This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lamanites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
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)
Skin of blackness The current section on "skin of blackness" says "Several [italics mine] Book of Mormon passages have been interpreted [italics mine] by some Latter-day Saints as indicating that Lamanites would revert to a lighter skin tone . . ." But the text gives as the only example the verse in which "white" was changed to "pure."
A thorough description of the topic "skin of blackness" should include an example of a passage in which Lamanites were reported as turning white, thus giving context to the earlier statement that several passages have been so interpreted. One such passage would be 3 Nephi 2:12, 15: "Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites . . . And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites".
-- Wschiess 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This citation must be wrong: 2 Nephi 5:21-21 Perhaps 21-22 is meant?
Hey, you need a paragraph on this: Q. Did the Mormon Church teach that black folks followed Lucifer in the War in Heaven, or were 'fence sitters', or were 'less valiant' in that War? See: Black Mormons & The Priesthood-ban http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/BMPB.html
This is irrelevant for this page. The discussions for Mormon's policy and teachings about Blacks and Native Americans/Lamanites are completely different topics and not viewed the same. Leave a comment at Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. - Visorstuff 00:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've added a line noting that even though some claim that the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon used the word "pure," later editions until 1981 did not. I think that's important. I'd also point out that many dispute the claim that the 1840 edition ever used the word "pure" in that verse, and that a number of testimonies from prominent LDS Churchmen (including the Prophet himself) and official Church publications do include the idea that Lamanite converts will see their skin turn white in, at most, a generation or two. I would like to add a line questioning that claim, but I can't find a reliable cite at the moment. I'll try to come back to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.187.250 ( talk) 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I just noticed this news article: [1] - 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)
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)
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)
I inserted a public domain photo (circa1 1910) of a Lamanite girl. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
This is covered in the article and important to the history of Mormonism, e.g. [2] Doug Weller talk 05:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The dates in the non-canonical headings are added by later Mormon commentators, but there are explicit verses in the BoM that say Lehi left Jerusalem six hundred years before the coming of Christ: 1 Nephi 10:4, 1 Nephi 19:8, 2 Nephi 25:19, 3 Nephi 1:1. The "around" in the statement is inexact enough to allow for the fact that most scholars put the birth of Jesus between 6 and 4 BC. This is also similar to the language used on other Book of Mormon related articles. Therefore, I think we're safe to include "around 600 BC" in the article. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree. @ 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: while that depends on what you consider to be "well-attested", the current online Britannica speaks of Zedekiah as a real person and gives his reign at about 600 BC. I think that's good enough. Further, the approximate time period in which the Lamanite culture supposedly began is an important detail that belongs in the article. Just calling it "ancient" is too vague. Geogene ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The attempt to attribute to the Book of Mormon (which is indeed the right thing to do in this situation) is precisely the problem because, strictly speaking, "according to the book of Mormon" there is no AD/BC date system. Joseph Smith and anyone else who helped him compose this piece of literature didn't go so far (or make the mistake) of inserting dates like 600 BC into his work. This is an important point. A casual reader should not be misled into thinking that the Book of Mormon includes dates like "600 BC". The Book of Mormon ties itself to biblical events and, to that end, we should describe the time when an event is described as taking place with referent to the biblical events referenced in the Book of Mormomn. But "600 BC" is a reference to a date and dating system that was calculated by extra-biblical third parties to which the Book of Mormon makes no reference. jps ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
A wikilink makes information easily accessible. jps ( talk) 11:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That assumes that 3 Nephi was written in the 19th Century. Should we say that? jps ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the narrative itself is not placed on the "real timeline" in the sense that one has to connect the dots to get to 600 BCE. In any case, there is now a citation to a third-party source that puts the date in, so I'm feeling better about the way the article currently is written. As is usual in Wikipedia, a well-sourced statement can simply end disputes. jps ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
