Below is my lengthy reply to my friend...his name is withheld for privacy. Thank you all for your help.
XXXX,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my request. This is a very important issue to the foundational claims of Mormonism, and as we have discussed, if these were not real people, then there is no way the BoM can be “true”, regardless of how it makes people feel.
Below you comment that "I suspect the inability to locate Lamanites is due to the genetic mingling that has occurred over the years." I realize that you are not a scientist, nor do you have any scientific background, but I must tell you that statement is patently false. Whenever we have offspring, the genes of both parents are passed down. It never goes away - ever. To test that fact, you can send a sample of your own DNA to any number of commercial operations and they can send you back a detailed report (for about $150) about where you came from. Here is a commercial website at Ancestry.com that describes the process.
http://ldna.ancestry.com/welcome.aspx - With this test you can find out where you came from - who your ancestors were - and from what region of the world they migrated from. So to say that we cannot locate the Lamanites due to genetic mingling is not based in proven scientific fact. More on this later.
You also say in your last e-mail that “However, his conclusion seems plausible to me.” I will explain his “conclusions” to you, to see if it makes sense.
I appreciate the link to the Ugo Perego white paper. I will try to go through his conclusions and explain to you why he is obfuscating the real issues while not even answering them – not to mention that he is being intellectually dishonest.
1) He says that "The Book of Mormon is not a volume about the history and origins of all American Indians. A careful reading of the text clearly indicates that the people described in the Book of Mormon were limited in the recording of their history to events that had religious relevance and that occurred in relatively close proximity to the keepers of the annals"
The last part of that statement is true, however, it has no bearing on the question of genetic origin. Whether a person writes a lot or a little has absolutely nothing to do with his or her DNA. Remember that DNA doesn’t go away just because of what someone writes or omits in their writing. It is passed to the children. These statements are misleading and do not answer the question of Native American DNA and how it relates to the BoM.
Of course the BoM isn't meant to describe ALL of the American Indians, it was meant to describe the history and origin of these "great civilizations" who came to this continent by way of commandment from God. Although the BoM describes a few "great civilizations" (Jaredites, Nephites and Mulekites), we were taught that they were the "principle ancestors of the American Indians". This was in the title page of the BoM until just a few years ago, when it was subtly changed to they are "among the descendants". It was only changed by the church when science proved that there was no way the church could make that claim any longer - notwithstanding all the quotes from past prophets and God Himself proclaiming who these Lamanites really were. If the American Indians are not the descendants of the Lamanites, then where are the Lamanites? The church has taught that the Americas were not inhabited prior to the Jaredites and that this land was saved for Lehi as his land of “inheritance”. There was no one else here.
He goes on to say "The fact that the DNA of Lehi and his party has not been detected in modern Native American populations does not demonstrate that this group of people never existed or that the Book of Mormon cannot be historical in nature. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[76] Further, the very idea of locating the genetic signature of Lehi’s family in modern populations constitutes a truly untestable hypothesis since it is not possible to know the nature of their genetic profiles. Without our knowing the genetic signature to be located, any attempt at researching it will unavoidably result in further assumptions and untestable hypotheses. What were the characteristics of Lehi’s DNA and the DNA of those who went along with him? What haplogroup(s) did they belong to? We will never know."
This is really a poor attempt to render science inept by stating that since we don't have Lehi's DNA, there is no way we will ever find out who his descendants are. Below it explains the unapologetic science...by Simon Sutherton (a geneticist) in his book “Loosing a Lost Tribe”
"We Don't Need Lehite DNA, We Need non-Asian DNA
It is nonsensical to claim that because we don't know what the DNA of Lehi's family looks like we cannot possibly find Lehite DNA today. We know that Lehi and Mulek were members of two different Israelite tribes and that they and their families lived in Jerusalem. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that both the Lehites and Mulekites were Israelites, as we are told that in the text of the Book of Mormon, or at the very least closely related to people living in the Middle East. We know a considerable amount about the DNA lineages of living people whose ancestors were Israelites reaching back 2600 years ago. Israelite DNA lineages belong to the same family groups found in European populations: the H, I, J, K, N, T, U, V, W, and X groups. Other Middle Eastern populations such as the Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, and other Arabic groups have similar mitochondrial DNA lineages belonging to these families. Essentially all Europeans and Middle Easterners possess one of these lineages.
