Lamanite Identities

[Lamanite]

A post from the Juvenile Instructor about Larry Echo Hawk and the Identities of Lamanites. It's an interesting read. Recently after reading Ugo's recent Fair blog post I found myself contemplating the identities of Lamanites.

Because of my Tongan heritage I self identified myself as a Lamanite based on the remarks of a few Church leaders early in my membership of the church. Brother Mauss has said:

""Since the very founding of the church in 1830, Mormons had believed that North American Indians were Lamanites, described by the Book of Mormon as literal Israelites, the seed of Abraham, who would flock to the church as lost sheep responding to the voice of the true Shepherd of Israel and would actually take the initiative in building a New Jerusalem on the American continent."

From Kimball we have a direct reference to Islanders:

“Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America ...and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p. 7)."

I have since abandoned the idea that I am a "Lamanite" with a genetic link to any middle eastern group of people. And I'm comfortable with that. However, most Tongan Mormons have not discarded the notion. To be sure, there would be broken hearts and cultural confusion if through Church leaders and/or overwhelming scientific evidence, my people have to abandon an integral part of their religious identity. What a personal loss that would for all of us. What a special thing it is to claim Lehi and Nephi as our personal ancestors. It would be sad to see that go away.

Do you think the church as a whole or perhaps individual church leaders are headed towards distancing ourselves from an absolute genetic link between the Lamanites and Islanders. (We've already seen a little "massaging" of wording in the introduction to the BoM)

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 17, 2012 by Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

I think this goes back to what we have discussed before- we cannot ever have scientific proof for religious beliefs and to think there is such a thing is to be mistaken.

We are all children of our Heavenly Father and that is all that counts. If you base your testimony on DNA or on evolution or no evolution or a literal flood or no flood or all Indians being descendants of Lehi, you are setting yourself up for a big misunderstanding.

I think we need to grow up a little and realize that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible are scientific texts. That doesn't mean they are not true nor that they are not the word of God nor that they are not "historical" whatever that is supposed to mean.

They are religious texts and are not meant to be scientific and what they tell us about our purpose and about God and the reasons we are here are all true and give us meaning in life and explain what is ultimately important to all mankind.

We should not limit the importance of scripture to trivialities like who is descended from whom or how the earth was created. That just plains misses the mark, in my never-humble opinion!

[Lamanite]

I think this goes back to what we have discussed before- we cannot ever have scientific proof for religious beliefs and to think there is such a thing is to be mistaken.

We are all children of our Heavenly Father and that is all that counts. If you base your testimony on DNA or on evolution or no evolution or a literal flood or no flood or all Indians being descendants of Lehi, you are setting yourself up for a big misunderstanding.

I think we need to grow up a little and realize that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible are scientific texts. That doesn't mean they are not true nor that they are not the word of God nor that they are not "historical" whatever that is supposed to mean.

They are religious texts and are not meant to be scientific and what they tell us about our purpose and about God and the reasons we are here are all true and give us meaning in life and explain what is ultimately important to all mankind.

We should not limit the importance of scripture to trivialities like who is descended from whom or how the earth was created. That just plains misses the mark, in my never-humble opinion!

I guess you just don't understand what that teaching has meant to us as a race and as Mormons. And you may want to tell the Jews about this "triviality" of who is "descended" from who.

Plus, maybe it's still true. I'm not 100% positive the teaching is false. And I don't think anyone has attached their testimony to the teachings of any one general authority, so this is just a discussion about possibilities and potential effects on church members.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

Sorry- no I guess I have no clue what you are talking about then.

I'm just a stupid old Eastern European who doesn't even have pioneer heritage, and I am the first generation to find the church.

I am just here because God told me the church was true.

Edited October 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

I have since abandoned the idea that I am a "Lamanite" with a genetic link to any middle eastern group of people. And I'm comfortable with that. However, most Tongan Mormons have not discarded the notion. To be sure, there would be broken hearts and cultural confusion if through Church leaders and/or overwhelming scientific evidence, my people have to abandon an integral part of their religious identity. What a personal loss that would for all of us. What a special thing it is to claim Lehi and Nephi as our personal ancestors. It would be sad to see that go away.

I have never quite understood why people would ever be pleased to call themselves a "Lamanite." In the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were described as a "loathsome" people. Not only that, but in the last days, the "Lamanites" were prophesied to be "a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which hath ever been amongst us." (Morm. 5:15) Why would anyone want to be a member of any group that fits that description?

