In Sunday's Gospel Doctrine class, the instructor asked in relation to Mormon 7, "Who are the latter-day descendants of Lehi, and where are they to be found?" Recall that Mormon 7 invites the Lamanites of the latter days to believe in Christ, accept his gospel, and be saved (from the chapter heading). After a couple of class comments, the instructor noted that the manual identified the native people of North America, Central America, South America, and the Pacific Islands as "the latter-day descendants of Lehi." This summary by the instructor, of course, corresponds to the traditional LDS understanding of the question. Later, I checked the instructor's manual, which actually states the following: "You may want to explain [to the class] that latter-day descendants of Lehi are found among the people of North, Central, and South America and the Pacific Islands" (italics added).
Interesting choice of words. The vast majority of instructors and class members read the statement in the manual and think it is simply restating and endorsing the traditional view. Yet one can parse the words to include the Limited Geography Hypothesis (LGH). Anyone suggesting the statement is misleading as to what the "official" LDS position is would quickly be met by the apologetic riposte that the statement is perfectly consistent with LGH, with Asian origins of Native Americans, with DNA and linguistic evidence, and so on. The statement strikes me as a fine job of telling the people what they want to hear while retaining deniability, but isn't an official manual of instruction supposed to give clear and accurate doctrinal statements?