SHORT ANSWER: Yes, when it's placed in it's full textual and historical context. LONG ANSWER: Naturally the other answer would be, "No, not to the ears of June 29th, 2009 looking through the filter of the latest spin doctoring from LDS Apologists it doesn't." But, of course this is fallacious since Hinckley was referring to the fact that the American Indians had since interbred with Western Europeans so their blood was no longer purely Lamanite back when he said this in 1947. It was also referring to the fact that compared to the size and scope of the Lamanite population described in the Book of Mormon today's American Indians are mere a small remnant. These points, relative to your citation, are even clearer when the citation is considered in it's full context: "Unfolding the History On April 6, 1829 there came to his door a young man by the name of Oliver Cowdery. He was a stranger to Joseph, but he knew his family, having boarded with them while teaching school in the vicinity of their home the previous season. He had heard the unusual story of the golden plates and was determined to investigate it first hand. Two days following his arrival he commenced writing as Joseph read aloud the translation of the record. They found an unusual story. In the main it concerned the descendants of a family which had left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. The father, Lehi, had been inspired to flee the city which was doomed to the sorrowful destruction which came shortly thereafter. Building a ship, the family crossed the ocean and landed somewhere on one of the American continents. From this family sprang two nations known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. For the most part the Nephites were a God-fearing people, while the Lamanites were generally indolent, quarrelsome, and wicked. The Nephites had among them the history of Israel, up to the time the family had left Jerusalem, and with this they kept a record of their own nation as well as other writings. Prophets and priests taught them principles of righteousness. Most remarkable of all, the Savior visited among these people, following his ascension, in fulfillment of his statement found recorded in the Gospel of John: "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." He taught them the principles he had taught in Palestine and set up his church among them, ordaining its leadership with the power he had conferred upon the Twelve. Following the teachings of Christ, these people lived in peace and happiness for generations. But as the nation grew prosperous it became wicked, regardless of the warnings of the prophets. Among these was Mormon, who in his day kept the chronicles of the nation. From these extensive records he had compiled on plates of gold an abridged record. This he had given to his son, Moroni, who survived the destruction of the Nephite nation at the hands of the Lamanites. Moroni, prior to his death, buried the record in the Hill Cumorah, where Joseph Smith received it some fourteen centuries later. A REMANANT OF THE LAMANITE NATION IS FOUND TODAY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS." http://www.lds4u.com/History/ch2.htm For him to adopt today's spin doctored LDS Apologist view back in 1947 (that is, that the Lamanites were a small population within a greater population) would have been heretical - or very close to it. Of course today, it's expected since DNA evidence has discredited the Lamanite assertions of the Book of Mormon so past stances have to be dropped and spun to match the new evidence. Further, since Hinckley referred to Indians and Polynesians as "Lamanites" in his Temple Dedication speeches throughout his career there's no reason to believe that he feel otherwise. It's clear from the historical record that to Hinckley "American Indian/Polynesian = Lamanite". That is, unless one does a revisionist, white wash on his history of course! But then I would be doing the LDS Apologist's work for him wouln't I?