did they travel west or east to get to America?-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Lamanite → Lamanites – It's kind of nitpicky, but for consistency, the title should be changed to Lamanites with an 's' at the end. Either that or the article on the Nephites should be changed to Nephite. I don't know if I have a preference, but it seems like Lamanites with an 's' is more consistent with how the Book of Mormon described them, and how they are described in academic literature. see List_of_Book_of_Mormon_groups. Epachamo ( talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:ANRFC, a week has passed and there is "reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." I will close the discussion and make the move. Epachamo ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
(Copied from Truthdisciple's Talk Page) You are mistaking accuracy with theological interpretation. The BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned. The BOM is the only source for the existence of such people and its description is all there is. Anything else is secondary interpretation. You can add a section about the interpretive history of the Lamanites, but the only source of information about them is the BOM and it says exactly what it says. Until the middle of the 20th century, mainstream Mormonism believed the literal nature of the BOM concerning the Lamanites. Wikipedia isn't the place to sugarcoat the plain statements in the BOM or to engage in interpretive fancy. We simply report the facts here. 1) The BOM says that Lamanites were dark-skinned. 2) The early Mormons believed that literally. 3) Changes to the interpretation of the BOM passages are a phenomenon of the latter part of the 20th century. Those are the facts as reported by Wikipedia. The verses in Lamentations have nothing to do with the description of Lamanites. It's all in the BOM. ( Taivo ( talk) 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
SamwiseResearch ( talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) I'm a new user on Wikipedia (interested in Mormon studies). Thank you for your patience as I learn (and likely mess up) the right procedures/proprieties as I go along. On 21 August 2020, I added three paragraphs under the "Impact on views on race" heading in the Lamanites article about an alternate interpretation of "skins" in the BOM narrative that complicates traditional racial interpretations. It's an argument that's been around in peer-review journals for at least five years now. I referenced a 2015 article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that lays out textual reasons that are internal to the BOM that support a coherent reading of skins as some sort of garment. User:Epachamo deleted my paragraphs a few hours after I added them with the helpful suggestion to, "Please discuss on talk page before putting controversial content like this. This is far from the scholarly consensus." So I think I'll first respond to the concerns of Taivo's here in the "Skin" section of this talk page. And then I'll also reply to User:Epachamo's concerns about controversy & scholarly consensus (if any of my content on this "talk" page is not advisable, I'll gladly revise my "talk" content here as-needed; please help me learn).
Taivo's claim from 30 March 2010: "BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned." SamwiseResearch's response: The peer-reviewed journal article that I reference in my deleted paragraphs is a 2015 article by Ethan Sproat titled "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis" (in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies), and it speaks directly to claims that the "BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned" (in the sense that the Lamanite characters have darker flesh pigmentation). The article's author lays out four textual observations about language used in the BOM narrative that complicates traditional racial assumptions (not to mention claims like Taivo's that terms used in the BOM are clear and literal in only one sense). Those four textual observations are listed in the deleted paragraphs. Please let me know if I should draw clearer textual observations from that article.
Taivo: "The early Mormons believed that literally." SamwiseResearch's response: The JBMS article I referenced acknowledges this, too. That article also lays out internal textual evidences in the BOM that appear to run counter to early Mormons' beliefs.
Taivo: "Changes to the interpretation [are from] the latter part of the 20th century." SamwiseResearch's response: I'm not quite sure if Taivo was saying that evolutions and changes to interpretations of religious beliefs should not be conveyed in Wikipedia. I would contend that such things ought to be reported in Wikipedia articles. Maybe I'm not understanding the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or maybe things have changed in the last ten years since Taivo's comments. Please help me out here.
