"The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures"

[_NeoMorm]

Maybe God busted out his High-School Chemistry set and played "Hide the Chromosom from the Humans"

[_DarkHelmet]

There was a book that explins this. Apparently some Asian hookers followed the nephites to America to collect on Laman and Lemuel's massive hooker tab. They stayed in the americas and were very popular with the lamanites, and that explains all the Asian DNA.

[_Brackite]

There was a book that explins this. Apparently some Asian hookers followed the Nephites to America to collect on Laman and Lemuel's massive hooker tab. They stayed in the americas and were very popular with the Lamanites, and that explains all the Asian DNA.

The LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay argues on his DNA Book of Mormon Web Site Page that some of the eastern Asian DNA Probably came from the Jaredites. However, I Pointed out on this Post Here, that according to LDS Apostle, LeGrand Richards and according to the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites became extinct. And since the Jaredites became extinct, than there are Not any of the Native Americans that are descendents of the Jaredites.
Now here is another thing that the LDS Apologist, Jeff Lindsay wrote on his DNA Book of Mormon Web Site Page:

Further, Schurr (2000) points to other evidence of haplotype X in "two Pre-Columbian North American populations" and possibly "a few ancient Brazilian samples." He may be referring to the work of Ribero-dos-Santos et al. (1996), as later clarified (Ribero-dos-Santos et al., 1997).

Link: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml





It was falsely reported in Wikipedia, that Haplogroup X was found within a Native South American tribe in Brazil. However, Wikipedia has since corrected that mistake, and it should be noted that Haplogroup X has Not been found within any of the Native South American tribes.
The Following is from Ugo Perego, an LDS DNA researcher:

Some LDS scholars suggest that haplogroup X2a—found exclusively in northern North America—could be a proof of Lehi’s genetic legacy, but at this time there is not enough data to support these conclusions. Reidla and colleagues in 2003 began exploring the origin and distribution of haplogroup X among the world populations and they concluded that “phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2.” Regarding the presence of a few sequences belonging to haplogroup X found in the Altai population of central Asia, the authors commented that “under the assumption that these sequences are a random sample of the Altaian haplogroup X [they provide a] a time depth of <6700 years, and it would suggest that Altaians have acquired haplogroup X2 only relatively recently.” In other words, haplogroup X2 in modern Asian populations is NOT ancestral to haplogroup X2 found in Native Americans. Reidla and colleagues concluded that “the few Altaian and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.”

Link: http://www.fairblog.org/2009/02/06/curr ... lamanites/


(Bold Emphasized Mine.)




Here is the Link to a Map from Ugo Perego, on one of the FAIR Web Site Pages that shows that Haplogroup X2a is limited to just the Native American tribes from northern North America:


http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/peregofig4.jpg




Haplogroup X has Not been found among any of the Native Central American and Native South American tribes.

[_bcspace]

That's the official doctrine. Don't let the apologists try to tell you otherwise. :)

Besides the Sorenson set, there is also the new LDS edition scriptures published in the early 80's which mentioned something about principal ancestors.........That increases the number of years you are out of date.

[_Jonah]

There was a book that explins this. Apparently some Asian hookers followed the Nephites to America to collect on Laman and Lemuel's massive hooker tab. They stayed in the americas and were very popular with the Lamanites, and that explains all the Asian DNA.

Damn, I wish I would have had THIS information in seminary class instead of garnering all of my Lamanite education from the Tom Trails filmstrips.

For your viewing pleasure - http://www.tomtrails.com/main.htm

[_Buffalo]

That's the official doctrine. Don't let the apologists try to tell you otherwise. :)

Besides the Sorenson set, there is also the new LDS edition scriptures published in the early 80's which mentioned something about principal ancestors.........That increases the number of years you are out of date.

Your definition of official doctrine seems to disappear whenever it becomes inconvenient.

[_bcspace]

Besides the Sorenson set, there is also the new LDS edition scriptures published in the early 80's which mentioned something about principal ancestors.........That increases the number of years you are out of date.

Your definition of official doctrine seems to disappear whenever it becomes inconvenient.

My definition has always included "of latest date".

[_Buffalo]

My definition has always included "of latest date".

And included the opinions of non-authoritative ark steadiers?

"Among" is still stunningly scientifically inaccurate, and doesn't really refute what Kimball said.

[_bcspace]

My definition has always included "of latest date".

And included the opinions of non-authoritative ark steadiers?

No. Continuing inspiration is a core doctrine of the Church. Expect some changes. Hence, of latest date.

"Among" is still stunningly scientifically inaccurate, and doesn't really refute what Kimball said.

Among (pun intended) the various definitions of principal is chief or most important. Such does not necessarily imply direct or even genetic ancestry but could certainly imply cultural influence.

[_Buffalo]

And included the opinions of non-authoritative ark steadiers?

No. Continuing inspiration is a core doctrine of the Church. Expect some changes. Hence, of latest date.

What revelations have the brethren received on this?

"Among" is still stunningly scientifically inaccurate, and doesn't really refute what Kimball said.

Among (pun intended) the various definitions of principal is chief or most important. Such does not necessarily imply direct or even genetic ancestry but could certainly imply cultural influence.

How very Clintonesque. You've mastered the art of dissembling - congrats!