I am well acquainted with problems in LDS historicity, having read extensively in anti-LDS literature--from the illegal sacking of the Nauvoo Expositor to the current claims that Joseph Smith's BA is a fraud based on an analysis of some recovered papyrus he used in the claimed translation that makes no mention whatever of Abraham. The critics posit that circumstance casts doubt on the authenticity of the BoM itself and of Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet.
I think many LDS are disturbed by the BA development, as well as by DNA findings involving "Lamanites." You (and others) seek a direct, forthright answer from me re. the BA. My answer is simply this: I don't know. To my knowledge, the Church has not issued a statement re. the BA, and I am not inclined to second-guess the Church.
Well, that's an honest answer, and I appreciate that.
However - do you realize how it comes across to non-Mormons? You're basically telling us that you realize the evidence against the BoA/BoM, but you simply choose not to question the Church.
One could take that attitude about anything -
"I mean, sure, I know the Xenu story
seems utterly ridiculous, but I am not inclined to second-guess the Church."
"Yeah, Pastor Haggart may have a thing for crystal meth and male prostitutes, but I am not inclined to second-guess the Church."
"The Chairman may have taken things a bit too far, but I am not inclined to second-guess the Party."
If that works for you, great, but it's not exactly a convincing argument for Mormon beliefs. It just tells us that you're willing to ignore facts when they contradict what your leaders tell you. Many people throughout history have done the same, and the results have rarely been pretty.