DNA and the Book of Mormon

Advances in genetic science have raised important and contentious questions about what DNA testing on Native Americans says about the Book of Mormon. Some contend that DNA disproves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, while others counter that the text does not offer testable claims about Native American ancestry.

What does DNA analysis have to do with the Book of Mormon?

The introduction[1] to the Book of Mormon says it is "a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas" and that one of the groups described in the book, the Lamanites, is "among the ancestors of the American Indians."[2]

Genetic testing on Native Americans indicates that they carry genes from central and eastern Asia, not the Middle East where Lehi and his family are said to come from.[3] This has led some to argue the Book of Mormon is therefore not an ancient text,[4] and so the Church's truth claims are false.

An 1844 color lithograph print by Edward Williams Clay and Henry R. Robinson depicting Joseph Smith Junior holding a copy of the Book of Mormon and reaching out to a group of Native american Indians, subtitled "Joseph the Prophet Addressing the Lamanites." — A lithograph print from 1844 depicting Joseph Smith preaching from the Book of Mormon to a group of Native American Indians, described as 'Lamanites' by the printmakers.

Book of Mormon and DNA

Changes to the Book of Mormon Introduction

1981

The Church publishes a new edition of the Book of Mormon[5] which adds the claim that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."[6]

May 2002

Thomas Murphy,[BIO] an anthropologist and Latter-day Saint, publishes the article "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," arguing that DNA evidence challenges Book of Mormon historicity.[7]

December 8, 2002

The Los Angeles Times reports Thomas Murphy as saying the Book of Mormon is "19th century fiction," that "Joseph Smith lied," and that he (Thomas Murphy) is scheduled for a "church disciplinary panel" for "apostasy."[8]

February 2003

Thomas Murphy and co-author Simon Southerton[BIO] publish an article in Anthropology News stating that the implications of DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon is a "Galileo Event" for Latter-day Saints.[9]

2003

Scholars with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publish responses to Murphy and Southerton.[10]

November 11, 2003

The Church responds to the DNA controversy in a press release, stating: "Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered . . . however, [the scientific issues relating to DNA] are numerous and complex."[11]

November 16, 2004

The Church publishes a new edition of the Book of Mormon (the "Doubleday edition") but retains the "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" wording of the 1981 introduction.[12]

2005

Simon Southerton is excommunicated for "having an inappropriate relationship with a woman."[13]

2006

A second Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon is published with the introduction changed to read the Lamanites are "among the ancestors of the American Indians."[14]

2007

The Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune publish articles about the change made in the introduction to the new Doubleday edition.[15]

2013

The Church publishes a new official edition of the Standard Works and includes the change made in the introduction to the second Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon.[16]

2013

The Church publishes the Gospel Topics essay "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies" which concludes with a statement from Elder Dallin H. Oaks[BIO] saying that "secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon." [17]

Expand Timeline

Does DNA analysis disprove the Book of Mormon?

It depends on what you believe about the Book of Mormon's historical narrative and geography. (See chart below.)

DNA and the Book of Mormon—Models and Theories

Assumption/Theory	Details	Implications of DNA Analysis
Limited Mesoamerican geography model (Sorenson, 1985) [18]	Lehi and his family inhabited only a small area in Central America. Book of Mormon peoples only spread to a limited geographical area and lived among a variety of pre-Columbian, non-Lehite peoples. Modern Native Americans are among but are not exclusively the descendants of Lehi.	Current DNA evidence is not inconsistent with this model and/or is not applicable to this model.[19]
Hemispheric geography model (Pratt, 1840) [20]	Lehi and his family encountered an empty American continent upon arriving in the New World. Book of Mormon peoples subsequently spread out across the entirety of North and South America. Modern Native Americans are universally and exclusively the descendants of Lehi.	Current DNA evidence is inconsistent with this model.[21]
Limited "Heartland" geography model (Meldrum, 2009) [22]	Lehi and his descendants inhabited the midwestern and northeastern United States. Book of Mormon peoples only inhabited a limited area of the United States in North America. Modern Native Americans of specific North American tribes are the descendants of Lehi and have been identified through DNA.	Current DNA evidence is inconsistent with this model.[23]
The Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century text (Southerton, 2005)[24]	Joseph Smith is the modern author of a fictitious Book of Mormon narrative. Joseph had erroneous beliefs about the origins of Native Americans and repeated popular (and racist) nineteenth-century myths about the "Mound Builders."	Current DNA evidence is consistent with this model.[25]

Expand Table

What does the data currently say about the genetic makeup of Native Americans?

It currently indicates the presence of five major mitochondrial haplogroups, and two major Y-chromosome haplogroups in the population,[26] which are commonly found in Siberia, southeast Asia, and Eurasia.[27]

Is DNA analysis accurate?

Yes, although there are areas of ongoing research, the science of DNA analysis is considered generally sound.[28]

If DNA science is well understood, why do people disagree about its relevance to the Book of Mormon?

It's primarily due to conflicts in the interpretation of both the genetic data and what the Book of Mormon claims.[29]

Is there evidence for "Jewish" or Middle Eastern DNA in Native American populations?

No, probably not. Proponents of the "Heartland" theory for the Book of Mormon have argued that Haplogroup X (which is present in North American native populations[30]) is evidence for the Book of Mormon,[31] but their arguments have neither been accepted by mainstream non-Latter-day Saint scientists nor by Latter-day Saint geneticists who accept Book of Mormon historicity.[32]

If there were ancient Lamanites, shouldn't we be able to detect their DNA today?

Possibly. This depends on the assumptions made about Lamanite identity,[33] and whether the Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites being the sole ancestors of modern Native Americans.[34] There are also complicating factors relating to reconstructing genetic ancestry that make it unlikely that we'd ever be able to detect "Lamanite DNA."[35] (See chart.)

Complicating Factors with DNA and Population Analysis

Factor	Details	Relevance to Book of Mormon
Genetic Bottleneck	A genetic bottleneck, also called a population bottleneck, is "an event that drastically reduces the size of a population," typically due to warfare, disease, natural disasters, or migration. This causes "a decrease in the gene pool of the population because many alleles, or gene variants, that were present in the original population are lost." The result of this is that "the remaining population has a very low level of genetic diversity, which means that the population as a whole has few genetic characteristics."[36][37]	The Book of Mormon describes what could be called a genetic or population bottleneck.[38] The colonization of the Americas by Europeans also resulted in large-scale death among Native Americans, resulting in another bottleneck.[39][40] These bottleneck events greatly increase the likelihood that Lehi's DNA signature would be lost.[41]
Genetic Drift	Genetic drift is the "random fluctuations in the numbers of gene variants in a population. Genetic drift takes place when the occurrence of variant forms of a gene, called alleles, increases and decreases by chance over time. These variations in the presence of alleles are measured as changes in allele frequencies."[42]	Genetic drift occurs naturally when people inherit DNA from their parents. Book of Mormon peoples would have naturally experienced genetic drift like every other human population.[43]
Founder Effect	A founder effect/event occurs "when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population." A new "small population size" present in a larger gene pool may result in the colony having either "reduced genetic variation from the original population" or "a non-random sample of the genes in the original population."[44]	The Book of Mormon depicts three small colonies of founders migrating to the Americas.[45] If the founders of these colonies encountered a larger population already present in the land and intermarried with them, then the likelihood is high that this would result in an undersampling or maybe even the elimination of the founders' original genetic signature from the population.[46]

Expand Table

Have these complicating factors been observed in other populations?

