jbms 12-1 dna and the book of mormon a phylogenetic perspective

7/28/2019 JBMS 12-1 DNA and the Book of Mormon a Phylogenetic Perspective

1/14

24 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003

The past decade has seen a revolution inthe way in which biologists collect data andproceed with their research. This revolution

has come about by technological innovations that

allow scientists to efficiently sequence DNA for awide range of organisms, resulting in vast quantitiesof genetic data from a diverse array of creatures. Fromestimating the genealogical relationships amongfleas to understanding the population genetics ofcrayfish, DNA sequence information can provideclues to the past and allow scientists to test very spe-cific hypotheses in a way that was unapproachableeven a few years ago. The announced completion ofthe Human Genome Project is not really a comple-tion of DNA work at all, but simply one step on theroad toward a better understanding of ourselves as

biological organisms, our shared genetic history ashumans, and the genetic history we share with allliving organisms. Work is under way in many fieldsto generate DNA sequences from a wide variety oforganisms for a spectrum of genes to address an al-most dizzying array of scientific and medical ques-tions. As it stands, there is possibly no other datasource that holds more potential for biological in-quiry than DNA sequence data, and this informa-tion is currently one of the most powerful tools inthe arsenal of scientists.

However, as with all scientific tools, there are

bounds and limits to how this tool is applied andwhat questions it can adequately address. This is be-cause DNA sequence information is useful for onlycertain classes of scientific questions that need to beproperly formulated and carefully evaluated beforethe validity of the results can be accepted. There aremany interesting questions for which DNA sequencedata is the most appropriate data source at hand, as

current scientific investigations attest. But there aresome classes of problems for which DNA may pro-vide only tangential insight, and some very interest-ing biological questions for which DNA is altogether

an inappropriate source of information. Moreover,there are certain biological problems that scientistswould love to answer but that are complicated andresist solution, even given DNA information. Withinthe scientific community, DNA-based research iscarefully scrutinized to be certain that underlyingassumptions have been tested, that data have beencorrectly collected and analyzed, and that the inter-pretation of the results are kept within the frame-work of the current theory or methodology. DNAresearch is only as good as the hypotheses formu-lated, data collected, and analyses employed, and the

pronouncement that a certain conclusion was basedon DNA evidence does not ipso facto mean that theresearch is based on solid science or that the conclu-sion is correct. The National Science Foundation re-

jects literally hundreds of DNA-based research pro-posals every year because they are lacking in someway in scientific design. The inclusion of a DNAcomponent does not necessarily guarantee that thestudy was properly designed or executed.

Recently, some persons have announced thatmodern DNA research has conclusively proved thatthe Book of Mormon is false and that Joseph Smith

was a fraud.1

This conclusion is based on the argu-ment that the Book of Mormon makes specific pre-dictions about the genetic structure of the descen-dants of the Lamanites and that these descendantsshould be readily identifiable today. These critics ar-gue that when the DNA is put to the test, these de-scendants lack the distinctive genetic signature thatthe critics claim the Book of Mormon predicts. They

DNA AND THE BOOK OF MORMON:

A PHYLOGENETIC PERSPECTIVE

Michael F. Whiting


2/14

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 25

bolster their arguments by appealing to DNA re-search, claim that their conclusions are thoroughlyscientific, and pronounce that the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints must now go through aGalileo event, in reference to the 17th-century as-tronomer who discovered that the sun, not the

earth, was the center of the solar system, much tothe consternation of the prevailing religious view.They have trumpeted this conclusion to the mediaand have gained a modicum of press coverage byplaying on the stereotype of modern science beingsuppressed by old religion. Moreover, they arguethat the silence at Brigham Young University overthis topic is evidence that their arguments and con-clusions are above reproach. However, these claimserr scientifically in that they are based on the naivenotion that DNA provides infallible evidence for an-cestry and descent in sexually reproducing popula-

tions and that the results from such analyses arestraightforward, objective, and not laden with as-sumptions. Moreover, proponents of this naive viewblindly ignore decades of theory associated withDNA sequence evolution and data analysis andrarely speak to the extremely tentative nature oftheir conclusions.

The purpose of this paper is to debunk the myththat the Book of Mormon has been proved false bymodern DNA evidence. What I put forth here is aseries of scientific arguments highlighting the diffi-culty of testing the lineage history given some of the

known complicating events. This paper should notbe regarded as a summary of current research onhuman population genetics nor as an extensiveanalysis of all possible complicating factors; rather, itfocuses on the current attempts to apply DNA infor-mation to the Book of Mormon.

What Is the State of DNA Research on the Book ofMormon?

The first point that should be clarified is thatthose persons who state that DNA evidence falsifiesthe authenticity of the Book of Mormon are not

themselves performing genetic research to test thisclaim. This conclusion is not coming from the scien-tists studying human population genetics. It is notthe result of a formal scientific investigation specifi-cally designed to test the authenticity of the Book ofMormon by means of genetic evidence, nor has itbeen published in any reputable scientific journalopen to scientific peer review. Rather, it has come

from outside persons who have interpreted the con-clusions of an array of population genetic studiesand forced the applicability of these results onto theBook of Mormon. The studies cited by these criticswere never formulated by their original authors as a

specific test of the veracity of the Book of Mormon.To my knowledge there is no reputable researcherwho is specifically attempting to test the authenticityof the Book of Mormon with DNA evidence.

Is DNA Research on the Book of MormonFundable?

As I am writing this article, I am sitting in anairplane on my way to Washington, D.C., to serve asa member of a scientific review panel for the Syste-matic Biology program of the National ScienceFoundation. The NSF is a major source of basic re-

search funding available to scientists in the UnitedStates, and every six months the NSF brings in apanel of researchers to review grant applicationsand provide recommendations for funding. Eachresearch proposal is a 15-page explanation of whatresearch is to be performed, how the research proj-ect is designed, the specific hypotheses to be testedthrough the proposed work, preliminary data

Galileos controversial but correct scientific observation that the earthrotates around the sun was consistent with good science. (Galileo, byJustus Sustermans, 15971681, oil on canvas; Scala/Art Resource, New York)


3/14


indicating the feasibility of the particular scientificapproach, careful analyses of these data, preliminaryconclusions based on those analyses, and a justifica-tion for why the proposed research is scientificallyinteresting, intellectually significant, and worthy offunding. As someone who has received a half-dozen

NSF grants and has written even more research pro-posals, I recognize how much time and effort gointo writing a successful research proposal and howcarefully thought out that research must be beforefunding will ever be made available. While anyonecan claim to do scientific research, it is widely ac-cepted within the scientific community that thetouchstone of quality in a research program is theability to obtain external funding from a nationallypeer-reviewed granting agency and to publish theresults in a reputable scientific journal. To be fundedat the national level means that a research proposal

has undergone the highest degree of scrutiny andbeen approved by those best able to judge its merits.

