DNA and the Book of Mormon

#A Basic Introduction to the Science of DNA

Before we actually undertake a discussion of DNA and the Book of Mormon, it is important that you come to understand some of the fundamentals of DNA. Though the field of genetics has evolved to become a complex subject, I have endeavored to keep this explanation simple and logical. I have attempted to adapt it specifically to the interested lay person.

DNA. The blueprint for every human being, in fact for every animal, is contained in material in the nucleus of every cell. The material is called DNA. DNA determines our physical attributes and appearance. DNA functions by serving as a patterna or template for the manufacture of proteins by the body’s cells. Each of the various types of tissues of the body is made up of cells. Each cell becomes a “specialist” by a mysterious process called “differentiation.” A cell may “differentiate” into a muscle cell a brain cell, a cell that manufactures bone, a cell that receives light in the retina of the eye, a skin cell, or any number of other cells. There are about 250 different types of cells in the human body. Each cell becomes a specialist by manufacturing specific proteins that become available to the cell and allow it to perform specific functions. This is mysterious since each and every cell in the body contains the blueprint or pattern for all the cells in the entire body. By the mysterious process of differentiation, a certain cell is told to read only a small part of its DNA to begin making specific proteins that allow it to function in its specialty.

The basic unit of DNA is called a gene. Each gene is made up of sequences of four different chemicals called nucleotides. The nucleotides are: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G),. These nucleotides are strung together in strands. Each gene is unique as determined by the particular sequence of the nucleotides A, T, C, and G. Each gene codes for, or serves as a template for, a specific protein. There are an estimated twenty to thirty thousand genes in human DNA. All of these genes are grouped into twenty-three structures called chromosomes.

When human conception occurs the male sperm cell contributes twenty-three chromosomes. These twenty-three chromosomes contain a complete set of genes. The female ovum also contributes twenty-three chromosomes, and each set also contains a complete set of genes. Thus each of the baby’s cells (and each cell of all human beings) has two complete sets of virtually the same genes in twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. One pair of chromosomes is referred to as the “sex chromosomes.” The female human has two identical sex chromosomes. Each is called an “X chromosome.” The male has a pair of sex chromosomes consisting of one “X chromosome” and another type of chromosome called a “Y chromosome.”

I reiterate that each of the human being’s cells contains, in its center or nucleus, two sets of twenty-three chromosomes. The only exceptions are the ova and the sperm cells which have only one set of twenty-three chromosomes each.

The sex characteristic is passed along as follows. Each and every female ovum contains one complete set chromosomes and the sex chromosome of that set contains an “X Chromosome.” Each male sperm cell also contains just one set of twenty-three chromosomes, but half of the sperm cells contain an “X chromosome” as part of the set, and the other half of the sperm cells contain a “Y chromosome.” Thus, it is the sperm cell that determines the sex of the baby. If the sperm cell that fertilizes the egg contains an “X chromosome,” the baby is female (each of the two sets of twenty-three chromosomes in the fertilized ovum has an X Chromosome. If the sperm cell that fertilizes the egg contains a “Y chromosome,” the baby will be male (one of the sets of twenty-three chromosomes in the fertilized ovum has an “X chromosome” from the female’s ovum and the other set contains a “Y chromosome” from the male sperm cell.

The use of DNA in forensic analyses. We are about to consider the use of DNA in crime and law enforcement. Two other concepts about DNA are vital to understanding its use in any type of forensic study.

1. We have already discussed that most all of the DNA in a human cell is contained in the nucleus of the cell, but there is another type of DNA in each cell that is different from the DNA in the nucleus. This type of DNA does not function in the process of passing on inherited characteristics. This type of DNA is found in structures in the body’s cells called “mitochondria.” Mitochondria are special structures within the cytoplasm (inside the cell but outside the nucleus) that serve as power sources for the cell’s metabolism. This DNA is called, not surprisingly, “mitochondrial DNA.”

