harmony wrote:I was always under the impression the lineage wasn't literal, but was spiritual. I could be wrong, though.
I was always under the impression the lineage was literal, which has spiritual implicqtions. If the lineage is not literal, why are there cases of adoption? If it is all spiritual, there would be no need for adoption. In my opinion. I could be wrong, although I don't think I am.
harmony wrote:I was always under the impression the lineage wasn't literal, but was spiritual. I could be wrong, though.
I was always under the impression the lineage was literal, which has spiritual implicqtions. If the lineage is not literal, why are there cases of adoption? If it is all spiritual, there would be no need for adoption. In my opinion. I could be wrong, although I don't think I am.
It makes no sense for the lineage to be literal. Were that the case, all members of the same family would have the same lineage, and I know in my children at least, that isn't the case.
harmony wrote: It makes no sense for the lineage to be literal. Were that the case, all members of the same family would have the same lineage, and I know in my children at least, that isn't the case.
Not necessarily.
We don't know every piece of DNA we have, not what is passed down to our children. (Well, except for the Y and the mtDNA.) Why can't you have a "recessive" tribal lineage, the same way you can have a recessive gene for blue eyes or red hair?
harmony wrote: It makes no sense for the lineage to be literal. Were that the case, all members of the same family would have the same lineage, and I know in my children at least, that isn't the case.
Not necessarily.
We don't know every piece of DNA we have, not what is passed down to our children. (Well, except for the Y and the mtDNA.) Why can't you have a "recessive" tribal lineage, the same way you can have a recessive gene for blue eyes or red hair?
In that case, we'd all be of every lineage. There is no way any one person can be of just one lineage. Even the kings are all mixed up.
harmony wrote: It makes no sense for the lineage to be literal. Were that the case, all members of the same family would have the same lineage, and I know in my children at least, that isn't the case.
Not necessarily.
We don't know every piece of DNA we have, not what is passed down to our children. (Well, except for the Y and the mtDNA.) Why can't you have a "recessive" tribal lineage, the same way you can have a recessive gene for blue eyes or red hair?
In that case, we'd all be of every lineage. There is no way any one person can be of just one lineage. Even the kings are all mixed up.
Not so. If what you are suggesting is true there would be no differentiation in hair color, eye color, etc. It isn't a matter of the mixture. It is a matter of what is the dominant gene.
charity wrote:Not so. If what you are suggesting is true there would be no differentiation in hair color, eye color, etc. It isn't a matter of the mixture. It is a matter of what is the dominant gene.
Genes have nothing to do with lineage. I don't look like my sister (she's tall, slim, brown eyes; I'm average, round, blue eyes), but we have the same lineage.
harmony wrote: Genes have nothing to do with lineage. I don't look like my sister (she's tall, slim, brown eyes; I'm average, round, blue eyes), but we have the same lineage.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Harmony! So all that Asian DNA means diddly squat when we are talking about Lehites, Lamanites, etc.
harmony wrote: Genes have nothing to do with lineage. I don't look like my sister (she's tall, slim, brown eyes; I'm average, round, blue eyes), but we have the same lineage.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Harmony! So all that Asian DNA means diddly squat when we are talking about Lehites, Lamanites, etc.
Finally.
Comments any of your scoffers out there?
Perhaps they could formally be adopted into the Tribe of Laman.