Yes. Ancient populations in Iceland,[47] Great Britain,[48] and the Near East[49] are examples of people that existed but have not left a genetic profile that can be detected in modern populations.[50]

Was the "limited geography theory" for the Book of Mormon created in response to problematic DNA evidence?

No. Versions of a "limited geography model" had been suggested as early as the 1910s and 20s by Latter-day Saints and others based on the text of the Book of Mormon and interpretation of archaeological evidence.[51] However, this model was not widely adopted until the 1980s when John L. Sorenson,[BIO] a BYU anthropologist, began publishing his arguments for a limited geography model.[52]

Does the Church take an official stance on Book of Mormon geography?

No. In 2019, the Church published an essay titled "Book of Mormon Geography" which states that the Church "does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas." It added, "Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken."[53]

The Church's only official position on Book of Mormon geography is that "the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas"[54] and that the Lamanites are "among the ancestors of the American Indians."[55]

Were theories about ancient America being already populated before Lehi arrived in response to problematic DNA evidence?

No. As early as 1909, Latter-day Saint scholars have proposed that ancient America was already populated with people before Lehi arrived.[56] (See chart.)

Statements on Lamanite Ancestry from Past Latter-day Saints

Person	Date	Quote
B. H. Roberts[BIO]	1909	"I think it indisputable that there have been migrations from northeastern Asia into the extreme north parts of North America, by way of Behring straits, where the continents of Asia and North America are separated by a distance of but thirty-six miles. . . . It will be enough to say that if there were such intercourse, both Nephite and Jaredite records in the Book of Mormon are silent with reference to it."[57]
Janne M. Sjodahl[BIO]	1921	"Now it should be observed that the Book of Mormon has nothing to say about the occupation of America by man before the arrival of the Jaredites. If scientists find, beyond controversy, that there were human beings here before the building of the tower; in fact, before the flood and way back in glacial ages, the authors of that volume offer no objection at all. . .If America was occupied by any race of people—pre-Jaredites, we may call them—information concerning them must be gathered, not from the Book of Mormon, but from geological strata, or from archeological remains extant."[58]
B. H. Roberts	1922	"Moreover, there is also the possibility that other peoples may have inhabited parts of the great continents of America, contemporaneously with the peoples spoken of by the Book of Mormon, though candor compels me to say that nothing to that effect appears in the Book of Mormon. A number of our Book of Mormon students, however, are inclined to believe that the Book of Mormon peoples were restricted to much narrower limits in their habitat on the American continents, than have generally been allowed."[59]
Janne M. Sjodahl	1927	"Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to Hebrew sources. . . . Nor is it improbable that America has received other immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe, who may have introduced new creeds and institutions, although not mentioned in the Book of Mormon."[60]
Anthony W. Ivins[BIO]	1929	"The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent."[61]
John A. Widtsoe[BIO] and Franklin S. Harris Jr.[BIO]	1937	“Three separate and distinct settlements of America are reported by the Book of Mormon. The first, the Jaredites, dates from the Tower of Babel, the other two, the Nephites and Mulekites, from the time of Zedekiah, King of Judah. There may also have been others not recorded in the Book or not known to the ancient authors."[62]
William E. Berrett[BIO]	1938	“Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers. Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.”[63]
Roy A. West[BIO]	1940	"There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus. There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record."[64]
Antoine R. Ivins[BIO]	1950	"I feel that we are not justified in believing that all of the people who rallied to the banner of the Lamanites were actually descended from Laman and Lemuel or that all who called themselves Nephites were the actual descendants of Nephi, Sam, or the faithful sons of Nephi. . . .There may have been other peoples whom the Nephites never discovered living then on this great land, or, as suggested, others may have come later."[65]
Hugh Nibley[BIO]	1952	"Just because Lehi's people had come from Jerusalem by special direction we are not to conclude that other men cannot have had the same experience. . . . It is nowhere said or implied that even the Jaredites were the first to come here, any more than it is said or implied that they were the first or only people to be led from the tower. . . . The descendants of Lehi were never the only people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."[66]
Richard L. Evans[BIO]	1955	"The Book of Mormon is part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (with supplementary groups) were among the ancestors of the American Indians. It covers principally the peoples of the period from about 600 B.C. to A.D. 421. These peoples were of Asiatic origin, of the House of Israel, and left Jerusalem during the reign of King Zedekiah, eventually to cross the sea to the Western world, where they built great cities and civilizations."[67]
Bruce R. McConkie[BIO]	1958	"The American Indians . . . 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."[68]
Ariel L. Crowley[BIO]	1961	"It is beyond any question true that some of the tribes of American Indians have a wholly or partially Mongolian ancestry. Any position to the contrary would be directly in the teeth of overwhelming evidence by which this fact is established. . . . The Book of Mormon is a part of that history only, but should not be considered more than that. It 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."[69]
Hugh Nibley	1967	"And just as the Book of Mormon offers no objections whatever to the free movement of whatever tribes and families choose to depart into regions beyond its ken, so it presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge; for hundreds of years the Nephites shared the continent with the far more numerous Jaredites, of whose existence they were totally unaware. Strictly speaking the Book of Mormon is the history of a group of sectaries preoccupied with their own religious affairs, who only notice the presence of other groups when such have reason to mingle with them or collide with them."[70]
Lane Johnson[BIO]	1975	"The Lamanites of this definition survived beyond the close of the Book of Mormon record, and it is these people from whom the Lamanites of today descended. That is to say, they are the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram (see D&C 3:17–18); they are the descendants of Mulek and the others of his colony (see Hel. 6:10; Omni 1:14, 15); and they may also be descended from other groups of whom we have no record. Certainly they have mixed with many other lineages at the far reaches of their dispersal in the Americas and most of the islands of the Pacific since the time when Moroni bade them farewell in A.D. 421."[71]
Ross T. Christensen[BIO]	1976	"The prophet Lehi, as recorded in 2 Nephi 1:5, related that the Lord also brought other peoples to the Americas. In verses 10-12 he promised his sons that when their descendants 'fall into unbelief' and reject the Messiah, these other nations would take their lands, wound them, and scatter them amidst bloodshed, from generation to generation. . . . So it is impossible to truthfully state that all American Indians are Lamanites. The Book of Mormon does not establish it, only some members of the Church affirm it."[72]
Dallin H. Oaks[BIO]	1993	"Here [at BYU in the 1950s] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. . . . If the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none."[73]

Expand Table

Didn't the Church change the introduction to the Book of Mormon in response to DNA issues?