User:Epachamo's comments from 22 August 2020: "Please discuss on talk page before putting controversial content like this." SamwiseResearch's response: I'm not sure what Epachamo may mean by the "controversial content" of my three deleted paragraphs, and I would sincerely love to learn what the threshold of controversy is for Wikipedia articles. Please help me understand. In the meantime, I've assembled some more research. In addition to the four peer-reviewed journal articles referencing Sproat's "Skins as Garments" article that I reference in my deleted paragraphs, I've found references to the "skins as garments" argument in three additional peer-reviewed or professionally edited sources. Of these seven sources, two sources are from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (which involves scholarly peer reviewers who are inside and outside Mormon studies fields and also has board members who are not part of the Utah-based Mormon church), two sources are from the Interpreter journal (which is admittedly a Mormon apologist journal, but its articles are still peer-reviewed by Mormon studies scholars), one is from the The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Race in American History, one is from a religious studies dissertation from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (which also incorporates qualitative research involving indigenous American latter-day saints), and one is from the "Mormonism for Beginners" book (which, while not peer-reviewed, was written by the current director of publications and editor for Sunstone Magazine, and it was edited and published by non-Mormons). In all these sources, the "skins as garments" argument is presented as part of Mormonism's interpretive landscape in regards to the various rac(ial)ist interpretations of the BOM, which seems to indicate that the presence of Sproat's "skins as garments" argument in this landscape is not controversial. Here are the four references I originally included in my three deleted paragraphs:
Here are the three additional sources I've found:
Here are summaries of sources I've found outside those listed above:
Again, the ways that Sproat's "skins as garments" article is treated in all the peer-reviewed or professionally edited sources indicates that the "skins as garments" argument is not controversial and is treated as an existing part of the interpretive landscape that surrounds the BOM.
As to User:Epachamo's comment that "This is far from the scholarly consensus," I don't know if I need to point this out, but there doesn't seem to be a unified scholarly consensus at all about the exact nature of the Lamanite skins in the BOM narrative. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Epachamo's comment about scholarly consensus, and I'd be genuinely interested to learn Wikipedia's threshold for "scholarly consensus." In terms of scholarly sources regarding Lamanite skins, there are variations of a traditional racial/racist interpretation, there are some metaphoric interpretations, there are even some midrashic interpretations, and there are a couple skins-as-garments interpretations (Sproat's peer-reviewed textual analysis along with the Indigenous interpretation documented in Stanley Thayne's dissertation above). All of these interpretative groupings have "Impacts on views of race" (the section heading in the Lamanites article), and they should probably all be documented in some way in a Wikipedia entry on Lamanites. As a step toward this sort of documentation, I offered the three now-deleted paragraphs on the "skins as garments" interpretation. Please advise as to how paragraphs like these should be better introduced or made to better accord with Wikipedia:Consensus or perhaps better placed in an article organization (in the "Lamanites" article? or maybe in a new article on "Interpretations of Lamanites"?). Thanks! SamwiseResearch ( talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
I am adding the {{ POV lead}} tag since the lead section fails to make any mention of race even though the topic is extensively covered in the body of the article. A short summary of the material of two sentences or so would be sufficient to resolve the problem. Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. Left guide ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I support Pastelitodepapa's effort to change the format of the citations. Not only is their preferred format easier to understand on web its much much easier to understand on mobile. [@ Hydrangeans:] can you make an argument for keeping the current citation format that doesn't involve untruths such as "the page's major contributor, Rae (BYU)" (the major contributor is Hunterwooten, Rae isn't even in the top 10... You actually have more added text than they do). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
consensus of editors already working on the pageis appropriate to be followed. As an editor who contributes to Book of Mormon studies articles as part of my interest in book history and U. S. history, I had the page watched and saw Rae (BYU)'s edits and have chosen to consent to them. That said, one could say we are seeking to develop a clearer such consensus now.
An extraordinary claim that is corroborated in multiple reliable sources.[4]:423–425[5]:31[11]:901–904 A different claim that comes after that preceding sentence.[1]:327–330[12]:1075–1079[13]:637
An extraordinary claim that is corroborated in multiple reliable sources.[22] A different claim that comes after that preceding sentence.[23]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lamanites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
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)
Skin of blackness The current section on "skin of blackness" says "Several [italics mine] Book of Mormon passages have been interpreted [italics mine] by some Latter-day Saints as indicating that Lamanites would revert to a lighter skin tone . . ." But the text gives as the only example the verse in which "white" was changed to "pure."