Given that no research program thus far hasbeen designed to specifically test the authenticity ofthe Book of Mormon, I would like to center my dis-cussion on the following question: If one were to de-sign a research program with the stated goal of testingthe validity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA in-

formation, what specific hypotheses would one test,what experimental design is best suited to test each ofthese hypotheses, what sort of assumptions must besatisfied before these tests are valid, and what are the

limitations of the conclusions that can be drawn fromthese data?In other words, would a proposal to testthe validity of the Book of Mormon by means ofDNA sequence information have a sufficiently solidbase in science to ever be competitive in receivingfunding from a nationally peer-reviewed scientificfunding agency such as the NSF?

Is the Authenticity of the Book of MormonTestable by Means of DNA Information?

One could of course argue that it is impossibleto directly test the authenticity of the Book of Mor-

mon with the tools of science, since the Book ofMormon lies within the realm of religion and out-side the realm of science. It would be like asking ascientist to design an experiment that tests for theexistence of God. There are no data that one couldcollect to refute the hypothesis that God exists, justas there are no data that one could collect to refutethe hypothesis that he does not exist: science simply

cannot address the question, and one might arguethat the same is true for the Book of Mormon. Ifone holds this view, and there may be some verygood reasons why one might, then there is no needto read any further: DNA can tell us nothing aboutthe authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

However, one might argue that it is possible toindirectly judge the validity of the text by testing theauthenticity of the predictions made within the text.If one can demonstrate that some predictions arespecifically violated, then perhaps one would havesome basis for claiming that the text is false. This isthe line of reasoning followed by those who pursuethe genetic argument. They suggest that the Book of

Mormon makes specific predictions about the ge-netic structure of the Nephite-Lamanite lineage, thatthis genetic structure should be identifiable in thedescendants of the surviving Lamanites, and that ifthe Book of Mormon is true, then these predic-tions should be verifiable through DNA evidence.The critics argue that the Book of Mormon predictsthat the Lamanite lineage should carry the geneticsignature of a Middle Eastern origin and that the ge-netic descendents of the Lamanites are NativeAmericans. They then scour the literature to showthat current DNA research suggests that NativeAmericans had an Asian origin. These results arethen trumpeted as invalidating the authenticity ofthe text.

However, by simply applying the results of popu-lation genetic studies, which again were never in-tended to test the Lamanite lineage history put forthin the Book of Mormon, these critics have ignored

crucial issues that any reputable scientists designinga research program would have to consider. My the-sis is that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impos-sible, to use DNA sequence information to track thelineage of any group of organisms that has a histori-cal population dynamic similar to that of theNephites and Lamanites. This is not an argument

I would be just as critical of someone

who claimed that current DNA testing

proves the Book of Mormon is true as

I would of those who claim that DNA

evidence proves it is not true.


4/14


that the Nephite-Lamanite lineage is somehow im-mune to investigation through DNA evidence be-cause its record is a religious history, but simply thatthe Nephite-Lamanite lineage history is an exampleof a class of problems for which DNA evidence pro-videsat bestambiguous solutions. It does not

matter to me whether we are talking about humansor fruit flies; you could substitute the term Lamanitewith Drosophila and the argument would be thesame. The lineage history outlined in the Book ofMormon is a conundrum from a DNA perspective;the critics have grossly underplayed or are ignorantof the complications associated with testing this his-tory. Further, because of the complicated nature ofthis lineage history, I would suggest that the Book ofMormon can neither be corroborated nor refuted byDNA evidence and that attempts to do so miss themark entirely. I would be just as critical of someone

who claimed that current DNA testing proves the Bookof Mormon is true as I would of those who claim thatDNA evidence proves it is not true. The Lamanite lin-eage history is difficult to test through DNA infor-mation, DNA provides at best only tangential infor-mation about the text, and anyone who argues thatit can somehow speak to the authenticity of the textshould consider the following complicating factors.

What Hypotheses Emerge from the Book ofMormon?

Good science does not consist of someone

dreaming up a pet theory and then quilting togetherpieces of evidence to support it from as many dis-parate sources as possible while conveniently ignor-ing pieces of evidence that may undercut the theory.Good science consists of formulating specific hy-potheses that can be directly tested from a particulardata source. The problem is that, unlike a good NSFresearch proposal, the Book of Mormon does notexplicitly provide a list of null and alternative hy-potheses for scientific testing. For instance, the spiri-tual promise offered in Moroni 10:4 is not open toscientific investigation because it does not put forth

a hypothesis that can be tested with any sort of sci-entific rigor. Likewise, the entire text of the Book ofMormon was meant for specific spiritual purposesand was not intended to be a research proposal list-ing an explicit hypothesis that is open to scientificinvestigation. Hence, any hypothesis that emergesfrom the Book of Mormon is entirely a matter of in-terpretation, and any specific, testable hypothesis is

based very much on how one reads the Lamanitehistory and considers the degree to which externalforces may have influenced the composition of theLamanite lineage. A person cannot test the authen-ticity of the Book of Mormon by means of geneticswithout making some statement about the specific

hypotheses that are being tested, why these hypothe-ses are an accurate interpretation of the text, and howthese hypotheses somehow speak to the authenticityof the text. At the very best, one might demonstratethat the predictions have been violated, but thequestion remains as to whether the supposed pre-dictions were correct to begin with.

From my perspective, there are two possible ba-sic lineage historiesdiffering in scope, magnitude,and expectationthat one might derive from theBook of Mormon. These histories make predictionsthat could possibly form the basis of hypotheses that

may be tested to varying degrees by means of DNAevidence. I have set these up in a dichotomy of ex-tremes, and certainly one could come up with anycombination of these two scenarios, but the extremesare useful for illustrating difficulties associated withapplying DNA sequence information to the Book ofMormon. For lack of better terms, I will refer tothese as the global colonization hypothesis and thelocal colonization hypothesis.

The Global Colonization Hypothesis

The global colonization hypothesis is the simplest

view of the Lamanite history and the one most read-ily testable through DNA evidence. This is the viewthat when the three colonizing groups (Jaredites,Mulekites, and Nephties + Lamanites) came to theNew World, the land they occupied was entirely voidof humans. It presumes that these colonizers wereable to form a pure and isolated genetic unit ofMiddle Eastern origin living on the American conti-nent and that this genetic heritage was never con-taminated by the genetic input from any othernonMiddle Eastern sources or peoples during thetime recorded in the Book of Mormon. It also as-

sumes that the colonizers accurately carried the ge-netic signature of the Middle Eastern source popula-tion and that such a signature indeed existed bothwithin the source population and the migrants. Itfurther requires that genetic input from the timewhen the Book of Mormon record ends to the pres-ent day was negligible or absent and that the directgenetic descendants of these colonizers exist today


5/14


and can be identified prior to any genetic analysis.

This hypothesis also incorporates the notions that

these groups expanded to fill all of North and South

America, that there was a tremendous population

explosion from these single colonization events, and

that any subsequent genetic input, if it occurred,would be swamped out by the strength of the

Middle Eastern genetic signal present in the major-

ity of the population. This hypothesis requires that

introgression (i.e., gene flow from an external popu-

lation to the one under study) of genetic signal from

other sources be negligible or absent and that the

genetics of the individuals compared in an analysis

have remained largely pure since the time of colo-

nization. This interpretation of the lineage history of

the Book of Mormon is the most easily tested hy-

pothesis by way of DNA analysis.

