The following has been adapted from
http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html
They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.
This section examines ways Mormon apologists and scholars have attempted to defend the Book of Mormon. There has been no official response from the Mormon Church regarding the DNA research, Native Americans and the implications for the Book of Mormon, other than the statement posted on the Mormon.org website under the heading Mistakes in the News which states:
DNA and the Book of Mormon, Various media outlets, 11 November 2003
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be a record of Gods dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness. Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.
(http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html)
APOLOGETIC #1 “Before DNA” (John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003).
In this article the authors argue for a comparatively small population of Nephites occupying a limited section of Mesoamerica and surrounded by a much larger non-Semitic population. The presence of non-Israelite peoples can be assumed, even though they are not mentioned, because the small group of people mentioned in 2 Nephi 5 would not have had the ability to build temples, put together an army or engage in wars. Since the Book of Mormon attributes such things to the Nephites, this must mean that their small group was surrounded by much larger groups of people. These people then joined with the Nephites in order to help them accomplish all the tasks that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In the process of intermarriage, all traces of Jewish ancestry were lost.
It is very interesting to note defenders of the Book of Mormon utilizing the same arguments to support the Book of Mormons historicity and its authenticity that critics of Mormonism have used for the past several decades to discredit it. 10 Yet, in their appeal to a new understanding of Book of Mormon history, Mormon apologists who seek to defuse DNA-based criticism, provide interpretations that run counter to the explanations and defenses of the Book of Mormon given in materials published by the Mormon Church.
. . . Sorenson and Roper are in essence saying, Our highest spiritual leaders and our primary teaching manuals have been wrong for over 150 years. Presidents, Prophets and Apostles have been in error and have been leading Mormon people astray for the entire history of the Church up until the present. Will the Mormon Churchs spiritual leadership defer to the apologists and academicians? Given the articles provided on the official Mormon website, it would appear to some degree they already have. . .
What is notable is that both Mormon and non-Mormon writers find glaring problems with proposed limited geography theories. Mormon writer Earl M. Wunderli provides an extensive and detailed critique of the Limited geography theory advocated by Sorenson and others. His rejection of it is based primarily on internal evidence from the Book of Mormon and he draws the following conclusions in a recent Dialogue article:
Sorenson and other Mormon scholars have recognized that the traditional hemispheric model no longer works, but their solution of a limited geography model does not work either. Sorensons model requires contorting terminology and text to make a case riven by esoteric complication. His model wanders far afield from what the Book of Mormon straightforwardly describes. It solves many problems with the hemispheric model but only at great cost to the Book of Mormons internal reliability as scripture, as a book that presumably means what it says (Earl M. Wunderli, Critique of a Limited Geography for the Book of Mormon Events, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 35:3 [Fall 2002], p. 197).
In his article, Reinventing Lamanite Identity, Metcalfe provides evidence from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith himself that the Mormon apologists novel interpretations are unsupported and unwarranted. For example he cites the Mormon Scripture, Joseph Smith History, v. 34 which says that the Book of Mormon plates contain an account of the former inhabitants of this [the North American] continent, and the source from whence they sprang. Metcalfe concludes that:
. . . apologetic scholars have an arduous task ahead of them. They have yet to explain cogently why all the Book of Mormon charactersGod includedseemingly know nothing about the hordes of indigenous peoples that the revisionist theories require; and why their word should count more than that of Mormon prophets on the one hand, and that of secular scholars on the other (Metcalfe, p. 23).
FOOTNOTES
10 Arguments like the diversity of languages, the inability of a small group of immigrants to populate and settle the North and South American continents in such short time and the Asian rather than Semitic ethnic ancestry evident in the great majority of Native American peoples, all troubled early Mormon historian and apologist B.H. Roberts in the early 1920s. Critics of the Mormon Church recognized the inherent problems of the hemispheric model of Book of Mormon history and culture and were quick to point out the problems raised by science. Yet Roberts was loath to employ a limited geographic model in order to solve these problems because to do so would go beyond what a natural reading of the Book of Mormon allowed (Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 92-93). For example, Roberts writes:
Can we answer that the Nephites and the people of Mulek really constituting one people occupied a very much more restricted area of the American Continents than has heretofore been supposed, and that this fact (assumed here for the argument) would leave the rest of the continents by far the greater part of them say to be inhabited by other races, speaking other tongues, developing other cultures, and making, though absolutely unknown to Book of Mormon people, other histories? To this answer there would be the objection that if such other races or tribes existed then the Book of Mormon is silent about them. .. To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit of our assuming (Roberts, pp. 92-93).
The following has been adapted from
http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html
They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.
This section continues to examine ways Mormon apologists and scholars have attempted to defend the Book of Mormon
APOLOGY #2 - “DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective” (Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003).