A thorough description of the topic "skin of blackness" should include an example of a passage in which Lamanites were reported as turning white, thus giving context to the earlier statement that several passages have been so interpreted. One such passage would be 3 Nephi 2:12, 15: "Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites . . . And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites".
-- Wschiess 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This citation must be wrong: 2 Nephi 5:21-21 Perhaps 21-22 is meant?
Hey, you need a paragraph on this: Q. Did the Mormon Church teach that black folks followed Lucifer in the War in Heaven, or were 'fence sitters', or were 'less valiant' in that War? See: Black Mormons & The Priesthood-ban http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/BMPB.html
This is irrelevant for this page. The discussions for Mormon's policy and teachings about Blacks and Native Americans/Lamanites are completely different topics and not viewed the same. Leave a comment at Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. - Visorstuff 00:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've added a line noting that even though some claim that the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon used the word "pure," later editions until 1981 did not. I think that's important. I'd also point out that many dispute the claim that the 1840 edition ever used the word "pure" in that verse, and that a number of testimonies from prominent LDS Churchmen (including the Prophet himself) and official Church publications do include the idea that Lamanite converts will see their skin turn white in, at most, a generation or two. I would like to add a line questioning that claim, but I can't find a reliable cite at the moment. I'll try to come back to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.187.250 ( talk) 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I just noticed this news article: [1] - 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)
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)
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)
I inserted a public domain photo (circa1 1910) of a Lamanite girl. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
This is covered in the article and important to the history of Mormonism, e.g. [2] Doug Weller talk 05:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The dates in the non-canonical headings are added by later Mormon commentators, but there are explicit verses in the BoM that say Lehi left Jerusalem six hundred years before the coming of Christ: 1 Nephi 10:4, 1 Nephi 19:8, 2 Nephi 25:19, 3 Nephi 1:1. The "around" in the statement is inexact enough to allow for the fact that most scholars put the birth of Jesus between 6 and 4 BC. This is also similar to the language used on other Book of Mormon related articles. Therefore, I think we're safe to include "around 600 BC" in the article. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree. @ 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: while that depends on what you consider to be "well-attested", the current online Britannica speaks of Zedekiah as a real person and gives his reign at about 600 BC. I think that's good enough. Further, the approximate time period in which the Lamanite culture supposedly began is an important detail that belongs in the article. Just calling it "ancient" is too vague. Geogene ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The attempt to attribute to the Book of Mormon (which is indeed the right thing to do in this situation) is precisely the problem because, strictly speaking, "according to the book of Mormon" there is no AD/BC date system. Joseph Smith and anyone else who helped him compose this piece of literature didn't go so far (or make the mistake) of inserting dates like 600 BC into his work. This is an important point. A casual reader should not be misled into thinking that the Book of Mormon includes dates like "600 BC". The Book of Mormon ties itself to biblical events and, to that end, we should describe the time when an event is described as taking place with referent to the biblical events referenced in the Book of Mormomn. But "600 BC" is a reference to a date and dating system that was calculated by extra-biblical third parties to which the Book of Mormon makes no reference. jps ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
A wikilink makes information easily accessible. jps ( talk) 11:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That assumes that 3 Nephi was written in the 19th Century. Should we say that? jps ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the narrative itself is not placed on the "real timeline" in the sense that one has to connect the dots to get to 600 BCE. In any case, there is now a citation to a third-party source that puts the date in, so I'm feeling better about the way the article currently is written. As is usual in Wikipedia, a well-sourced statement can simply end disputes. jps ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
