"The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures"

[_jon]

Could the skin colour changing be a reflection of righteousness, as specifically stated by the Mormon Prophet?

I've answered your question.

Anyone know if this is a "yes" or a "no"?

[_bcspace]

It is true that some, not all, apologists follow the Sorensen heresy and futher say that the Lamanites' descendants are in small area, but they're false and heretics.

The "Sorenson heresy" is also official doctrine and it so happens that it's publication is more recent than the OP reference. 1988 If I recall correctly.

[_NeoMorm]

1. God changed the genetics of the people on this continent so as to deceive scholars and not tip his hand, allowing that faith still be in the salvation equation.

Or perhaps God tweaked the DNA of Laban and Lemuel and their wives to engineer a new racial classification of man.

As the archeologists I've hired for Native American digs in the past have noted to me, Native American DNA has very unique markers unknown anywhere else in the world except for Polynesia (which is probably post-Columbian) and Siberia.

Well, he would have to be just a bit more heavy handed than that, since there was intermingling between lamanites and nephites for a time before the end. He altered the DNA of all remaining Lamanites removing the semetic markers and adding some kind of Lamanite/Polynesian marker. I suppose such a marker cold have made skin darker as well, that fits the story. Was the removal of the semetic marker a way to decieve scholars or a way to remove that which made them the children of god?

[_Buffalo]

It is true that some, not all, apologists follow the Sorensen heresy and futher say that the Lamanites' descendants are in small area, but they're false and heretics.

The "Sorenson heresy" is also official doctrine and it so happens that it's publication is more recent than the OP reference. 1988 If I recall correctly.

It's a sad day when apologists tout their own apologetic theories as official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets are cast down and trodden under foot.

[_Darth J]

The "Sorenson heresy" is also official doctrine and it so happens that it's publication is more recent than the OP reference. 1988 If I recall correctly.

I find great comfort in knowing that the One, True Church is making it up as it goes.

It's a sad day when apologists tout their own apologetic theories as official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets is cast down and trodden under foot.

It's a normal day when apologists defend their own apologetic theories as if they were official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets are cast down and trodden under foot.

[_Buffalo]

It's a sad day when apologists tout their own apologetic theories as official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets is cast down and trodden under foot.

It's a normal day when apologists defend their own apologetic theories as if they were official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets are cast down and trodden under foot.

Indeed, Darth J-onius, thou speakest truly.

[_bcspace]

The "Sorenson heresy" is also official doctrine and it so happens that it's publication is more recent than the OP reference. 1988 If I recall correctly.

It's a sad day when apologists tout their own apologetic theories as official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets are cast down and trodden under foot.

It would be except in this case, the Church's own standard for doctrine puts Sorenson in the driver's seat. We're just agreeing with the Chruch which is what any good apologist would do.

[_Buffalo]

It's a sad day when apologists tout their own apologetic theories as official doctrine, while the inspired words of the prophets are cast down and trodden under foot.

It would be except in this case, the Church's own standard for doctrine puts Sorenson in the driver's seat. We're just agreeing with the Chruch which is what any good apologist would do.

I wasn't aware that church policy favored the ad hoc theories of unordained apologists over the inspired pronouncements of the Lord's anointed. Interesting.

[_bcspace]

I wasn't aware that church policy favored the ad hoc theories of unordained apologists over the inspired pronouncements of the Lord's anointed. Interesting.

The explaination could merely be that you're 17 years behind on your reading.

[_Buffalo]

I wasn't aware that church policy favored the ad hoc theories of unordained apologists over the inspired pronouncements of the Lord's anointed. Interesting.

The explaination could merely be that you're 17 years behind on your reading.

Or, more likely, that as usual you're making this up as you go.