2. 99.9% of all human DNA is shared in common with all other humans. That is, 99.9% of each person’s DNA is identical to 99.9% of DNA from every other human. This DNA is referred to as “constant” DNA. This means that 0.1% of a person’s DNA is unique to that particular individual and has properties that are shared by no other individual. The only exception is an identical twin. This DNA is referred to as “variable” DNA. In this part of the DNA are found genes (sequences of nucleotides) that determine race and all individual characteristics. These are genes or nucleotide sequences that are shared by no other individual. Like the DNA found in the cell’s nucleus (“nuclear” DNA) a small part of mitochondrial DNA is also unique to the individual and is used in forensic DNA studies.

The uniqueness of each person’s DNA has led to some helpful uses of DNA. Medical science has available the technology to determine the exact sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA. This has given rise to the science of genetic fingerprinting or DNA profiling.

We all have learned that crime labs can take any type of body tissue from a crime scene (blood, saliva, sperm, perspiration, and even hair) and determine whether or not it originates with a given individual. This is done by analyzing that 0.1% of “variable” DNA in the sample and comparing it with the 0.1% of “variable” DNA taken from a suspect. This information is often used in court cases. The lay public has been taught that this procedure is usually very accurate and almost infallible. It is indeed a highly developed and reliable technique. Most of us, then, have the tendency to assume that any form of DNA analysis is done with a great deal of accuracy and reliability. Again, both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are utilized in this type of analysis.

Population genetics. Another application of DNA analysis is that of “population genetics,” wherein the DNA characteristics of a given population can be categorized and the genetic material of any given individual can be compared with that population. The likelihood that the individual is related to that population can then be assessed.

Two specific types of DNA are utilized in doing population studies. These are mitochondrial DNA described above and the DNA from the “Y chromosome” of the male. Though it is not intuitively obvious, it is important to know that mitochondrial DNA is passed only by the female, but it is received by both female and male offspring. The male, however, cannot pass on his mitochondrial DNA to any of his offspring. Hence, mitochondrial DNA of every individual was received from the individual’s mother. If you stop and think about the “Y chromosome” it will become apparent that the Y chromosome DNA (or “Y DNA”) is only passed along by the male and is only received by the male.

In doing population studies, scientists are not interested in matching one ancestor with one particular descendant. Rather the emphasis is comparing or matching groups of individuals. In analyzing both mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA, it has been found that there are several complex groups of identifiable “markers” on both types of DNA. These markers are found in that small portion of the cell’s DNA (0.1% of the total) that contains the individual’s unique characteristics—the “variable DNA.” Each “marker” does not depend, for its identification, on only one sequence of nucleotides. Rather, each sample is analyzed for several different sequences. And the particular group into which the marker fits depends on the analysis of these several sequences. There are about twenty-six different identifiable markers found in mitochondrial DNA. These are designated with capital letters “A” through “Z.” Each of these types, however, has its subtypes. There are about twenty different identifiable markers on the male’s Y chromosome. These are also designated by capital letters “A: through “T.” Again, there are also subtypes.

This allows separation of each sample into different groups which share similar characteristics. These groups are called “haplogroups” and the pattern which each group possesses is referred to as its “haplotype.” Thus, a given haplogroup may be referred to as “A,” “B,” or “C” . . . all the way to “Z” for the mitochondrial DNA markers and “A,” “B,” or “C” . . . all the way to “T” for the Y chromosome markers.

Keep in mind that mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the female to both her male and female offspring. The ovum from the female contains mitochondrial DNA. The sperm cell contains virtually no mitochondrial DNA. The Y chromosome is passed on only by the male, as the female does not possess a Y chromosome. It is inherited only by a son, and not a daughter.

All of these identifiable markers, both on the mitochondrial DNA and on the Y chromosome, theoretically should be stable and unchanging through several generations—even for thousands of years. The theoretical durability of these markers notwithstanding, these markers can, however, change. They may sometimes change within a generation or two, but particularly over long periods of time.

An interesting example of the phenomenon of this change was reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics (72:1370-1388). This study employed extensive recorded genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population genetics study every undertaken. The investigators traced the maternal and paternal ancestry of 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 to two families of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 (about 150 years ago) and the other between 1742 and 1798 (about 250 years ago). These relationships were confirmed by available genealogical records. Samples containing the mitochondrial and Y DNA markers were obtained and analyzed from all of these 131,060 individuals. If there had been no changes in the genetic markers, then a high proportion of these 131,060 individuals would have demonstrated their relationship to one of the two 18th and 19th century families. Their mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA markers would have fit into two groups and associated each individual with one of the two families.