Yes, probably. The introduction to the official 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon published by the Church read that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."[74] This was changed in the 2006 revised Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon under the supervision of the Church to read that the Lamanites are "among the ancestors of the American Indians."[75]

This change was retained in 2013 when the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was revised and republished by the Church.[76] The official reason given for this change was for "providing clarity and greater accuracy."[77]

Has the Church officially responded to the "DNA issue"?

Yes. In 2003, the Church released an official statement saying, "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."[78]

And in 2013 the Church published a Gospel Topics essay "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies" which gives an overview of the scientific research and how it relates to the Book of Mormon.[79]

The Facts

The 1981 version of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon described the Lamanite people as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Various theories about the ancestry of the Book of Mormon people, including the "limited geography" model and non-Lehite peoples inhabiting America, have been discussed by Latter-day Saint scholars since the early 1900s.
There are no known genetic markers in Native American ancestry that connect them to people in the Middle East.
The 2006 version of the introduction to the Book of Mormon was changed to describe the Lamanite people as "among the ancestors of the American Indians."
DNA analysis has failed to detect known ancestry of modern populations in Iceland, Great Britain, and the Near East.
The Church has stated that nothing is known about the DNA and the Book of Mormon people, and due to issues like population bottleneck and genetic drift, it is unlikely that their DNA could be detected today.

Our Take

It's understood that the Book of Mormon is the "keystone" of our faith—an authentic historical record of an ancient people, a testimony of Jesus Christ, and a witness to the restoration. One long-held tradition about the Book of Mormon is that Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanite people, who migrated from ancient Israel. However, contemporary DNA analysis suggests that there are no genetic markers that distinctly link Native American ancestry to ancient Israel or the Middle East. Is the tradition wrong? Is science wrong? Is the Book of Mormon not true?

It's natural to be alarmed when science and faith seem to conflict over a particular idea, and it's understandable to feel discomfort at the thought that science might contradict an aspect of our faith. DNA analysis firmly dispels the traditional notion of Lehi and his family arriving on an uninhabited American continent and populating it—a tradition that isn't well supported by the Book of Mormon but has been a traditional understanding of the story.

However, if other populations were already present when Lehi's family arrived on the American continent, then the DNA findings are not surprising. This concept of a "limited geography" and pre-existing population was endorsed by many scholars in the Church throughout the twentieth century, long before any DNA analysis was performed. It's important to acknowledge that although many scholars subscribed to the "limited geography" model, this perspective was not the narrative typically taught in church. This serves as a reminder to carefully weigh the traditional narratives of our faith against scientific and historical data, underscoring that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

What's Your Take?

Bradley B.
“I think the limited geography theory makes the most sense. It helps me with the problem I have had that the scattering of the indigenous North Americans was preordained.”
Julia
“My take is along the lines of the limited geography theory but also that there was a poetic exaggeration. I think the people of Zarahemla were already a mixed culture by the time the Nephites encountered them.”
Jason
“Adding to the complexity is the unknown origins of Ismael's family, Zoram's ancestry, or if the last Jaredite Corantumr fathered any children before his death with other native peoples or with those of from Lehi's party. Even Jesus' own family line contains people not of Israel.”
Jordan W.
“This topic is a great example of why church members should take care to distinguish between mere tradition and actual scriptural doctrine. We also ought not to make claims for the Book of Mormon that it doesn’t make for itself. The Holy Ghost will reveal the truth of it, not man.”

