Book of Mormon: Everything But the Timing

I'm late noticing this, but FAIR has posted a presentation given at its 2006 conference by David Stewart (a medical doctor) on the Book of Mormon--DNA issue. Stewart's basic thesis appears to be that the reason Native American genetics resemble that of Asians is because some of the Asians are actually descended from the lost tribes of Israel. Thus, Native Americans (through Lehi et al.) have a common ancestry with some Asians, rooted in Israel. Stewart therefore has no use for a limited geography model. However his own presentation contains elements that contradict him.

(My following comments should not be interpreted as disbelief in Book of Mormon historicity.)

Continue Reading


1. He acknowledges that the timing doesn't work (yet). This is because archeological and genetic evidence place the colonization of the Americas back around 15,000 years ago, and he is moving much of that up to 600 B.C.

2. He acknowledges that, based on mtDNA data, there has been genetic continuity from ancient Native Americans to today's. In other words, the common ancestry of mtDNA lineages in Native Americans and Asians appears to be genuinely ancient (although correspondingly ancient Asians have not been examined).

3. He argues that Jewish genetics have been so scrambled over the centuries that we should not expect to see direct correlation between Lamanite DNA and modern Jewish--or even Near Eastern--DNA. Yet at the same time his thesis requires that the genetics of the lost tribes have remained in tact enough that we can find correlation between it and Lamanite DNA. Do we have good reason to think such would be the case?

Stewart makes clear the timeframe that most scientists accept for the migration to America. Nevertheless the reader might be confused about the message of the quote from a paper by Mark Seielstad regarding "problems with early dating". In the paper they argue for a migration time of 15,000-18,000 years before present. This date is later than those proposed in some mtDNA studies (>20,000 years before present), and more in line with archeological and linguistic evidence. In this context 'later' and 'earlier' are relative terms that are still far removed from the time of Lehi, as Stewart correctly notes.

I couldn't help but notice this sentence: "To my knowledge, critics to date have not been able to generate a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal on Book of Mormon DNA issues." I think Stewart is confused about where the burden of evidence lies at the moment. The scientific community--rightly or wrongly--understands Native American origins quite differently from what is told in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon scenario must be on the scientific table before any serious journal is going to publish criticism of it. What Murphy and Southerton have done is to make the (somewhat) broader LDS community aware of the prevailing scientific view (with some accompanying polemics).

Finally, Stewart concludes:

There is still much we do not know about the genetics of ancient and modern populations, but careful study demonstrates that the teachings of LDS prophets are fully consistent with existing DNA data.

I agree with the first part of the sentence. It seems to me the second part--as he has argued for it--is only true if you grant some generous assumptions and ignore inconvenient evidence.

The genetic issue is a thorny one. In the face of uncomfortable data some abandon the Book of Mormon while others remain patient. Stewart's intent is to make room for faith, for which I commend him. Nevertheless I think his proposal faces significant hurdles. I would urge caution.