However, the vast majority of those born after 1972 whose DNA markers were analyzed showed no identifiable DNA relationship to their early family (75-80% of those

th th

related to the 19 century family and 90-95% of those related to the 18 century family). In other words, the vast majority of those born after 1972 could not be demonstrated to be related to either of the two early families who lived 150-250 years previously.

#The Beginning of the Book of Mormon DNA Controversy

In August of 1998, an Australian plant geneticist, Simon Southerton, suddenly concluded that he could no longer believe in the Book of Mormon because of what he claimed to be DNA evidence that the American Indians did not descend from Israelite ancestors. He had been reading population genetic studies which support an Asian, as opposed to an ancient Near Eastern origin for Native Americans and Polynesians. Southerton had previously been a missionary for the Church and was also a former bishop in the Church. Subsequently he has become a vocal opponent of the Church loudly and widely claiming that the Book of Mormon is strictly a fictitious invention composed and orchestrated by Joseph Smith—with no inspiration, no angels, no revelation. His stand is summarized in his book Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005). He stands behind a strictly scientific rationale in support of his feelings. While there can be no question about his deeply held anti-Mormon leanings, we will learn that Simon Southerton’s ability to interpret scientific studies is questionable.

#The Enthusiasm of the “DNA” Anti-Mormons

Since 1998 other anti-Mormons have jumped on the DNA bandwagon. In August of 2000 in Salt Lake City, Brent Lee Metcalfe, a Utah Web designer and the author or editor of several publications critical of fundamental Latter-day Saint beliefs, moderated a Sunstone symposium panel which considered the Book of Mormon in light of recent scientific discoveries concerning DNA. In his concluding remarks, Metcalfe alluded to a “Galileo event” that he saw “on the horizon.” By a “Galileo event” he was referring, of course, to the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), whose astronomical discoveries contradicted the leadership of the Catholic Church in his day. His discoveries ultimately led to the replacement of an ancient religiophilosophical view of the cosmos by a modern scientific view. The previous view was that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, and the earth revolves around the sun. Metcalfe explained that he was referring to “an event where the cognitive dissonance between science and religion becomes so severe that the religion abandons the tradition, acquiescing to science.” He had, he told the audience, been reading quite a few articles about population genetics, and his reading had spoken to him with startling clarity. “You do not have Middle Eastern, Near Eastern, influence among Native Americans,” Metcalfe declared. “It simply is not there.” Then, even growing somewhat emotional at one state, Metcalfe told of his own personal response to his reading. “I felt my heart start pounding. I felt uncomfortable. I didn’t want to read it anymore.” Although he said that he disliked the term because of what he described as its “political baggage,” Metcalfe identified himself to his listeners as an “atheist.” That word, he told them, “would aptly describe where I am in relationship to God.” Nonetheless, he reported, he was surprised by his own reaction to what he had read:

All of a sudden I felt this discomfort for my family and friends, that we could be going down a road where, effectively, people like . . . myself could become the rule in Mormonism, and not the exception. Not only do I think a “Galileo event” is on the horizon—in many ways, if it opens our minds, I hope it is (Mark D. Thomas, Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999]).

Another self-styled expert in genetic population studies is Thomas W. Murphy, an anthropologist, college teacher, and anthropology department chair in the state of Washington. He is a member of the Church who is anxious to announce to anyone who will listen how science has now definitively proven the Book of Mormon historically untenable. “Tom Murphy is the Galileo for Mormons,” Maxine Hanks, a former Latterday Saint, told the Los Angeles Times (William Lobdell and Larry B. Stammer, “Mormon Scientist, Church Clash over DNA Test: Anthropologist May Be Ousted for Questioning Teachings about Native American Ancestry,” Los Angeles Times, 8 December 2002, A21). Some internet postings suggest that Murphy’s own students have called him “the Mormon Galileo,” and Murphy himself seems to have accepted that role. “The Mormon faith is going to survive one way or another,” he told the same reporters who had interviewed Maxine Hanks. “The Catholic Church survived Galileo, but they first had to admit they were wrong” (Ibid.).