did they travel west or east to get to America?-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Lamanite → Lamanites – It's kind of nitpicky, but for consistency, the title should be changed to Lamanites with an 's' at the end. Either that or the article on the Nephites should be changed to Nephite. I don't know if I have a preference, but it seems like Lamanites with an 's' is more consistent with how the Book of Mormon described them, and how they are described in academic literature. see List_of_Book_of_Mormon_groups. Epachamo ( talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:ANRFC, a week has passed and there is "reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." I will close the discussion and make the move. Epachamo ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
(Copied from Truthdisciple's Talk Page) You are mistaking accuracy with theological interpretation. The BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned. The BOM is the only source for the existence of such people and its description is all there is. Anything else is secondary interpretation. You can add a section about the interpretive history of the Lamanites, but the only source of information about them is the BOM and it says exactly what it says. Until the middle of the 20th century, mainstream Mormonism believed the literal nature of the BOM concerning the Lamanites. Wikipedia isn't the place to sugarcoat the plain statements in the BOM or to engage in interpretive fancy. We simply report the facts here. 1) The BOM says that Lamanites were dark-skinned. 2) The early Mormons believed that literally. 3) Changes to the interpretation of the BOM passages are a phenomenon of the latter part of the 20th century. Those are the facts as reported by Wikipedia. The verses in Lamentations have nothing to do with the description of Lamanites. It's all in the BOM. ( Taivo ( talk) 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
SamwiseResearch ( talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) I'm a new user on Wikipedia (interested in Mormon studies). Thank you for your patience as I learn (and likely mess up) the right procedures/proprieties as I go along. On 21 August 2020, I added three paragraphs under the "Impact on views on race" heading in the Lamanites article about an alternate interpretation of "skins" in the BOM narrative that complicates traditional racial interpretations. It's an argument that's been around in peer-review journals for at least five years now. I referenced a 2015 article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that lays out textual reasons that are internal to the BOM that support a coherent reading of skins as some sort of garment. User:Epachamo deleted my paragraphs a few hours after I added them with the helpful suggestion to, "Please discuss on talk page before putting controversial content like this. This is far from the scholarly consensus." So I think I'll first respond to the concerns of Taivo's here in the "Skin" section of this talk page. And then I'll also reply to User:Epachamo's concerns about controversy & scholarly consensus (if any of my content on this "talk" page is not advisable, I'll gladly revise my "talk" content here as-needed; please help me learn).
Taivo's claim from 30 March 2010: "BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned." SamwiseResearch's response: The peer-reviewed journal article that I reference in my deleted paragraphs is a 2015 article by Ethan Sproat titled "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis" (in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies), and it speaks directly to claims that the "BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned" (in the sense that the Lamanite characters have darker flesh pigmentation). The article's author lays out four textual observations about language used in the BOM narrative that complicates traditional racial assumptions (not to mention claims like Taivo's that terms used in the BOM are clear and literal in only one sense). Those four textual observations are listed in the deleted paragraphs. Please let me know if I should draw clearer textual observations from that article.
Taivo: "The early Mormons believed that literally." SamwiseResearch's response: The JBMS article I referenced acknowledges this, too. That article also lays out internal textual evidences in the BOM that appear to run counter to early Mormons' beliefs.
Taivo: "Changes to the interpretation [are from] the latter part of the 20th century." SamwiseResearch's response: I'm not quite sure if Taivo was saying that evolutions and changes to interpretations of religious beliefs should not be conveyed in Wikipedia. I would contend that such things ought to be reported in Wikipedia articles. Maybe I'm not understanding the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or maybe things have changed in the last ten years since Taivo's comments. Please help me out here.