[The Nehor]

I have never quite understood why people would ever be pleased to call themselves a "Lamanite." In the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were described as a "loathsome" people. Not only that, but in the last days, the "Lamanites" were prophesied to be "a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which hath ever been amongst us." (Morm. 5:15) Why would anyone want to be a member of any group that fits that description?

Because in prophecy they eclipse the Gentiles (most European descent members) and will be the strength of the kingdom, build Zion, etc. and they also have a heritage of great prophets behind them.

[CV75]

Do you think the church as a whole or perhaps individual church leaders are headed towards distancing ourselves from an absolute genetic link between the Lamanites and Islanders. (We've already seen a little "massaging" of wording in the introduction to the BoM)

If “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” then I suppose He can raise them up unto Lehi. After all, the isles of the sea play a great role in the Book of Mormon prophecies about the Restoration and Gathering, so maybe that’s the connection (see Nephi 10:21, “our bretheren,” with Joseph as their brother-chief). Patriarchal blessings may give some insight on islanders’ descendancy from Joseph and Lehi (at least as the “fathers of the Book of Mormon” so to speak and its prophecies about the islands of the sea, etc.).

For these reasons, I would be surprised if the Church as a whole is headed towards distancing itself from an absolute genetic link between the Lehites and Islanders. This is from the perspective of one whose wife and children are said to be island descendants of Lehi (the grandchildren by extension) and who has no reason to disbelieve it. No telling what individual leaders and the majority of members might do. I trust the prophecies will be fulfilled regardless.

Edited October 17, 2012 by CV75

[rodheadlee]

Which makes more sense, populating the South Pacific Islands from the Central/ Americas or populating the Islands from Asia? I guess the general consensus is they were populated from Asia. To me as a sailor this is next to impossible. The trade winds blow from east to west from about 30*N to about 30*S. They blow from 15 to 35 kts year round with seas from 6 feet to 15 feet during non storm periods. North/South travel is possible but if you are going to travel from Asia to the Islands or the Americas you will have to do it in the roaring 40's unless you have motor powered vessel with 2500 mile range. There was a member that used to post on this, Handy I believe is his name. I think he was gathering eveidence of migrations from SA/CA to the Islands.

[Markie]

Anyone and everyone despite of heritage can become the Lord's chosen people and be grafted in.

[USU78]

Isles of the Sea.

Hmmmmm.

Isn't Great Britain an Island?

Isn't Jutland an Island?

[Lamanite]

Anyone and everyone despite of heritage can become the Lord's chosen people and be grafted in.

Our leaders have implied that some that there were some who left the Lehite civilization and came to polulate the Islands of the Sea, therefore, we should find genetic evidence of this descendancy. At least that's how some interpret the BoM in combination with GA statements. You can think your way around this logic but it seems improbable that our leaders didn't mean exactly what they said.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Isles of the Sea.

Hmmmmm.

Isn't Great Britain an Island?

Isn't Jutland an Island?

Do you really think that's what Kimball was talking about? Seriously.

Elder Mark E. Petersen, in his conference message of 1962, says:

The Polynesian Saints are characterized by a tremendous faith. Why do they have this great faith? It is because these people are of the blood of Israel. They are heirs to the promises of the Book of Mormon. God is now awakening them to their great destiny. As Latter-day Saints we have always believed that the Polynesians are descendants of Lehi and blood relatives of the American Indians, despite the contrary theories of other men (Petersen 457).

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

Anyone and everyone despite of heritage can become the Lord's chosen people and be grafted in.

That does not mean they can become a lamanite, a jew, or a gentile member of the chosen though. Some bloodlines have specific prophecies associated with them. I intend to prophesy about my seed before I die. All the cool people do it.

[USU78]

Do you really think that's what Kimball was talking about? Seriously.

Elder Mark E. Petersen, in his conference message of 1962, says:

Big UP!

Lamanite

Leaders like Isaiah, you mean?

I suspect he had Cyprus, Crete and the other Eastern Mediterranean islands in mind.

But perhaps not.

I've often wondered if, when JSJr read "isles of the sea" he had the British and Danish Isles in mind. As well as the Frisian.

[Lamanite]

I'm selectively picking quotes that support my assertion that the GA's taught that Tongans are Lamanites. I'm doing this because it is those statements that Tongans have accepted and identified with. For whatever reason, most Native Americans and Polynesians for the last 100yrs or so just seem to have ignored the other GA's who said in essence "we have no idea". We're overly anxious and gullible. LOL- I'm just kidding. But it's going to be hard for some Tongans to let go of these ideas as we de-emphasize direct lineage.