The Book of Mormon is clearly an offense to Murphy. His comments on it have been anything but temperate, as a pair of examples should sufficiently illustrate: “Through publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith accomplished, via writing and representation, the same sort of erasure that Bishop Landa sought through brutality, torture, and consuming fire when he destroyed most of the Mayan codices that had survived the initial stages of the conquest” (“Laban’s Ghost: On Writing and Transgression,” Dialogue 30/2 [1997]: 118). Thus, Murphy metaphorically equates Joseph Smith with a Spanish Conquest torturer and book burner. At one point in Murphy’s anti-Mormon career, he was scheduled to come before a stake disciplinary council, but it was later postponed. After learning of the delay, Murphy sent an open letter to his supporters in which he declared:

The postponement of this disciplinary council is truly a victory for all those who favor an honest search for truth and are willing to speak out against the injustices of racism, sexism, homophobia, and antiintellectualism. . . . The belief that American Indians came from Israel is paramount [sic—Murphy probably intended tantamount] to claiming the earth is flat. . . . Scientific evidence, to be outlined in future publications, likewise indicates the absurdity of the Book of Mormon’s claim that a dark skin is a curse from God for wickedness. . . . I sincerely hope that the conciliatory approach taken by my stake president means that the LDS Church is willing to consider the possibility that Lamanites may not be the principal ancestors of the American Indians, that a dark skin is not a curse from God, and that scholars may now openly discuss the Book of Mormon as nineteenth-century fiction.

Going far beyond his purported expertise on Amerindian DNA in a August 2003 Sunstone presentation in Salt Lake City, Murphy assaulted both the Church in general and Brigham Young University in particular for an allegedly “repressive social atmosphere,” “a stifling social atmosphere which is destructive to free inquiry and honest introspection,” as well as for “intellectual intimidation,” “character assassination,” and “ecclesiastical abuse” (“Simply Implausible: DNA and a Meso-American Setting for the Book of Mormon,” Dialogue 36/4 [2003]:130). Appealing to the public’s confidence in forensic DNA profiling and demonstrating a basic lack of understanding of population genetics, Murphy announced: “The DNA evidence, the same type of evidence that they use in criminal court cases, clearly discredits the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was [sic] being charged with fraud in a court of law today and the DNA evidence was there, the DNA evidence would, in a sense, implicate him in a fraud. In other words, the Book of Mormon would not stand up in a court of law today (DNA vs. the Book of Mormon, videocassette [Brigham City, Utah: Living Hope Ministries], 2003).

One Southern Baptist pastor Dennis A. Wright characterized Murphy as a devoutly pious laboratory DNA researcher shocked by his own cutting-edge results and tragically persecuted by an ecclesiastical hierarchy that fears the truth. It would be closer to the truth to view him as an inactive, apostate Mormon and an armchair consumer of articles published by others on DNA research (“DNA vs. the Book of Mormon,” Evangel 50/5 [2003]:2). Merely surveying several articles on the subject of DNA does not an expert make.

Dr. Michael Whiting, a respected DNA researcher at Brigham Young University has addressed the issue of Murphy’s being “the Galileo of Mormonism”: “It’s an inappropriate comparison,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “The difference is Galileo got the science right. I don’t think Murphy has” (as cited in Lobdell and Stammer, “Mormon Scientist, Church Clash over DNA Test”).

In the remainder of this article, we will evaluate the question of whether or not Southerton and his fellow anti-Mormons are justified in their claims against the Book of Mormon.

#The Essential Questions

Now, what of the fact that Amerindians (Native Indians from North, Central, and South America) have haplotypes that are most commonly found today in Asia and not as much in the Near East? Should this be a cause of doubt among the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document? Is there a type of genetic pattern, a haplotype, which if found among the Amerindians today would offer positive evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? These questions may be quite easily and simply answered.

Regardless of the type of mitochondrial DNA or the type of Y chromosome DNA we find among today’s Amerindians, it would not offer significant evidence for or against the truth of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient record. This seems a surprising conclusion. Why is this so? Let us consider the several important reasons.

Reasons Why the Genetic Patterns Found Among Today’s Amerindians Have Little Relevance to the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon

Mutations. Genetic mutations are changes in the nucleotide sequences in genes that occur spontaneously and often randomly. Mutations are known to occur in all DNA. This produces a change called “genetic drift.” By this process an individual may lose or change the genetic markers present on is mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA that, before the mutation, demonstrated his association with a specific group.

