that two of the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh—from whom we have no 'control' or 'reference' samples to compare to) can be ruled out as ancestors of the Amerindians via mtDNA testing?

Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Y-Chromosome DNA

Y-chromosomes are only spread from father to son; the female line does not carry them at all. These markers have also been used by critics to "prove" that the Amerindians cannot be descended from Lehi.

Despite claims that Y-chromosome data do not support Book of Mormon claims, there are some markers which should be considered in another light:

Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.^[21]

Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

Murphy uses the "Lemba" as an example of a group proven to be Jewish via DNA testing. But, this example is misleading. The Lemba were identified as Jewish because of a marker called the "Cohen modal haplotype." This marker is carried by about half of those who claim descent from Aaron, Moses' brother, and only 2-3% of other Jews.

But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest—and in fact seems to exclude—the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party. Without priestly families, one would not expect to find the Cohen modal haplotype! Yet, only 2-3% of modern Jews from non-priestly families (to say nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh—remember, Lehi and company are not "Jews") can be identified by this test.^[22] Are these 97-98% of modern Jews then not Jews because the genetic test is negative for them? Excluding the Nephites on the basis of such a poor test that we would not even expect them to pass (since they do not include Levitical families) shows how far the critics will twist the evidence to find fault.

Articles which discuss Cohen modal haplotype issues:

Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)

90% death rate with European contact

Approximatley ninety perecent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense.^{[citation needed]}

Since different genes likely provide different resistances to infectious disease, it may be that eliminating 90% of the pre-contact gene pool has significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants.

What about the Jaredites?

Critics often over-look the Jaredites, and assume (as in the hemispheric models type 2 and type 3) that the Jaredites can have contributed nothing of consequence to the Lehite DNA picture.

But, it is not clear that this must be the case. Some LDS have believed in a total eradication of the Jaredites, others have argued that Jaredite remnants survived and mixed with the Lehites. Bruce R. McConkie, while believing that the majority of Amerindian descent was from Israel (i.e. Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek) nevertheless wrote:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century.^[23]

The Jaredites are complete genetic unknowns. They cannot be Israelites, since they pre-date Israel. Some authors, such as Hugh Nibley, long ago argued that they were of Asian origin.^[24]

Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.^[25] The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

evolutionary change in species
human descent from other primates

And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

the earth being only 6,000 years old
a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago

The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

Discussions of this ironic twist are found in:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Conclusion

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised. Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics' poorly-considered caricatures.

Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid.

The Church's statement on the matter of DNA is succinct and accurate:

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.^[26]

In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaelogical data—at present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history.

But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help non-specialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics.

Endnotes

[note] Olson is co-author of a letter to Nature, in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 Nature (30 September 2004): 562–566. off-site Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings here.
[note] Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," slate.com (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). off-site
[note] John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," slate.com (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 7. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 10. off-site
[note] "The Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis..." - Erastus Snow, "Ephraim And Manassah, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (6 May 1882), Vol. 23 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1883), 184.off-site
[note] Martin Richards, "Beware the Gene Genies," Guardian (21 February 2003), accessed 7 July 2006. off-site; cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Nicholas Wade, "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots," New York Times (14 May 2002): F1 (col. 1); cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] See "Cohen Modal Haplotype," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link
[note] See "Y-Chromosome Data," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Citations omitted)
[note] Bruce R. McConkie, "American Indians," in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 33. GL direct linkGL direct link
[note] See, for example, Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, the World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch with Darrell L. Matthew and Stephen R. Callister, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),153–following. GL direct link
[note] The expression "suicide bombing" in this context comes from Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Press Release, "Mistakes in the News: DNA and the Book of Mormon" (11 November 2003) off-site

Criticism

DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed.

Sources of the Criticism

Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).
Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News 44/2 (February 2003): 20
Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe : Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

Response

Few criticisms of the Church have received as much media attention as this criticism, with so little thought and science being applied to the question. DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds.

Initial considerations

It is important to first realize that no genetic studies have been designed and performed specifically to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.

All the work has used data gathered for other purposes to argue against the Book of Mormon.

DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available). A number of excellent articles are available on this topic.

For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:

This article provides a basic overview by an LDS bishop who is also a world expert on the use of genetic testing. It is quite short, simple, and straight-forward: John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
This article provides more detail, but is still accessible to the non-specialist: David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site

These articles discuss the feasability of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:

Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link (Key source)

Geography

A variety of geographic models have been suggested for the Book of Mormon. Some geographic models introduce other difficulties for the DNA attacks. These issues are discussed in separate pages:

Template loop detected: Template:DNAWiki

General genetics issues

Regardless of the geographical model used, efforts to date at "testing" the Book of Mormon through the use of genetic data encounter a number of problems and issues that should be considered. The remainder of this page discusses issues which must be considered regardless of the geographical model being used.