User:Epachamo's comments from 22 August 2020: "Please discuss on talk page before putting controversial content like this." SamwiseResearch's response: I'm not sure what Epachamo may mean by the "controversial content" of my three deleted paragraphs, and I would sincerely love to learn what the threshold of controversy is for Wikipedia articles. Please help me understand. In the meantime, I've assembled some more research. In addition to the four peer-reviewed journal articles referencing Sproat's "Skins as Garments" article that I reference in my deleted paragraphs, I've found references to the "skins as garments" argument in three additional peer-reviewed or professionally edited sources. Of these seven sources, two sources are from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (which involves scholarly peer reviewers who are inside and outside Mormon studies fields and also has board members who are not part of the Utah-based Mormon church), two sources are from the Interpreter journal (which is admittedly a Mormon apologist journal, but its articles are still peer-reviewed by Mormon studies scholars), one is from the The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Race in American History, one is from a religious studies dissertation from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (which also incorporates qualitative research involving indigenous American latter-day saints), and one is from the "Mormonism for Beginners" book (which, while not peer-reviewed, was written by the current director of publications and editor for Sunstone Magazine, and it was edited and published by non-Mormons). In all these sources, the "skins as garments" argument is presented as part of Mormonism's interpretive landscape in regards to the various rac(ial)ist interpretations of the BOM, which seems to indicate that the presence of Sproat's "skins as garments" argument in this landscape is not controversial. Here are the four references I originally included in my three deleted paragraphs:
Here are the three additional sources I've found:
Here are summaries of sources I've found outside those listed above:
Again, the ways that Sproat's "skins as garments" article is treated in all the peer-reviewed or professionally edited sources indicates that the "skins as garments" argument is not controversial and is treated as an existing part of the interpretive landscape that surrounds the BOM.
As to User:Epachamo's comment that "This is far from the scholarly consensus," I don't know if I need to point this out, but there doesn't seem to be a unified scholarly consensus at all about the exact nature of the Lamanite skins in the BOM narrative. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Epachamo's comment about scholarly consensus, and I'd be genuinely interested to learn Wikipedia's threshold for "scholarly consensus." In terms of scholarly sources regarding Lamanite skins, there are variations of a traditional racial/racist interpretation, there are some metaphoric interpretations, there are even some midrashic interpretations, and there are a couple skins-as-garments interpretations (Sproat's peer-reviewed textual analysis along with the Indigenous interpretation documented in Stanley Thayne's dissertation above). All of these interpretative groupings have "Impacts on views of race" (the section heading in the Lamanites article), and they should probably all be documented in some way in a Wikipedia entry on Lamanites. As a step toward this sort of documentation, I offered the three now-deleted paragraphs on the "skins as garments" interpretation. Please advise as to how paragraphs like these should be better introduced or made to better accord with Wikipedia:Consensus or perhaps better placed in an article organization (in the "Lamanites" article? or maybe in a new article on "Interpretations of Lamanites"?). Thanks! SamwiseResearch ( talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
I am adding the {{ POV lead}} tag since the lead section fails to make any mention of race even though the topic is extensively covered in the body of the article. A short summary of the material of two sentences or so would be sufficient to resolve the problem. Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. Left guide ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I support Pastelitodepapa's effort to change the format of the citations. Not only is their preferred format easier to understand on web its much much easier to understand on mobile. [@ Hydrangeans:] can you make an argument for keeping the current citation format that doesn't involve untruths such as "the page's major contributor, Rae (BYU)" (the major contributor is Hunterwooten, Rae isn't even in the top 10... You actually have more added text than they do). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
consensus of editors already working on the pageis appropriate to be followed. As an editor who contributes to Book of Mormon studies articles as part of my interest in book history and U. S. history, I had the page watched and saw Rae (BYU)'s edits and have chosen to consent to them. That said, one could say we are seeking to develop a clearer such consensus now.
An extraordinary claim that is corroborated in multiple reliable sources.[4]:423–425[5]:31[11]:901–904 A different claim that comes after that preceding sentence.[1]:327–330[12]:1075–1079[13]:637
An extraordinary claim that is corroborated in multiple reliable sources.[22] A different claim that comes after that preceding sentence.[23]