LDS apologists didn't need ancient Asian DNA to be convinced that American Indians are essentially all descended from Asian ancestors. So why do we need ancient Israelite DNA? John Butler has loudly trumpeted the missing Lehite DNA argument; yet he was persuaded “that almost all Native Americans tested thus far possess genetic signatures closely resembling modern-day Asians”.
One of the attractions of working with DNA is that it carries its own history within its sequence. People who are related to each other carry DNA that shares common spelling changes that have accumulated throughout time. Anthropologists don’t need an ancient DNA sample to confirm relatedness because related DNA lineages by definition share common DNA spelling changes that occurred in their ancestors. Modern populations carry everything we need because these informative DNA spellings are rarely lost over the generations; rather, they are inherited down the generations.
The other obvious problem is that we don't have any Native American DNA lineages that are even candidate Israelite DNA lineages. Those that don't belong to the five lineage families (A to D, X) are derived from Western European or African populations and arrived after Columbus. This is especially true for Mesoamerica, a place where many apologists believe the Book of Mormon was played out. Virtually 100% of Native American DNA lineages are Asian in origin. They belong to large lineage families that have common ancestors with Asian lineages going back about 15,000 years.
Even if Asian lineages miraculously found their way to Israel 3,000 years ago and were picked up by the Lehites, they would be distantly related to the Asian lineages that found their way to the New World over 15,000 years ago. For the same reason contemporary Asian A lineages, for example, are easily distinguished from contemporary Native American A lineages."
Lehi was an Israelite and his DNA (as an Israelite) is detectable. In fact, the BoM claims exactly this:
Alma 10:3 "Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren."
1 Ne:5:14 "Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob"
Mulek was a descendant of royal blood, as son of King Zedekiah, whose genealogy is given in the Bible.
Hel 8:21 "And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? But behold, this is not all"
Hel 6:10 "Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah"
Mulek's city Zarahemla was the largest of the Nephite cities.
Mosiah 25:2 "Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness."
There shouldn't be any question about DNA if you believe what the BoM says.
DNA testing is much more sensitive than it was just two years ago. And even then, it was sensitive enough that we can find the Lemba. They descended and separated from Jews around 600BC (same time as Lehi and Mulek), they mixed with a subcontinent of Africa and yet we can find the small founder moment from their (diluted) Jewish line.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.htmlGiven that the BoM claims that Mulek descended from the Royal Jewish line (king Zedekiah) and founded the largest city (Zarahemla), his alleged DNA is or would be very well known, just as it is with the Lemba. And it is very absent in native Americans.
In the Lemba case, the sensitivity of the DNA tests are so high that they can identify, 2600 years later that the "Buba clan which, in Lemba oral tradition, had a leadership role in bringing the Lemba out of Israel." A single family line among many in a diluted sea of a sub-continent...
2) Another interesting conclusion of Mr. Perego is "An additional caveat is the lack of professional training in population genetics by those promoting a supposed discrepancy between the genetic evidence and the Book of Mormon account. Some of them claim that their conclusions are strongly supported by trained experts who have been consulted for unbiased opinions about this particular matter.[77]This should raise some concerns, though, since it is fairly obvious that most people outside of the circle of Mormonism have very limited knowledge of the Book of Mormon and its contents.
So basically what he is saying here is that unless someone is Mormon and knows of the contents of the BoM, their scientific research is suspect. This is unbelievable. Can you ever imagine making such a statement? It would be like you saying that the archeologists at Yale, where I went to school, that study Mesoamerican ruins do not really know what they are talking about as far as BoM archeology since they do not have knowledge of the BoM or its contents. Unbelievable...I do not understand why someone would have to have a knowledge of the BoM and its contents to make a scientific observation of fact. Do you? To me, this is intellectually dishonest.