If we grant that the global colonization hypothe-sis is the correct lineage history emerging from the

Book of Mormon, this hypothesis predicts that the

modern-day descendants of the Lamanite lineage

should contain the Middle Eastern genetic signature.

Since current population genetics suggests that Native

Americans (presumed by some to be the direct

Figure 1. Simplistic representation of populationgenetics

Each candy store (A and B) represents a humanpopulation that may be distinguished on the basisof genetic information. The gumballs represent aparticular genetic marker (or locus), such as anentire gene, a portion of DNA, or a specific posi-tion along a strand of DNA. Each gumball colorrepresents a variant of the genetic marker, suchas a particular form of a gene (allele) or a differ-ent nucleotide (A, G, C, or T) at a specific site onthe DNA strand. Each gumball machine repre-sents a collection of all of the variants for a singlegenetic marker across the entire population. Ifgumball machine A1 contains 100 gumballs, thismeans that within population A all 100 individu-als possess the red variant (and no others) forthat particular genetic marker. Most organisms(including humans) carry a large number of ge-netic markers, so think of the candy store as a gi-ant warehouse stretching out as a seemingly end-less line of gumball machines. Most populationsconsist of a large number of individuals, so thinkof the gumball machines as being much largerthan illustrated.

One population (= candy store) may be distin-guished from another by characterizing the particu-lar combination and frequency of genetic variants(= gumball colors) for every genetic marker (=gumball machine). For instance, candy store Amay be distinguished from candy store B by carry-ing only red gumballs for genetic marker 1, a highfrequency of green gumballs for genetic marker 2,and a high frequency of yellow gumballs for ge-netic marker 3. In relation to genetic marker 1,the differences between candy store A and B arediscrete differences. That is to say, in candy storeA there is only a single genetic variant (red), andin candy store B there is also only a single geneticvariant (green). In relation to genetic markers 2and 3, the differences between candy stores Aand B are frequency differences. While both storeA and B contain blue variants for genetic marker2, blue is present in a much higher frequency instore B than it is in store A. The majority of popu-lation genetic studies rely on such frequency dif-ferences to characterize populations.

IllustrationsbyAndrewD.

Livingston


6/14


Figure 2. Influence of founder effect on frequency distributions of genetic variants

Each gumball machine (AD) represents a potential source population for a single genetic marker. Each source population can be distinguishedby a unique frequency of genetic variants (= gumball colors); for example, half of the individuals in source population A possess the geneticvariant yellow. Now assume that the mechanism for releasing gumballs from one machine is broken, so that when you return in the morningyou find gumballs on the floor. This represents a migration event from an unknown source. Suppose this happened three more times. Your taskis to determine which gumball machine was the source population of spilled gumballs for each day in a four-day period.

On day 1, 1000 gumballs spill onto the floor. The inference is that population C was the source population since the frequency of gumballs on

the floor is very close to the frequency in the original population. On day 2, 100 gumballs spill onto the floor and you infer (with less confi-dence) that the source population is A since the frequency of the spilled gumballs is similar to the frequency of population A. On day 3, only10 gumballs spill. The source population might be C, but this inference carries a great degree of uncertainty since the frequencies are markedlydifferent. On day 4, only 3 gumballs spill, and you cannot determine with any degree of confidence the identity of the source population. Thusas the sample size decreases, the probability that it will not reflect the frequencies in the original population increases. Undersampling of popu-lations is caused by the migration of few individuals and results in a major shift in frequency distributions of genetic markers, thereby obscur-ing the genetic link to the source population.


7/14

Figure 3. Effects of genetic drift

Assume that a source population consists of 1000 gumballs with the frequencies as illustrated. Sample 100 individuals from the source popu-lation and the frequency of gumballs will shift (for reasons given in fig. 2). Now establish a new population of 1000 gumballs with frequenciesidentical to those of the selected sample at time 1. Sample 100 individuals from this new population at time 2. The frequency of the gumballswill shift again. Reestablish the population of 1000 gumballs and repeat the process multiple times. When, after repeated rounds of sampling,you compare the population frequencies with those of the original source population, the frequencies will have drifted over time, thus limitingthe ability to accurately infer the source population.



8/14


genetic descendants of the Lamanites) have an Asiangenetic signature,2 the above hypothesis is indeed in-correct. To this point all we have shown is that theglobal colonization hypothesis appears falsified bycurrent genetic evidence. But is the global coloniza-tion hypothesis the only hypothesis emerging from

the Book of Mormon? This is the crux of the matter.Critics who argue that DNA analysis disproves theauthenticity of the Book of Mormon need to demon-strate that the global colonization hypothesis is theonly way to interpret the Lamanite lineage historyand the only hypothesis under question. The au-thenticity of the Book of Mormon is in question only ifthis is an accurate interpretation of the historical pop-ulation dynamics inferred as existing before, during,and after the Book of Mormon record takes place.However, if the above description of the lineage his-tory in the Book of Mormon is oversimplified, then

these genetic results demonstrate only that this over-simplified view does not appear correct. But Book ofMormon scholars have been writing about certaincomplicating factors for decades, so this conclusionabout oversimplification really comes as no surprise.3

The Local Colonization Hypothesis

The local colonization hypothesis is more lim-ited in scope, includes many more complicating fac-tors from a genetic perspective, is much more diffi-cult to investigate by way of DNA evidence, and, inmy view and that of Book of Mormon scholars, is a

more accurate interpretation of the Lamanite lineagehistory. This hypothesis suggests that when the threecolonizing parties came to the New World, the landwas already occupied in whole or in part by peopleof an unknown genetic heritage. Thus the colonizerswere not entirely isolated from genetic input fromother individuals who were living there or who wouldarrive during or after the colonization period. Thehypothesis presumes that there was gene flow be-tween the colonizers and the prior inhabitants of theland, mixing the genetic signal that may have beenoriginally present in the colonizers. It recognizes that

by the time the Book of Mormon account ends, therehad been such a mixing of genetic information thatthere was likely no clear genetic distinction betweenNephites, Lamanites, and other inhabitants of thecontinent. This distinction was further blurred bythe time period from when the Book of Mormonends until now, during which there was an influx ofgenes from multiple genetic sources. Moreover, the

hypothesis suggests that the Nephite-Lamanite line-age occupied a limited geographic range. This wouldmake the unique Middle Eastern genetic signature, ifit existed in the colonizers at all, more susceptible tobeing swamped out with genetic information fromother sources.

The problem with the local colonization hy-pothesis (from a scientific standpoint) is that it isunclear what specific observations would refute it.This is because it makes no specific predictions thatcan be refuted or corroborated. For instance, there isno expectation that the descendants of the Lamanitesshould have any specific type of genetic signal, sincetheir genetic signal was easily mixed and swampedout by other inhabitants of unknown genetic origin.Hence, this hypothesis can be neither easily corrobo-rated nor easily refuted by DNA evidence, since anyobservation could be attributed to genetic introgres-

sion, drift, founder effect, or any of the other com-plicating factors described below.