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

Newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them. Critics have also insisted that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas are "wrong."

Regardless of the population model which one uses, or the geographical model, this claim is demonstrably false.

The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics^[27]) wrote:

If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA. But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.^[28]

If Lehi existed, and if he left any descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually all modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors. (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to that time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.) In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically or a mere drop in a genetic sea.

And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in hemisphere model, type 3) Lehi is literally the only source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.

Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:

Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.^[29]

Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:

John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the current population might be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor? President Spencer W. Kimball is known as a powerful advocate for the Native Americans, on the basis of their status as "Lamanites." He said:

we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, which includes the Indians and the mixtures of Indians with other races. Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes and have been given Indian names...

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people. The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.^[30]

Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected—the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention. The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite genes, but rather about their eligibility for the promises made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people. Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.

This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel. Genetically, it is probable that all people alive today share all of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors. Yet, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings. Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe. It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.

Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church. President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that

There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous.^[31]

We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.

Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:

D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link (Key source)
John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link

What Jewish DNA?

Identifying DNA criteria for Manasseh and Ephraim may always be beyond our reach. But, even identifying markers for Jews—a group that has remained relatively cohesive and refrained from intermarriage with others more than most groups—is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

One author cautioned:

Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. . . . Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side—the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities—so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on. . . . Geneticists—like preachers and philosophers before them—need to avoid promising more than they can deliver.^[32]

Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
Ryan Parr, "Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat (Review of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 83–106. off-site
Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)
Brian D. Stubbs, "Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 165–182. off-site

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children. It has been used in attacks on the Book of Mormon, and yet even known Jewish populations do not share mtDNA.

A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia . . . to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. . . . The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because . . . their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.^[33]

So, known Jewish groups cannot be linked at all by mtDNA studies, and yet the critics would have us believe that two of the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh—from whom we have no 'control' or 'reference' samples to compare to) can be ruled out as ancestors of the Amerindians via mtDNA testing?

Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Y-Chromosome DNA

Y-chromosomes are only spread from father to son; the female line does not carry them at all. These markers have also been used by critics to "prove" that the Amerindians cannot be descended from Lehi.

Despite claims that Y-chromosome data do not support Book of Mormon claims, there are some markers which should be considered in another light:

Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.^[34]

Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

Murphy uses the "Lemba" as an example of a group proven to be Jewish via DNA testing. But, this example is misleading. The Lemba were identified as Jewish because of a marker called the "Cohen modal haplotype." This marker is carried by about half of those who claim descent from Aaron, Moses' brother, and only 2-3% of other Jews.

But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest—and in fact seems to exclude—the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party. Without priestly families, one would not expect to find the Cohen modal haplotype! Yet, only 2-3% of modern Jews from non-priestly families (to say nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh—remember, Lehi and company are not "Jews") can be identified by this test.^[35] Are these 97-98% of modern Jews then not Jews because the genetic test is negative for them? Excluding the Nephites on the basis of such a poor test that we would not even expect them to pass (since they do not include Levitical families) shows how far the critics will twist the evidence to find fault.

Articles which discuss Cohen modal haplotype issues:

Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Key source)

90% death rate with European contact

Approximatley ninety perecent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense.^{[citation needed]}

Since different genes likely provide different resistances to infectious disease, it may be that eliminating 90% of the pre-contact gene pool has significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants.

What about the Jaredites?

Critics often over-look the Jaredites, and assume (as in the hemispheric models type 2 and type 3) that the Jaredites can have contributed nothing of consequence to the Lehite DNA picture.

But, it is not clear that this must be the case. Some LDS have believed in a total eradication of the Jaredites, others have argued that Jaredite remnants survived and mixed with the Lehites. Bruce R. McConkie, while believing that the majority of Amerindian descent was from Israel (i.e. Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek) nevertheless wrote:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century.^[36]

The Jaredites are complete genetic unknowns. They cannot be Israelites, since they pre-date Israel. Some authors, such as Hugh Nibley, long ago argued that they were of Asian origin.^[37]

Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.^[38] The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

evolutionary change in species
human descent from other primates

And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

the earth being only 6,000 years old
a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago

The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

Discussions of this ironic twist are found in:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Conclusion

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised. Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics' poorly-considered caricatures.

Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid.

The Church's statement on the matter of DNA is succinct and accurate:

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.^[39]

In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaelogical data—at present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history.

But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help non-specialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics.