Here ya go,

Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney, under the letterhead of the First Presidency, they wrote:

In your letter of September 6, 1972, you ask if the Polynesian people are Lamanites or Nephites. There has been much speculation about the origin of these people. We have, however, no scriptural evidence or revelation from the Lord that would tell us exactly where these people came from or their background.

Here is a good link from BYU on Hagoth and the Polynesians

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Leaders like Isaiah, you mean?

I suspect he had Cyprus, Crete and the other Eastern Mediterranean islands in mind.

But perhaps not.

I've often wondered if, when JSJr read "isles of the sea" he had the British and Danish Isles in mind. As well as the Frisian.

I can't see why you won't admit that some leaders' statements specifically mention and designate Poly's as descendants of Lehi (Israel)??? You don't really lose anything in that concession. It's just kind of weird. Read the Hagoth and Polynesian link I gave.

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure we're not descended from Lehi. I don't think Ugo is 100% sure one way or another on this issue. I just think it's improbable. Some Native American were a little disconcerted when the intro to the BoM was changed. I think if we continue to shift and "qualify" our position on descendancy there will be some negative effects on certain demographics.

You could still be right about your theory, but it doesn't have to be to the exclusion of church tradition and GA opinions.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bikeemikey]

I think this goes back to what we have discussed before- we cannot ever have scientific proof for religious beliefs and to think there is such a thing is to be mistaken.

We are all children of our Heavenly Father and that is all that counts. If you base your testimony on DNA or on evolution or no evolution or a literal flood or no flood or all Indians being descendants of Lehi, you are setting yourself up for a big misunderstanding.

I think we need to grow up a little and realize that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible are scientific texts. That doesn't mean they are not true nor that they are not the word of God nor that they are not "historical" whatever that is supposed to mean.

They are religious texts and are not meant to be scientific and what they tell us about our purpose and about God and the reasons we are here are all true and give us meaning in life and explain what is ultimately important to all mankind.

We should not limit the importance of scripture to trivialities like who is descended from whom or how the earth was created. That just plains misses the mark, in my never-humble opinion!

I agree that truly religious beliefs are not part of the domain of science as they are a matter of non-temporal evidence. Science can neither prove nor falsify them.

However, some beliefs, which may be (considered by many) religious, are able to be proven or falsified. It was a religious belief that the sun circled the moon. This has been proven false.

Religions fill themselves with all sorts of beliefs that are not really religious. That is they try to use religious authority to make claims about the world that advantage their religious community/perspective, that are not able to be falsified or confirmed based on data at that time, and also do not really originate from real religious authority.

Such beliefs are not really religious beliefs, though many consider them so. Such beliefs are able to be proven or falsified through science.

[Bikeemikey]

Which makes more sense, populating the South Pacific Islands from the Central/ Americas or populating the Islands from Asia? I guess the general consensus is they were populated from Asia. To me as a sailor this is next to impossible. The trade winds blow from east to west from about 30*N to about 30*S. They blow from 15 to 35 kts year round with seas from 6 feet to 15 feet during non storm periods. North/South travel is possible but if you are going to travel from Asia to the Islands or the Americas you will have to do it in the roaring 40's unless you have motor powered vessel with 2500 mile range. There was a member that used to post on this, Handy I believe is his name. I think he was gathering eveidence of migrations from SA/CA to the Islands.

Coming from New Zealand, an isle of the sea, I think you will find this logic a little flawed. You can basically swim from island to island from Singapore to just north of Australia, from there seasonal winds and currents will put you right on the Polynesian islands, and from there New Zealand. Getting from South America or Central America to those same islands is a real big maritime adventure.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm selectively picking quotes that support my assertion that the GA's taught that Tongans are Lamanites. I'm doing this because it is those statements that Tongans have accepted and identified with. For whatever reason, most Native Americans and Polynesians for the last 100yrs or so just seem to have ignored the other GA's who said in essence "we have no idea". We're overly anxious and gullible. LOL- I'm just kidding. But it's going to be hard for some Tongans to let go of these ideas as we de-emphasize direct lineage.

Here ya go,

Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney, under the letterhead of the First Presidency, they wrote:

In your letter of September 6, 1972, you ask if the Polynesian people are Lamanites or Nephites. There has been much speculation about the origin of these people. We have, however, no scriptural evidence or revelation from the Lord that would tell us exactly where these people came from or their background.

