Talk:Lamanites

message: Why is it that someone has removed the reference to 3 Nephi 2:12-15? That verse provides key background for the statment in the article that some interpret Book of Mormon passages to mean that Lamanites will turn white. 
Wschiess 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suppose that the NPOV problem could be solved with citations for the linguistic connections. Otherwise, this isn't quite as bad as the Nephite article. 69.51.153.203 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is as bad - it fails to mention the most obvious point which is that the existence of the Lamanites have never been independantly verfied, and that no scholar outside the LDS accepts this story as historical. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I've changed my mind - I think this article is quite good. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How do you not cite religious texts when that is the only "evidence" of the definiendum's existence? It would be like ruling you can't cite Shakespeare in the article on Falstaff.Bloomology (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You use reputable reliable secondary sources that cover the subject.  There are many of them.  It is not necessary to quote scripture to provide pertinent information.  Similarly, there is a ton of reliable secondary sources that deal with Falstaff.  It's not necessary to quote Shakespeare.--Jburlinson (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: What does everyone think about merging this article with the Nephite one? (The latter has been updated since the comment by 69.51.153.203). My rationale is that you can't understand Lamanites without understanding the Nephites and that they should be presented together.--Cassmus 07:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - as per my comments on the Talk:Nephite page. Matatigre36 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose as well -Visorstuff 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose as well.  see Talk:Nephite Mrmcgibby 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The consensus is obviously not on my side, so I've removed the merge tag from both articles.--Cassmus 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Could whoever added the section which starts 'Statement of LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley concerning racism:' - this is simply not relevant to the article. It is not clear from how this was cited that Hinckley was refering specifically to the LDS doctrine of the Lamanites. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS and Racism 

message: I just noticed this news article:  - I'm not sure how to factor it into the article (or if we even should), however it at least shows that the questions surrounding the Mormon doctrine of the Lamanites is still in the public eye. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Among 

message: I'm thinking of removing the NPOV tag from the "Skin of Blackness" section? This section consists entirely of relevant quotations and references to mormon texts, and I see no reason why this should be considered NPOV, unless of course some mormons here feel that the modern understanding of the text is being mis-represented. I will return in 1 week's time to remove the NPOV tag unless somebody here objects! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the paragraph reads quite apologetically.  I am re-adding the tag. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One example of NPOV problems in the "Skin of Blackness" section:
***"Dark skin is never referred as the curse itself; rather, the dark skin was only a mark of the curse which God had placed on the Lamanite people."  -- this is an interpretation that is more modern in the church.  This should have the clause, "today, mormons believe that.." with a citation from one of the more recent prophets (there are sure to be a bunch of quotes).  Then there should also be a quote showing that historically this interpretation was different (there should be a bunch of quotes by Brigham Young on this count too if I am not mistaken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Descartes1979 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The authenticity of the 1831 revelation cited in this article has not been confirmed. Also, it was never cannonized by the LDS Church. I'm going to mention that briefly in the text. SLCMormon (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1831 Revelation 

message: I inserted a public domain photo (circa1 1910) of a Lamanite girl. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no photos of Lamanites.  --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The author purported that it was a "Lamanite girl." opps on my part. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This article was extremely biased. I have removed all bias and restated according to fact. I also inserted a rebuttal to the evidence section and included the fact that there is disagreement among scholars relating to evidence for and against. Also, all discussion of color relating to righteousness, the logic of the beliefs of Book of Mormon readers, and LDS church leaders has been removed. It is not relevant to the article, which exists ONLY to tell the reader what a Lamanite is, NOT what everybody thinks about them. Perhaps someone could help with where I put the added reference and link in the expert rebuttal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippyman (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit summary "This article absolutely should be from the Book of Mormon perspective." shows that you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It should be written from a WP:NPOV perspective and indeed should reflect what non-Mormons think about them as well as the Mormon perspective. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Revision

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: This is covered in the article and important to the history of Mormonism, e.g.  Doug Weller talk 05:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Geogene (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark skinned should be in lead? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lamanite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611230856/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?%2Frsc%2C3772 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?%2Frsc%2C3772
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: did they travel west or east to get to America?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic or Pacific? 