Endnotes

[note] Olson is co-author of a letter to Nature, in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 Nature (30 September 2004): 562–566. off-site Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings here.
[note] Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," slate.com (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). off-site
[note] John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," slate.com (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 7. off-site
[note] Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 10. off-site
[note] "The Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis..." - Erastus Snow, "Ephraim And Manassah, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (6 May 1882), Vol. 23 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1883), 184.off-site
[note] Martin Richards, "Beware the Gene Genies," Guardian (21 February 2003), accessed 7 July 2006. off-site; cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Nicholas Wade, "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots," New York Times (14 May 2002): F1 (col. 1); cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] See "Cohen Modal Haplotype," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link
[note] See "Y-Chromosome Data," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link (Citations omitted)
[note] Bruce R. McConkie, "American Indians," in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 33. GL direct linkGL direct link
[note] See, for example, Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, the World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch with Darrell L. Matthew and Stephen R. Callister, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),153–following. GL direct link
[note] The expression "suicide bombing" in this context comes from Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
[note] Press Release, "Mistakes in the News: DNA and the Book of Mormon" (11 November 2003) off-site

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available).  A number of excellent articles are available on this topic.
-For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:
+''For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:''
 * This article provides a basic overview by an LDS bishop who is also a world expert on the use of genetic testing.  It is quite short, simple, and straight-forward: {{FR-18-1-6}} <!-- Butler - Addressing-->
 * This article provides more detail, but is still accessible to the non-specialist: {{FR-15-2-6}} <!-- McClellan - Detecting-->
-These articles discuss the feasability of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:
+''These articles discuss the feasability of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:''
 * {{JBMS-12-1-3}} {{NB}}<!--Whitting – DNA and BoM-->
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 Furthermore, the Middle East is located at the crossroads of three continents, and has seen a great deal of immigration, mixing, and intermarriage.  To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science.
-Articles which consider that "Asian" DNA and Lehite DNA may actually correspond due to an earlier common source:
+''Articles which consider that "Asian" DNA and Lehite DNA may actually correspond due to an earlier common source:''
 * {{FR-18-1-7}} <!--Stewart -- DNA and the Book of Mormon-->
@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 :Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. . . . Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side—the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities—so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on. . . . Geneticists—like preachers and philosophers before them—need to avoid promising more than they can deliver.{{ref|genie1}}
-Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:
+''Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:''
 * {{JBMS-12-1-4}} <!--Butler - A Few Thoughts-->
@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 So, known Jewish groups cannot be linked at all by mtDNA studies, and yet the critics would have us believe that two of the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh&mdash;from whom we have no 'control' or 'reference' samples to compare to) can be ruled out as ancestors of the Amerindians via mtDNA testing?
-Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:
+''Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:''
 * {{JBMS-12-1-4}} <!--Butler - A Few Thoughts-->
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.{{ref|stewart2}}
-Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:
+''Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:''
 * {{JBMS-12-1-4}} <!--Butler - A Few Thoughts-->
@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest&mdash;and in fact seems to exclude&mdash;the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party.  Without priestly families, one would not expect to find the Cohen modal haplotype!  Yet, only 2-3% of modern Jews from non-priestly families (to say nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh&mdash;remember, Lehi and company are not "Jews") can be identified by this test.{{ref|stewart1}}  Are these 97-98% of modern Jews then ''not'' Jews because the genetic test is negative for them?  Excluding the Nephites on the basis of such a poor test that we would not even expect them to pass (since they do not include Levitical families) shows how far the critics will twist the evidence to find fault.
-Cohen modal haplotype issues are discussed:
+''Articles which discuss Cohen modal haplotype issues:''
 * {{FR-15-2-8}} <!-- Roper - Swimming-->
@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 The Jaredites are complete genetic unknowns.  They cannot be Israelites, since they pre-date Israel.  Some authors, such as Hugh Nibley, long ago argued that they were of ''Asian'' origin.{{ref|nibley1}}
-Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:
+''Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:''
 * {{JBMS-12-1-4}} <!--Butler - A Few Thoughts-->
@@ Line 184: / Line 184: @@
 The critics are often hypocritical&mdash;they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that ''they'' should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much ''more'' DNA evidence against them.
-Discussions of this ironic twist are found in:
+''Discussions of this ironic twist are found in'':
 * {{FR-15-2-1}} <!--Peterson - Editor's intro-->

Main navigation

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:08, 15 October 2006

Criticism

Sources of the Criticism

Response

Initial considerations

Geography

Criticism

Sources of the Criticism

Response

Initial considerations

Geography

General genetics issues

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

What Jewish DNA?

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Y-Chromosome DNA

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

90% death rate with European contact

What about the Jaredites?

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

Conclusion

Endnotes

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

FAIR web site

External links

Printed material

General genetics issues

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

What Jewish DNA?

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Y-Chromosome DNA

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

90% death rate with European contact

What about the Jaredites?

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

Conclusion

Endnotes

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

Criticism

Sources of the Criticism

Response

Initial considerations

Geography

General genetics issues

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?

What Jewish DNA?

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA)

Y-Chromosome DNA

Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

90% death rate with European contact

What about the Jaredites?

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

Conclusion

Endnotes

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

FAIR web site

External links

Printed material

FAIR web site

External links

Printed material

Footer

Our Friends

Follow Us

Donate to FAIR