Local Colonization Hypothesis: ComplicatingFactors

Suppose you threw caution to the wind and be-lieved that the local colonization hypothesis was thecorrect one emerging from the Book of Mormon, youreally think it is testable, and you are specifically seek-ing funding to test it. Further, suppose that someonewith knowledge of modern population genetics,phylogenetic systematics, molecular evolution, and

the Book of Mormon was sitting on the NSF panelreviewing your proposal. Below is a short descrip-tion of some of the complicating factors that youwould have to address in your proposal before theresearch could be funded. This is not meant to becomplete or exhaustive, but just an example of somecomplicating factors. More detailed descriptions ofthese basic concepts can be found in standard popu-lation genetic, molecular systematics, and molecularevolution textbooks.4

1. Was there a unique, Middle Eastern genetic sig-nature in the source population?In order for the col-

onizers to carry a Middle Eastern genetic signaturewith them, that signature needed to first exist in thesource population. It is possible that the Middle East-ern population may not have had a single geneticsignature that would allow one to unambiguouslyidentify an individual as being from the Middle Eastand from no other human population. This is animportant consideration because there are many


9/14


cultural and racial groups today for which there areno discrete markers unambiguously identifying anindividual as a member of that group. Moreover,typically the larger the population and the greaterthat population tends to migrate, the smaller theprobability that a unique, discrete genetic marker

exists for that group.2. Were genetic variants present in the colonizers?

In order to perform your study, you would needto present evidence that each of the colonizinggroups possessed the unique and defining MiddleEastern traits and did not possess any genetic vari-ants that were atypical of this Middle Eastern ge-netic heritage.

3. How do you know that small founder size doesnot confound your results?The Book of Mormonmakes clear that each colonization event involved avery small number of founders. Such small popula-tion sizes would have had profound effects on howthe genetic markers changed over time. In fact, mov-ing a few individuals of any species from one popu-lation to a new locality can have such a profoundeffect on the underlying genetic profile that it is

considered to be a major mechanism in the forma-tion of new species. This is called founder effect,which is caused by undersampling genes from amuch larger population of genes and is closely tiedto the concept of genetic drift (described below). Inother words, founder effect describes the evolution-ary process that results in the colonizing population

having a gene pool that is not likely to reflect thegene pool of the original source population.

4. What are the effects of genetic drift?Geneticdrift is the well-established evolutionary principlethat in small populations random sampling biaseswill cause certain genetic markers to disappear and

other markers to become widespread in the popula-tion just by chance. As an example, suppose you goto the grocery store to purchase a container of 1,000

jelly beans in 10 flavors. When you bring the jellybeans home, you determine that each of the 10 fla-vors is present in equal frequency; that is, you haveas many tangerine-flavored jelly beans as you havelime-flavored jelly beans. Now from that container of

1,000 jelly beans, randomly sample 100 jelly beansand place them in a new container. If you count the

jelly beans in the new container, you will realize thatthe frequency has changed; some flavors happened tobe selected 11 or 12 times, some were sampled only 3or 4 times, and some might not be sampled at all.Now instead of sampling 100 jelly beans, this timesample 30 from your original container. You wouldfind that the frequency of flavors is more greatly

skewed with the smaller sample size and that youhave lost more flavors. As you reduce your samplesize, you increase the probability that the frequencyof jelly beans in the new sample will be all the moredifferent from the original population. If each flavorrepresents a unique genetic heritage, this means thatthe sampling of genes from one generation to the

DNA analysis does not require carefulexperimental design.

DNA provides straightforward, unam-biguous, and internally consistent in-formation about the past.

DNA can be used to infer the geneal-ogy of any organism or any species, re-gardless of circumstance or historicalpopulation dynamic.

DNA conclusions are final, decisive,and free of assumptions.

The DNA Fallacy

DNA is a very important tool forinferring history, but

- experiments must be properlydesigned,

- hypotheses must be formulated,

- assumptions must be tested,

- analyses must be appropriate forthe data at hand,

- conclusions are the best currentestimate but are open to revisionwith additional data oranalytical tools.

The DNA Fact


10/14


next can cause certain genetic markers to go extinctand others to be present in higher frequency due en-tirely to random sampling. When the colonizers leftthe Middle East, they brought with them only a sam-ple of the genetic heritage of that population thatmay not have accurately represented the markers

present in the whole population; and when they ar-rived in the New World, the frequency of those ge-netic markers was likely to continue to change as thepopulation was established.

5. What were the effects of the colonizers arrivingto a locality that was not a complete genetic island(i.e., other humans were present and could contributeto the gene pool)?If there were other inhabitants al-

ready present on the American continent when thecolonizers arrived, then it becomes extremely diffi-cult to distinguish whether the genetic signature adescendant carries is due to its being carried by theoriginal colonizers or due to gene flow from theother, original inhabitants. This is especially prob-lematic if the colonizing population is small and thenative population is large once gene flow commences,since it will speed up the swamping-out effect of the

colonizers genetic markers with those of the nativeinhabitants. John L. Sorenson, among others, haspresented evidence suggesting that the colonizerswere not alone when they reached the Americas; andas I read the Book of Mormon, I can find no barri-ers to gene flow between the native population andthose who formed the Lamanite lineage. Note that

this could have occurred early in the colonizationprocess or later as the Nephite and Lamanite nationsflourished, but the swamping-out effect would bevery similar in either case.

6. What were the effects of gene flow after theBook of Mormon ends?Certainly there was gene flow

from the time when the Book of Mormon recordcloses to when DNA samples are obtained in thepresent day. It is preposterous to suppose that therehas been complete genetic isolation in the Lamanitelineage during this time period. As the designer ofthe scientific experiment, you would need to ac-count for the effects of gene flow in this undocu-mented time period and provide a justification for

why it did not contaminate the genetic signature ofthe Lamanite lineage. Simply speaking, that geneticsignature, if one existed, could be obliterated bygene flow from outside groups.

7. How do you account for the difficulties associ-ated with a small population range?The local colo-nization hypothesis suggests that the geography ofthe Book of Mormon was quite limited in scopeand that the Lamanite lineage did not populate the

whole North and South American continent.5 Thisimplies that you cannot just sample anywhere inNorth or South America, but that you need to havesome basis for deciding where you are going tosample and why it is likely that you will find puregenetic descendants of the Lamanite lineage in thatspecific location.

All population genetic studies arebogus.

DNA is an unreliable tool.

The science has so many assumptionsthat results are never believable.

What I am NOT saying is . . .

The local colonization hypothesis is hard to testbecause of complications associated with theLamanite lineage history, such as founder effect,genetic drift, and extensive introgression.

DNA evidence is not likely to unambiguouslyrefute or corroborate this hypothesis.

This hypothesis has never been specifically tested.

DNA evidence does nothing to speak to theauthenticity of the Book of Mormon text.

