In this post, I want to address the claims that some scholars and LDS members make to suggest there are strong shreds of evidence of preexisting indigenous populations in the book of Mormon. In this rebuttal, I will address this Sun Stone article, “DNA Strands In The Book of Mormon” By Blake T. Ostler.
In the article, Ostler argues Helaman 5–7 refers to a third group of people separate from Nephites and Lamanites, based on mentions of “the people in the land northward.”
He writes the following:
There is another strong indication that there were indigenous others present in the Book of Mormon area, though it requires a careful reading to detect them. In Helaman 5, Mormon notes that “the more part of the Lamanites were convinced of [the truth] because of the greatness of the evidences which they had received.” (Helaman 5:50) As a result, “the Lamanites had become the more righteous part of them, a righteous people, insomuch that their righteousness did exceed that of the Nephites, because of their firmness and their steadfastness in faith” (Helaman 6:1). The Lamanites began to move freely among the Nephites, traveling to the Nephite city of Zarahemla so that “the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they could, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites, and thus they did have free intercourse one with another” (Helaman 6:8). In the midst of this openness among the Lamanites and Nephites, Nephi, the son of Helaman, goes northward among an unnamed people to preach to them. Indeed, not only Nephi but also the Lamanites go to the “people in the land northward” to preach: “And it came to pass that many of the Lamanites did go into the land northward; and also Nephi and Lehi went into the land northward, to preach to the people” (Helaman 6:6). However, these “people in the land northward” are so wicked that Nephi cannot remain among them. There are two crucial points about Nephi’s missionary activities: (1) the text does not name the people to whom he preached but was rejected; and (2) these people are neither Nephites nor Lamanites because the Lamanites had become righteous and willingly accepted the gospel and went to preach to these people also. While the Nephites and Lamanites move freely through each other’s lands in a climate of peace, the people to whom Nephi goes are so antagonistic that he cannot remain among them: Now it came to pass in the sixty and ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of the Nephites, that Nephi, the son of Helaman, returned to the land of Zarahemla from the land northward. For he had been forth among the people who were in the land northward, and did preach the word of God unto them, and did prophecy many things unto them; And they did reject all his words, insomuch that he could not stay among them, but returned again unto the land of his nativity. (Helaman 7:1–3, emphasis added) The text twice refers to those to whom Nephi and the Lamanites preached not as Lamanites but as “the people in the land northward.” Why doesn’t the text just say that Nephi went to the Lamanites and that the Lamanites rejected him as it does virtually every other time that a Nephite goes to preach to Lamanites? It is fairly clear that in this instance, “the people who were in the land northward” are not Lamanites. We know this because the text states that the Lamanites had become righteous and many had accepted the gospel, and the Nephites had great missionary success among them. So who are these “other” people in the land northward who had rejected Nephi and the Lamanites? The text doesn’t say—but because those who rejected Nephi are neither Nephites nor Lamanites, it has to be a third group of people that remains unnamed in the text.
I hope to demonstrate how this claim is completely unfounded when examined in the context of the Book of Mormon’s narrative, theology, and historical teachings.
To begin, let’s go over some history, In the early 2000s, DNA studies, particularly those conducted by Thomas W. Murphy, raised significant challenges to the traditional historicity of the Book of Mormon. In his work Simply Implausible: DNA and a Mesoamerican Setting for the Book of Mormon, Murphy highlighted the lack of genetic evidence linking Native American populations to the ancient Israelites, as described in the Book of Mormon. This research sparked a shift in how the LDS Church views the identification of the Lamanites in the book. Since this, various theories have emerged in an attempt to reconcile this issue, many of which have sought to distance the Book of Mormon from the original teachings of early LDS prophets, who explicitly identified the Lamanites as the ancestors of the Native Americans. These shifting interpretations reflect an ongoing effort to navigate the results of Murphy’s findings.
With that historical backdrop in mind, let’s dive in.