3) Mr. Perego then makes a statement that is inconsistent with the BoM text and the Church position for the last 180 years! He states, "To offer a personal anecdote, my scientist colleagues have asked me about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon on several occasions. I respond with a simple summary in which I explain that the DNA lineages of Lehi’s colony could have been lost due to genetic drift since the number of people involved was probably fairly small compared to the size of the resident Amerindian population."
How could the church possibly allow him to make such a statement without correcting him? Is this a new doctrine? How can he teach something that is counter to what the church and its prophets have taught for 180 years? To quote the BoM itself... The Jaredites came 'into that quarter where there never had man been.' (Ether 2:5) The Nephites likewise came to a land 'kept from all other nations.' (2 Nephi 1:9-11). Not to mention the countless quotes from prophets that are in direct opposition to Mr. Perego's statement. Nowhere in the text of the BoM does it mention that there were others here on this continent contemporaneously with them. Apologists today attempt to say that the Lehites left no trace by claiming they were a small population. But according to Mormon doctrine, they were the ONLY people left after the Jaredites, who were all killed off. Anyone here before the Jaredites, was killed in the Noachian flood. The book of Mormon continually says that the land had been saved for the inheritance of Lehi Family and the Jaredites as a "land of promise". That has been the story from the time of Joseph Smith down to Gordon Hinkley. Then when DNA testing (science) advanced enough to prove there is no way that anyone ever populated the Americas with millions and millions of people...the church has changed its story, and changed its doctrine.
From 2nd Nephi 1:8-9
And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
4) Lastly, Mr. Perego concludes comparing the Bible and the BoM DNA analysis..." The principles underlying this question can be further extrapolated to other religious scenarios. Can we use DNA to decisively prove that the great biblical patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—ever existed? What were their own and their descendants’ mtDNA haplotypes? What about the other great Old Testament figures, such as Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and Isaiah? Can we use DNA analysis to prove that Jesus Christ lived? The New Testament mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55–56; Mark 6:3) through whom Mary’s mtDNA could have been transmitted to future generations (and if not through Mary, perhaps through some of her female relatives). Where is their DNA in today’s population? Would it be acceptable to conclude that these are fictional historical figures and the biblical text a hoax because of the lack of genetic evidence?
The scientific reason why there is no reason to do what he proposes is that Jesus, and the other examples he gives, are all Jewish and all lived in a Jewish area and had Jewish children that remained there. The reason the BoM civilizations are DIFFERENT than the Bible here is that these Jewish people left the Middle East (with their DNA) and then inhabited the American Continent, yet NO Israelite DNA can be found ANYWHERE!
So in the end, his conclusions are not really what they seem at first glance – yet to you, they seem “plausible”. Just because he goes on and on with quantity does not mean that there is any substance to the answers he provided. In fact, I would submit to you that he attempts to marginalize those who question by obfuscating the real answers that he refuses to address.
I still don't understand how God's prophets and God Himself could deceive the church membership and the world by saying that the American Indians are the Lamanites for 180 years - when NONE OF THEM ARE, and have been proven not to be! If the American Indians are not the Lamanites, then where are they? The book was written to them. How can millions and millions of people (their archeology, paintings, buildings, swords etc.) just disappear along with their Israelite DNA? It doesn't make sense! Can you explain that to me? As I said in my last e-mail, if the Lamanites didn't exist, there is no way the church is "true".
So XXXX, my question to you is this...Are you committed to "truth and integrity" regardless of where it leads, or are you committed to the Mormon faith and its apologies - even if they run counter to reason and truth?
I was once like you in that my default position was that the church was true – it was just a matter of finding the right answer from somewhere. The more I researched and the more I read, the more I found that there is no way the church could be what it say it is. Many things are testable. This “Lamanite issue” is one of them.
You and I have discussed a number of major issues over the last few years. How can all of these major issues have no explanation and be counterintuitive?
Will wait to hear your reply…
"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" - British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
Your friend,
Marc