Bottlenecks. In a given haplogroup, there are limitations to the persistence of the characteristic pattern of its mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA. For example, mothers pass their mitochondrial DNA haplotype on to their sons and daughters. However, only daughters hold the potential to further perpetuate this name by having their own daughters. A similar principle holds true for the Y chromosome, which persists through generations only by father-to-son transmission. If there is a generation or a family with a minimal number of children or with no children of the appropriate sex, then the family haplotype pattern may be quickly erased by nature. This is known as a genetic bottleneck. Once a specific haplotype is lost, it leaves no record of ever having existed. Indeed, over time, the fate of most mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA lineages is extinction through bottlenecks. Hence, as one’s ancestors fade into the remote past, there is an ever-increasing chance that those ancestors will become totally irrelevant in the genetic sense in that they leave no trace in the genetic characteristics (the genome) of their descendants of today.

Diluted Blood. Intuitively, it is easy to sense the importance of the size of the original ancestral reference population. If one were to begin, even in the ancient past with a large population of genetically uniform individuals, then the likelihood of their haplotype pattern’s persisting through the centuries and being identifiable today would be reasonably high, particularly if that population did not mix with other populations by intermarriage. But what if only a handful of individuals with a distinct haplotype name were injected into a large population? And what if the handful of people intermarried and mixed with the large population? Would it be more difficult to identify the distinct haplotype of that small group of people in the population today? Indeed it would be.

Did this happen to the Lehites? We know that both the Nephite and Mulekite groups were relatively small. And, was there mixing by intermarriage of the Book of Mormon immigrants with native peoples? Several lines of evidence in the Book of Mormon suggest strongly there was. One of the most telling passages in the record of Nephi relates the confrontation of Sherem and Jacob. By the time Sherem showed up in the first Nephite settlement, the maximum population that could have resulted from the most rapid conceivable natural descent from Nephi and his fellow settlers would not have exceeded a few dozen adults. Yet Sherem had never met Jacob, the chief Nephite priest (see Jacob 7:1-26), and he had come from some other settlement. Questions about population actually arise still earlier in the story. We find Nephi setting out to build a temple when his adult male relatives in the little colony in the land of Nephi apparently would have numbered only three: Nephi, Sam, and Zoram (plus Jacob and Joseph if they were old enough). So few men could not have put up much of a temple. Furthermore, what kind of wars could the group have fought against the Lamanites with the miniscule “army” that the handful of immigrants could have mustered at the end of 25 years in the land (see 2 Nephi 5:34)? Without increases in the early population of the two factions (Nephites and Lamanites), that can only be explained by the accretion of people from a resident population, reference to “wars” could not be a significant reality.

We who are confident of the historicity of the Book of Mormon are assured from these incidents and other textual references that substantial numbers of local “native” residents had joined with the immigrant parties by intermarriage. If we had the plates of Nephi that reported the more historical part of their story (the 116 pages of lost manuscript), perhaps we would find on them explicit information about such contacts with resident populations.

Other statements in the Book of Mormon also indicate that the writers were familiar with, rather than surprised by, the idea of non-Israelites living among the Nephites. The only example I will cite is when Alma visited the city of Ammonihah and Amulek introduced himself with the words, “I am a Nephite” (Alma 8:20). Since the city was nominally under Nephite rule (see Alma 8:11-12, 24) and was a part of the land of Zarahemla at the time, Amulek’s statement seems nonsensical, unless many, perhaps most, of the people in the land of Ammonihah did not consider themselves to be Nephites, by whatever criteria. Intuitively, it is easy to see why a small group introduced into a large existing population will eventually lapse into genetic oblivion by the process of dilution in addition to mutation and bottlenecks.

Preservation of a constant haplotype in a relatively small group of people would require a policy that strictly forbade intermarrying outside the small group. This would solve the problem of dilution but not the problem of mutations or bottlenecks. But this “no intermarrying” policy would pose another threat to the progeny of the small group because of otherwise silent (recessive) negative genetic characteristics made overt through inbreeding. Generally small family-associated groups, without outside genetic contribution, digress to extinction because recessive, disease-associated genes become prevalent among their descendants. A policy of no intermarrying with an outside population would surely be fatal to the identity of that small group.

