Both critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon have tried to use population genetics and DNA science to support their views. But, DNA evidence really doesn’t prove or disprove anything regarding the Book of Mormon.
Here’s the claim:
The Book of Mormon describes people who migrated from the Near East (such as Lehi from Jerusalem and Jared from Babylon). Therefore, DNA population genetic studies of modern American natives should reveal traces of Near Eastern ancestors. However, the majority of DNA identified to date in modern native peoples most closely resembles that of eastern Asian and not Near Eastern ancestors. Therefore, the Book of Mormon must be false.
Here’s why it doesn’t prove or disprove anything regarding the Book of Mormon:
The Book of Mormon is primarily a spiritual record which mostly covers the events in the lives of the descendants of Lehi who migrated to America from Jerusalem. They were certainly not the first or even the largest group to settle the Americas. The Book of Mormon references many other inhabitants in America (see footnote 1). The book is not a complete historical record of all the people who have lived in America.
The fact that Near Eastern DNA can’t be identified among modern native groups in America doesn’t prove that Lehi and his descendants did not live in America anciently, nor that their record in the Book of Mormon is false.
Although such DNA studies are interesting, their results neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
The article “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” gives an explanation of the limitations of population genetics and DNA science. This is one of the new entries in Gospel Topics on LDS.org.
Footnote 1: References in the Book of Mormon to other groups of inhabitants:
- Family of Jared migration at the time of the Tower of Babel (Ether 1:33)
- Early commerce among the migrations (Ether 10:21-22)
- Many early migrations (Helaman 3:5)
- Other inhabitants (Ether 2:11)
- Descendants of Riplakish (Ether 10:4-5, 8-9)
- Other People (Omni 1:14-18)
- Other Nations (2 Nephi 1:5)
- Other contacts among the inhabitants (Alma 22:29; Alma 50:9; 3 Nephi 4:1; 3 Nephi 16:4)
As a geologist and adult convert to the LDS Church, my dad taught me a wonderful lesson about reconciling science and religion.
As a new investigator and scientist he really wanted to see evidence of something that would cause three days and nights of a darkness so intense that wouldn’t allow flame. After time he accepted the Book of Mormon and the gospel for the teachings—thanks King Benjamin!—and growing faith. He just set aside his scientific concerns.
Years later he told me that he finally had come to the realization that if he accepted that scripture is true because it is inspired communication from God through prophetic sources, then whenever science doesn’t match up, science still has some missing puzzle pieces still on that subject. And he could keep asking questions about the science.
I think that choosing faith in scriptural veracity made my dad a better scientist as well as a better man.
Having recently spent 18 months in the heart of Mesoamerica, I heard many discussions among missionaries and visitors about Book of Mormon geography. I visited many ancient ruins. If someone could point out to me at Kaminal Juyu evidence that it is the city of Nephi, that would be interesting, but not definitive to my faith. If I knew exactly where the Waters of Mormon located, the knowledge would do nothing to increase my understanding of the need for baptism. I have served as a missionary in Central America twice now, 50 years apart. Both times it has seemed far more important to develop my own ability to obey gospel principles than to expend effort trying to correlate present-day ruins with Book of Mormon places. I have no doubt that many people living in Central America now are descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites. Their spiritual progress seems far more important than proving their bloodlines or identifying the ruins around them. The DNA questions is usually raised by people who choose skepticism over faith.
The point of the article on lds.org is well taken, and I think it wise that they didn’t try to make a case for mitochondrial Haplogroup X as a proof, instead including it in the list of those that are predominantly East Asian. Still, it is interesting to note that according to Wikipedia, X isn’t predominately East Asian. Mitochondria is passed on from mother to child unchanged until a mutation occurs. It is found mostly among western Eurasian (7%) and eastern North American (3%) peoples. The Druze minority of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan or 27% X. In North America, Algonquian speaking tribes have been found to be as high as 25% X and Souix tribes 15% X. The fact that the Altai of central Asia have a notable occurrence of X adds to the mystery. Summaries of hypotheses suggesting an Asian origin for X do not address the absence of X in South American tribes nor the increasing concentration among North American tribes as you move north east. I am not suggesting a proof that Lehi brought mitochondrial haplogroup X to North America. I am suggesting that the Asian origin hypothesis summaries challenge the European hypothesis on technology grounds using statistical probabilities concerning genome relationships while ignoring migratory probabilities suggested by genetic distributions. Scientifically, I like a cleaner theory than what the proponents of an asian source for X in North America are postulating. However, in the end, I am unqualified to do much more than ask about inconsistencies. Meanwhile, my belief in the Book of Mormon is based on my own direct experience, not scientific proof, and my primary concern is that we who believe in it live its teachings as best we can as an example of those who do not believe.
Correction, last sentence: an an example for those who do not believe.