Read More Difficult Questions

129 Primary Sources

Footnotes

BIOThomas W. Murphy
Thomas W. Murphy (1967–) is an American anthropologist and writer. He earned a PhD in anthropology from the University of Washington and is Chair of the Department of Anthropology at Edmonds College. In 2002 he published the essay "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics" in the book American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, arguing that DNA evidence undermines Book of Mormon historicity.
BIOSimon Southerton
Simon G. Southerton is an Australian plant geneticist and former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 2005 he published Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, which argues that DNA undermines the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
BIODallin H. Oaks
Dallin H. Oaks (1932–present) was born in Provo, Utah, and became an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1984. After the death of his first wife, June Dixon Oaks, in 1998, he married Kristen M. McMain in 2000. He graduated from Brigham Young University (1954) and the University of Chicago Law School (1957). After practicing and teaching law in Chicago, he became the president of Brigham Young University from 1971 to 1980. He was then a justice of the Utah Supreme Court (1980–1984) before resigning to become an apostle. He was made the first counselor in the First Presidency and president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2018.
BIOJohn L. Sorenson
John Leon Sorenson (April 8, 1924–December 8, 2021) was an American Latter-day Saint anthropologist and scholar. He was a professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University and is best known for his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon that argued for a limited geographical setting for the Book of Mormon in Central America. He also published Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book in 2013 arguing for an ancient Mesoamerican setting for the text. He was the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and published much of his research on the Book of Mormon though the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
BIOB. H. Roberts
Brigham Henry Roberts (1857-1933) was born in Warrington, Lancashire, England, to Benjamin Roberts and Ann Everington. Roberts emigrated from England in 1866 and crossed the plains to Salt Lake City. He was baptized in 1867 and settled in Bountiful. Roberts served a mission to Iowa and Nebraska, then was transferred to Tennessee in 1880. He served as president of the Eastern States Mission from 1922 to 1927 and as one of the seven Presidents of the Seventy from 1888 until his death. Roberts was an early and prolific writer on Mormonism, best known for A Comprehensive History of the Church and Studies of the Book of Mormon.
BIOJanne M. Sjodahl
Janne Mattson Sjodahl (November 29, 1853–June 23, 1939) was a Swedish Latter-day Saint, author, apologist, and newspaper editor. Sjodahl published works on Latter-day Saint scripture and history, such as A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon. From 1906 to 1914 he was the editor of the Deseret News, in 1914 became editor of the Millennial Star, and in 1919 became the editor of the Improvement Era.
BIOAnthony W. Ivins
Anthony Woodward Ivins (1852–1934) was born in Toms River, New Jersey. His family immigrated to Utah in 1853. In 1861, his family was called to go with the first settlers to St. George, Utah. Ivins was called on multiple missions, including to Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico. He was a constable, rancher, prosecuting attorney, mayor, and city council member in St. George. Ivans was a mission president in Mexico City and also became the first stake president of the Juarez Stake, the first Latter-day Saint stake in Mexico. Ivins was called and ordained as an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was a member of the First Presidency from 1921 until his death.
BIOJohn A. Widtsoe
John Andreas Widtsoe (January 31, 1872–November 29, 1952) was an early Latter-day Saint leader. He was born on Frøya, a Norwegian island. He lost his father when he was six. His family was introduced to the Church a few years later. Widtsoe moved to Utah with his family in 1883 and was baptized in 1884. Widtsoe graduated from Harvard with a degree in chemistry in 1894 and married Leah Eudora Dunford in 1898. Widtsoe was called on a mission to get his Ph.D. at the University of Göttingen, Germany. He graduated in 1899. Widtsoe was president of Utah State Agricultural College from 1907–1916. He was then president of the University of Utah until 1921. Widtsoe was called as an apostle in 1921 and served until his death in 1952.
BIOFranklin S. Harris, Jr.
Franklin Stewart Harris, Jr. (May 24, 1912–August 13, 1999) was a Latter-day Saint educator and author. In 1931 he earned a BA from Brigham Young University and subsequently an MA in 1936. He went on to earn a PhD in physics from the California Institute of Technology in 1941. Throughout his scientific career he was affiliated with the University of British Columbia, the University of Utah, the Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, and Old Dominion University. He was a contributing editor to the Improvement Era for 31 years and wrote works on the Book of Mormon, including Seven Claims of the Book of Mormon with John A. Widtsoe and The Book of Mormon: Message and Evidences.
BIOWilliam E. Berrett
William Edwin Berrett (June 2, 1902—November 30, 1993) was a Latter-day Saint author and Vice President of Brigham Young University. Berrett received a BA and JD from the University of Utah and did graduate studies at BYU. In the 1930s he began writing textbooks for Latter-day Saint seminaries and worked within the Church Education System, producing works such as The Restored Church and Readings in LDS Church History. From 1935 to 1953 Berrett was a member of the Deseret Sunday School Union General Board and joined the faculty of BYU in 1947 as a professor of Church History. In 1953 Berrett was appointed vice president of BYU and the Church Educational System.
BIORoy A. West
Roy A. West (April 4, 1898–June 27, 1993) was a Latter-day Saint educator and author who began teaching in the seminary program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1928. He was the Research Director and later Budget Director of the Department of Education for the Church and spent much of his career in the Church Education System. He was the author of such books as Family Eternal, Introduction to the Book of Mormon, and Messages of the Early Apostles.
BIOAntoine R. Ivins
Antoine Ridgeway Ivins (May 11, 1881—October 18, 1967) was a Latter-day Saint general authority. The son of apostle Anthony W. Ivins, he was ordained a member of the First Council of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1931 until his death in 1967. From 1931 until 1933, Ivins was the president of the Mexican Mission and was instrumental in translating the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price into Spanish.
BIOHugh W. Nibley
Hugh Winder Nibley (1910–2005) was an influential Latter-day Saint scholar known mostly for his historical and apologetic writings on Latter-day Saint scripture and doctrine. Nibley was born in Portland, Oregon and received a PhD in history from the University of California, Berkeley in 1938. After serving in United States Army during World War Two, Nibley was hired to teach at Brigham Young University in 1946, where he taught religion until 1975. He continued to work at BYU as an emeritus professor until 1994. Nibley is perhaps best known for his apologetic work on the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Nibley died in 2005 at age 94.
BIORichard L. Evans
Richard Louis Evans (March 23, 1906—November 1, 1971) was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He became a general authority when he was ordained a member of the First Council of the Seventy in 1938 and subsequently became an apostle on October 8, 1953, replacing Albert E. Bowen after his death that same year. From 1929 to 1971 Evans was the announcer for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's weekly broadcast Music and the Spoken Word.
BIOBruce R. McConkie
Bruce Redd McConkie (1915-1985) was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. His family moved back to Utah when he was an infant. McConkie served as a missionary in the Eastern States Mission and was involved in the first Hill Cumorah Pageant. McConkie married Amelia Smith, the daughter of Joseph Fielding Smith, in 1937. He graduated with a degree in law from the University of Utah in 1939. McConkie served as an officer in Army Intelligence during WWII. He was called as a Seventy in 1946. McConkie edited and published many sermons and teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith. He published the controversial compendium Mormon Doctrine in 1958. He then served as president of the Southern Australian Mission in 1961. McConkie was called as an apostle and served on the Quorum of the Twelve from 1972 until his death in 1985.
BIOAriel L. Crowley