I would be just as critical of a claim that DNAevidence supports the Book of Mormon as I amof the claim that it does not.

You cannot claim that an observation is scientific

if you ignore the science.

What I AM saying is . . .


11/14

8. Who are the extant genetic descendants of theLamanite lineage?If you are treating your research asa scientific test of the local colonization hypothesis,

you need to identify who these Lamanite descendantsare before you put them to the genetic test. When wego out to sample Lamanite DNA, whom do we sam-

ple to get that DNA? There is no statement within thetext of the Book of Mormon identifying who thesedescendants might be, though later commentatorsand church leaders have associated them with theNative Americans and/or inhabitants of South andCentral America. The introduction to the Book ofMormon states that the Lamanites were the principalancestors of the American Indians, but this, again, iscommentary not present in the original text and wasbased on the best knowledge of the time.

9. How do you identify unambiguously the MiddleEastern population that contains the ancestral genetic

signature that you will use for comparison?Just as thegenetic signature of the colonizers may have changedover time, the genetic signature of the Middle Easternsource population may have changed as well, mak-ing it unclear just whom we should sample to findthat ancestral Middle Eastern genetic marker. Weknow that the Middle East has been the crossroadsof civilization for many millennia and that manyevents affecting entire populations have occurredthere since 600 B.C., such as the large-scale captivityof groups and the influence of other people movingwithin and through the area. All of these factors

complicate the identification of a discrete geneticprofile characterizing the original Middle Easternsource population.

10. Has natural selection changed the genetic sig-nature?One assumption in performing molecularphylogenetic analyses is that the genetic markers un-der study are not subject to the effects of natural se-lection. For instance, if a particular genetic marker isclosely linked to a genetic disease that reduced fitness(the number of offspring that survive to reproduce)in a population, then, over time, selection wouldtend to eliminate that genetic marker from the popu-

lation and the phylogenetic information associatedwith that marker may be misleading. Likewise, a ge-netic marker linked to a favorable trait may becomethe dominant marker in the population through theresults of natural selection, and the marker wouldthen be of limited phylogenetic utility.

The above tally is not intended to be an exhaus-tive list of scientific concerns, and many other more

complicated ones abound. For instance, how hasmutation obfuscated the identification of the origi-nal genetic signature (a process called multiple hits)?How does the shuffling of genetic markers affect

your results (a process called recombination)? Howdo you account for the effects of groups of genes be-

ing inherited in a pattern that is not concordantwith lineage history (a process called lineage sort-ing)? How do you deal with the well-established ob-servation that genetic markers almost never give asingle, unambiguous signal about an organisms an-cestry, but are rather a deluge of signals of varyingstrengths (a concept called homoplasy)? How do

you know that your gene genealogy reflects organis-mal genealogies (a concept called gene tree versusspecies tree)? Researchers who use DNA to infer an-cestry continually worry whether the genetic mark-ers selected are tracking the individuals history or

the genes history, since one does not necessarily fol-low from the other.

Driving the Point Home

Lets look at the problem another way. Supposeyou were a scientist going to the NSF to get fundingto study an ancient fruit fly colonization event and

you want to test the hypothesis that a few thousandyears ago a single female fruit fly from a Utah popu-lation was picked up in a storm and blown all the wayto Hawaii to lay its eggs. You know that the offspringof this fruit fly can freely mate with the Hawaiian

population and produce viable offspring, but so canall the other fruit flies blowing in from all over theworld during this time period. Now suppose you useall the genetic tools in your arsenal to try to detectthat Utah colonization event. Could you detect it?Perhaps, if the population dynamics were just right.But your inability to detect this event does not meanthat it did not happen; it just means that given theparticular population dynamics, it was extremelydifficult to test because there was not a genetic sig-nal remaining for the colonization event. Would youget funded for this study? Probably not. There are

many better-designed experiments that are moreworthy of funding than this shot in the dark.

Conclusion

Critics of the Book of Mormon have argued thatDNA evidence has demonstrated once and for all thatthe book was contrived by Joseph Smith and is hencea fraud. They appeal to the precision of DNA evidence



12/14

and tout their conclusions as being objective, verifi-able, assumption free, and decisive. However, thesecritics have not given us anything that would pass themuster of peer review by scientists in this field, be-cause they have ignored the real complexity of the is-sues involved. Further, they have overlooked the en-

tire concept of hypothesis testing in science andbelieve that just because they label their results asbased on DNA, they have somehow proved that theresults are accurate or that they have designed the ex-periment correctly. At best, they have demonstratedthat the global colonization hypothesis is an oversim-plified interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Atworst, they have misrepresented themselves and theevidence in the pursuit of other agendas.

I return to my original question: Is testing theBook of Mormon by means of genetic information afundable research project? I do not think so. Given

the complications enumerated above, it is very un-clear what would constitute sufficient evidence toreject the hypothesis that the Lamanite lineages werederived from Middle Eastern lineages, since thereare so many assumptions that must be met and somany complications that we are not yet capable ofsifting through.

I have not made the argument that DNA is notuseful for inferring historical events nor that popu-lation genetics is inherently wrong. Current researchin population genetics is providing marvelous in-sights into our past and, when properly wielded, is a

powerful tool. Nor am I disputing the inference thatNative Americans have a preponderance of genesthat carry a genetic signature for Asian origination.But what I am saying is that given the complexitiesof genetic drift, founder effect, and introgression, theobservation that Native Americans have a prepon-derance of Asian genes does not conclusively demon-strate that they are therefore not descendants of theLamanite lineage, because we do not know what ge-netic signature that Lamanite lineage possessed at theconclusion of the Book of Mormon record.

If you were to go back in time to when the Bookof Mormon is closing and began sampling the DNAof individuals who clearly identified themselves as

Lamanites, you might indeed find a strong Asiansignature and no trace of a Middle Eastern signaturebecause of the effects, as we have noted, of geneticdrift, founder effect, and especially introgression,particularly if the surrounding population was de-rived from an Asian origin. The point is that the

current DNA evidence does not distinguish betweenthis and other possibilities because a study has neverbeen designed to do precisely that.

But in all this discussion of the limitations ofDNA analysis, it is important to remember that sci-ence is only as good as the hypotheses it sets forth totest. If you test the veracity of the Book of Mormonbased on a prediction that you define, then of course

you will prove it false if it does not meet your pre-diction. But if the prediction was inappropriate fromthe beginning, you have not really tested anything.

In sum, the Book of Mormon was never intended

to be a record of genetic heritage, but a record of re-ligious and cultural heritage that was passed fromgeneration to generation, regardless of the geneticattributes of the individuals who received that heri-tage. The Book of Mormon was written more as anus versus them record, with the us being prima-rily Nephites and the them being a mixture of thegenetic descendants of Lamanites plus anyone elsewho happened to occupy the land at the time. Thisinterpretation accepts as a strong possibility thatthere was substantial introgression of genes fromother human populations into the genetic heritage

of the Nephites and Lamanites, such that a uniquegenetic marker to identify someone unambiguouslyas a Lamanite, if it ever existed, was quickly lost. Itwould be the pinnacle of foolishness to base onestestimony on the results of a DNA analysis. Assomeone who has spent a decade using DNA infor-mation to decipher the past, I recognize the tentativenature of all my conclusions, regardless of whetheror not they have been based on DNA. There aresome very good scientific reasons for why the Bookof Mormon is neither easily corroborated nor re-futed by DNA evidence, and current attempts to doso are based on dubious science. !