It is well demonstrated that all of these changes—mutations, bottlenecks, and blood dilution occur over time. They are especially pertinent when scientists are trying to draw a connection between a present-day population and a population in the ancient past. If Icelandic descendants of documented ancestors of 250 years ago cannot be shown to have mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA markers that were present in those ancestors, then the possibility certainly exists that the genetic signatures of people reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2600 years ago would not be detectable in the population today.

Few, if any, of the native Amerindian inhabitants of North America descended from Nephite/Lamanite ancestors. Let us say that we wished to perform DNA studies on a certain people today that were most likely to be descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples? Which group of people would we choose? Are all of the Amerindians of today Book of Mormon descendants? Are any of them? And if there are some, which are they?

Latter-day Saints plausibly suppose that at least a few Nephite/Lamanite (Israelite) genes could have spread out from the Mesoamerican core, but archaeologists cannot presently identify precisely any of other peoples as being clearly “Book of Mormon peoples.”

In the early 20th century, the concept developed and was widely accepted among anthropologists that all American Indians formed a monolithic “race” whose ancestors came from northern Asia. This extreme view is no longer held, and it has become clear that substantial variation exists among so-called Native Americans. Among all of the native Indian peoples of North and South America, many ethnic origins are evident, especially in the clay figurines of these people which have been discovered. Some specific ethnicities which are obvious in these carved likenesses include: African blacks, Southeast Asians, Chinese, perhaps Koreans, possibly Japanese, and Mediterranean people. Of special interest is a whole class of “Semitic” or “Jewish” or “Uncle Sam” faces, so called by some archaeologists or art historians because of the large aquiline noses and beards. Beards are generally sparse or absent among most American Indian groups.

The specific haplotype that existed among the members of the families of Lehi and Ishmael is completely unknown. One of the great difficulties for those expecting Native Americans to appear, from a genetic sense, as ancient Near Eastern populations is that the genetic characteristics of these ancient Near Eastern populations remain unknown. While the DNA of the people of present-day Israel can easily be determined, there exists no known “ancient israelite-like DNA.”

Father Lehi found on the plates of brass recovered from Laban a genealogy of his fathers where he learned that he was a descendant of ancient Joseph, the son of Jacob or Israel (1 Nephi 5:14), specifically from the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3). In the Church, it has long been held that Ishmael’s ancestry also went back to Ephraim, the son of Joseph. This tradition is based on a discourse delivered by an apostle, Elder Erastus Snow, in the Logan tabernacle in Logan, Utah, on May 6, 1882. Elder Snow said, “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 abridgment is given us in the first Book of Nephi [1 Nephi chapters 1 through 8], 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 [had] married into Lehi’s family, and Lehi’s sons married Ishmael’s daughters” (JD, 23:184). So perhaps we might expect to find genetic material among the Native Indians resembling that of the tribe of Joseph. But wait just a moment! A couple of questions seem most pertinent here.

1. First, would the haplotypes of Lehi and Ishmael have pervaded the Book of Mormon lands? For one thing we know nothing about the haplotypes of Sariah, and that of the wife of Ishmael. And what about the haplotypes of the wives of the two sons of Ishmael and the haplotype of Zoram? Also there were other migrations into the Book of Mormon story. Mulek is mentioned in Helaman 8:21 as a son of Zedekiah who was king of Judah when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:7). But what about the haplotypes of those who brought Mulek to the New World? Who were they? Some have suggested that likely candidates for those who brought Mulek to the New World by ship may have been the Phoenicians. What about them? What was their haplotype? The Jaredites descended from multiple families who were led by the Lord from the Tower of Babel to the Promised Land (Ether 1:33). Might they have brought a few other haplotypes entirely unrelated to the other immigrants to the Promised Land?

We have already mentioned the likelihood that whatever haplotype Lehi and his extended family brought into the New World might have been greatly diluted by the large indigenous population of the previous immigrants.