Ariel L. Crowley (September 17, 1905–April 13, 2005) was a jurist and author. He was the third of nine children born to Clarence Edmund Crowley and Mary Elizabeth Olmstead. He studied law at the University of Utah and worked as an attorney, probate judge, district judge, and assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho. He served a mission in England in 1924 and married Daveda Lacy in 1927. He later returned to the United Kingdom to serve as a mission president. In 1939, he inquired of Ben E. Roberts concerning his father B. H. Roberts's research and writing about Joseph Smith and the truth of the Book of Mormon. He authored several commentaries on the history and doctrine of the Church, including Statements of Belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Metal Record Plates in Ancient Times, and The River Laman.
BIOLane Johnson
Lane Johnson was an associate editor of the Ensign magazine and an instructor in the Church Education System. In wrote "Who and Where Are the Lamanites?" which was published in the December 1975 Ensign.
BIORoss T. Christensen
Ross Taylor Christensen (August 28, 1918—January 12, 1990) was a Latter-day Saint archeologist and author. Christensen earned his BA and MA in archeology from Brigham Young University and a PhD from the University of Arizona. From 1952-1979 he was a professor of archeology at BYU.
[1]↩︎
The introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was composed by the Scriptures Publication Committee, which consisted of members of the Quorum of the Twelve including Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie, with W. James Mortimer serving as executive secretary.
In a 1984 publication while referring to the supplementary study aid material prepared by the committee, including "the Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, the topical guide, the Bible dictionary, the footnotes, the gazetteer, and the maps," McConkie said:
They do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.
- Bruce T. Harper publishes details of the 1981 edition of the standard works in the Ensign.
- Bruce R. McConkie says the study aids published with the Book of Mormon do not determine doctrine.
[2]↩︎
This is the description given by the current (2013) edition of the Book of Mormon published by the Church.
The introduction in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon read:
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations . . . After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
- Introduction to official 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon.
- Introduction to 1981 official edition of the Book of Mormon.
[3]↩︎
The first studies published on the sequencing of the Native American genome were done in the 1990s. More recent studies since then have generally confirmed the first wave of studies.
[4]↩︎
In 2002 and 2003, Thomas W. Murphy published the first articles that argued DNA evidence from Native Americans challenges the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
- Thomas W. Murphy argues that DNA evidence for Native Americans renders BOM historicity implausible.
- Thomas W. Murphy criticizes apologetic arguments for a limited geography theory for the BOM.
[5]↩︎
The previous edition of the Book of Mormon published by the Church was issued in 1920.
- Introductory material to the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon.
[6]↩︎
The relevant part of the introduction reads:
The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
Before the 1981 edition, the Church's official edition of the Book of Mormon contained no comparable explanatory introduction. The 1920 edition of the text did include a "brief analysis" of the structure of the book, but it did not refer to Native Americans or to Nephite or Lamanite ancestry.
- Introduction to 1981 official edition of the Book of Mormon.
- Introductory material to the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon.
[7]↩︎
Murphy's paper appeared in the book American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, which was advertised for sale on the Signature Books website by late May 2002.
- Thomas W. Murphy argues that DNA evidence for Native Americans renders BOM historicity implausible.
- Signature Books website lists American Apocrypha as recently released in May 2002.
[8]↩︎
The LA Times article also includes a comparison of Murphy to Galileo:
Murphy’s supporters, who include other dissident Mormons, hail him. “Tom Murphy is the Galileo for Mormons,” said Maxine Hanks, a former Mormon excommunicated in 1993 for her feminist writings.
Murphy later published an article in Anthropology News saying his disciplinary council had been indefinitely postponed.
- William Lobdell and Larry B. Stammer report on Thomas W. Murphy's article and potential excommunication.
- Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton herald their research as a "Galileo Event" for the BOM.
[9]↩︎
In their article, Murphy and Southerton wrote that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is "undermined by [this] genetic research" and framed the issue as one of religious dogma versus science.
- Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton herald their research as a "Galileo Event" for the BOM.
[10]↩︎
These responses focused on the science surrounding DNA, but also included discussions of Book of Mormon geography and replied specifically to Murphy and Southerton's claims that this new controversy constituted a "Galileo Event."
As summarized by Michael F. Whiting, the purpose of these responses was to "debunk the myth that the Book of Mormon has been proved false by modern DNA evidence."
Whiting added:
Critics have tried to apply American Indian DNA-based research to the Book of Mormon without designing a study specifically for that purpose. It is extraordinarily difficult to use DNA sequence information to track the lineage of any group with such a complex lineage history as the Nephites and Lamanites.
[11]↩︎
The press release reaffirmed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and stated, "Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below."
The press release concludes with a list of several scholarly articles on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon.
- Official LDS Church statement on DNA and the Book of Mormon.
[12]↩︎
According to the Deseret News and the Church News, this edition was a collaborative effort done by Doubleday, an American commercial publishing company, and the Church.
[13]↩︎
The Sydney Morning Herald reported: "Southerton was charged by church authorities with adultery, but finally excommunicated for 'having an inappropriate relationship with a woman,' he said."
According to this report, Southerton "[didn't] deny the relationship, which occurred [in 2003]." Southerton, however, felt that Church leaders were deliberately avoiding charging him with apostasy for his writing on DNA and the Book of Mormon. "[He] believes church concerns about his writing are the underlying reason they sought his excommunication."
- Sidney Morning Herald reports on Simon Southerton's excommunication.
[14]↩︎
The other change made in the revised introduction was to drop the phrase "as does the Bible" in the first paragraph. The new intro read:
The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.
- Introduction to revised 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon.
[15]↩︎
Both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune reported on the change, quoting various responses to the adjustment. According to the Deseret News:
Andrew Corbin, a senior editor at Doubleday, said the one-word change was specifically requested by the church for the second edition published in October 2006. "It's been out for quite a while, so if there are other questions about the text, the church can better answer that." The change is significant for those who have questioned the book's claim to be a historical record of people who migrated to the Americas from Jerusalem, rather than a creation of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, who said he translated it from plates given to him by an angel from God.
Likewise, the Salt Lake Tribune reported:
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."
- Deseret News reports the change made in the Book of Mormon introduction.
- Salt Lake Tribune report on the change to the Book of Mormon introduction.
[16]↩︎
The 2013 introduction of the Book of Mormon is identical to the 2006 Doubleday edition which includes the phrase "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
- Introduction to official 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon.
[17]↩︎
The essay states:
Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today.
- LDS Gospel Topics essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon.
[18]↩︎
John L. Sorenson, an anthropologist who taught at BYU, began publishing his "limited geography" for the Book of Mormon in the 1980s.
[19]↩︎
Those who accept this model have emphasized how current genetic evidence can neither confirm nor disconfirm this reading of the Book of Mormon due to a variety of complicating factors.
[20]↩︎
