Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 12 | Number 1 Article 4 1-31-2003 Before DNA John L. Sorenson Matthew Roper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Sorenson, John L. and Roper, Matthew (2003) "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 12 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol12/iss1/4 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Before DNA Author(s) John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 6–23, 113–15. ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online) Abstract Critics of the Book of Mormon often cite genetic “evi- dence” in their attacks on the historicity of the text, saying that the lack of any Near Eastern–American Indian DNA links conclusively proves that no emi- gration ever occurred from the Near East to the Americas. Their simplistic approach—that the Book of Mormon purports to be a history of the entire American Indian race—is not supported by archaeo- logical or Book of Mormon evidence. The authors pose and respond to questions about the geographi- cal scene, the spread of Book of Mormon peoples, Latter-day Saint traditions about the scenes and peo- ples of the Book of Mormon, the terms Nephites and Lamanites, the possible presence of others in the land, ocean travel, Mesoamerican native traditions, lan- guages of the Western Hemisphere, Old World peoples coming to the Americas, archaeological evidence, and ethnically distinct populations in ancient American art. These questions set out the social, cultural, and geographical contexts that are necessary for geneti- cists to understand before reaching major conclusions. BEFORE DNA John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper n recent years critics who question that the ally describes a setting where the people were lim- Book of Mormon is an ancient document have ited in numbers and the lands they occupied were Imade noisy claims that “facts” from the science restricted in scale. Yet the issue touches more than of molecular biology contradict what the Nephite geography alone; the entrained question is one of record says about the peoples it describes. In this is- demography and descent. Were there other popula- sue of the Journal, specialists in DNA analysis em- tions present in the Americas who were not exclu- phasize the care one must take in responsibly con- sively descended from Lehi’s party? We treat both ceptualizing problems and then using DNA data in issues below. any evaluation of the Book of Mormon as a histori- A responsible approach to the scripture requires cal source. The issues they take up are technically getting clear about the actual geographic and demo- complex, and it is important that they raise the cau- graphic scale on which its events were played out, as tions they do. But from our perspective there are Elder Dallin H. Oaks has pointed out. He recalled questions that should precede any technical matters. taking a class as a student at Brigham Young Univer- This article provides a framework within which sity in which the quality and aptness of questions about DNA studies on Native Americans and their implications I was introduced to the idea that the Book of for Book of Mormon history should be approached. Mormon is not a history of all of the people who We raise a set of issues that anyone should confront have lived on the continents of North and South when thinking clearly and honestly about this sub- America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I ject. Our answers are succinct because the space had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of available is limited. For those who wish to know the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, ar- more, the endnotes point to additional sources of chaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary information. would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and Critics of the Book of Mormon frequently take those who rely exclusively on scholarship would the position that the New World events related in have a promising position to argue. the Nephite record must be read as taking place on a In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only pur- stage consisting of the entire Western Hemisphere. ports to be an account of a few peoples who in- This allows them to treat the scripture as though it habited a portion of the Americas during a few purported to be a history of the American Indian. millennia in the past, the burden of argument Their arguments about the supposed factual inaccu- [about its historical accuracy] changes drasti- racy of the sacred record rest heavily on this claimed cally. It is no longer a question of all versus geography. But what the book actually says contra- none; it is a question of some versus none. In dicts the idea that two entire continents were in- other words, in the circumstance I describe, the volved in the story. Although early Latter-day Saints opponents of historicity must prove that the assumed a hemispheric setting (and some church Book of Mormon has no historical validity for members today still hold that view), the record actu- any peoples who lived in the Americas in a par- 6 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 ticular time frame, a notoriously difficult exer- water, but rather that the area so labeled could be cise. One does not prevail on that proposition by reached via boat. See the dictionary in the Latter-day proving that a particular . culture represents Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, migrations from [eastern] Asia. The opponents s.v. “Isles.”) of historicity of the Book of Mormon must 5. The southern portion of the land southward, prove that the people whose religious life it called the land of Nephi, was mostly elevated and records did not live anywhere in the Americas.1 mountainous (it included the headwaters of the Furthermore, DNA scientists have to answer the principal river); the territory closer to the isthmus, questions of location and scale if they are to know called the land of Zarahemla, lay at an intermediate from where to draw data appropriate for historical elevation. analysis of the Book of Mormon. Our first questions 6. From the south highlands (the land of Nephi), assist in that task. the river Sidon, the only river identified in the record, flowed northward through a drainage basin that 1. How does the Book of Mormon characterize the constituted much of the land of Zarahemla. geographical scene in the American “promised 7. The west sea coastal zone of the land south- land” where the events the book relates took place? ward was considered a “narrow strip,” apparently Numerous books and articles have addressed with such a small population that it played no sig- bits and pieces of this question.2 The problem is very nificant historical role in Book of Mormon history, complex, for hundreds of passages in the Book of but the flatlands adjacent to the east sea coast of the Mormon either tell us directly about or imply spa- land southward were more extensive. tial relationships and other geographical parameters 8. Based chiefly on the travel times required to that characterized the setting. go between various points, we can confidently infer As the primary author and editor of the Book of that the land southward was on the order of only a Mormon, the prophet Mormon evidently had his few hundred miles in length (northward–southward). own mental map of Nephite lands, which made it At one point the land southward was plausibly about possible for the total body of geographical informa- 200 miles wide. The distance across the narrowest tion that he employed to be remarkably consistent. part of the narrow neck, or isthmus, is left vague but This is not surprising, because from his own ac- might have been on the order of 100 miles. count we know that he had personally traveled over 9. The dimensions of the land northward are a great deal of Nephite territory (see Mormon 1:6, also unclear, but the implication is that the size of 10–6:6). The geographical data in the book lead to that area was of the same order of magnitude as the the following salient points:3 land southward. 1. When mapped, the outline of lands familiar 10. Topographically the land northward con- to the Nephites appears to have been more or less in sisted of lowlands (and drainage) toward the east the shape of an hourglass but with the nature of the sea, while westward the land was more elevated. northward and southward extremities being left 11. Near the east sea a relatively small area of hills unclear. was located no great distance northward from the 2. What the Nephites considered their “east sea” narrow pass. The final battleground of the Jaredites in all likelihood was the Atlantic Ocean.4 (at “the hill Ramah”) and of the Nephites (at the 3. The Nephites’ “west sea” was part of the Pacific same hill, called by them “the hill Cumorah”) was in Ocean. Lehi’s party landed on the west sea coast at this area. the extreme south of the territory they knew as “the 12. The climate throughout the entire territory promised land.”5 was relatively warm, at least as far as the text indi- 4.