13/14


Mosiah 24:4; Alma 7:1 and 9:21;Moroni 10:1516; and Ether12:2326.

66. See the discussion in Sorenson,Ancient American Setting, 5056.

67. See P. Agrinier, LinguisticEvidence for the Presence ofIsraelites in Mexico, S.E.H.A.Newsletter112 (Feb. 1969): 45;the report is greatly amplified

by Robert F. Smith in a manu-script in possession of Sorensonand Roper. Alma M. Reed, inThe Ancient Past of Mexico (NewYork: Crown, 1966), reprises in-formation about this study.

68. Quoted in Reed,Ancient Past, 10.69. See Was There Hebrew Lan-

guage in Ancient America? AnInterview with Brian Stubbs,Journal of Book of MormonStudies 9/2 (2000): 5463.

70. Mary LeCron Foster,Old WorldLanguage in the Americas (seenote 55 herein), copy in Soren-sons possession and abstracted,including this quotation, inSorenson and Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact, as itemF146B. See Foster,Old WorldLanguage in the Americas: 2,unpublished paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Lan-guage Origins Society, CambridgeUniversity, Sept. 1992, copy inSorensons possession; seeSorenson and Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact, item F-146C.See also Fosters The Trans-oceanic Trail: The Proto-PelagianLanguage Phylum, Pre-Colom-biana 1/12 (1998): 113.

71. See Ruhlen, Some UnansweredLinguistic Questions, 171ff.

72. Otto J. Von Sadovszky, TheDiscovery of California: A Cal-Ugrian Comparative Study(Buda-pest: Akadmiai Kiad; Los An-geles: International Society forTrans-Oceanic Research, 1996).

73.See, for example,E. D. Merrill,

The Phytogeography of Culti-vated Plants in Relation to As-sumed Pre-Columbian Eurasian-American Contacts,AmericanAnthropologist33/3 ( JulySept.1931): 37582, which was highlyinfluential.

74. See John L. Sorenson and Carl L.Johannessen, Biological Evi-dence for Pre-Columbian Trans-oceanic Voyages, in press in avolume of papers to be publishedby the University of Hawaii Pressfrom a conference titled Contactand Exchange in the AncientWorld, held at the University ofPennsylvania, 46 May 2001.

75. Because of their length, full ref-erences are omitted from thispaper; for details see the pri-

mary article when it appears.76. See Carl L. Johannessen andWang Siming, American CropPlants in Asia before A.D. 1500,Pre-Columbiana: A Journal ofLong-Distance Contacts 1/12(1998): 936. For the corn, seeIan C. Glover, The Late StoneAge in Eastern Indonesia,World Archaeology9/1 (June1977): 4261.

77. For example, see Gordon R.Willey, Some Continuing

Problems in New World CultureHistory,American Antiquity50/2 (April 1985): 35163.

78. See Wolfgang Marschall, Influen-cias Asiticas en las Culturas dela Amrica Antigua: Estudios desu Historia (Mxico: EdicionesEuroamericanas Klaus Theile,1972), 61.

79. Julian Granberry, Amazonian

Origins and Affiliations of theTimucua Language, in LanguageChange in South American IndianLanguages, ed. Mary Ritchie Key(Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn-sylvania Press, 1991), 195242.

80. See Emilio Estrada and Betty J.Meggers, A Complex of Traitsof Probable Transpacific Originon the Coast of Ecuador,Ameri-can Anthropologist63/5 (1961):91339.

81. Clinton R. Edwards says, Fromthe practical seamans point ofview Pacific crossings in suchcraft were entirely feasible. SeeCommentary: Section II, inMan across the Sea: Problems ofPre-Columbian Contacts, ed. C.L. Riley et al. (Austin: Univ. ofTexas Press, 1971), 304.

82. See Clinton R. Edwards,Abori-ginal Watercraft on the PacificCoast of South America (Berkeley:Univ. of California Press, 1965);and Edwin Doran Jr., TheSailing Raft as a Great Tradition,inMan across the Sea, 11538.

83. See Norton, El seorio deSalangone.

84. Dixon, Quest for the Origins ofthe First Americans, 13031; forthe changing picture, now seeHeather Pringle,Hints of Fre-quent Pre-Columbian Contacts,Science 288/5467 (2000), 783,about stunning new traces ofthe Norse . . . in the CanadianArctic.

85. Swadesh (in Culture and History,896) observes, in parallel, that

new languages probably cameinto America in the late millen-nia just before Columbus, buttheir speakers must have beenabsorbed . . . without leavingany language that has continuedto modern times.

86. Joseph Needham, Wang Ling,and Lu Gwei-Djen, Civil Engi-neering and Nautics, pt. 3 ofPhysics and Physical Technology,vol. 4 ofScience and Civilisationin China (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1971).

87. Joseph Needham and Lu Gwei-Djen, Trans-Pacific Echoes andResonances; Listening Once Again(Singapore and Philadelphia:World Scientific, 1985).

88. Quoted in Caleb Bach,Michael

Coe: A Question for Every An-swer,Amricas 48/1 (1996):1421.

89. See J. Richard Steffy, The KyreniaShip: An Interim Report on ItsHull Construction,AmericanJournal of Archaeology89/1(Jan.): 71101. This finding wasconfirmed by Steffy in an e-mailmessage to John L. Sorenson, 18April 2001.

90. Ales Hrdlicka,The Genesis ofthe American Indian, Pro-

ceedings, 19th International Con-gress of Americanists, Washington,1915 (Washington), 55968.

91. See, for example, John L. Soren-son, Images of Ancient America:Visualizing Book of Mormon Life(Provo, Utah: Research Press,2001). A larger selection can beseen in O. L. Gonzalez Caldern,The Jade Lords (Coatzacoalcos,

Veracruz, Mxico: the author,1991) and three published booksby Alexander von Wuthenau:Altamerikanische Tonplastik: DasMenschenbild der neuen Welt(Baden-Baden, Germany: Holle,1965); Terres cuites prcolumbi-ennes (Paris: Albin Michel, 1969);and Unexpected Faces in AncientAmerica, 1500B.CA.D. 1500:The Historical Testimony of Pre-Columbian Artists (New York:Crown, 1975). Some scholarsbelieve the topic should not bediscussed because Wuthenauand Caldern are not acceptedexperts among orthodox an-thropologists. Whatever merit, ifany, there might be in such anexclusivist posture, it does noteliminate the fact that the fig-urines actually exist and inmany cases are unquestionablyancient.