This theory, which originated during Joseph Smith's lifetime and was developed throughout the nineteenth century, has been one of the more popular and persistent models for Book of Mormon geography among traditionalist believers.
[21]↩︎
Faithful Latter-day Saints who accept Book of Mormon historicity and disaffected Latter-day Saints who reject it agree that the current genetic evidence conflicts with this model.
Ugo Perego, summarizing this consensus, wrote in 2016,
Over time, this view that the American continent was empty at the time of the arrival of the Book of Mormon peoples has been perpetuated among some members of the Church. In more recent times and with the advance of DNA technology, it has also been assumed that Book of Mormon migrants should have carried the most typical genetic signatures found in the modern Middle East, implying that all Native Americans today should have a similar genetic makeup to their Israelite forefathers. If these two hypotheses were true, it would make sense to think that DNA should be able to prove the Book of Mormon to be a factual account.
[22]↩︎
The so-called "Heartland" model was first articulated by Rod Meldrum and uses DNA evidence from North American indigenous peoples as evidence. As Meldrum wrote in 2011,
New DNA evidence suggests such a link in North America, but not in Central America, which has been speculated by some Book of Mormon geography students to have been the location where it occurred. A fifth founding genetic haplogroup was found among Native Americans to have ties to Europe, rather than Asia.
[23]↩︎
Reviewers of this model, both Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint, have criticized Meldrum's misuse of the DNA evidence (specifically Haplogroup X) and have concluded his arguments are not grounded in science. Two non-Latter-day Saint scientists, Jennifer A. Raff and Deborah A. Bolnick, explained:
The idea that haplogroup X2a is derived from an ancient trans-Atlantic migration to the Americas has been repeatedly considered — and rejected — by anthropological geneticists over the last two decades . . . However, we revisit it here because it continues to be discussed and because recently published genomic data from ancient and contemporary North Americans help clarify the population history of North America and the likely history of this haplogroup.
[24]↩︎
Thomas Murphy and Simon Southerton, two disaffected Latter-day Saints, have been outspoken in advocating the idea that DNA evidence indicates that the Book of Mormon is fiction.
Writing in 2005, Southerton maintained that "decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no wheeled Chariots or horses to pull them, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes."
In 2020, Murphy and co-author Angelo Baca described the Book of Mormon as giving scriptural sanction to "the popular Euroamerican accusations that American Indians were only recent immigrants themselves who had once destroyed an ancient white nation of mound builders." This, they maintained, "has its roots in the colonial ideology that attributed ancient American civilizations to white immigrants from Israel who had purportedly been destroyed by the ancestors of the American Indians." They elaborted by writing:
The Book of Mormon itself projects a nineteenth-century, settler colonial, stereotypical, racialized, social organization of civilized (Nephite) and savage (Lamanite) peoples back into the past. This representation of ancient social groups demarcated by skin color served important social and political functions in antebellum settler colonialism, but these types of racial divisions of society never existed in the pre-Columbian Americas.
[25]↩︎
Thomas Murphy wrote in 2002:
Current genetic data suggest that ancestors of Native Americans separated from their Asian neighbors about 40-50,000 years ago and from each other in what may have been three or more separate waves of migration by 7-15,000 years ago. No support for Mormon beliefs linking American Indians to ancient Israelites is evident in the data.
[26]↩︎
These are haplogroups A, C, and D, which are found in Siberia, haplogroup B, which is common in southeast Asia, and haplogroup X, which is typically Eurasian) and two major Y-chromosome haplogroups (C and Q, which share common ancestry with Asian haplogroups).
- Jennifer Raff reviews the evidence as of 2022 for the genetic history of American Indians.
- Robert V. Davis reviews the genetic studies done on Native American origins.
[27]↩︎
Jennifer A. Raff, associate professor of Anthropology at the University of Kansas, reviewed the available evidence:
Together, mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA from contemporary Native American populations gave a clear signal that they were the descendants of a population that had split from a larger group in northeast Asia and then had been isolated from other peoples for many thousands of years.
- Jennifer Raff reviews the evidence as of 2022 for the genetic history of American Indians.
[28]↩︎
Both Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint genetic scientists agree that the underlying scientific principles of genetic ancestry are sound; however, disagreements arise over interpretations of data and how to synthesize genetic sources with cultural and archaeological sources (such as written histories and excavated artifacts.)
- Jennifer Raff reviews the evidence as of 2022 for the genetic history of American Indians.
- Ugo A. Perego and Jayne E. Ekins argue that DNA neither confirms nor disconfirms the Book of Mormon.
[29]↩︎
For example, people argue whether the book describes a hemispheric or local geography and whether it describes Lehi and his family as being the sole inhabitants of ancient America, and thus whether modern Native Americans are solely descendants of Lehi.
[30]↩︎
This haplogroup, for example, has been found in members of the Ojibwa nation of southern Canada and the northern midwest United States.
- Rosaria Scozzari et al. highlight the presence of haplogroup X in North American Native American populations.
[31]↩︎
Rod Meldrum, a Latter-day Saint author, has argued that Haplogroup X, which is attested in Eurasian populations, was introduced to North American Indians by Lehi's migration.
[32]↩︎
Both Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint reviewers have heavily criticized the Heartland model for misusing genetic data. In the case of Haplogroup X, for instance, these reviewers have pointed out that the introduction of this haplogroup into America long predates the arrival of Book of Mormon peoples as described in the text, is not exclusively Eurasian, and was most likely introduced by land migration over the hypothesized Bering land bridge and not via trans-Atlantic seafaring as postulated by Heartland proponents.
[33]↩︎
A number of Latter-day Saint authors have explored how the Book of Mormon describes "Lamanites" and how the name "Lamanite" has been used historically by Latter-day Saints.
Matthew Roper, writing in the FARMS Review in 2003, summarized the many ways the name "Lamanite" is used in the Book of Mormon as an identity marker:
• Actual descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael who followed Laman’s leadership after the death of Lehi (2 Nephi 5:1–6). Modern revelation indicates that among Lamanites today are some, yet to be revealed, who are descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael and that they will one day receive a knowledge of the gospel (D&C 3:18). • Those who did not believe in the warnings and revelations of God through Nephi (2 Nephi 5:6). • Those not friendly to Nephi or the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:13–14). • Those who rejected and did not believe in the records and traditions of the Nephites (Alma 3:11). • Those who intermarried with the Lamanites (Alma 3:9, 15). • Those who fought against the Nephites (Alma 3:16). • Any who dissented from the Nephites (Alma 3:17). • Any led away by the Lamanites (Alma 3:10). • Those who rejected the teachings of Christ, together with their children and ideological sympathizers (4 Nephi 1:38). • After the destruction of the Nephites as a cohesive group, the seed of anyone who at any time had once been numbered with the “people of Nephi” (Alma 45:13; cf. 45:14).
[34]↩︎
Although this assumption has been common in the Church, historically speaking a number of Latter-day Saints have argued for the mixed racial ancestry for modern Native Americans (Lamanites.)
[35]↩︎
In 2016, Latter-day Saint geneticist Ugo Perego pointed out a number of unanswered questions that complicate assumptions that we should be able to detect "Lamanite DNA today," including:
1. What did the DNA of the Book of Mormon people look like? 2. What was the typical DNA found in the population of Jerusalem in 600 BC? 3. Can Lehite DNA from 600 BC be clearly differentiated from that of Europeans arriving after 1492? 4. Are the current estimates used in assessing the timing of ancient genetic events adequate to discern pre- from post-Columbian DNA to the New World? 5. To what extent did the people of Lehi intermingle with local natives? 6. How long were the people of Lehi an isolated population after their arrival in America?