In the book of Helaman, a significant shift occurs as the Lamanites, who were once a rebellious and unrighteous people, experience a dramatic transformation. By Helaman 6:1, the Lamanites are described as surpassing the Nephites in righteousness, becoming so firm in their faith that they even outpace the Nephites in their devotion. This change leads to a peaceful climate where Lamanites freely mingle with Nephites, sharing the gospel and moving freely across each other’s lands. Nephi and other missionaries, including Lamanite converts, journey northward to preach to an unnamed group of people. However, despite their efforts, these “people in the land northward” reject the message and fail to embrace the gospel (Helaman 6:6; Helaman 7:1-3).
While Ostler has proposed that these “people in the land northward” represent a third, unidentified group. This theory is highly problematic.
The text is clear that the Lamanites, who were once hostile to the Nephites, have now embraced the gospel and become righteous. They are described as traveling freely among the Nephites and preaching the word to others (Helaman 6:8), suggesting that any group in the northward land would either be Nephite or Lamanite.
The ambiguity surrounding the identity of the people Nephi encounters can be better understood as a literary device or a gap in the narrative, rather than a signal of a third, separate group. There’s no substantial evidence in the text to suggest the existence of another distinct population; the idea of a “third group” is therefore speculative and unsupported by the broader context of the story, which consistently distinguishes between Nephites and Lamanites.
Why The Unknown Third-Group Hypothesis Fails
First, I want to show that the text itself does not necessitate the existence of a third, unknown group. Nowhere in the narrative does the story depend on the presence of such a group, and the events can be fully understood without introducing this speculative element.
What is more clear and consistent with the text, is that the “people in the land northward” are likely apostate Nephites or descendants of earlier migrations, not a separate unknown group.
To properly understand the “people in the land northward” encountered by Nephi in Helaman, it’s essential not to isolate this passage but to consider it in light of the broader Book of Mormon narrative, particularly the events described in Alma, the book directly proceedingHelaman.
Alma 63 outlines significant Nephite migrations northward, with over 5,400 Nephites leaving Zarahemla in the 37th year of the reign of the judges (Alma 63:4), followed by additional groups sailing north in ships (Alma 63:5–8). Over time, these settlers, isolated from the religious center of Zarahemla, could have strayed from the faith, becoming spiritually corrupted. This decline in righteousness aligns with the wickedness of the group Nephi encounters in Helaman, which is described as neither Nephite nor Lamanite but could be the descendants of these northern Nephite settlers who had rejected the gospel (Helaman 7:1-3).
This view eliminates the need for a completely separate “third group” and suggests that the people in the north were likely Nephites who had fallen into wickedness over generations, consistent with the narrative of Alma 63. This view aligns with the narrative in Helaman, where Nephi and the Lamanites preach to a group that is neither Nephite nor Lamanite (Helaman 7:1-3), suggesting they may be the descendants of these northern Nephite migrants. To assume a third, unidentified group without considering the historical context provided in Alma would be a mistake. This broader context shows that the Book of Mormon’s events are not entirely linear or disconnected; rather, Alma provides crucial backstory that helps explain the situation in Helaman. The argument that the “people in the land northward” are likely corrupted Nephite settlers is stronger when viewed through the lens of Alma’s migration narrative, and it avoids the speculative assumption of a third, unknown group.
This matches with the fluidity of Nephite and Lamanite identities within the Book of Mormon. Helaman 6:1 shows a reversal: Lamanites are righteous, and Nephites are wicked. This dynamic suggests a broader societal fluidity, not a new people. Apostate Nephites or mixed descendants could easily be described as a wicked people without introducing an external group.
Why This Ignores The Precedent for Introducing New Peoples
When the the Book of Mormon introduces new groups, it provides genealogical and historical details for them, (e.g., Jaredites in Ether (Ether 1:33), Mulekites in Omni (Omni 1:14)).
This pattern of providing genealogical context for new groups suggests that if a third group existed in Helaman, the text would have offered similar details. The lack of such information supports the idea that the “wicked people” in Helaman are more likely apostate Nephites or mixed descendants, rather than a completely separate group. No such backstory or context is provided for the “people in the land northward,” undermining the idea of a distinct group.