92. See, for example, Matthew W.Stirling,Great Stone Faces ofthe Mexican Jungle . . . ,Na-tional Geographic Magazine, Sept.1940, 327; John F. Scott, Post-Olmec Mesoamerica as Recalledin its Art, Actas, XLI CongresoInternacional de Americanistas,27 Sept. 1973 (Mxico, 1975),2:38086; and the discussion inWuthenau, Unexpected Faces,6970.

93. This point is confirmed with re-gard to Maya Late Classic (Jainastyle) portrait figurines by twoprominent scholars. Romn PiaChan said,They are extraordi-

nary because of their faithful-ness to their human models(quoted in Linda Schele andJorge Prez de Lara, HiddenFaces of the Maya [Poway, Calif.:ALTI, 1997], 11). Schele and deLara observed that the Mayafigurines represented individualpeople who had readable ex-pressions on their faces(p. 13).

94. See Kirk Magleby,A Survey ofMesoamerican Bearded Figures(Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1979).

95. See Peter N. Jones,AmericanIndian Demographic Historyand Cultural Affiliation: A Dis-cussion of Certain Limitationson the Use of mtDNA and YChromosome Testing,Anthro-Globe Journal, Sept. 2002.

96. Note this observation: However,with the exceedingly spottysampling of Native Americapopulations, it may be a longtime until we have sampledenough populations truly to tellhow localized or widespread anypolymorphism really is. See D.A. Merriwether et al.,GeneFlow and Genetic Variation inthe Yanomama as Revealed byMitochondrial DNA, inAmericaPast, America Present: Genes and

Languages in the Americas andBeyond, ed. Colin Renfrew (Cam-bridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Univ.of Cambridge, 2000), 89124,esp. 117.

97. Jones, in his study AmericanIndian Demographic History,gives a devastating critique ofthe typical inadequate sampling.

For example:It is evident thatthe population groups currentstudies are using to infer Ameri-can Indian cultural affiliationand demographic history arenot acceptable. One cannot usecontemporary allele frequenciesfrom a few individuals of a con-temporary American Indianreservation to arrive at an un-equivocal haplotype for thatgroup, either presently or pre-historically.

98. Joseph T. Chang, Recent Com-mon Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals,Advances inApplied Probability31 (1999):100226.

99. Susanna C. Manrubia, BernardDerrida, and Damin H. Zanette,

Genealogy in the Era of Geno-mics,American Scientist91(MarchApril 2003): 165.

100. Manrubia, Derrida, and Zanette,Genealogy in the Era ofGenomics, 165.

DNA and the Book of Mormon: APhylogenetic PerspectiveMichael F. Whiting1. The most noted is that of

Thomas W. Murphy, LamaniteGenesis, Genealogy, and Gene-tics, inAmerican Apocrypha,ed. Dan Vogel and Brent LeeMetcalfe (Salt Lake City: Sig-nature Books, 2002), 4777; seethe Editors Introduction there-in, viixvii.

2. See Peter Forster et al.,Origin

and Evolution of Native Ameri-can mtDNA Variation: A Re-appraisal,American Journal ofHuman Genetics 59/4 (1996):93545; and Santos et al.,TheCentral Siberian Origin for Na-tive American Y Chromosomes,American Journal of HumanGenetics 64 (1999): 61928, forreviews of the evidence.

3. For a review of studies, includ-ing some from the early 19thcentury, see John L. Sorenson,The Geography of Book of Mor-mon Events: A Source Book(Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992),735. Consult also SorensonsstudyAn Ancient American Set-ting for the Book of Mormon(Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1985),9195, 138189; and WhenLehis Party Arrived in the Land,Did They Find Others There?Journal of Book of MormonStudies 1/1 (fall 1992): 134.

4. The distinction in tracking his-torical relationships among sex-ually reproducing populations(phylogeny) versus within sexu-ally reproducing populations(tokogeny) was best elucidatedby Willi Hennig in his Phylo-genetic Systematics (Urbana:


14/14


Univ. of Illinois Press, 1979).For a standard textbook on mo-lecular systematics, see DavidM. Hillis, Craig Moritz, andBarbara K. Mable,MolecularSystematics (Sunderland, Mass.:Sinauer Associates, 1996). For atextbook on molecular evolu-tion, see Wen-Hsiung Li,Mole-cular Evolution (Sunderland,

Mass.: Sinauer Associates, 1997).For a textbook on populationgenetics, see Daniel L. Hartl andAndrew G. Clark, Principles ofPopulation Genetics (Sunder-land, Mass.: Sinauer Associates,1997).

5. See John E. Clark,A Key forEvaluating Nephite Geographies,in Review of Books on the Bookof Mormon, 1 (1989): 2070;and Book of Mormon Geo-graphy, in Encyclopedia ofMormonism, ed. Daniel H.Ludlow (New York: Macmillan,1992), 17679.

Who Are the Children of Lehi?D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D.

Stephens

1. See John L. Sorenson, WhenLehis Party Arrived in the Land,Did They Find Others There?Journal of Book of MormonStudies 1/1 (1992): 134.

2. See Sasha Nemecek,Who Werethe First Americans? ScientificAmerican, Sept. 2000, 81.

3. See Michael H. Crawford, TheOrigins of Native Americans:Evidence from AnthropologicalGenetics (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1998), 3.

4. Crawford,Native Americans, 88.5. Crawford,Native Americans, 122.6. Crawford,Native Americans, 3.7. See Antonio Torroni and

Douglas C. Wallace, mtDNAHaplotypes in Native Americans,American Journal of Human

Genetics 56/5 (1995):123436.8. Anne C. Stone and Mark Stone-king, Analysis of Ancient DNAfrom a Prehistoric AmerindianCemetery, in PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Societyof London, series B, 354/1379(1999): 15359.

9. Graciela Bailliet et al., FounderMitochondrial Haplotypes inAmerindian Populations,Ameri-can Journal of Human Genetics55/1 (1994): 2733.

10. Antonio Torroni et al.,Classifi-cation of European mtDNAsfrom an Analysis of Three Euro-pean Populations, Genetics 144/4(1996): 183550.

11. Peter Forster et al., Origin andEvolution of Native AmericanmtDNA Variation: A Reappraisal,American Journal of HumanGenetics 59/4 (1996): 93538.

12. Michael D. Brown et al.,mtDNA Haplogroup X: AnAncient Link between Europe/Western Asia and NorthAmerica?American Journal ofHuman Genetics 63/6 (1998):1857.

13. Brown,mtDNA HaplogroupX, 1853.

14.R. S. Malhi and D. G. Smith,

Haplotype X Confirmed in Pre-historic North America,Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthro-pology119/1 (2002): 8486.



17. Miroslavia V. Derenko et al.,The Presence of Mitochondrial

Haplogroup X in Altaians fromSouth Siberia,American Journalof Human Genetics 69/1 (2001):23741.

18. Richard Dawkins, The SelfishGene (1976; reprint Oxford: Ox-ford Univ. Press, 1989), 19192.

19. Susan Blackmore, The MemeMachine, (Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press, 1999), xix.

20. Blackmore,Meme Machine, 4.21. Boyd K. Packer, The Stake

Patriarch, Ensign, Nov. 2002,4445.