As Perego concluded:
Currently, there are too many unpredictable variables in order to use DNA effectively as a tool to test conclusively for the existence of Book of Mormon people. Geneticists can state that the DNA of Book of Mormon people has either disappeared or has not been detected through time, following very basic and widely accepted population genetics principles. However, they cannot honestly deny that such people never existed simply based on the lack of genetic evidence.
- Ugo A. Perego writes summary article on DNA and the Book of Mormon, says current evidence is inconclusive.
[36]↩︎
For example, a colony on the island of Tristan da Cunha illustrates a population bottleneck. In the book Population Genetics and Micoevolution, author Alan R. Templeton states that due to waves of migrations and deaths on the island, despite genealogical records showing complete pedigrees, "the genetic contributions of many individuals [on the island were] completely lost."
- Nature website explains what a population bottleneck is.
- Alan R. Templeton explains concepts of genetic drift, genetic bottleneck, and founder effect.
[37]↩︎
Scientists Hongye Li and Marilyn J. Roossinck define a genetic bottleneck as "stochastic events that limit genetic variation in a population and result in founding populations that can lead to genetic drift."
To illustrate this, they experimented with an RNA virus (Cucumber mosaic virus) introduced to tobacco plants. The result was that "population diversity decreased significantly when the population moved from the inoculated leaves to primary systemic leaves and decreased further as the systemic infection progressed. During this process, the elimination of a majority of the mutants was stochastic."
- Hongye Li and Marilyn J. Roossinck report on an experiment to show how genetic bottlenecks work in a virus population.
[38]↩︎
Ether 15 and Mormon 6 in the Book of Mormon depict the widespread destruction of these two populations, resulting in the near-extinction of both.
- Book of Mormon (Ether 15) describes the destruction of the Jaredites.
- Mormon describes the destruction of the Nephites.
[39]↩︎
Michael H. Crawford, writing in the late 1990s, explained how "the Conquest and its sequelae squeezed the entire Amerindian population through a genetic bottleneck. The reduction of Amerindian gene pools to from 1/3 to 1/25 of their previous sizes implies a considerable loss of genetic variability in New World populations."
In 2008, researchers Beth Alison Schultz Shook and David Glenn Smith wrote how it is "likely that much of the genetic diversity was lost after European contact when population levels dropped from between two and ten million to approximately a quarter million by the year 1890 as a result of disease, warfare, and depletion of resources."
- Beth Alison Schultz Shook and David Glenn Smith describe how genetic drift and population bottlenecks have affected the genome of modern Native Americans.
- Michael H. Crawford describes the loss of genetic variation among American Indians because of population bottlenecks.
[40]↩︎
A 2016 study found genetic evidence consistent with the theory that "European colonization caused a substantial loss of pre-Columbian lineages." According to the study's authors, "Our ancient mitochondrial data suggest that European colonization was followed by local mass mortality and extinction of lineages associated with major population centers of the pre-Columbian past."
- Study by Bastien Llamas et al. notes the likelihood of significant loss of genetic diversity in America upon European contact.
[41]↩︎
As Ugo Perego explained:
The clash with European settlers—followed by disease, slavery, and warfare—resulted in a population decline of tremendous proportions [among Native Americans]. In the unlikely scenario that the descendants of the few migrants described in the Book of Mormon were able to transmit a modest genetic signature to future generations, the devastating conquest by Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries has created a situation in which even the most experienced researchers admit the limited knowledge available to properly infer the complete history of American colonization prior to that time.
- Ugo A. Perego writes summary article on DNA and the Book of Mormon, says current evidence is inconclusive.
[42]↩︎
Another definition of genetic drift has been given by the National Human Genome Research Institute:
Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution characterized by random fluctuations in the frequency of a particular version of a gene (allele) in a population. Though it primarily affects small, isolated populations, the effects of genetic drift can be strong, sometimes causing traits to become overwhelmingly frequent or to disappear from a population.
As explained further by the website Scitable, published by the Nature Education Foundation:
Typically, genetic drift occurs in small populations, where infrequently occurring alleles face a greater chance of being lost. Once it begins, genetic drift will continue until the involved allele is either lost by a population or until it is the only allele present in a population at a particular locus. Both possibilities decrease the genetic diversity of a population. Genetic drift is common after population bottlenecks, which are events that drastically decrease the size of a population. In these cases, genetic drift can result in the loss of rare alleles and decrease the gene pool. Genetic drift can cause a new population to be genetically distinct from its original population, which has led to the hypothesis that genetic drift plays a role in the evolution of new species.
- Nature website defines concept of genetic drift.
- Charles Rotimi defines "genetic drift."
[43]↩︎
The relevance of this for the Book of Mormon has been explained by Ugo Perego, who noted:
Over just a few generations, potentially all of a couple’s genetic material will be diluted and lost [through genetic drift], as they will represent an ever-smaller percentage of the ancestors contributing to the DNA of a single descendant. Simply stated, . . . there is a considerable difference between being genealogically related and having a genetic inheritance. In fact, it is estimated that at the tenth generation level, and given an equal chance to propagate their autosomal DNA, people would carry only DNA representing approximately 12 percent of their total possible 1,024 ancestors.
Perego further explained how "this phenomenon can be observed in as few as a couple of generations at a family level, but the effects of genetic drift at the population level are even more visible."
He added:
Depending on the population size and the variety of DNA present in that population, over a time measured in generations, some of that variation will inevitably be lost due to chance.
- Ugo A. Perego writes summary article on DNA and the Book of Mormon, says current evidence is inconclusive.
[44]↩︎
For example, the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley illustrated the founder effect of Dutch settlers in South Africa:
The Afrikaner population of Dutch settlers in South Africa is descended mainly from a few colonists. Today, the Afrikaner population has an unusually high frequency of the gene that causes Huntington’s disease, because those original Dutch colonists just happened to carry that gene with unusually high frequency. This effect is easy to recognize in genetic diseases, but of course, the frequencies of all sorts of genes are affected by founder events.
- UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology describes the founder effect and genetic bottlenecks.
[45]↩︎
The three colonies are the Jaredites, the Lehites (Nephites and Lamanites and others), and the Mulekites (the people of Zarahemla), all three of which are described as being initially composed of, at most, a few families each.
[46]↩︎
Geneticist Michael Whiting explained:
The Book of Mormon makes clear that each colonization event involved a very small number of founders. Such small population sizes would have had profound effects on how the genetic markers changed over time. In fact, moving a few individuals of any species from one population to a new locality can have such a profound effect on the underlying genetic profile that it is considered to be a major mechanism in the formation of new species. . . . If there were other inhabitants already present on the American continent when the colonizers arrived, then it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish whether the genetic signature a descendant carries is due to its being carried by the original colonizers or due to gene flow from the other, original inhabitants.
According to Whiting, who interprets the Book of Mormon as describing the local colonization of a specific part of ancient America:
As I read the Book of Mormon, I can find no barriers to gene flow between the native population and those who formed the Lamanite lineage. Note that why it did not contaminate the genetic signature of the Lamanite lineage. Simply speaking, that genetic signature, if one existed, could be obliterated by gene flow from outside groups.
