http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/15/british-israelism/

“British Israelism” is a variant that is not taught by the Church (there are, however, talks by some general authorities in the early/mid-20th century — Anthony W. Ivins, for instance — that leave no doubt that some did teach it at one time). British Israelism as the term is usually used today is the notion that the Lost Ten Tribes migrated to Britain, and/or that Jesus Christ had a wife and daughter who came to Britain after the crucifixion and set up a kingdom there, and/or that the British royal family has a divine right to rule because they are direct descendants and legal heirs of King David. (All the “and/or’s” are because various people who subscribe to the theory of British Israelism have differing ideas about the details.)

The main problem with British Israelism, IMO — aside from the fact that there is nothing but legend to support any of it — is that in the 21st century, the chief proponents of British Israelism are white supremacists (they usually label it “Christian Identity”). It’s hard to advance any theory of British Israelism even as a pleasant fantasy akin to leprechauns and Santa Claus, without people assuming that you accept the whole white supremacist philosophy. Even worse is the risk that in researching and promoting the idea, people might unwittingly adopt some of the tenets and rationalizations for white supremacy without realizing the implications of what they’re saying.

IMO.

I had a companion on my mission whose family was Jewish (he, his mother and one sister had converted to Mormonism) and he and his sister were from differing tribes.

Forgive my ignorance, and maybe Ardis has posted something on the British Israelite thought some time before I started reading her blog, I have heard that recently, is it not true?

And yes, the question of what proportion of American Indians have Lamanite blood is especially valid today.

In the nineteenth century there were several different prayers in use for various baptisms, so the question isn’t coming out of nowhere.

And a nice dodge on the feet washing question.

I know of siblings from different tribes, and have heard it explained that it’s proportionate to bloodlines (e.g. 90% Ephraim=9 of 10 kids from Ephraim.) However, I suspect that the “We do not know” answer is both more succinct and more correct.

I think that many of these topics would have received a different answer had they been asked in 1888 instead of 1948, specifically the baptism prayer and Shem=Melchezedek questions. …But it’s the evolution of the “correct” answers that makes these posts worth reading, right?