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.
Relevant Scientific Facts and Data
This section will briefly review the implications of the following facts:
1. DNA studies can determine ethnic history
2. Indigenous peoples of the Americas lack Semitic or Hebraic genetic traces
3. Mongolian/Northern Asian ethnic descent clearly established
4. There is general scientific consensus on these points
DNA studies can determine ethnic history
The question for today’s Mormons, especially those of Native American ancestry is, should they really be considering themselves Lamanites? Is this an authentic ethnic heritage they have a reason to be proud of, or have they been led astray and proselytized under false pretenses?
Genetic and ethnic links can be traced along both paternal and maternal genetic lines. The mapping is done using mitochondrial DNA (for maternal lines) and Y chromosome DNA (for paternal lines), grouping people by unique DNA lineages. According to Simon G. Southerton, senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia, “Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA are particularly useful for studying human population because they remain remarkably intact from generation to generation.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 67).
Along maternal lines, DNA research done with over 7000 Native Americans from about 175 different groups showed that maternal lineages among Native Americans predominantly fall into four lines, designated A, B, C and D. All four of these are found in moderate frequencies in Asian populations, but are absent in all others. Therefore, 96.5% of Native Americans from Alaska to Southern Argentina show predominant Asian ancestry.
Paternal studies focus on molecular distinctives of the Y chromosome. Among Native Americans the most prevalent Y chromosome lineage has been designated Q. Once again, when compared with Asian, European and Middle Eastern Y chromosome types, Q is rare in either European or Middle Eastern populations but appear with moderate frequency in Asian populations. The Q lineage of the Y chromosome is present in 90% of South American Indians and about 75% of North American Indians, once again demonstrating the predominant Asian background of Native Americans (Southerton, 2004, pp. 88-93).
While not accepting it as conclusive, Mormon scholars acknowledge the legitimacy and efficacy of DNA studies for determining a person or group’s ethnic history. Sorenson gives the example of how DNA testing was used to confirm that a group of black South Africans known as the Lemba people were of Jewish origin. The group, which included Jewish priests, migrated first to Yemen and then to Southern Africa over 2000 years ago (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 9:2, p. 70). Southerton found it notable that Sorenson acknowledges the persistence of these DNA markers in a group of people nearly 3000 years removed from their ethnic Semitic origin, yet is skeptical of its ability to do the same for a more recent Jewish ancestry in the Americas (Southerton, 2004, p. 190).
Indigenous peoples of the Americas lack Semitic or Hebraic genetic traces
Southerton states:
While apologists have long accepted the fact that other groups outside of the Book of Mormon record made their way to the New World, few apologists would have predicted that the Lamanite influence would be virtually undetectable. The accumulating DNA data has provided the first quantitative measures of an Israelite presence in the New World gene pool and it is slim to none (Southerton, 2004, p. 202).
Mongolian/Northern Asian ethnic descent clearly established.
DNA studies have only served to confirm the Northern Asian link to Native Americans. It has long been recognized that there are strong physical resemblances, as Southerton summarizes:
“The two groups share morphological features characteristic of Mongoloid peoples such as straight black hair, prominent cheek bones, spare body hair, reddish to brown skin, relatively flat faces and the Mongoloid sacral spot (Crawford 1998). Other frequently shared traits are darkly colored eyes, the Mongoloid eye fold, and dental characteristics such as shovel-shaped incisors.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 79).
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 God’s 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 Mormon’s historicity and it’s 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 Church’s 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. Sorenson’s 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 Mormon’s 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 characters—God included—seemingly 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).