Furthermore, the rejection of missionaries is a recurring theme in the Book of Mormon, often involving apostate Nephites or rebellious Lamanites, as seen in Alma and Amulek’s rejection in Ammonihah (Alma 14), Ammon’s experiences among the Lamanites (Alma 17–21), and Nephi’s rejection in Helaman, all of which follow this established pattern without requiring a separate new or unknown group.
But The Text Is Ambiguous… So What?
The presence of ambiguity in “People in the Land Northward” is not evidence of a new group. Just because the text is ambiguous does not mean that there should be a new group.. again the phrase could simply denote apostate or culturally distinct Nephite groups in new territories. The mere absence of explicit naming does not justify introducing a third unknown group.
The Book of Mormon’s Covenant Focus
One of the central theological themes in the Book of Mormon is the covenant relationship between God and Lehi’s descendants. From the outset, the text highlights the special promises made to these people, making their identity central to the narrative. The idea that there might be a third, unrelated group in the land northward complicates this key theme, potentially introducing confusion into the covenant structure. Throughout the Book of Mormon, the focus is on the house of Israel as the primary recipients of God’s promises. For example, in 1 Nephi 2:20, Lehi tells his sons, “In as much as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land,” reinforcing that the blessings of the covenant are directed toward them. Introducing a separate, unnamed group would disrupt this emphasis on the covenant and its associated blessings, making the theological structure of the book less coherent.
Also, Mormon, as the primary compiler of the Book of Mormon, deliberately structures the narrative to emphasize the spiritual and moral lessons of the Nephite-Lamanite relationship.
The Book of Mormon is filled with stories of covenantal blessings and curses, repentance, and judgment, with the Nephites and Lamanites serving as examples of these theological principles. The absence of any mention of a third unknown group aligns with this focus, suggesting that Mormon was intentional in limiting the narrative only to the Nephites and Lamanites to reinforce his theological message. Introducing a third group would dilute this focus, making the text’s moral and spiritual teachings less direct and more convoluted.
The Claim Is Speculative In Nature
All in all, its clear this argument assumes more than the text states, making a massive, unsupported logical leap.
The argument that the “people in the land northward” represent a separate group is, in truth, an argument from silence, as the text itself provides no identification of this group. The claim I present in this blog is also based on an argument from silence, and ultimately, claims derived from silence or ambiguity are inherently weak. However such claims might sometimes be justified when viewed in light of the teachings of church leaders or early doctrine, the argument for a separate group in the land northward makes a logical leap beyond what the text actually states, assuming far more than is warranted. We then, must compare this speculative theory with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the original doctrinal framework of the Church. In doing so, it becomes evident that this interpretation does not withstand scrutiny. See my post on how the Book of Mormon explicitly teaches the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites.
It is also worth noting that the LDS Church has never definitively identified the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon events, leaving all interpretations reliant on general assumptions. This lack of geographical clarity highlights the broader issue: wherever one might attempt to situate these events, the absence of Israelite cultural, genetic, or archaeological evidence in the Americas further undermines the credibility of such claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the claim that the “people in the land northward” represent a third, unidentified group, as proposed by Ostler, is just outright speculative and unfounded. The Book of Mormon itself presents no evidence to support the existence of such a group, and a closer reading of the text reveals that these “people” are more plausibly apostate Nephites or descendants of earlier migrations. It’s crucial to read the Book of Mormon within its intended narrative and theological context, focusing on the house of Israel dichotomy and their covenant relationship with God, rather than imposing external theories.
Some modern proponents of the third-group hypothesis may be motivated by a desire to reconcile the Book of Mormon with contemporary DNA evidence for pre-Columbian populations, but the text itself does not support this reconciliation. The narrative consistently centers on the Nephites and Lamanites, even when acknowledging migrations and apostasy. While we must acknowledge the ambiguity in certain passages, the simplest explanation—guided by Occam’s Razor—is that these “wicked people” are part of the existing Nephite or Lamanite populations, not a wholly new, unnamed group. By focusing on the internal consistency of the Book of Mormon, we see how Ostler’s argument falls flat.