message: The Book of Mormon discusses the family of Lehi (as well as Jared and Mulek) coming to the American continent and establishing a civilization.  Some Mormons believe that they established a civilization among already existing Native American civilizations and others believe that they are the principal ancestors of all Native Americans, and hence believe that Native American and Lamanites are synonymous.  This is an important distinction and I think it is important to properly represent all points of view and teachings that contribute to that viewpoint.  One evidence supporting the Native Americans are Lamanites view is a statement from Joseph Smith saying that an angel told him that "the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham".  This is NOT in the Book of Mormon, which only follows a few civilizations in the American continent, and is much bolder and widespread.  After adding this statement, the edit was reverted with the argument "Mormons don't believe that Indians were Lamanites because of JS's vision, but because of the BOM narrative".  This is false.  As the church has stated, and this article quotes: "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin." Many Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon and reject the idea that "the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham".  Instead, they believe that the Lamanites only represented a small group within the Native Americans, most popularly in Central America, and that most Native American Indians are not literal descendants of Abraham, but instead migrated from Asia over the Bering Strait. They believe that early leaders that taught all Indians were Lamanites did so based on a misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon narrative.  Others reject that claim and believe North American Indians and Lamanites are synonymous and believe that early teachings were inspired. FreePeoples (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't read it, "Losing a Lost Tribe" has a thorough discussion of the beliefs and history surrounding the identity of the Lamanites.  Your characterization of the Lamanites as "among" the Native Americans is extremely recent in Mormon doctrine and is still a minority position among the rank and file.  Most Mormons still take the plain reading of the BOM that implies (fairly overtly) that the Americas were populated by expat Jews from the fall of Judah in 586 BCE.  Indeed, considering that the "10 Lost Tribes" narrative was a major American view of the origin of the Native Americans in the first half of the 19th century, the narrative of the BOM must be read within that context and that is precisely the view of Mormon doctrine right up until very recently, with the rise of conclusive DNA evidence.  That narrative about Joe Smith's vision was not the major influence on why the Lamanites have always been equated with Native Americans (as a whole).  Linking the belief in Native Americans=Lamanites too strongly to JS's vision is false historically and might be seen as a way to rehabilitate the BOM as an actual historical narrative again instead of scientifically invalid.  --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is recent, and it has not reached rank and file members, but it is current.  The Church currently says "The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied."  I agree historical is important, but so is the current position.  Even better would be how the historical morphed into the current.  The plain reading of the Book of Mormon might indicate that Native Americans are Lamanites, but that is not what the Church currently teaches.  JS vision might not have been as influential, but it is explicit, unlike the Book of Mormon.  Currently, the text makes it sound like there was no explicit revelation from God that the NA Indians were descendants of Abraham, when in fact Joseph Smith did say there was an explicit revelation stating as much. You can't rely on historical readings that are no longer the official position no matter how prevalent they were.  The current text is misleading and needs to be fixed. FreePeoples (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When you try to read into a text a modern interpretation that did not exist at the time it was written in the early 19th century, then you are being dishonest with the text.  The BOM text was written at a time when it was an absolute belief that all Native Americans were part of the lost tribes of Israel so that has to be the plain meaning of the text, not some modern eisegesis.  So I agree that the Church's shifting position based on scientific evidence that contradicts the BOM and the beliefs of the Church for its first 160 years needs to be mentioned.  But trying to lay the entire responsibility for the continuing majority view that American Indians=Lamanites on JS's vision and not the plain text and contemporary meaning of the BOM is a false narrative.  JS's vision is a trivial contributor to the belief.  The BOM narrative itself in the context of when Smith wrote it is 99% of the reason that Mormons equate Native Americans with Lamanites.  --Taivo (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How you described it sounds great, but that is not how it is portrayed in the article.  The article says "Proposed modern descendants" and then that "Some publications of the LDS Church have accepted that position." The article sounds like it is just an idea that some people historically had.  It then says "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin", making it sound like the historical view really wasn't based on any explicit revelation.  Is your issue that the JS vision was inserted in a way that made it sound like it was the major contributor to the NA Indians = Lamanite theory?  I agree that the BOM is the biggest contributor, but I also think the JS vision was earlier and more explicit.  If we reword it to properly state that the historical view was based on the BOM narrative, and other teachings and revelations seemed to support the natural reading of the BOM, and that it is only recently that the old view, revelations and teachings are being seen in a new light, would that be okay? FreePeoples (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you have summarized my thinking on this.  The JS vision has historically been a trivial contributor to the majority opinion (Native Americans = Lamanites).  And, yes, current Church leadership is trying to shift Church dogma to Native Americans > Lamanites, but that's still a minority view (although their voice will, in the long run, count for more than the beliefs of the average Mormon).  --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources that there was a belief that all Native Americans were part of the lost tribes of Israel or that the plain meaning of the BOM is NA=Lamanites or that the NA=Lamanites beliefs stems primarily from the BOM?  It is hard to put the JS vision and teachings in context if I don't have sources for the context. FreePeoples (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a very many sources of Mormon doctrine from throughout the 20th century, but here is an overview:  Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (2004, Signature Books).  Chapters 1-4 are a very thorough overview of the issue.  --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamanites '''''among''''' Native Americans or Native Americans '''''are''''' Lamanites 

message: Is there a reason why there isn't a discussion of the work of Jared Hickman and Christopher Blythe on early Mormon and fundamentalist thought about the relation of Lamanites to the Second Coming and Mormon-Indigenous relations? If no one has objections I might add a section. BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE add that section. This article is so SO much in need of an overhaul, and that would be a great place to start. Great idea. Epachamo (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amerindian Apocalypse