Applying DNA studies to the Book of Mormon assumes the validity of the global colonization hypothesis.
The local colonization hypothesis is more limited in scope, includes many more complicating factors from a genetic perspective, is much more difficult to investigate by way of DNA evidence, and, in my view and that of Book of Mormon scholars, is a more accurate interpretation of the Lamanite lineage history. This hypothesis suggests that when the three colonizing parties came to the New World, the land was already occupied in whole or in part by people of an unknown genetic heritage. (Whiting, p. 31). He later states that according to the local colonization hypothesis, the Lamanite lineage did not populate the whole North and South American continent. (Whiting, p. 33). Given his starting point, Whitings argument is logical, scientifically sound and accurately relates the difficulties such a scenario would cause for even finding Lamanite genes.
However, this is a limited disclosure at best and a somewhat misleading since other Latter-day Scriptures and Mormon sources do identify the Lamanites. For example, the previously cited statement in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History, 1:34, where Joseph Smith relates that [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang.
A later Mormon publication, a brochure distributed at the Hill Cumorah pageant, states: About A.D. 421 Moroni, the last survivor of a great civilization that inhabited the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 420, buried in this hill a set of gold plates on which he recorded the history of his people (Welcome to Historic Mormon Country).
These descriptions, provided by the founding Mormon Prophet (11) and current leaders of the Church he established, do not seem to fit with a limited geography hypothesis that now acknowledges the first inhabitants of the Americas were from Northern Asia thousands of years before the Jaredite landing, and which limits Book of Mormon peoples to a small 400 mile stretch of Central America.
The limited geography / local colonization hypothesis requires a series of assumptions that go contrary to the natural reading of the Book of Mormonwitness the hemispheric geography understanding propagated by generations of Mormon leaders. Also, adopting a limited geography for the Book of Mormon comes at the cost of rejecting both the teachings of the Prophets of the Mormon Church and their interpretations of Mormon Scriptures.
APOLOGY #3 “A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist” (John M. Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 36-37)
Butlers primary point is stated early on in his short article. The Book of Mormon does not provide sufficient information on the biological backgrounds of Ishamels wife and the wives of his two sons (who would have provided the mitochondrial DNA lineages of the Nephites and Lamanites).
Thus we are left without enough information from the Book of Mormon record itself to identify definitively an appropriate genetic source population that could be used to calibrate the claims of the Book of Mormon. Likewise, we do not have sufficient information to declare the Book of Mormon not true (p. 36).
Nor, according to Butler, is it possible to know if there is any genetic tie to the biblical patriarchs via Y chromosome male lineage.
it is unclear whether or not these [Lehis] offspring would also have Manasseh, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham in their patrilineage (p. 36).
After rehearsing other Book of Mormon ambiguities, Butler is content to settle for a scientific stalemate.
Thus, we are left where we started (and where I believe the Lord intended us to be)in the realm of faith. A spiritual witness is the only way to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Although DNA studies have made links between Native Americans and Asians, these studies in no way invalidate the Book of Mormon despite the loud voices of detractors. (p. 37).
The Book of Mormon is indeed lacking certain lineage details, yet how necessary are they, in light of the proclamations of the living prophets? Should Mormon people believe Spencer W. Kimball when he is quoted in The Ensign of July 1971, pp. 7ff saying,
The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. (p. 7) There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitledyou, the Lamaniteswhen you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi (page 10).
In an attempt to leave the door open for other populations in the new world at the arrival of Lehi, Butler also questions the complete annihilation of the supposed Jaredite nation as related in the Book of Mormon. He suggests that Ethers prophecy only relates to Coriantumrs household, leaving open the possibility that breakaway groups of Jaredite descent would have not participated in the battle and would have survived. And yet, even a cursory reading of Ether chapters 13-15 makes it clear that while Coriantumr and all his household were to repent to avoid destruction, if they did not the people would be destroyed for every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr (Ether 13:20-21). There is no repentance, and war rages over the whole face of the land (v. 25) which lasts for years resulting in the deaths of millions of men as well as their wives and children and culminates in a final battle. Prior to this final battle, for four years the Jaredite people gather together that they might get all who were upon the face of the land (Ether 15:14). Once the people are gathered there is one final six-day battle at the Hill Ramah where everyone is killed except Coriantumr.
Accepting a limited geography/local colonization hypothesis requires a series of assumptions that go contrary to the natural reading of the Book of Mormon, a reading both assumed and taught by generations of Mormon leaders. Further, these assumptions are dictated by apologetic necessity.
FOOTNOTES
11 For additional documented examples of statements by Joseph Smith regarding Book of Mormon geography see Luke Wilsons paper, Does Archaeology Support the Book of Mormon? A survey of the evidence, 1992, pp. 6-10, available in print form from IRR or online here: http://irr.org/mit/bomarch2.html.