2. Another pertinent question is whether or not the haplotype of the tribe of Joseph is known. The fact is that it is not. And what might have happened to that haplotype during the twelve hundred or so years between the time of ancient Joseph and that of father Lehi? Was there an admixture with other groups, say the Egyptians? And what about the haplotype of the tribal (tribe of Judah) Jews that lived in Jerusalem? Was it the same as that of Lehi and Ishmael? We are therefore left without a reference haplotype against which to compare the Amerindians of today. Then, we have pointed out that even if we had the specific haplotype of Lehi and Ishmael, would it have persisted though twenty-six centuries of mutations, bottlenecks, and intermarryings?

A successful effort to track an ancient population and elaborate its present-day correlates requires the comparison of “archaeologically well-defined ancient populations in an archaeological context representative of the groups intended for comparison. Even in instances in which comparative ancient and contemporary data exist, specific and detailed conclusions are often difficult to construct. For example, much work has been done in the American Southwest toward a general reconstruction of ancient haplogroup frequencies, using both modern and ancient data. These studies demonstrate continuity in pre-Columbian haplogroup patterns in North America as far back as the time of Christ; however, patterns before this date are uncertain” (see Malhi et al., “Structure of Diversity,” 906, and references therein). The challenges from an archaeological standpoint of clearly defining a reference population are immense: “Distribution, burial patterns, time intervals, preservation, and the cultural context of ancient human remains are not always clear. In addition, the ideal of obtaining samples from a continuous biological inbreeding population is rarely, if ever, met. However, consistent origins, reliable dating methods, and proper archaeological context indicate that the sample set is representative of the intended population. Once this information is ensured, an arduous and lengthy task remains to extract accurate and meaningful information from ancient human remains. Only those experienced with ancient DNA analyses appreciate these challenges” (Frederika A. Kaestle and K. Ann Horsburgh, “Ancient DNA in Anthropology,” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45 [2002]: 92-130).

It has often been asserted by anti-Mormons: “The American Indians clearly did not descend from Hebrews.” As for the category “Hebrews,” there is absolutely no significant information which can be used to characterize ancient “Hebrews” in terms of DNA. There thus exists no archaeologically well-defined population representative of Lehi and Ishmael. There is no clearly defined reference population.

#Conclusion

The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record the contents of which were made available to the prophet Joseph Smith by divine miraculous intervention. We know this by literally a freight load of evidences, both spiritual and secular. I have said many times, and still maintain that the only people who do not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are those who don’t know enough about it. Based on this premise, I would conclude that Southerton, Metcalfe, Murphy—though they are certainly self-styled intellectuals—are deficient not only in their understanding of the particulars of DNA population studies, but they are also lacking in knowledge of the Book of Mormon itself and the corroborative evidences of the book now available. For those who have studied the Book of Mormon in depth, their faith easily lifts them above the sophistry of the book’s critics.

Techniques for evaluating the movement of ancient populations have come and gone including lexicostatistics (“glottochronology”) and blood typing. Thus far the discipline of DNA population studies is in an early state of its development. Major challenges exist in the reliably of the technique. Whether or not those challenges spell the inevitable demise of the discipline remain to be seen. It is certain today, however, that the science can neither confirm or negate the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and the chances are slim that it will be able to do either in the future.

Nothing found in the Book of Mormon precludes an Asian ancestry for Native Americans. This does not mean that genetic markers of an ancient Near Eastern origin will never be found in the genetic record of some Native Americans. However, there are compelling reasons to expect and accept their absence. There will always be those who must have every detail before them prior to any acceptance of truth. This view always generates a cascade of doubt that ends in an appeal to the secular judge of science. However, in this particular instance, as amply outlined above, the insistence that the haplotypes of small groups from the ancient Near East must absolutely be present in the current genetic record of Native Americans, as a means of testing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, is an unrealistic expectation.

I must conclude with a note of sympathy for the likes of Simon Southerton. A review of his works and directions reveals an obviously bitter estrangement from a religion he cannot now leave alone. When the dust finally settles on this mortal existence, he will realize that he has been wrong, which realization will be especially poignant and painful in the face of such overwhelming and readily available present-day evidence of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. Dr. Henry Eyring wrote, pertinently: “I have trouble understanding why people drift away from the Church. . . . There are all kinds of contradictions that I don’t understand, but I find the same kind of contradictions in science, and I haven’t decided to apostatize from science” (Reflections of a Scientist, 47).