22. John L. Sorensen, Was ThereHebrew Language in AncientAmerica? An Interview withBrian Stubbs,JBMS 9/2(2000):5463.

23. Albert C. Baugh and Thomas

Cable,A History of the EnglishLanguage, 4th ed. (EaglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1993),53.

24. Review of God as Divine Kins-man: What Covenant Meant inAncient Israel, by Frank MooreCross, Biblical Archaeology Review(July/August 1999): 32ff.; andFrank Moore Cross, From Epicto Canon: History and Literaturein Ancient Israel(Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1998), 8.

25. Cross, Epic to Canon, 3.26. Tad Szulc, Abraham: Journey of

Faith,National Geographic, Dec.2001, 96.

27. Szulc, Abraham, 118.28. Szulc, Abraham, 129.

The Word of GodLeslie A. Taylor1. For a concise overview of the

differing concepts of the Logosin Hellenism, Judaism, andearly Christian theology, see J.Lebreton,The Logos, in TheCatholic Encyclopedia: An Inter-national Work of Reference onthe Constitution, Doctrine,Discipline, and History of theCatholic Church, ed. Charles G.Herbermann (New York: Uni-versal Knowledge Foundation,191314), 9:32831.

2. Two uses of the metaphor of theLogos-tomeus are found in sec-tions of Isaiah quoted in theBook of Mormon. The first oc-curs in 1 Nephi 21:2: He hathmade my mouth like a sharpsword (compare Isaiah 49:2),and the second in 2 Nephi 7:8:Who is mine adversary? Lethim come near me, and I willsmite him with the strength ofmy mouth(compare Isaiah 50:8,which omits the last clause). Thisimage that associates the wordof God with a sword is also pre-valent in the book of Revelation(see 1:16; 2:12, 16).

3. See John A. Tvedtnes,Rod andSword as the Word of God,JBMS 5/2 (1996): 14855.

4. The verb form to divide asunderseems to possess specific mean-ing in regard to both sacrificeand the power of the word ofGod. This construction occursonly 13 times in scripture, 7 ofwhich are quoted in this article.

Two references in the OldTestamentLeviticus 1:17 and5:8state that sacrificial birdsshould not be divided asunder.Hebrews 4:12 (quoted earlier) isthe only instance of this con-struction in the New Testament.The Book of Mormon containsthe richest uses of this verbform. It is found in Helaman3:29, 3 Nephi 8:6; Helaman5:33; 12:8; and 1 Nephi 17:45(the last two will be discussedlater). All five uses of this con-struction in the Doctrine andCovenants were quoted earlier.

5. Tvedtnes, in Rod and Sword,also notes that although in theHelaman passage the word ofGod seems to be compared to asword, the common languageand imagery of this passage ties[Helaman 3:2930] to Lehis vi-sion, where it is the rod or theword of God that brings peoplesafely past Satans obstacles (p.154). Helaman 3:2930 wouldseem to have two intertextualsources: the unidentified OldWorld source that it shares withHebrews 4:12 and also Lehis vi-sion of the tree of life.

6. Philo, Heres 130, in Philo, trans.F. H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker(1932; reprint, Cambridge: Har-vard Univ. Press, 1958).

7. Philo, Heres 140, in Philo, trans.Colson and Whitaker. For morediscussion on Philos use of theLogos-tomeus metaphor, seeDavid M. Hay, Philos Treatise

on the Logos-Cutter, StudiaPhilonica 2 (1973): 922. For ageneral background on Philoslife and writings, see David T.Runia,Philo, Alexandrian andJew, in Exegesis and Philosophy:Studies on Philo of Alexandria(Brookfield,Vt.: Gower, 1990),118.

8. In his decision to lead a missionto the apostate Zoramites, Almarecognizes that the word of Godcan transmit virtue: And now,as the preaching of the wordhad a great tendency to lead thepeople to do that which wasjustyea, it had had more pow-erful effect upon the minds ofthe people than the sword, oranything else, which had hap-

pened unto themthereforeAlma thought it was expedientthat they should try the virtue ofthe word of God(Alma 31:5).

9. For a discussion of the strikingparallels between the exodusstory and Nephis account of hisfamilys journey in the wilder-ness, see Terrence L. Szink,Nephi and the Exodus, inRediscovering the Book of Mor-mon, ed. John L. Sorenson andMelvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake

City: Deseret Book and FARMS,1991), 3851.

10. Richard D. Rust notes that feast-ing on the word is implicitly asacramental experience(Feastingon the Word: The Literary Testi-mony of the Book of Mormon(Salt Lake City: Deseret Bookand FARMS, 1997), 245.

11. Paul uses the phrasepast feeling

in Ephesians 4:19, but it appearsnowhere else in the Bible or inother LDS scripture besides theBook of Mormon. The verb tofeelis used to express otherunique concepts in scripture.For example, to feel afteris usedto convey the meaning to seekafter Jesus Christ in Acts 17:27and D&C 101:8. Jesus Christuses the expression in D&C112:13: Behold, I, the Lord, willfeel after them. Interestingly,Exodus 10:21 and 3 Nephi 8:20both refer to a darkness that canbe felt. Like the concept of theword of God, the verb to feelpossesses rich and varied mean-ings in scripture.

12. The words an hissingand hiss in

the KJV translate derivatives ofHebrewraq, meaning to hiss orwhistle as a signal or summons.

13. In 2 Nephi 29 the Lord associ-ates the gathering of his peoplewith the gathering of his word:And it shall come to pass thatmy people, which are of thehouse of Israel, shall be gatheredhome unto the lands of theirpossessions; and my word alsoshall be gathered in one(v. 14).

Secret Combinations and FlaxenCords: Anti-Masonic Rhetoric andthe Book of MormonPaul Mouritsen1. Interestingly, William Morgans

widow, Lucinda, joined thechurch in 1834. Some historians

claim she later became a pluralwife to Joseph Smith. Regardless,there is no evidence that JosephSmith knew William Morgan.

2. Fawn M. Brodie,No Man KnowsMy History, 2nd ed. (New York:Knopf, 1945), 65.

3. Brent Lee Metcalfe, Apologeticand Critical Assumptions aboutBook of Mormon Historicity,Dialogue 26/3 (1993): 171.

4. Dan Vogel,Mormonisms Anti-Masonick Bible, The JohnWhitmer Historical AssociationJournal9 (1989): 29.

5. Robert N. Hullinger,MormonAnswer to Skepticism: WhyJoseph Smith Wrote the Book ofMormon (St. Louis: Clayton,1980),114, n. 31.

6. My brief electronic search of theMaking of America Archives atthe University of Michigan(http://moa.umdl.umich.edu)and Cornell University(http://moa.cit.cornell.edu/moa)turned up over 3,000 occurrencesofsecret societyor secret societiesin 19th-century documents.Onlya relative few refer to Free-masonry. (These sources wereavailable online as of April 2003.)

7. Remarks on Secret Societies,

jbms 12-1 dna and the book of mormon a phylogenetic perspective

Documents