Here is a good link from BYU on Hagoth and the Polynesians

Big UP!

Lamanite

The big issue they have never dealt with (in New Zealand at least) is why call them Lamanite at all. In New Zealand there was a traveling sermon around the whole country using the Book of Mormon to teach the Maori (the indigenous people) about their lost heritage. This was until about 10 years ago. Baptized huge numbers telling them they were laminates descended from Hagoth.

Here's the problem, Hagoth was a nephite... The ship/s that "never returned" were filled with nephites. These are reported those that colonized the isles of the see based on GA quotes and other rumor references. How we get from nephites leaving the America's to lamanites on the isles of the see is a matter of skin color.

Also, I have read, can't find the source now, that the Bom constantly refers to nephites and lamanites own geographical location as part of the isles of the sea.

The whole Polynesians are lamanites seems like more and more of a stretch...

Edited October 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

I am just here because God told me the church was true.

Is that all he told you, on that issue? Didn't he also help to explain the scientific and historical ramifications involved?

If this church is the true Church, as God says it is, then that means something happened in the past which made this the Church.

Can you think of some scientific methods of discovery you might want to think about to go a little more in depth as far as what it means for this to be the true Church?

What happened in the past which made this the true Church? Who came here? When? Is there a record of what they said?

Science and history are all fundamentally involved in discovering and expounding on the truth, so if you just have a little tidbit spec of a testimony about the fact that the Church is true, you really don't know what you have, or at least not very much about it.

If I were you, I'd be asking God to tell me a lot more.

[mfbukowski]

Is that all he told you, on that issue? Didn't he also help to explain the scientific and historical ramifications involved?

If this church is the true Church, as God says it is, then that means something happened in the past which made this the Church.

Can you think of some scientific methods of discovery you might want to think about to go a little more in depth as far as what it means for this to be the true Church?

What happened in the past which made this the true Church? Who came here? When? Is there a record of what they said?

Science and history are all fundamentally involved in discovering and expounding on the truth, so if you just have a little tidbit spec of a testimony about the fact that the Church is true, you really don't know what you have, or at least not very much about it.

If I were you, I'd be asking God to tell me a lot more.

If I were you I would be investigating and asking God to show you what "truth" means and how he organized reality by his Word.

I feel no need to carry this further

[Ahab]

If I were you I would be investigating and asking God to show you what "truth" means and how he organized reality by his Word.

Truth is reality, and he did what he did by not only talking about it but by actually seeing to it that what he wanted to happen got done.

I feel no need to carry this further

Okay, then I won't with you unless maybe you change your mind later.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ahab

[Pahoran]

I have never quite understood why people would ever be pleased to call themselves a "Lamanite." In the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were described as a "loathsome" people. Not only that, but in the last days, the "Lamanites" were prophesied to be "a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which hath ever been amongst us." (Morm. 5:15) Why would anyone want to be a member of any group that fits that description?

What you don't understand would fill several large volumes.

The Lamanites are the heirs of the prophetic promises of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you might try reading it sometime. Those promises are well worth inheriting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Because in prophecy they eclipse the Gentiles (most European descent members) and will be the strength of the kingdom, build Zion, etc. and they also have a heritage of great prophets behind them.

Yes, but if I were a Native American or Polynesian, I would have a problem with any book that I believed was calling my ancestors "dark and loathsome"--and by extension, calling myself dark and loathsome because my skin color is exactly the same as my ancestors. For those who subscribe to this theory, what has really changed, to make modern Native Americans and Polynesians not dark and loathsome, whereas their ancestors were? I can't imagine anyone being thrilled to embrace this view and claim this darkness and loathsomeness as their own heritage.

[The Nehor]

Yes, but if I were a Native American or Polynesian, I would have a problem with any book that I believed was calling my ancestors "dark and loathsome"--and by extension, calling myself dark and loathsome because my skin color is exactly the same as my ancestors. For those who subscribe to this theory, what has really changed, to make modern Native Americans and Polynesians not dark and loathsome, whereas their ancestors were? I can't imagine anyone being thrilled to embrace this view and claim this darkness and loathsomeness as their own heritage.

Why do you assume dark has to do with skin color? Mary was called white despite being jewish and probably olive skinned.

I am not particularly proud of my warlord European ancestors either. There are others I am more proud of. They can see that their fathers fell but still embrace their lineage through Lehi, Nephi, and the like.