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 is the final segment.
Resultant Tensions and Conflicts
A. Scientific facts run counter to official teachings.
Each of the articles provided on the official Mormon website frankly admit that the scientific evidence runs counter to traditional teachings. As Leavitt, Marshall and Crandall state in their article in a recent Dialogue, “Clearly, many Mormon leaders have taught the hemispheric model, so it should be no surprise that this is the scenario accepted by the majority of church members.” (“The Search for the Seed of Lehi, Leavitt, et. al., Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36:4 (Winter 2003), p. 137). Millions of Latter-day Saints have understood and embraced the clear teachings of their most trusted spiritual leaders and now a broad spectrum of objectively collected, carefully studied scientific data shows these leaders have been wrong. According to Mormon scholar Trent Stephens (Ph.D., professor of anatomy and embryology at Idaho State University) writing in the March 2004 issue of Sunstone magazine, there are four ways that people may react to the data regarding Native Americans and the Book of Mormon:
One—The data refute the historic authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, belief in the book is unfounded and should be abandoned.
Two—The data may be ignored. In spite of the data, people may continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern decent.
Three—People may take a wait-and-see attitude. Future data may exonerate their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from Middle Eastern populations.
Four—The Book of Mormon story is still true. However, the data refute the notion that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent. (Trent D. Stephens, Ph.d., “Now What?”, Sunstone, Issue 131 (March 2004), p. 26-27).
Stephens acknowledges that “Rejecting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because its story is not supported by scientific evidence may be the most practical and rational choice” (p. 27). However, none of the above will likely be attractive options to faithful Mormons. . . . . . On the other hand, those who ignore or set aside the facts in an effort to continue following the spiritual leadership of the Mormon Church, may well find themselves with less immediate tension, but are likely to face increasing amounts of cognitive dissonance that results in a death of their spiritual and intellectual balance and integrity.
B. Current scholarly explanations undermine historic teachings of Mormon spiritual leaders. As this article has shown and Southerton explains:
“Most Mormon apologists now accept that Native Americans are principally descended from Siberian ancestors who migrated across the Bering Strait thousands of years before Lehi arrived and that the descendants of Lehi made up an infinitesimally smaller proportion of the New World Populations. However, this change in perspective has not been granted the church’s blessing in any official way.… There is the further problem for apologists that in trying to rescue the Book of Mormon from science, they have had to reject the clear pronouncements of every church president from Joseph Smith to the present.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 202).
Mormon people are now faced with a new tension. To whom will they listen in order to gain a true theological understanding and framework of Mormon history and scriptures? Do they follow the General Authorities or the apologists? What does it mean for the concept of “modern-day revelation” when the Mormon Church’s spiritual leaders begin deferring to apologists and scientists?
When Mormon missionaries seek to convert Native Americans in Mexico or Chile, do they take their cues from past General Conference talks or the latest FARMS articles? When a Mormon is called to teach the Gospel Doctrine class at his ward, and is given the Book of Mormon study manual, does he perpetuate the “errant assumptions” contained in the manual produced by the Church, or does he go with factually true material provided by the church scholars, knowing this material contradicts the manual and the general understanding of the members in his class?
On July 29, 1979 the Church section of the Deseret News contained the following blunt editorial regarding new theories of Book of Mormon geography:
“… To guess where Zarahemla stood can in no wise add to anyone’s faith. But to raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records, is most certainly harmful.…Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If he wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. (Deseret News, Church section, week ending July 29, 1979, p. 16)
In the Church News, week ending May 9, 1992, p. 14, an article appeared titled, “Sacred Text is a book of doctrine, not geography,” which cited various Mormon leaders and concluded:
“It is folly to associate oneself with any peculiar notion… Such ventures in thought are merely guesses, and such speculation leads to confusion. … [If] the time comes, or that it is expedient for the saints to have this information, it will come to them through the regularly established source, the prophet, seer, and revelator, the Presiding High Priest of the Church and no one else.”
A July 26, 2004 USA Today article titled “DNA Research and Mormon scholars changing basic beliefs” stated:
“…some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crisis. “It’s very difficult. It is almost traumatizing,” said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss. “Its that serious, that real,” said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. “I’m almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That’s the feeling I get.”
A good example of a recent scholarly examination of the Bible’s reliability and historical authenticity is Jeffrey L. Sheler’s book, Is the Bible True: How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures, Harper San Francisco, 1999, 278 pages. Sheler, an award-winning U.S. News & World Report religion writer, notes in the conclusion of his book:
“And yet as we have seen, the Bible and the faith it commends are by no means entirely detached from historical examination. To the contrary, we have discovered an abundance of evidence — both direct and indirect — that sheds light on the historical claims and the context of the Scriptures. As we have examined that evidence and considered scholarly arguments drawn from it, and as we have compared the Scriptures to other written histories from the ancient Near East, we have found the Bible consistently and substantially affirmed as a credible and reliable source of history” (p. 254).....
Well, I guess that settles THAT!
The 3 top guys (the “first presidency”) sit around a caldron saying ..
“Double, double toil and trouble;
Bosum burn, and caldron bubble.”
And that is how “new revelation” is given to the mormon profit...
“Shakespeare Restored”