- Michael F. Whiting discusses issues that interfere with the genetics of Book of Mormon peoples.
[47]↩︎
In Iceland scientists have struggled to correlate genetic profiles of certain populations with genealogical records because of these issues that come with DNA testing.
[48]↩︎
In Great Britain, the DNA signatures of Roman and African migrants onto the island have been lost or diluted from later Anglo-Saxon migrations and intermarriages.
[49]↩︎
Scientists did genetic testing on skeletons from the Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon and concluded:
The early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature.
- Michal Feldman et al. review case of missing Philistine DNA in later population.
- Ann Gibbons summarizes evidence of loss of genetic signature in Iron Age Philistines.
[50]↩︎
Henry C. Harpending, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the University of Utah was asked how issues such as genetic drift and population bottlenecks might affect a hypothetical situation where a group of Phoenicians migrated to ancient America, intermarried with indigenous populations, and were then wiped out by disease and war. He stated:
I doubt that we would pick up [evidence of the Phoenicians] today at all, but it does depend on how they intermixed once they were here. If they intermixed freely and widely, and if there were several millions of people here in the New World, then the only trace would be an occasional strange stray haplotype. Even if we found such a haplotype we would probably assume it was the result of post-Columbian admixture.
- Signature Books website collects opinions on the issue of DNA with a hypothetical question.
[51]↩︎
For example, Janne M. Sjodahl in the September 1927 edition of the Improvement Era discussed various theories for Book of Mormon geography and noted how some in his day postulated for a limited geography in Central America.
Ten years earlier, RLDS author Louis Edward Hills argued that southern Mexico and Guatemala were Book of Mormon lands and correlated the Nephites and Lamanites with specifical Central American peoples such as the Nahuas, Olmecs, and Maya.
- Janne M. Sjodahl reviews common BOM geography theories of his day in the early 20th century.
[52]↩︎
Sorenson published articles in the Ensign and a book in the mid-1980s arguing for a limited geography of the Book of Mormon.
[53]↩︎
The essay affirms that the Book of Mormon is "a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas."
- LDS Church Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography.
[54]↩︎
The Church's Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography states that "although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas."
- LDS Church Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography.
[55]↩︎
This description comes from the 2013 edition of the Standard Works that is currently in use by the Church as its official edition.
- Introduction to official 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon.
[56]↩︎
One of the earliest proponents of this theory was B. H. Roberts in 1909.
Modern scholars including John L. Sorenson, Matthew Roper, John Gee, Brant Gardner, D. Michael Quinn, and Michael Ash have made sustained arguments for the Book of Mormon as a tribal history with a narrow historical scope and for "other" non-Lehite peoples being in ancient America and perhaps even being mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
[57]↩︎
B. H. Roberts wrote this in his series New Witnesses for God.
- B. H. Roberts writes on the possibility of non-Book of Mormon peoples migrating to ancient America.
[58]↩︎
Sjodahl, a Latter-day Saint Book of Mormon scholar, published this in the December, 1921 edition of the Improvement Era.
- Janne M. Sjodahl writes that the BOM allows for other migrations of people to ancient America.
[59]↩︎
Roberts wrote this in a private letter to William E. Riter in February 1922 in response to questions related to difficulties with Book of Mormon historicity.
- B. H. Roberts allows for the possibility of other peoples in ancient America; notes that others in his day promoted a limited geography.
[60]↩︎
Sjodahl published this in his 1927 book An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon.
- Janne M. Sjodahl writes that the Book of Mormon does not claim Native Americans descend solely from Lehi.
[61]↩︎
Anthony W. Ivins, a member of the First Presidency, said this at the April 1929 General Conference.
- Ivins acknowledges the possibility of non-Lehite people in ancient America.
[62]↩︎
Widtsoe, an apostle, published this with co-author Franklin S. Harris Jr. in the 1937 book Seven Claims of the Book of Mormon: A Collection of Evidences.
- John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris Jr., write that the BOM allows for other non-Lehite peoples to be present in ancient America.
[63]↩︎
Berrett, an educator in the Church Education System, wrote this in a textbook published by the Church.
- Berrett writes in Church textbook that the BOM allows for other non-Lehite migrations to America.
[64]↩︎
West, an educator in the Church Education System, published this in a Church textbook entitled A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon.
- Roy A. West writes in Church textbook that the BOM is not a history of all of ancient America.
[65]↩︎
Ivins, a member of Seventy, published this in the Church's periodical Relief Society Magazine.
- Antoine R. Ivins questions whether modern Lamanites are universally descended from Laman and Lemuel.
[66]↩︎
Nibley published this in the Improvement Era magazine as part of his "The World of the Jaredites" series.
- Nibley writes that the BOM allows for other non-Lehites in ancient America.
[67]↩︎
Evans was an apostle at the time he wrote this in a short piece entitled "What is a Mormon?" which was intended for a non-Latter-day Saint audience and published in the book Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac.
- Richard L. Evans says the Book of Mormon peoples are among the ancestors of modern Native Americans.
[68]↩︎
McConkie wrote this under the "American Indians" entry of Mormon Doctrine when he was a seventy.
- Bruce R. McConkie writes that other migrations of people to America happened anciently.
[69]↩︎
Crowley, an independent Book of Mormon scholar, wrote this in the book About the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book in 1961.
- Ariel L. Crowley writes in 1961 that modern Native Americans are of mixed ancestry.
[70]↩︎
Nibley wrote this in his book Since Cumorah which was published by Deseret Book in 1967.
- Hugh W. Nibley argues for a limited geography for the Book of Mormon and a more complex racial makeup of Book of Mormon peoples.
[71]↩︎
Johnson published this in the December 1975 Ensign in an entitled "Who and Where Are the Lamanites?"
- Lane Johnson discusses Lamanite identity; says non-Book of Mormon peoples may be included among the Lamanites' ancestors.
[72]↩︎
Christensen wrote this in the Church's Spanish-language magazine Liahona in 1976.
- Ross T. Christensen writes that not all modern Native Americans are necessarily ethnic Lamanites.
[73]↩︎
Oaks delivered these remarks at a FARMS dinner in 1993; the speech was published in 2001 by the Religious Studies Center at BYU.
- Dallin H. Oaks says he learned to read the Book of Mormon in a limited geography context in the 1950s during his time as a student at BYU.
[74]↩︎
The introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was composed by the Scriptures Publication Committee, which included apostles Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, Bruce R. McConkie.
- Bruce T. Harper publishes details of the 1981 edition of the standard works in the Ensign.
- Introduction to 1981 official edition of the Book of Mormon.
[75]↩︎
The Doubleday edition was first published in 2004 and contained the older "principal ancestors" reading in the introduction. A revised edition in 2006 contained the change to "among the ancestors."
Press coverage at the time noted the change and various responses.
[76]↩︎
The 2013 edition is a revision of the 1981 edition.
- Introduction to official 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon.
[77]↩︎
Among the "approved adjustments" made was the change in the introduction, per a summary published by the Church.
Intro., par. 2, last sentence—Changed the phrase “they are the principal ancestors” to “they are among the ancestors,” providing clarity and greater accuracy, so that the statement reads: “. . . all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
- Official report of adjustments made to the 2013 edition of the standard works.
[78]↩︎
The statement goes on to recommend resources from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies to get a faithful perspective on the issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon.
- Official LDS Church statement on DNA and the Book of Mormon.
[79]↩︎
The essay concludes:
Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today.
- LDS Gospel Topics essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon.